2012-03-28
DEBATES – Wednesday 28 March 2012Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4 and Year 4/5 Durack Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Jennifer Walker, Ms Glenda McGhee, Ms Sharon Hayes and Ms Sheree Billen. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I must say, honourable members, don’t they look very nice in that blue uniform.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator Message No 32 notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2012 sittings of the Assembly.
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, two General Business Notices previously on the Notice Paper have been withdrawn by Mr Styles and removed from the Notice Paper accordingly. The text of the notices has been circulated to honourable members.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Liquor Act and other legislation to address a number of procedural and other issues relating to alcohol, to correct minor errors or uncertainty in the operation of legislation, and to promote consistency with the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms.
Major reforms to the Liquor Act were commenced on 1 July 2011 under the Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Act. These reforms were part of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package which included the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Act, which replaced the Alcohol Court Act, and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act.
As members are aware, it is often only after legislation commences that tweaks are identified to improve and ensure the legislation operates effectively and is consistent with the policy intent. That is the case for this bill.
This bill repeals the provisions of Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act and moves the provisions to the Liquor Act. The Summary Offences Act is undergoing reform and the provisions of Part VIA, which deal with a range of matters relating to drinking in public places and known as the 2 km law, are better placed within the Liquor Act. The provisions as they currently stand within the Summary Offences Act relate back to the Liquor Act through reference to licensed premises and the Licensing Commission. Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act is repealed and moved into the Liquor Act through the insertion of a new Part VIIIB in clause 7 of the bill.
Additionally, the drafting style of the provisions in Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act is outdated so has been modernised to reflect the provisions and style of the Liquor Act, and also the manner in which consumption of alcohol or liquor is regulated. As the Liquor Act already contains offences regulating the consumption of liquor in specific types of places - general restricted, public restricted and special restricted areas - the drinking in public places, or 2 km law, is relabelled as ‘consumption of liquor in regulated place’.
Current section 45D of the Summary Offences Act provides that it is an offence to drink liquor in a public place or unoccupied private land within 2 km of licensed premises unless express permission is provided, or the public place is subject to a Certificate of Exemption, or is an exempt area and the drinking is not in contravention of the condition of exemption or declaration. The only penalty for the offence is forfeiture of alcohol. This provision has been translated into the Liquor Act within the new Part VIIIB through new section 101T which defines a regulated place, and new section 101U which provides that it is an offence to consume liquor at a regulated place. The penalty for the offence remains forfeiture of the liquor.
Division 2 of new Part VIIIB of the Liquor Act provides for police powers of search, seizure and forfeiture in relation to offences in the part. The main change to new Part VIIIB of the Liquor Act is the insertion of two new offences. The two new offences have been created as a result of police identifying that there are some persons who may benefit from the Banning Alcohol and Treatment, or BAT, notice scheme under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act but who do not currently come within the scope of the scheme, specifically, persons regularly consuming alcohol within 2 km of licensed premises in contravention of old section 45D of the Summary Offences Act.
The first offence is new section 101V, consumption of liquor at regulated place which causes nuisance. This offence is, essentially, an aggravated section 101U offence. It provides that it is an offence to consume liquor in a regulated place and, while consuming the liquor, cause a nuisance to other persons.
The term nuisance is used to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others - for example, indecent conduct or a rubbish heap - and the harm caused by the activity or condition - for example, loud noises or objectionable odours. Nuisance is addressed at stopping bothersome activities or conduct which unreasonably interferes with the rights of the general public. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience. The maximum penalty for this offence is five penalty units, currently $685, and it is an offence of strict liability.
This bill provides that section 101V is also an offence to which police may issue an infringement notice of half a penalty unit, currently $70. This enables the offence to trigger a BAT notice under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act through amendment to section 9(4) of that act which defines alcohol-related infringement notice. Three infringements within 12 months will result in the offender being placed on the Banned Drinker Register. Amendments are made to the Liquor Regulations in Part 3 of the bill and to the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act in Part 4 of the bill in this bill to achieve this.
The second new offence is new section 101W which provides that it is an offence to consume liquor at a regulated place which is a designated area ...
Madam SPEAKER: I remind the children that no cameras are allowed in the galleries and no photography, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Section 120F of the Liquor Act currently provides for the declaration of designated area by the minister when alcohol-related violence has occurred in a public place in the vicinity of licensed premises within the declared designated area and the exercise of powers by police under Division 3 or 4 relating to banning notices in relation to the designated area is reasonably likely to be an effective way of preventing or reducing the occurrence of alcohol-related violence in the area.
Police advise that in designated areas such as Mitchell Street people can be found outside of licensed premises in possession of and drinking liquor. The liquor is purchased from a licensed premise but the consumption of the liquor, as it is in a public place within 2 km of licensed premises, is contrary to current section 45D of the Summary Offences Act. Often, people are intoxicated and the containers end up as litter or broken in the street creating a public hazard. Currently, a police officer is only empowered to confiscate the liquor under section 45H of the Summary Offences Act. New section 101W is intended to address this through deterring the behaviour by applying a monetary penalty. The maximum penalty for this offence is five penalty units, currently $685, and it is an offence of strict liability.
As with section 101V, new section 101W is also an offence to which police may issue an infringement notice, and also an offence that is able to trigger a BAT notice under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act.
New Part VIIIB in the Liquor Act also sets out provisions relating to exemption notices and exemption certificates, as currently exist within old Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act, in new sections 101ZE to 101ZI. Section 101ZE provides for the publishing of an exemption notice in relation to a public place which allows consumption of liquor at that place. So, places such as the Nightcliff foreshore, which has portions declared exempt under the Summary Offences Act, can still be exempt.
Clause 8 of the bill provides for transitional matters relating to the repeal of Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act and the creation of the new Part VIIIB in the Liquor Act, including areas that are currently declared exempt continue to be exempt as if made exempt under the new provisions.
Clauses 12 to 29 in Part 4 of the bill then amend the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011. Other than amending the definition of alcohol-related infringement notice referred to previously, the bill also amends the definition of alcohol-related offence in section 9(4 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011.
Section 9(2)(a) of that act allows police to issue a BAT notice to a person who is summonsed or charged in relation to an alcohol-related offence. Alcohol-related offence is then defined in section 9(4) and includes any offence where it is reasonably believed the alleged offender was affected by alcohol during the commission of the offence. However, the definition also provides that the reasonable belief is held by the police officer making the arrest. This, therefore, excludes persons who have been issued with a summons for an alcohol-related offence but not arrested at the time. Clause 15 addresses this anomaly by amending the definition of alcohol-related offence in section 9(4) so where an alleged offender is affected by alcohol at the time of the offence but is summonsed without arrest, they can be issued with a BAT notice. The amendment covers both situations where the suspected offender is either arrested or later summonsed.
Amendments are also made to the powers of the Alcohol and Drug Tribunal. While the tribunal only fully commenced operating in January this year, the tribunal clinicians and police have been working together on practical and operational tactics to locate, engage, and encourage people to attend assessments and tribunal hearings. While it is anticipated these will have benefits, the following amendments will address the gaps in the current powers of the tribunal, further encourage people to attend for assessment, and enable the tribunal to make orders requiring a person to be subject to income management through jurisdiction conferred by Commonwealth legislation.
Currently, under section 26 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act, a General Alcohol Prohibition, or GAP, order can be issued in relation to a person who fails to attend an assessment by a clinician as requested by the tribunal. GAP orders are orders stating that, for the period of the order, a person cannot purchase, possess, or consume alcohol. This GAP order will stay in place for three months, or until the person is assessed. If a person does not attend in the three months, then the tribunal can make a further GAP order; that is, GAP orders can be made in the absence of a person - ex parte - and can, essentially, operate indefinitely.
However, if an assessment is never undertaken, then the person cannot be assessed as ‘at risk’ for the purpose of the Banning Alcohol and Drugs Treatment (BADT) order. BADT orders are made under Division 3 of Part 3 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act, and can be made in relation to a person identified through the assessment process as ‘at risk’ and who has subsequently been referred to the tribunal. If the ‘at risk’ person is assessed as suitable, BADT orders must provide that the person is prohibited from purchasing, possessing, consuming, or using a stated substance and can be made for a longer period than the GAP order. However, BADT orders may also provide that the person undergoes specified treatment, counselling, or other intervention, or that the person is referred to a state entity for income management, that is Centrelink.
The Social Security Legislative Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced to the Commonwealth parliament in November 2011. It is anticipated that the bill will be debated in the autumn sittings. That bill allows for state or territory bodies to be determined by legislative instrument to be a recognised state/territory authority for the purposes of requiring a person to be subject to income management. The explanatory statement specifically refers to the tribunal as a likely body for that purpose. The bill amends the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act to accommodate this and allows the tribunal to exercise any power it is given in relation to income management as a recognised state/territory authority under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in making a BAT order, and provides additional incentive to attend the assessment by a clinician by allowing the tribunal to include in the BADT order that the banned person is required to be subject to income management.
The bill also amends the operation of secondary supply provisions in the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act to capture all possible prohibitions on alcohol that have been ordered by the court. The secondary supply provision in section 72 of that act, which prohibits a person from supplying a banned person, is currently only triggered for supply to a person subject to a GAP order, BADT order relating to alcohol, or a BAT notice.
Clause 29 of this bill amends section 72 to expand the type of alcohol-related orders that trigger a secondary supply BAT notice to include bail, parole, sentencing and domestic violence orders made by a court where the order prohibits the subject of the order from possessing, consuming or purchasing alcohol. These types of orders are already linked to the Banned Drinker Register through section 31A of the Liquor Act and associated Liquor Regulation, and clause 29 also links in to section 31A.
Madam Speaker, the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package is a comprehensive policy we are committed to following through. Major reforms such as this require ongoing work to ensure policy objectives are met. The legislation has commenced and tweaks have now been identified to ensure the legislation operates as effectively as possible and, ultimately, achieves the policy intent.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, unfortunately the government will not be enjoying the support of the Country Liberals in relation the contents of this bill. Having said that, I understand and appreciate what the government is attempting to do in trying to make the workers compensation system work more equitably. However, what is equitable for a Labor government is not necessarily equitable for a business in the Northern Territory. It is our belief that the government has leaned too heavily in one direction without sufficient consideration to the effect on the other direction.
Several organisations have issue with this bill, not only the Country Liberals. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed reservations, as well as the insurance industry. In this House yesterday I spoke about the cost of doing business in the Northern Territory and that every time we pass a legislative instrument it has a potential cost impact, either on individuals in the community or business. The insurance industry says as a result of the passage of this bill there will be cost increases in the premiums paid by businesses in the Northern Territory to cover for workers compensation. Furthermore, costs incurred by business will be passed on to the consumer. We live in an environment where the cost of living in the Northern Territory is becoming a number one topic of concern for many families.
That is not to suggest members on this side of the House do not believe in a worker’s compensation system – of course we do. However, when we talk about equitable, we mean equity for the businesses, the workers, and the people who ultimately end up paying the insurance premium indirectly, which is the consumer.
Having made those general statements, there are several areas of concern in this bill. One of them is a matter for us, not a matter raised by the insurance industry or, for that matter, the Chamber of Commerce. It is a matter for us because it will have an effect on business premiums, and it is the new definition of worker.
This comes down to the use of contract employment in the workplace. The fuzziness surrounding the issue of contracts in the workplace is a matter of concern in a number of areas. Anyone who presents themselves to the workplace and needs an ABN – a bit of history here, the ABN was introduced by the Howard government very early in the piece, around the time of the GST, and enabled people to work as contractors. Many people who appear to be employees are actually employed under the contractual intention of an ABN. You have in the workplace environment many people who say to the boss: ‘I would like to work for you’, and the boss says: ‘Get yourself an ABN and I will pay you when you send me the bill’. This has the flavour of contracting attached to it; namely, paying a bill from an independent contractor from the employer’s point of view. However, people walking in off the street doing the labouring job, as far as they are concerned, are employees. It is interesting what is happening in an individual’s mind.
The intention of this bill is to sidestep that problem by essentially creating a definition of worker as anyone who goes into the workplace. Many in the workplace are actually contractors, which means they run their own ute, have their own business, the phone number is painted on the side of the ute, they work for multiple people who pay their bills, including going to job sites and, for three or four months, exclusively work for one person although they are still contractually able to pick up work elsewhere. They might pick up a three month job or a 12 month job, but every other notion, flavour, or examination would reveal these people to essentially be contractors. They are self-employed, autonomous, and have a contractual arrangement with the person who pays their bill when they issue it.
The effect of this legislative instrument is that everyone who goes onto a job site is going to be dealt with as an employee ...
Mr Knight: No, it does not.
Mr ELFERINK: No? That is how I see this is going to work. You can shake your head and have a whinge about it afterwards if you like, but the effect will be to cover everyone who enters the workplace. You are still shaking your head?
Mr Knight: It defines what a worker is.
Mr ELFERINK: I know it defines what a worker is; however, in many instances these contractors will carry their own insurance. Certainly, some people coming from labour hire firms have set themselves up as contractors. They run their own superannuation and have their own insurances. When they go into the workplace the employer, or the person paying the bills, is going to be told they have to insure that person because they are now defined as a worker in that workplace, which means this person will, possibly, be insured twice. That is an expense one way or the other. It is either an expense to the contractor or an expense to the employer. The decision of government is simply to make it an expense to the person who is running the worksite irrespective of the status of the person working there - whether they are genuinely a contractor or one of these ABN contractors who are contractors in name only.
I suggest to government a more appropriate way to deal with this issue is simply say that if someone is on the worksite with an ABN it is always a requirement they demonstrate proof of insurance. If they are not insured, they either do not get the job or are taken on as an employee properly, because that way you leave it for the marketplace and the parties to determine how the insurances work. Simply throwing a net over everyone, by defining worker the way it has been, is not a satisfactory outcome because it will have the effect of pushing up insurance premiums.
The other issue of concern is the continued weekly payments for injured workers living outside Australia. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated its concern, and we too have a concern about this because whilst the intent of the legislation, in its primary structure, is to allow a period of 104 weeks, in certain circumstances that could be extended to 208 weeks, or four years, of payments for people who live outside Australia and continue to claim workers compensation insurance. The potentiality of four years pay will drive up insurance premiums and there are not sufficient checks and balances in place to determine whether that person has an ongoing injury. What are they supposed to do? Produce a doctor’s certificate from someone in Bangkok, Manila or Denpasar?
Those things are of concern to this side of the House. They are also a concern to the Chamber of Commerce and, particularly, the insurance industry. The insurance industry is saying this will drive up premiums because insurance industries operate on risk - they do a risk analysis. If they see a greater risk of not being able to check the health of a person they are paying money to, they will assess that as a greater risk. There are two ways an insurance company deals with greater risk. The only way it can deal with one and continue to be in a commercial arrangement is to up the premiums. The other way is it does not cover. I do not expect they will not cover workers compensation; I expect they will up the premiums. The increasing level of risk for the insurer means the consumer will pay.
Those are our two big sticking points in relation to this legislative instrument. The exposure draft circulated some time before this bill was introduced has seen some amendments, particularly in the area of the definition of non-cash benefits. I suspect the government has picked up on the objections from the Chamber of Commerce on this area by changing the legislation to limit non-cash benefits to very specific things – power, water and accommodation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you mind if I announce a pair which is about to start?
I have a document relating to pairs for the member for Arafura and the member for Goyder from the period now, 10.30 am, until noon. It is signed by both Whips. I table that paper.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the issue of non-cash benefits which is of concern to the Chamber of Commerce has been addressed because the reference to salary sacrifice schemes has been removed from the draft exposure and the matters have been limited to those three. Consequently, I acknowledge the government has made some effort in relation to this.
The other component is the age limits for workers compensation. We on this side of the House do not see any problem with that. I will be surprised if I retire before the age of 70 and, whilst this deals with issues of workers compensation, more generally speaking it is almost inevitable the pensionable age attached to workers compensation, and the general age of workers, will increase over time simply because we are living longer. Only so much of the community can be unproductive, if you like, and be carried - for lack of better words - by another component of the community. There is a definite ratio between the unproductive and the productive component. As we age, if we continue retiring at the age of 55 - which is what ComSuper offers as a superannuation scheme – then, eventually, it becomes unsustainable. You only have to look at what is happening in some other countries regarding promised pensions and the burden that is now representing.
Regarding workers compensation, if a person is injured under this legislation and is approaching the age of 65, it enables the compensation to be pushed out for up to two years under certain circumstances. The opposition has no major problem with that. I expect that in future years further parliaments - whether I am in them or not - will have to deal with the fact we live in an ageing community.
With respect to the change in interest rates for weekly compensation, the original interest rate was set at a time of much higher interest rates. These interest rates have the flavour, if you like, of having a punitive quality to them in an effort to try to force companies to pay the compensation in a timely fashion. Of course, we now live in an age of somewhat lower interest rates; the arbitrary figure set in the early 1990s does not particularly accord with the modern era. This came up during the briefing I had in relation to this bill. I made a suggestion that, rather than setting another arbitrary rate, you benchmark it against the 10-year bond rate. That it is now being benchmarked against CPI or some such thing; I could not be certain ...
Mr Knight: The Supreme Court rate.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Mr Knight: The Supreme Court rate.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, against the Supreme Court. That is fine, because changes in those rates will be reflected in the overall interest rate. You could have tied it to the 10-year bond rate, the Supreme Court rate, the Reserve Bank rate, or whatever. However, we will not be coming back here and tweaking these numbers every three years because interest rates go up or down. The government has picked up on that point and found a vehicle by which to deal with it, and we raise no major issue in relation to that.
Finally, as a result of this reform, the Supreme Court will be able to remit matters back to the Work Health Court. We, on this side of the House, think, yes, why wouldn’t you? That is perfectly sensible and we raise no issue with that component.
Whilst we do not have issues with some of the things attempted in this legislative instrument, they are inextricably bound to each other. We have the choice, as an opposition, to come to this parliament with a raft of amendments, trying to pull these things apart and saying yes to that or no to that. However, it is unfortunate that they have all been bundled into one and it is beyond the capacity of the opposition to get the legislative required drafting done. In fact, it is pretty much beyond the capacity of Parliamentary Counsel, based on recent experience, to ask them to do that type of drafting. So, as a consequence, we find ourselves in a position where we cannot support this bill in its entirety and, therefore, cannot support the bill.
Madam Speaker, the passage of this legislation will invariably lead to higher insurance premiums being paid by businesses and, ultimately, higher costs to the consumers. The cost of living in this jurisdiction is already too high. Whilst we understand what the government is trying to do in finding a balance between the rights of workers, the rights of businesses, and the rights of consumers, in truth, we feel the government has overstepped the mark in the areas identified. As a consequence, we cannot support a bill which will have a detrimental effect on the operation of businesses in the Northern Territory and will put further pressure on the cost of living for Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first I thank various groups for the number of briefings I have had in working my way through what is a fairly complex bill dealing with a whole range of issues. I thank the Department of Justice; NT WorkSafe; the Insurance Council of Australia, especially Colin Chilcott from QBE; Richard Harding from TIO; and the head of the NT Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, Cathy Spurr. I have also had conversations with the Chamber of Commerce through Chris Young, and a meeting with Mary Martin, Director for Workforce Growth and Skilled Migration. I mention that because it gives an indication of the complexity of what we are dealing with today. Some things may seem straightforward; others are changes which need to be debated in this House so people understand my position on this bill.
I will go through the bill looking at the issues in order. There is a definition of ‘the worker’. I do not have a problem with the change of definition; it is a very important change. The Chamber of Commerce says it understands why it has been changed and does not really have a problem with it. The Insurance Council supports the amendment, as does the TIO, although it has some concerns over a number of issues in relation to it. Generally speaking, those three organisations support it. I also support it because I believe some companies have used the ABN system to get around their responsibilities to pay workers compensation. In fact, I know of one young bloke working in primary industry who wanted to help out working with cattle in the Darwin area as part of the live cattle export business. He wanted to work for three days and was asked to provide an ABN. A young bloke under 20 years old is not going to know much about an ABN and his responsibilities. As far as I know, that young bloke has never been paid. You might ask why it has not been chased up, and I would say the young bloke just threw his hands up and said: ‘I will move on, it is all too hard’.
I see a definite need for clear delineation of who is a contractor and who is an employee. It is not fair that there are employers simply avoiding their responsibility to have workers compensation insurance by asking someone, for instance a person under the age of 20, to provide an ABN number which would mean they were a contractor and therefore would have to have their own insurance. I definitely support what has been put forward today.
In relation to the age limits, the TIO supports it on the proviso the amendments do not commence prior to 1 July 2012 so insurers will be able to prospectively factor into their premiums this estimated impact of benefit change. The Insurance Council supports this as well; it is in line with the Australian government’s decision to increase the qualifying age for workers to access the aged pension under the Social Security Act, and I agree. In the amendments there are quite a few variations of how this would work depending on how old you are at the time. That section of the act is a little complicated, but I am presuming those percentages and clauses relate to varying situations of when you might have had to apply for workers compensation - whether you were just under 65, just over 65, or just below 67. The principle is good.
I have had a number of people ask why they cannot get workers compensation for as long as they want to work. This issue needs to be tackled. There are many people who would still like to work, perhaps part-time, and it seems it is difficult to get workers compensation. A clause in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act allows some coverage for a small period of time for people if they are injured, but to some extent it is discriminatory that you cannot get workers compensation based on age. There are reasons for that. As people get older they may be in jobs where they are more likely to be injured, but you would wonder, if you were doing secretarial work in an office at age 70, why you should not be covered. Seniors, through COTA, have been pushing for changes in this area and it is certainly one that needs reviewing. If people want to keep working why should they be restricted by not being able to get proper workers compensation coverage?
The issue of non-cash payments has been a problem for the insurance industry. The Chamber of Commerce supports the proposals in the bill today because it believes it will reduce disputation and increase certainty. It says there should be some consideration given to definitions and perhaps the introduction of an upper limit. The TIO says the basis of evaluation should be the cost to the employer but, in many instances, the value adopted is a value to the worker, leading to inconsistencies.
TIO understands the expense of engaging professional valuers to travel to remote work sites and the increased risk of litigation. These were identified in the policy change process but dismissed as immaterial. They say there is difficulty that insurers cannot include non-cash benefits in premium setting, and workers will not know what they will receive in the event of an injury causing incapacity. They say the proposed amendments do not provide sufficient clarity - capped and/or fixed is feasible. They have some concerns about how that section of the bill will operate, but the Insurance Council is supportive with respect to providing a definition and clarifying the extent of non-cash benefits. However, they have some concerns. They say the amendment does not adequately address existing issues as it does not provide for any statutory maximum capping of those benefits. You have different points of view; however, what has been put forward by the government is a good compromise.
As with many things, time will tell if these changes will reduce some of the concerns of the industry. We also have to bear in mind we are trying to protect workers and have to ensure they get a fair go. This has to be given equal weight in any debate today on this issue.
The important area for me is workers receiving compensation living outside Australia. There are two major issues. There is the payment to a worker injured in an accident on a site in Australia who then goes overseas, either voluntarily or as required if a 457 visa holder and, on the insurance side, the increased cost to insurance companies passed onto businesses through increased premiums.
The present situation with an injured worker who goes overseas is insurance companies pay for rehabilitation and medical expenses as they would for workers who stay in Australia. There are requirements for an invoice from a provider, proof of ID, and a medical certificate not less than every three months. There is no compensation and his wage is paid.
The new proposal means compensation of up to 104 weeks can occur, and the requirements are proof of ID and incapacity on an approved form at not less than three-month intervals. This can be extended by another 104 weeks by the court, but only if the person is totally and permanently incapacitated. A person who is partially incapacitated can get 104 weeks and no more, but a person who may be permanently incapacitated can get an extension. There is only one extension. There is no more compensation, but medical benefits and rehabilitation continue for life or as long as required.
A number of important issues need to be taken into consideration. Injured workers going home to another country are treated the same as Australian workers when it comes to rehabilitation and medical payments. Workers in Australia, if partially incapacitated, would continue to receive compensation – wages - until rehabilitated, or part payment if partially able to return to work until retirement. Workers returning to their home overseas - 457 visa holders - could receive up to 104 weeks if partially incapacitated then it would end. Workers in Australia totally incapacitated would receive compensation to retirement. Workers returning home overseas and totally incapacitated could have up to 104 weeks compensation, plus a 104 week extension if approved by the tribunal then it would end.
Insurance companies say they would have no control over rehabilitation therefore there could be a large compensation payout and a subsequent increase in premiums. They refer to the arrival of INPEX and similar projects in the future. Insurance companies cannot say - we asked them a number of times - how many cases are presently overseas, and cannot say how they manage them. You would think there would be figures on workers compensation data available from when Bechtel was constructing the Wickham Point gas plant. Insurance companies fly doctors to remote areas in Australia to check progress of worker rehabilitation - to ensure a worker is being rehabilitated or is still permanently incapacitated. I have heard of doctors being flown from Adelaide to Darwin to check up on a patient on behalf of TIO a number of times. If they can fly them to Darwin, why can’t they fly them to Dili or Manila or wherever? In fact, someone might be being rehabilitated on the Cocos Islands. It would be costly to have a person check on their rehabilitation. Insurance companies do that now. They use that method to ensure someone is not rorting the system.
The number of workers compensation cases for 457 visa holders is quite low. You can use the statistics you find in this book, the Comparative Performance Monitoring Report 13th Edition, which talks about the number of claims per 100 000 employees - around 12 claims per 1000 employees. That means about 4% of claims would require treatment over 52 weeks. WorkSafe gave us a chart of the number of weeks people who have put in a claim would require treatment, and only 4% of people would require treatment over 52 weeks. You are not talking about many people. In fact, there are presently 1400 visa holders in the Territory - primary and secondary – and there would be 17 claimants out of that if you took the percentages. If you took the percentage of who would be claiming for more than 52 weeks compensation it would be one person.
Insurance companies say this could blowout more if workers come from Asia to work with INPEX. They do not make any mention of any extra premiums they would receive for more workers covered, and they do not have figures to support their statement even though we tried very hard, up until yesterday, to get those figures. It surprises me, as they manage these claims, that they cannot tell us how many and how they monitor rehabilitation. The issue from the insurance company’s point of view, which is an important one, is if they cannot manage the rehabilitation as an employer is required to do, they could be paying wages out forever and a day. However, they pay rehabilitation at the moment, and they pay it according to the same standards as for an Australian worker living in Australia. What are they doing about monitoring their own rehabilitation? We cannot get that answer out of them.
Insurance companies claim the premiums for overseas workers could go up by 15%. WorkSafe say increases in scheme costs could be around 0.37%.
Another factor you have to take into account - we received these figures from Immigration - 87% of 457 visa holders obtain permanent residency. If you take that as well you reduce the number who would fall into the category of being required to go home if injured.
All workers, if employed in Australia, should receive the same benefits regardless of whether they are required to return overseas or wish to return. After all, Australian companies want 457 workers to fill positions employers cannot fill using Australian labour. I put this on record: what difference does it make if an employer comes from Manila, the United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, Canada – they are the countries we get people from - or Ireland? They have a family to support so why are they treated differently once they leave these shores?
Workers permanently incapacitated should be treated as if living in Australia with checks required by a doctor of the insurer’s choice at specified intervals. The number of people who would fall into this category would be very small and, as we know, approximately 87% of 457 workers apply for and receive permanent citizenship, meaning even fewer would need to go home. Insurance companies, if they wish, can stop any rorting of the system by requiring a doctor of the insurance company’s choice to check on the state of the worker. It is done in Australia so why not overseas? For instance, a doctor might come to Darwin to check out three or four patients on behalf of insurance companies. What great extra cost would it be to fly that doctor to Kuala Lumpur, Manila, or further overseas, compared to the cost they say this will add to workers compensation?
Insurance companies now pay rehabilitation and medical costs for anyone overseas; however, they cannot say how many and what they do to check rehabilitation is occurring. How can they argue they would have no control over the system when it does not seem to bother them now? This legislation still requires workers to show proof of ID and incapacity to work every three months, otherwise payments cease.
What is desperately needed is national uniform legislation to ensure all workers, no matter where they work in Australia, are entitled to the same treatment. Presently, we have a dog’s breakfast of rules for each state. I have documentation here which tells me about all the different set-ups throughout Australia - just when you want it you cannot find it. It would be good to say in Western Australia it is capped - thank you, minister, I hope they are the same as mine otherwise we are in real trouble.
New South Wales has a scheme where the maximum amount payable for weekly compensation is up to $1838. In South Australia, there is a series of requirements you need to fulfil otherwise payments are suspended. In Victoria, a worker who is overseas is not entitled to receive weekly payments unless the medical referee certifies the worker’s incapacity is permanent. In the ACT, a worker in receipt of weekly compensation payments is not entitled to such payments if the worker lives outside Australia unless a medical referee certifies the worker’s incapacity resulting from the injury is permanent. In Tasmania, weekly benefits are not affected by a worker’s residency, and they generally cease after nine years of the commencement of incapacity. Western Australia has a maximum compensation payable of $190 000, a limitation on the amount paid for medical benefits, which is not here.
When a person is brought in from overseas to work it is a bit like pot luck depending on which state they go to. They might get a better deal in another state. This is a classic example of where you need uniform legislation. If a person is coming to work in Australia - that is all they know - they are not worried about the internal governance matters this country has in relation to cutting itself up into states and territories. So, there is certainly a requirement to revise this section of the act so we are all on the same page.
In relation to that, our present legislation and even the proposed legislation, although an improvement, is discriminatory against overseas workers who, if injured, receive a lesser package of compensation than if they were Australian or allowed to stay in Australia. If these workers were allowed to stay in Australia when injured, would it still not cost the insurance companies money? If the main complaint by insurance companies is by going overseas the system could be rorted - especially, as they say, in some Asian countries - what are they doing now to check rehabilitation costs in countries where they pay workers?
When asked, the insurance companies do not have an answer. When asked how many are under this scheme at present, they do not have an answer. I had to rely on the figures available which give the percentage of workers affected by workers compensation per 1000 head of population and relate that to the number of 457 workers in the Territory. The maths tells you this number is quite small. Insurance companies have the means to check workers to ensure claims are legitimate. Insurance companies fly doctors to Darwin to check workers, so why can’t they fly them to Manila or other places? If a worker was living on the Cocos Islands, wouldn’t they fly a doctor there? It will still cost money; it is part of the job of insurance companies.
The ICA says the government should be required to use an actuary before this legislation is passed. NT WorkSafe has shown figures and, from that, a reasonable estimation of claims can be deduced. ICA, which represents the insurance industry, has not been able to provide a history showing the number of claims and other reasonable details to argue this could be a big cost to the industry. One gets the impression the claim about a possible large increase in costs is a case of crying wolf. It is interesting our own TIO has said it supports this part of the legislation as long as there are adequate safeguards. TIO is, I believe, a member of the ICA. I am just checking if I have the letter with me. TIO said:
One of the main insurance companies in the Territory, with provisos, says it supports this amendment. At the same time, it is saying this amendment has been introduced to manage a relatively infrequent situation, which is one of the points I have tried to emphasise through this debate.
TIO runs the MACA Scheme, which has to pay out for people injured. It has the ability to make lump sum payments through that scheme, which could be an option for those claiming workers compensation. There is the possibility of a Hopkins agreement, which I had never heard of until I had the briefing, which allows for a payment but does not exclude a future claim. As TIO runs both the MACA Scheme and workers compensation, this might be an opportunity to see if there can be some harmonisation of the schemes as we are dealing with similar matters, that is, an injured person may go overseas. It would make sense for both schemes to offer the same conditions.
The issue of workers compensation for overseas workers is a dog’s breakfast when you look at the different state legislation, some of which is private-based and some state-based. There is an urgent need for uniform law to cover these workers. There also needs to be a review of the 457 visa program so injured workers can stay in Australia for rehabilitation and not be sent home, or have to get another visa such as a medical visa. If this was resolved, some of the issues discussed today may not apply.
In discussions we had with Mary Martin, an injured person, unless sponsored for a second term in Australia - they may not be able to do that because they may have run out of options for a new term of sponsorship - can apply for a medical visa, or even a tourist visa. The problem with that is you do not know because it has to be assessed case by case and there is no guarantee it will happen. Also, that leaves the secondary 457 Visa people up in the air. This is usually the spouse or the children who come with the primary 457 Visa people who may have jobs and, all of a sudden, they have to leave Australia as well.
I ask the minister to make contact with the federal government to see if serious consideration could be given to amending the 457 Visa program to enable a worker, if injured in Australia, to stay in Australia until rehabilitated. The only proviso would be if a person is declared permanently incapacitated, it is pointless staying in Australia if they do not want to; they can go home. They would be paid the same as a worker in Australia, but would be required to have checks by an Australian doctor on a regular basis to ensure that incapacity still exists.
I will not vote on this bill because, even though it is a step forward, that is, workers will now receive some compensation, I see no real and proven reason why those workers should not receive the same entitlements as a worker in Australia. If I vote against it, those workers will receive nothing. If I vote for it, I will agree with capping which discriminates and treats those workers as second rate.
The Labor government is supposed to be a friend of the worker and proclaim workers’ rights; however, in this case it only half proclaims those rights and half proclaims the rights of insurance companies. I do not mind them sticking up for insurance companies where there is an argument to do so; however, I have put forward statistics and enough proof to show the effect of this legislation will be minimal. I also agree with the member for Port Darwin that premiums will go through the roof.
I have looked at this issue from both sides. What would the effect be? This is what we are meant to look at. I have looked at the statistics and cannot see - as I have shown, one worker in the Territory would be subject to more than 52 weeks compensation. Even if we had 10 times the number of workers - 10 people - that would not break the bank for insurance companies as they will receive extra premiums through more policies.
This debate reminds me of a certain debate in 2004 in this parliament where there was a move by the government to take away the rights of workers to have superannuation payments as part of their workers compensation claims. I opposed it then because I believed that was taking up the baton of the insurance companies to the detriment of workers. If you are 15 years out from retirement, are injured, and for the next 15 years do not pay into your superannuation, you are 15 years behind the eight ball and worse off. Workers compensation is not about making people worse off. It should be about keeping the equilibrium those people would have been able to achieve if they were fit and healthy. The government listened too much to the insurance companies and that was an unfair decision.
Workers from overseas have families and should not be regarded as inferior or less deserving of the benefits of workers compensation received by an Australian worker with a family. Why does a boundary make any difference to a person’s rights? It is easy to say: ‘We will give you a few dollars to suit the insurance company’. Is that fair? Is that ethical? They are the questions I have had to ask through this debate. That is why this legislation has taken me so long to work through. I have probably driven people from the department up the wall with the number of times we have had briefings and the number of times ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. It has been a long road to get to this position. I have tossed up either side of the equation on what I think should be right. Insurance companies should be given a fair go, which is why I have gone down the path of checking what that would mean in reality. If I thought this was going to blow out of all proportion I would be asking where WorkSafe is. You have to balance this.
We have new, uniform occupational health and safety legislation across Australia. You would hope some of the risks we had years ago are reduced. In fact, when you look at this document, the Northern Territory has been reducing its risk in relation to worker’s injuries substantially over the last few years. Balance that with are there fewer claims than 10 years ago. I have tried to look at the statistics fairly. I have had many meetings with Cliff from QBE - he must be sick of me as well. I have tried to be fair and look at this in a way which would satisfy the insurance companies and the workers.
This is not a political thing for me; it is not a socialist debate. This is about how to deal with a fellow human being – an injured worker who might live in Zimbabwe, Ireland, or Asia, and has a wife and kids to look after and a mortgage. At the moment we send them off and do not give them any wages at all. That is bad. We are now going to send him off with two years payment. That might be a help, but it probably is not going to help if it takes longer than that.
The real problem is not so much the partially incapacitated; it is the permanently incapacitated who could spend their life not being able to get a job. Under this legislation, you only get rehabilitation and medical costs. After four years you are finished. Does that help the person? Sometimes, you have to put yourself in the place of the worker: ‘I have lost both legs in an industrial accident and have been sent back to a little village or town in some country and I cannot work. I might have brain damage as well. What happens to me? Am I not entitled, because I want to go home to my family, to receive the same compensation as an Australian?’ That is what I have looked at. That is the fairness. This will not be a major cost to industry. I have statistics to show that and, on the other hand, I cannot see any argument to say because you have left our borders you should receive compensation different to someone who still lives here. ‘I worked in this country and I was injured in this country. Can someone please tell me why I should not receive the same compensation?’
The only reason I have been given is insurance companies say they cannot monitor it. However, they are supposed to be monitoring the rehabilitation and medical expenses but do not seem to be doing that at the moment. Are they fair dinkum? Are they doing the job they are supposed to? If not, it is not a real concern.
Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this bill because I need to make the statement - probably shamefully in this parliament - we removed the rights of workers to have any wages in 2002 and I was part of that debate. I may have been too green and not understood what was going through. However, from what I now know, if I had to vote on that bill I would oppose it. The rights of a worker should not be differentiated, they should not be discriminated; they should receive the same entitlements as anyone else.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I was very interested to listen to the member for Nelson’s contribution. Good on him for taking the time to do the research on this bill quite seriously. I have some concerns. He has some lofty ambitions that people should not be treated differently. I spent a little time in the insurance industry prior to entering parliament and, unfortunately, in this world all things are not equal. When I say unfortunately, it is not unfortunate. It is just a reality, and in some cases not a bad thing.
I will give you one example. I was contacted by a group of fellows who ran a large offshore oil exploration company - one of these big multinationals - in the early 1990s and, at the time, the average wage was about $1500 a week in the hand. The average rig pig was very well paid and still is, and deservedly so. These guys said: ‘We want an insurance contract to cover workers if they are injured. What do you suggest?’ I said: ‘We first do an assessment of their wages’. The going rate at that time was you insured someone for 75% of their wage. I mentioned that to these guys and they said: ‘No, no, we want to do it for 40%. We will insure 40% of their wages’. I said: ‘Why would you not do 75% of their wages?’ They said: ‘Well, if we pay 75% of their wages as an insurance component we will not have people turn up. Rather than going through the rigours and trials of working for extended periods offshore most people will say they are happy with 75% of their wages to stay where they are and not have to go onto the rigs and our claims would go through the roof’.
Unfortunately, that is the situation. We have unscrupulous employers and, sometimes, we have employees who try to get a little more than they are entitled to. Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the member for Nelson that there should be a level playing field, quite often there is not and for very good reason. All people cannot be treated equally. Similarly, someone heading overseas to some third world country being paid 75% of their Australian wage for two years could do very well in that country where costs are so much lower. They do not have the high rents or the high electricity costs.
I know of people who reside overseas permanently on our unemployment benefits, a disability pension or similar. They live in Asian countries or Third World countries simply because the cost of living is so much cheaper. When I was a federal member, I was contacted by a fellow who wanted to use Royal Darwin Hospital for a major operation and, at that time, he had been living in the Philippines for 15 years. He was quite adamant that, as an Australian citizen, he should be allowed to attend Royal Darwin Hospital and receive free medical treatment. Part of our Medicare arrangement in Australia is you have to live in the country to receive treatment.
I see a double standard when someone says: ‘I am quite happy to pick up an Australian disability pension, live and operate overseas and never come back to Australia, but be entitled to a pension’. Then, at the first hint of illness, an accident, or requirement to go hospital, they are on the first plane back saying: ‘Hang on, I am an Australian citizen. I demand my rights’. To me, there is something a bit odd about that. Member for Nelson, I agree there should be a level playing field. It is a wonderful idea if we were all living in Nirvana and everything was equal. Unfortunately, the reality is it is not.
I heard what the member for Port Darwin had to say. He was very comprehensive in his reasons why the opposition will not be supporting this. He made the point - and went into it in some detail - that insurance companies are saying this will drive up premiums. The member for Nelson said he cannot see any reason why it will drive up premiums. The member for Nelson said exactly the same thing about container deposit legislation - it would not drive up costs or the price of drinks. The government said that, and is still saying how greedy these companies are - there is much greed in the container deposit industry - and there is no reason why prices should go up, but, whoopee doo, they have gone up.
I have similar concerns with this legislation. When you have insurance companies saying this will drive up premiums you have to take those statements reasonably seriously. Insurance companies, generally, will employ actuaries, who are very clever people. They are good at statistics, they understand risk, and they understand how to devise a premium for a particular type of cover. When you have groups of actuaries suggesting certain legislation will drive up premiums it is worthwhile taking notice of them. You can disregard the information and say it is a consequence - everything comes at a cost and we are prepared to take the cost and accept premiums will go up. That is fine, but do not say that is all nonsense and these very clever people do not know what they are talking about. Fundamentally, the actuaries will determine the price of premiums.
Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin touched on the definition of ‘the worker’ and I want to go a little further with that. My concern with this legislation is this movement, right across Australia since the election of the Labor government in Canberra, to somehow rope in more workers and fewer contractors. We see it happening across Australia in the most insidious way where Labor governments are trying to do their bit for union movements. Where someone is deemed to be a contractor, generally those individuals do not join trade unions. In some cases they do, but it is not always the case. The trade unions have recognised this and seem to think we need a much more highly regulated labour market. There is a bunch of what they call ‘sham contractors’ who need to be picked up in various legislation to tell them they are not contractors, they are workers. I have some concerns about that.
I should say from the outset that I am not big on union bashing. I have spent a considerable period of my life as a union member, and a considerable period of time working with trade unions in the Northern Territory. My view of trade unions in the Territory is pretty high. I have seen the men and women of the union movement in the Northern Territory doing their jobs: getting out there and fighting for the rights of workers, seeing workers who have been discriminated against, who are poorly paid, and who are not getting their fair shake. They are being well represented by hard-working trade union officials and that is great. I encourage people in a job that brings with it an element of risk, or are concerned about their employment conditions, to become involved with a trade union. There is much benefit in that.
However, the reality of the Australian economy, the Australian workforce, is organised unionism is struggling. The reason is that we are an enterprising nation made up of enterprising, entrepreneurial people. People want to have a go; they want to make something of themselves. You see it in industries across the board where people are saying: ‘I can do better for myself by not working for someone else’. A couple of years ago, for the first time in Australia’s history, we had more small businesses than union members. Whilst trade unions will lament that and see it is a bad thing, others say it is fantastic that these people should be encouraged to get out there and have a go, make something of themselves and try to do a bit more for the country. These people are generally very entrepreneurial, very enterprising, and extraordinarily hard-working. You cannot survive in this world as a small businessperson if you are not hard-working. You cannot survive as a self-employed person if you are not hard-working. It defies logic. You also have to have a huge sense of personal responsibility. You have a personal responsibility to pay your taxes; you do not have an employer deducting them from your pay. You have a personal responsibility to look after yourself in retirement; you do not have an employer deducting contributions from your pay. In this case, you have personal responsibility to ensure your health and safety is insured. That is a requirement of everyone in small business.
Madam Speaker, you have been in small business yourself and would appreciate these things. It is unfortunate that in this Chamber there are not more people who have been self-employed, or operated in small business, because it is a very different world. It is very different from taking the wages an employer has paid you - an employer who also looks after you, pampers you, ensures your retirement is taken care of, ensures your taxes are paid, and ensures your accident, sickness and work health cover is up to date. When you are self-employed or are a contractor or a small businessperson, all of those responsibilities become yours. It is a big responsibility.
The fact is more and more Australians are choosing to go down that path every day. They are saying they can do better as small business people, as self-employed people, as entrepreneurs, than they can working for a boss, and that is to be encouraged. Unfortunately, in Australia, we now have a national government which is tied in such a way to the union movement that it disregards to a large extent those entrepreneurial and enterprising individuals in our community. The government is trying to do more and more for its friends in the Labor movement and the trade union movement by pushing as many people as it can into trade unions because it sees the departure from trade unionism as an attack on its political future.
We see it in whole range of areas. The Office of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, which was introduced by the Howard government, has subtly changed. It is going to be the Australian Builders and Contracting Commission. The terms of reference have changed subtly, from looking out for corrupt activities to looking out for sham contractors. A bunch of these spivs have now set up an office in Darwin and are going around building sites and other workplaces trying to weed out what they determine are sham contractors. Of course, they are coming down on the employers and those individuals saying this has to stop. In fact, they should be assisting people to ensure they are up to speed. Ultimately, if you are a small businessperson or a self-employed person and are not paying taxes, not paying work health cover, and not paying into a superannuation fund, the reality of life is you go without.
Member for Nelson, it would be a wonderful world if we were all looked after, did not have to worry about anything, and government did everything for us. But people are saying they do not want that. They want a little flexibility in their lives. They want to be able to determine their own futures and are prepared to take the risk to do that.
I am concerned when I see little things like this in legislation that is a further advancement of the cause to stop entrepreneurialism - to stop enterprising activity and force people into paid jobs for an employer who will take out superannuation, work health cover, pay their taxes and, of course, their union dues as well. Ultimately, that is what the goal is underneath all this; let us make no mistake about it. The goal is to get more people into trade unions because these people hark back to the good old days of industrial muscle: the ‘united we will never be defeated’ attitude, which is, in many ways, a bygone era of Australia. We look back on those times fondly ...
Dr Burns: Well, do not mention the war. What about the chicken and Work Choices?
Mr TOLLNER: Or the great demarcation disputes?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. Work Choices was a bridge too far they say.
Dr Burns: For you it was.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We all remember the days of the great demarcation disputes.
Dr Burns: And the great chicken.
Mr TOLLNER: ... and all of that type of thing. Yes, the chicken. Yes, being followed around by my friend up there, Hopper, dressed in a chicken suit. I believe he is working for one of you guys now. He is working for the minister over here; no wonder he is sitting in the gallery listening. Alan Paton sitting in the gallery is one of those guys in the union movement who did a damn good job ...
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: He represented the worker and did a good job. He was one of the guys - I find myself on the opposite side of the political table from him quite often, but I can never fault him on the job he did for his members when he was running the Electrical Trades Union in the Northern Territory. He did not look particularly flash dressed in a chicken suit, but whatever turns you on, Alan, whatever turns you on, mate. If you want to run around in a chicken suit you probably have a friend in the member for Nelson. He has a fondness for any poultry matter. Pardon the pun, it was a yolk. I cracked a yolk, but I digress.
I did not want to waffle on for too long or wax lyrical, but I have some interest in this. My view is if you want to fix matters of occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory there is one glaring solution: put a broom through the senior ranks of WorkSafe. It is a dysfunctional organisation; it is poorly run, poorly managed, and is not doing too much at all for workers across the Northern Territory. Some of the people who work there are some of the most decent people I have ever met - like my friend Alan, former ETU Territory Secretary. Like him, people at WorkSafe are very hard-working and decent people. However, the management in that organisation is almost dysfunctional.
It should be recognised by government, and the minister should do something to fix up the joint because, quite frankly, it is just not right. It should not be a retirement home for washed-out union hacks and Labor Party apparatchiks. I notice the Treasurer is back in here now, the minister for Business. She is doing a similar thing with the department of Business - it is becoming a retirement home for former Labor Party political operatives. I see our good friend, Adele Young, has popped up there - does not report to anyone, no one reports to her ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is usually a convention in this House that we do not mention public servants by name. That is really up to the member for Fong Lim. If he wants to keep on bashing public servants, that is up to him.
Mr TOLLNER: No, I am not bashing public servants at all. I am bashing Labor hacks ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could just come back to the bill, insomuch as we are talking about the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about the bill, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is too much disassociated from WorkSafe and this bill. That is on the topic. When you talk about WorkSafe, of course, you are talking about a large retirement home for spent Labor Party hacks and union operatives. The Business minister is doing the same now with the department of Business. She has just placed Adele Young in a job - does not report to anyone, no one reports to her, but she has a high-paying job there ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should know all appointments to the public service are done through the PSEMA. He needs to be careful what he is alleging here.
Mr TOLLNER: Is this really a point of order, Madam Speaker?
Ms Lawrie: He is misleading the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it has been a convention that we do not name public servants. However, I have given you a level of latitude here, but if you can come back to the bill that would be helpful.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will definitely do that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, there is a person in the department of Business who is a well-known Labor Party operative, well-known to business people. She is the one who collects the money every four years to run campaigns …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no relevance to the legislation with the misguided and wrong allegations being made by the member for Fong Lim. He is misleading the parliament right now.
Mr TOLLNER: Is that a point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe she is talking to digression. Member for Fong Lim, you have, in fact, spoken very closely to the bill and there has not been much digression. I will allow a level of digression at this point, but I remind you using names of public servants is really not appropriate in the House as there is no real right of reply.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer has accused the honourable member of misleading the House. She knows how to deal with that allegation otherwise she should withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, can you please withdraw the comment?
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. He is wrong. He is absolutely wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you it is a bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your flexibility in this matter and the fact I may well have strayed a little. However, it is interesting the truth cuts deep with some of these people ...
Ms Lawrie: No truth to what you are saying.
Mr TOLLNER: You can have a discussion about a few things, but the second you near up to the Treasurer’s friends, all of a sudden, she gets quite shirty and gets to her feet and tries to gag discussion on it. I digress, Madam Speaker.
We will not be supporting the bill, as the member for Port Darwin said. He spoke extraordinarily well and summed up all of the reasons why the opposition does not support this legislation. I encourage all members of this House to listen to the wise words of the member for Port Darwin; he is spot on.
I appreciate some of the things the member for Nelson had to say. Unfortunately, he lives in an unachievable Nirvana at times evidenced by many things. We can all aspire to live in these dream world places but, eventually, reality drags us back into the world we were born in.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I am speaking as the Minister for Public Employment because in that portfolio I have had an ongoing interest in this issue as that portfolio deals with industrial relations matters.
I commend all members for their contribution. I know the minister will be wrapping up, but up until the member for Fong Lim started taking instruction from the member for Port Darwin I thought things were fairly sensible. I thought the member for Fong Lim had a bit more to him than just taking messages from the member for Port Darwin, the author of the manifesto - putting messages in front of him, telling him where to go in pointing the finger at senior public servants. Both members should know better: appointments within our public service are made on merit. They are also made subject to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I say in defence of NT WorkSafe, when we came to government in 2001, and prior to 2001, there was a deep perception amongst unionists within this town that work health and safety had been neglected for some time under the previous government. That was a very real perception. They pointed to instances of fairly laissez-faire inspections and enforcement of work safety issues particularly within the construction industry in the Northern Territory. So, for the opposition to criticise the work of NT WorkSafe - over the past 11 years of this government the situation has really improved. There are still accidents and unfortunate deaths within our workplaces, but there is a greater scrutiny now of our workplaces than there was when we came to power in 2001. I commend NT WorkSafe on the job it does.
Before I go to the bill specifically, there are a couple of things the member for Fong Lim mentioned. He mentioned the definition of a worker in this bill. He tried to assert there was some agenda of the Gillard Labor government to increase workers and decrease contractors. He even lauded unions. He was very effusive in his praise of Mr Alan Paton, another unionist in this town, and he talked about his close connection with the union movement and his respect for it. The fundamental question I ask is: why did he support Work Choices, which was a fundamental assault on the rights of workers within this country? If he wants to talk about the view of people in this country, that there are more people in small business than there are unionists, and go on with that type of thing, he needs to always remember and reflect on the result of the 2007 election which saw Prime Minister John Howard voted out, and the member for Fong Lim as the member for Solomon voted out of his seat on the back of the Work Choices legislation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Leader of Government Business was most insistent yesterday about members restraining themselves to the content of the bill. I see no reference to former Prime Minister Howard or Work Choices legislation in this bill.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: If I could respond to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Fong Lim raised the issue and mentioned Work Choices in his speech. He also mentioned an agenda underneath the definition of a worker included in this bill about increasing workers, increasing unionists and decreasing contractors. It is quite relevant, I believe, to this discussion.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As far as we are concerned you can have as much space as you like. However, do not whinge about the fact we digress from bills when you have a waltz around the room, think it is your right to run this parliament, and ride roughshod over everyone else. Play the game by the same set of rules and we will have a fair debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, if I could just ask you, whilst there is some latitude, return to the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I respect your ruling. I would have to say the member for Fong Lim did digress. I did not call him on his digression into all types of areas I mentioned, but I am not going to test your ruling any further - I have said sufficient. Unlike the opposition, I do not need to repeat the points I have made because they are very strong and everyone listening knows what happened in 2007.
I would like to particularly commend the member for Nelson on his offering. He talked about this being a complex bill and it is. In referring to the second reading speech by the minister, he raised six areas these amendments cover. The first, as we just mentioned, which the member for Port Darwin did not like speaking about - the definition of a worker. The second one was allowing access to compensation by injured workers who reside overseas. The qualifying age has been dealt with by members. Next was the types of benefits that can be taken into account when calculating the normal weekly earnings. Fifth was the interest rate payable, and the sixth thing was the specific power of the Supreme Court to remit matters back to the Work Health Court.
As the member for Nelson said, these are quite comprehensive amendments. There is, obviously, a range of views on this bill. The member for Nelson has researched this bill very closely, probably in contrast to some other members, particularly the member for Fong Lim. I could see from what the member for Nelson had to say that he had thought very carefully about these amendments and had consulted widely. Similarly, the minister has consulted widely. The minister, very wisely, put out an exposure draft and received comments from a range of sources: the insurance industry, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the union movement. The minister is to be commended.
These are complex matters in which people have all types of vested interests - particular perspectives, whether they be insurers, employers or unionists. The government has tried to plot the middle course, to plot the fair course and, whilst we might not please everyone in what we have done with this legislation, it is significant the member for Nelson agreed on most aspects of the legislation.
He said he cannot support it, principally in relation to the overseas workers and the benefits and assessment of benefits. I had the feeling - I am not trying to verbal the member for Nelson - that was comparatively a lesser matter for him than the overseas worker issue, and I will turn to that in a moment.
He said he would not be opposing because he recognises this is a step forward. This is a mighty step forward, but government also realises this is an area that is going to be subject to review. That is why the minister has undertaken to have a review of this legislation in approximately two years, and it may very well be that some aspects are further amended. For the time being, government believes we have taken on board all the comments and have tried to do what is right.
In relation to overseas workers, yes, they are afforded the same benefits of duration as workers in Australia. Government accepts the arguments by the insurance industry that this would add further cost and would be difficult in the longer term – beyond 104 weeks with a possible extension of another 104 weeks beyond that time. Even in that time it would be difficult. There will be difficulties in assessing, keeping contact and monitoring these cases; however, government has tried to do what is fair. It might not be fair in everyone’s book, and there can be reasonable arguments run about that, but we have to keep the middle path. We are looking at the cost to industry as well as the benefit to workers.
Fundamental to this, of course, is the definition of a worker. We have defined a worker and removed the reference to the Australian Business Number, a very important aspect. We are keeping - this is something the member for Port Darwin did not mention - the results test, which is a very important aspect to differentiate between those who are workers and those who are genuine contractors. That results test is a very important aspect of what we are doing and it is significant that the member for Port Darwin did not mention the results test, nor the member for Fong Lim.
To quote what the minister said in his second reading speech:
That is important because what we are trying to do is not catch bona fide contractors in this definition, but to find those who are currently working under the banner of an ABN but are, essentially, workers working for a company and carrying out the tasks of workers. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because we believe there is a need. There are a number of workers who might sign up to an ABN - they have said: ‘Okay, you can start work on Monday but you have to sign an ABN’, but might not fully understand the ramifications of that.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about personal responsibility. Well, that is okay if you understand the ramifications and have explained to you what you need to do: get your own private health insurance, insurance against injury on the worksite, etcetera. However, through painful experience we know there are a number of workers currently with an ABN who are injured and there is no support for them beyond what is available through the Medicare system. That is not good enough. I know, through personal experience as a local member, of people who have been in that situation, have had a serious injury, and find themselves and their families in a dire situation. They cannot service their mortgage and are having difficulty putting food on the table.
These are proud people; people who work hard every day, who work in the sun doing hard, physical labour. It was disturbing for me to hear the member for Fong Lim talk about when he was in the insurance industry and people wanting to go on compo - who wanted to receive 75% of their wage. In my day they were called ‘compo kings’. For someone to have that name placed on them was a real shame job and I do not believe there are too many ‘compo kings’ in Australia. There might be some; there are always people who want to rort the system, but the people who have come to see me about this issue, or have made their circumstances known to me, are proud people with obvious, serious injuries. One of them fell off a roof at a workplace and seriously broke his leg - shattered it. I am pleased to say that person comes to see me at the markets when in town. They have recovered, thankfully, and are able to get on with their life and work. However, it was a battle for them and their families.
That is what this legislation is all about. I appreciate the heartfelt concern of the member for Nelson about protecting the workers. I know you are genuine, member for Nelson, and I know you are disappointed that we have not gone far enough with overseas workers and what we are doing. However, we have taken a mighty step in that direction. They are covered for a certain period of time. We really have to get the message out about what people are covered for and what they are not.
Member for Nelson, you mentioned 457 Visas. Yes, there are uncertainties around 457 Visas. I have many people - you probably have them too - come to my electorate office who come here on 457 Visas who, for whatever reason, have their sponsorship ceased, or there has been a dispute with their employer and they are not in a strong position. It does not only relate to this; there is a whole range of issues in relation to 457 Visas. Given the nature of labour in Australia, and the Northern Territory in particular, there are probably issues that need to be resolved at the federal government level. I am not disputing some of the things you have said here; I respect your position. However, as government, we will be looking to pass this bill and implement it. It is a first step.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I just acknowledge these young people.
Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Avondale Grammar School in Singapore, accompanied by Ms Christine Woolley. On behalf of honourable member, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: Welcome to all the students from Singapore. I hope you are enjoying your time in Parliament House, Darwin. I hope you enjoy your time in Darwin; I am sure you will.
The member for Port Darwin raised a few issues. He talked about it not being equitable for business. As I said, as government we have tried to find a middle path. We have consulted widely with business and with the union movement. Not everyone is happy. We are plotting the middle path, and the aim of this is to provide adequate protection for workers when they are injured.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned a couple of organisations, namely, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry. As I said earlier, I understand both those organisations have been part of the committee set up to advise government on this legislation. As the member for Nelson said and, I believe, the member for Port Darwin, we have changed the exposure draft on the limit for non-cash benefits. So, there have been changes. We have tried to be flexible in relation to this legislation.
I mentioned a number of things in relation to the results test. Regarding a definition of a worker, the member for Nelson did not say he had a problem with that. However, he has really focused on the definition of a worker.
As much as I could, I tried to cover what the member for Fong Lim said on this issue. I will say again, he did roam fairly freely and it was very interesting to see his mentor, the member for Port Darwin, the Karl Marx from Port Darwin, the author of the manifesto, putting little notes under the member for Fong Lim’s nose so he could make various attacks. Some of them were a little distasteful. You are better than that, member for Fong Lim. You can think for yourself. You do not need direction from the maestro. You can run a political line yourself. If the member for Port Darwin wants to have a slice at public servants, name people, and play those types of games, he should not be hand-balling to you to do it. You are better than that, member for Fong Lim. Let the member for Port Darwin say what he has to say.
There is no doubt this is a government that respects workers. We are a government that values workers and listen to workers. If the CLP was to gain power, legislation like this would never get up. We saw evidence of the legislation the CLP loves - Work Choices - anti-worker, bash the worker, and take rights away from the worker. I say to the CLP: do not underestimate the strength of the union movement and Australian workers. They know when someone is after them and when someone is trying to take away their conditions. They also recognise when someone is trying to have a go at them and when someone is trying to help them.
That is all I have to say. I could have mentioned the chicken from 2007 that stalked the member for Fong Lim. It was not just one chicken, Madam Speaker. For the benefit of the students, it was like Big Bird from Sesame Street. It was following the member for Fong Lim around. He took it in good faith but it was a political campaign. It was a bit of fun for us anyway, wasn’t it, member for Fong Lim? I did not get a gig in the Big Bird but I know Hopper did and there were many volunteers, some of them female. Big Bird was a great gimmick and did the trick. I am sure you often reflect on that campaign, member for Fong Lim. That is probably why you lauded the union movement today. You are making up to them. They have big hearts; they can forgive you. We know you have quite significant support from the CFMEU and your mates there. I am sure you are probably good friends with them. We hear you are still friends with Martin Ferguson so you have connections all over the shop, member for Fong Lim. You do not need the member for Port Darwin to tell you what to say and do. You are going to be the boss one day, the big boss!
Anyway I digress, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the parliament. I look forward to hearing the wrap by the minister. I am unsure if that will be after lunch, but it will be very welcome. I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say. I commend him for his legislation. I commend all the public servants who have brought it this far, and all those who participated in the consultation process.
Madam Speaker, it has been an honour to address the parliament today on this issue.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I do not know about these new rules. This used to a bear pit; it is like a morgue. However, I will continue.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I liked the old parliament. This is too boring.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can keep to the point, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have given very explicit directions. Dissenting from your directions is outside the boundaries of standing orders.
Mr KNIGHT: I am summing up.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. Resume your seat. I have made a comment about it already.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Port Darwin, Fong Lim and Nelson for their contributions, and also my colleague, the Minister for Public Employment.
This bill improves the operational efficiency of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It implements some very important social and economic policy changes on the national and local scene. Many of the members have summed up in their own way and I will move through some of that summing up with respect to the six key items in the legislation.
With respect to the definition of a worker, this amendment is very significant. The general theme behind it is that every worker should be covered for workers compensation, either by themselves as a legitimate contractor, or their employer if it is that type of arrangement. The current act has the standard as holding an Australian Business Number, an ABN. Over the operation of the current act that has resulted in some inappropriate arrangements. That is widely recognised by business, by the Chamber of Commerce, and certainly by the union movement. There have been a significant number of cases where sham contracting has been operating. In those circumstances, workers are not insuring themselves because they are not clear of the arrangements. All they are required to do is, basically, have an ABN to work in a business where it clearly is an employer/employee relationship. This will change that and give us some consistency. Even the Chamber of Commerce, the peak employer organisation in the Territory, supports this. I will quote from their letter:
This is the model we have adopted. With respect to the definition of a worker, this is clearly supported, by and large, across the board. In respect to these changes, the players include the insurance industry and the Insurance Council of Australia. The ICA supports this because it means more people will take out coverage so there will be more business to write. For that industry it is a good thing, for the community it is a good thing, and it provides some clarity for employers.
With respect to the non-cash benefits, when we released the exposure draft late last year salary sacrificing was part of that. Through the consultation, we listened and it was inserted to try to pick up some arrangements happening in the workplace. It was trying to clarify something; it made it slightly more confusing so it was removed.
For simplicity we have reduced the scope of non-cash benefits to the three items. That was a concession to the insurance industry. These initiatives are all about trying to find a middle path, trying to offer some concessions so everyone gets something out of these changes. By and large, the two themes through this are the protection of workers and the protection of the scheme. The scheme, if it is not protected, will not be good for anyone. Reducing the scope for non-cash benefits is supported by the insurance industry as well.
With respect to older workers, some submissions were received around this amendment from COTA. COTA would like to see more latitude provided to seniors in the workplace. Something we struck was changing entitlements for older workers to match the increasing retirement age of the Commonwealth government. That will progress, over the next few years, to 76-years old. In 2023, it will move again. For my generation, the goal posts keep moving further and further away. I, and many other people, will be working into old age because working is something people enjoy; it is part of their life and provides satisfaction as well as financial income. It is a social circle and is something we need to be mindful of and look at this down the track.
I will stop at that point and talk about what is happening in this legislation. The member for Nelson highlighted it, and it was a frustration of mine as the incoming Attorney-General introducing this legislation and getting representation from various stakeholders, including the union movement and the insurance council, that there was a lack of information. This is extremely important as this is livelihoods, this is the standard of living, and this is about health. There is very little or no information, which is extremely surprising to me.
We will put NT WorkSafe, the insurance industry, the Chamber of Commerce and the union movement on notice to collect information. You cannot say: ‘We think this is happening’. There has to be evidence behind it. The review needs to be evidence-based and, for everyone concerned, we can make changes. We acknowledge the players in this: the seniors advocacy groups, the business advocacy groups and the labour advocacy groups as well, but it has to be evidenced-based because the integrity of the scheme must be maintained. I would see this legislation pass and for everyone to be put on notice to come back with the evidence over the next couple of years with a mind to make further changes to refine it because we have struck a fairly good middle path here. How close are we to a perfect point? I cannot say, but we are close. Things like foreign workers’ entitlements needs to be looked at - how much off the mark that is with community expectations and the impact on the scheme, and the age of retirement.
The remittance of the Supreme Court back to the Work Health Court is non-contentious. With respect to the interest rate, that is not contentious either. Obviously, one of the more contentious parts is the entitlements to overseas workers. This country was built on overseas workers and will continue to be built on overseas workers. The Northern Territory dipped, a year or so ago, to 2.7% unemployment. It is a bit over 4% at the moment which is, effectively, full employment. Australia is historically low at 5%, so we are experiencing extremely low unemployment rates. Coupled with that, we have major resource projects in remote areas. For some Australians, there is a reluctance to move to some of the tougher jobs – that is, fly-in/fly-out - in remote locations. For those projects to be realised, they truly need overseas and skilled workers. Therefore, we need to support that initiative. It is not only for 457 Visa holders; this is for the whole overseas worker community.
Through the Regional Migration Agreement which has been signed off - a first in Australia for the Northern Territory; there are three identical ones for the Northern Territory - we will see skilled workers coming in to support our local small business to keep them going and, obviously, realise some of the major projects as well. It is a reality. In my role as Business minister it was the single biggest issue the business community faced. It was not: ‘We are closing down because the economy is on its knees’. It was: ‘We are going to close down unless we get some more workers’. It is a reality business needs these workers. It is a competitive marketplace around the world and we want to offer an attractive proposition and we want those skilled workers. If you are a skilled welder and are 30 or 40 years old, you have 30 or 40 years work ahead of you so you want to protect your health and your ability to earn. Therefore, we have to create an environment for our businesses to attract workers.
From the contributions from the other side of the Chamber and the Independent member, we have had the spectrum of ‘give them nothing’ to ‘give them every entitlement that is offered to Australians’. That is also the spectrum I have been confronted with in the representations made to me. We have struck a middle point which provides certainty to the insurance industry and some concession to overseas workers so their health benefits, if they continue to be incapacitated, will continue. However, their financial remuneration will be limited. I concur with the member for Nelson about the changes to the federal visa conditions. That is something that needs to be looked at in any review.
I thank the representation I received from Kathy Spurr. I acknowledge her role in presenting the case of a worker is a worker and entitlement should be provided. I acknowledge her position on that, and the member for Nelson does as well. It needs to be reviewed. What I am feeling a little more comfortable about is it is a very small number but, with a lack of substantiative evidence, we do not know. At a personal level, I believe it is small, but over the next few years we get to analyse whether that is or is not the case; whether the true costs are significant or minimal. I also accept the figures the member for Nelson provided. I had other statistics provided to me but you had to cobble together an argument; you had to add one plus one equals this, and it is a small number. The member for Nelson came up with possibly one. However, 80% of foreign workers get permanent residency so that one person would have to be injured - 80% of that one person gets permanent residency. It is not a very significant amount and when you look at the package being provided here, the insurance industry should see, through this package, they are writing more insurance and have some defined parameters around their payouts. I am sure they have their own information about the level of exposure for non-resident workers as well.
There should not be any increase in insurance premiums because of the totality of this package. However, it is a very big industry and it is surprising to me that evidence could not be provided.
The member for Fong Lim talked about rig workers. That ability to uninsure 40% goes back a long way, member for Fong Lim. These people have the ability to earn money and they look at the level of incapacity and loss of earnings at that incapacity level, and it is only 75% of that. You are injured, you are not receiving your full amount, and may be required to work in another capacity within the organisation. Being injured is not a benefit, and when you think about ongoing medical treatment for total impairment or significant partial impairment, it is not a good life. Your earning capacity as a skilled worker could be quite significant in this resources boom we have in Australia and elsewhere.
We have struck a nice middle road with the ability to review aspects of this legislation. We have struck a good balance between the rights of workers and the business model of insurance companies.
I have covered most of the legislation. I thank the Department of Justice – Candice - for all her work in this area, and other staff within the Department of Justice. I thank the members of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, an advisory council that has been actively working on these amendments for a long time. That includes the Insurance Council of Australia, the construction industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council and the Australian Medical Association. It is a strong organisation with diverse membership. It is certainly not one-sided with respect to business and the labour movement. They have been actively pursuing the integrity of this scheme. The primary objective is if this scheme does not have integrity it will not survive commercially. I thank them for their contribution.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to bring this legislation into the House. It is a great win for the business community, for workers in general, and our community. Much needs to be looked at in the review. Charges for workers compensation claims within Australia need to be looked at. We talked about the integrity of this scheme; charges within Australia need to be looked at as well. I thank members for their contribution and I look forward to it passing.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Giles
Ms Lawrie Mrs Lambley
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes the question is found as an equality of votes.
Honourable members, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, I record my casting vote with the ayes. Accordingly, the question is resolved in the affirmative. In making this decision, I advise that I have listened very carefully to the debate today and have received detailed briefings, including on matters raised by some members today. I am convinced the legislation is fair and required.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 February 2012.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2011 (Serial 180) together with Schedule of Amendments No 71 circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 88, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 89:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I was going to move an amendment to section 89, but following the debate we had previously, in consultation with members, I withdraw the amendments I proposed and have a new amendment in place - clause 89(2)(b).
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. Is it the one circulated yesterday morning?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, no worries.
Mr CONLAN: Are we on clause 89(2)(b), minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the one circulated yesterday.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. What we have in that amendment is the Schedule 4 substance for treating the prescribed medical condition. I realise, under the next clause, the prescribed medical condition is now being defined as chlamydia - we have specified what it is. However, it still does not specify the particular drug, does it? It could be any drug on Schedule 4 that is treatment for chlamydia. It could be any Schedule 4 drug.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the prescribed medicine for chlamydia is under Schedule 4.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right. I understand that. It could be any Schedule 4 drug that is a treatment for chlamydia.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is a generic description; it does not specify in the act what drugs we use because today we use one particular medicine, tomorrow we change the medicine to another one. These medicines are listed on Schedule 4, so it is a medical decision of which particular medicine to use to treat chlamydia. You cannot specify in an act a name, either generic or otherwise, because medicines change. However, you have to use a medicine included in Schedule 4.
Mr CONLAN: I know. That is why it is still so uncomfortable for us over here, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you mentioned – I cannot remember the name of the drug …
Dr Burns: Azithromycin.
Mr ELFERINK: Azithromycin, thank you. Azithromycin has some pretty minor side effects - upset tummy, if you have a reaction to it at all. The first question I have is: are there any other broad spectrum antibiotics that could be added, or are already on, Schedule 4 that could also deal with a chlamydia-type infection?
Mr VATSKALIS: There are many antibiotics you can use to treat particular cases, but Azithromycin is chosen because you can use one dose and it has minimal side effects.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. However, nothing then prevents a doctor from prescribing something else for the condition of chlamydia - some broad spectrum, such as Amoxicillin or something like that.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am advised all the guidelines recommend Azithromycin rather than any other antibiotic, for obvious reasons.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but what I am saying is that, other than the guidelines, it is possible for another antibiotic to be used for this purpose, and for a doctor to use some sort of general, broad spectrum antibiotic if they chose to prescribe it. Yes?
Mr VATSKALIS: A doctor would not go away from the guidelines. The doctor usually seeks advice from the guidelines. The guidelines prescribe a particular medicine to be used for obvious reasons: minimal side effects, one dose, easy to use, and easily tolerated. Either a very stupid or very brave doctor would make their own decision about drugs in case there are some side effects he is not considering.
Mr ELFERINK: These guidelines are Health Department guidelines; they do not apply to all GPs. They go to their MIMS manual, do they not?
Mr VATSKALIS: The guidelines are issued by the college not the department.
Mr ELFERINK: There might be another drug for a chlamydia infection which, conceivably, could be added to Schedule 4 at a later date. Yes?
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely. If the college decided that was the most appropriate drug it would incorporate it in the guidelines. We provide the guidelines to doctors to follow.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, if there is a drug added to Schedule 4 which we, as legislators, know nothing about and may have some other side effects, or perhaps an anaphylactic response which we do not know about yet because the drug is limited - if the drug for a chlamydial infection is added to Schedule 4, we, as legislators, essentially lose control of this process because it is then done by regulation. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: As a matter of fact, the Northern Territory parliament has no control of medicine because all are approved by federal authority. These are included in the PBS and are considered for the treatment of various diseases. No parliament in Australia has control over medication. It is only the federal parliament, through federal authorities, which controls what medication is approved in Australia and this is done after exhaustive research. In this research they consider the possible side effects and the effectiveness of the drug. There is not a parliament in Australia, or in the world, that prescribes, in its legislation, particular medications.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not saying that. What I am saying is, as legislators, we effectively lose - if this is passed - control over what happens next. We have already been asked to sign up to something this parliament has rejected. We are now going for a compromised position on this last ditch position on what was, essentially, going to be a much broader policy. It now turns out that we are also going to lose control over what Schedule 4 substance can be applied to chlamydial infections.
Surely, we as legislators have already been asked to do something we have rejected. You are now asking us to do something more again.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am not asking you to do anything. Member for Port Darwin, the Australian government schedules drugs. Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 are included in this booklet issued by the Australian government. We adopt the standards and incorporate it in our legislation. It is under this Commonwealth decision that we can prescribe medicine. We have no say, no control, over the schedule and what is included here. It is only the federal parliament, through its federal authorities, that decides what is included in Schedule 3, Schedule 4 or Schedule 8. The doctors are authorised to prescribe medicine that is already included in the different schedules as approved by the Australian government.
I do not understand your train of thought. The reality is our legislation can only prescribe drugs included in the schedules - not a particular medicine, not a particular drug - with a trade name or generic name.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I understand what you are saying: we have signed up to an agreement where the schedules operate. Ultimately, even as a minister, you still have to tick off on these schedules when they occur. They are still regulatory instruments so they will change from time to time. I imagine it would be largely procedural. From a ministerial point of view, you are not going to argue with an august body that produces the manual and say: ‘No, you are wrong’. However, you have to remember where we are coming from in relation to this, and that is you are asking us to allow these drugs on Schedule 4 to be prescribed to people for chladymial infections when some of the people receiving the prescription will not have been examined. That is what has caused the resistance from this side of the House and, I understand, caused some resistance from the member for Nelson.
This was part of a much larger proposal to start with. The original proposal was to allow, and even through your amendment process, any nominated disease to be covered through the regulatory processes and that people can have third party Schedule 4/8 access to these drugs as part of non-presentation because they are the sexual partner of a person who may be infected. That probably is a long-winded way to express it. That has now been whittled down to a single disease because of the concerns raised in this House.
What this last bastion of defence is all about is chlamydia and nothing else that was intended to be captured by it. You have simply referred to a Schedule 4 drug for chlamydia. I am asking questions about Schedule 4 drugs and what we know about them. It appears they are passed, essentially, through the federal government and we would have to rubber stamp them on the way through, I presume. It is not what was intended and, for the record, minister, what is left of an original policy proposal strikes me more as saving face than having to abandon the policy outright. You are welcome to comment on that, of course.
There is another component about the legality of the third party prescription process. I was advised during a briefing yesterday that there was uncertainty surrounding the lawfulness of third party prescriptions and that it may even be lawful. So, I ask the obvious question: why are you changing the law if it can be done? Reference was made to a legal opinion, which I was subsequently told was a verbal legal opinion; however, a written one would be provided. I have not yet received that written legal opinion. Is it available at this stage, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: I asked for advice from the department with regard to the legislation and the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, as it stands now, is silent on the prescription of medication without a medical practitioner seeing the other party. Because it is silent, it cannot be decided as legal or illegal. Usually, it is legal or illegal if it is prescribed in the legislation. If the legislation is silent, you cannot define it as legal or illegal. What we are doing now ...
Mr ELFERINK: That is nonsense. I do not believe it.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, this is the opinion I have received.
Mr ELFERINK: Where is the written version of it?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is the opinion I received from my department following the review it did ...
Mr ELFERINK: That was a verbal opinion?
Mr VATSKALIS: ... and I tend to accept it. What we are doing now will specify in the legislation you are allowed to do that. Okay. I do not know which legal opinion you are referring to. If you make it clear to me, I might try to find out, but I doubt it very much. As I said before, the advice from the department is, currently, as the act stands, is silent.
Mr ELFERINK: I struggle with that answer and I will tell you why. First, I was told that legal opinion would be available and, during the briefing, I was told this was a verbal thing. It is not good enough to try to convince me, as a legislator, that you have spoken to a lawyer and he reckons it is okay, or he reckons that is the point. I need more than that to be convinced. If you want support for legislation, you are going to have to take a few more steps than to simply say: ‘Look, trust us, we have an opinion’.
The second component is this whole legislative instrument is structured around the control of these drugs in our community. This is why we have this law. This is why we say a doctor must see a person and give them a prescription which they take away. I picked up on what the member for Johnston said during the second reading speech. He said 43% of doctors do this third party thing anyhow. I do not care if they do or do not ...
Mr Conlan: Which means 57 do not.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is, I am concerned what we are trying to do is quite contrary to the government’s intention. A doctor would be foolhardy, in the least, to dish out prescriptions to people they have never seen. We believe that is why we put these types of legislation in place. I find it hard to believe government built this whole structure around the regulation of this drug, and then said, ‘We are unsure if the legislation has any effect at all in regard to the legality or illegality of giving third party prescriptions, because it is silent on the issue’. That is a pretty long bow to draw.
I am not going to bang on about this for hours because we have business to do. We have made our point. I am sure the member for Greatorex will have one or two things to say about it.
Minister, if you are going to refer to legal opinions, or if I am being offered legal opinions in written form, I ask they be forwarded to me so I can see what a lawyer has to say about it. It is not too much to ask when a large slice of your argument is based on the assertion that because the act is silent it may or may not be legal. I am unconvinced by you simply saying: ‘Yes, that is what we reckon, and a lawyer believes it’. It is unconvincing and not enough to make me change my mind to support what is, ultimately, a remnant compromise of an original policy.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I will make some comments here. I am not aware of any legal requirement for a medical practitioner to see a patient in order to write a prescription. I will give you an example. People may be travelling overseas to a zone where there is malaria and it may involve children. The parents may ask the medical practitioner for a prescription for a prophylactic dose of an anti-malarial. The child may not be present, the medical practitioner could ascertain the age of the child, whether the medication was suitable, and may give warnings - along with the pharmacist, of course - to the person who is requiring that prophylactic dose.
There are instances, member for Port Darwin, where doctors are not required to see the patient. There may well be requirements in some cases in relation to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The only requirement under law I am aware of about use of drugs is an exclusion. That is for Schedule 8 drugs and the use of morphine as a replacement for methadone. That is a requirement under the medical benefits scheme.
The point I am getting to is legislators can, and have, put regulations in place prohibiting the use of drugs for a certain use. However, it is a dangerous path we would be treading. I listened carefully to your language: we, as a parliament, are losing control over what is prescribed to people. We have to remember our doctors are very highly trained professionals, much background research and work is done on every pharmaceutical that comes onto the list within Australia, and doctors and pharmacists are quite aware of the potential side effects of drugs. It could well be - even outside what we are talking about here - that people are prescribed a particular drug. The pharmacist will always give a warning: ‘If you have an allergic reaction, fever, or diarrhoea, you should cease taking this medication’. When I spoke on this legislation previously I said there is an important step there - not only the prescription of the drug but the warning, the dispensing by the pharmacist, and the warning given by pharmacists.
I listened to your language, member for Port Darwin, and kept thinking: ‘we, as legislators’? Most of us are probably not even qualified as legislators. We are elected, we learn about legislation. You, as a lawyer might be, but the rest of us have to learn as ministers. We have to preside over portfolios we may not have technical expertise in. We deal with legislation in this parliament where probably none of us have technical expertise. It is dangerous for us to say we are going to dictate the circumstances by which a drug will be prescribed to someone by a qualified medical practitioner. It is a dangerous path. I am prepared to leave those decisions to our medical practitioners in the Northern Territory. They work together, from the Top End to Central Australia, about the drugs they prescribe and the circumstances they prescribe them in. The Northern Territory is quite unique in that we have specialists and GPs working closely together with clinical guidelines about what should be prescribed for certain conditions. There are checks and balances in there.
In summary, it is a dangerous path for us to say we are going to dictate which drugs should be used; it is really a clinical judgment by a medical practitioner. There are fail-safe devices in regard to the pharmacist dispensing the drugs, and I am quite satisfied with the legislation as put forward by the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that. Far be it from me to argue with a doctor of pharmacology on issues of drugs; however, if we follow your argument we are not qualified to make any legislation about this at all. Why not repeal the whole act and say the medical profession can sort it out?
Dr Burns: I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: That is your logic because we are not qualified. I will tell you what qualifies us ...
Mr Conlan: We are not going to make any decisions is what you said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What qualifies us is the fact we are elected. We are elected to bring to bear upon legislative instruments not only the expertise of medical professionals, but also the opinions of our own electorates. Uninformed as the great unwashed might be - and we represent the great unwashed with our lack of expertise - the fact is we pass reams of legislation. We just passed a law five minutes ago about workers compensation of which I have no major history but am asked to pass a law on. That is what the system implies. Your argument is: ‘We cannot dictate anything’. How thick is this bill? How many pages is this bill?
Mr Conlan: One hundred and fifty-three.
Mr ELFERINK: It is 153 pages of not qualified. No, that is not how the system works. The system works when government says: ‘We have some health practitioners who think this would be a good change’. It is then up to government to convince people in this House that it is a good change. The fact is, for the large slice of what government wanted to achieve, you have been unable to convince this House. What government wanted was this very broad policy which enabled this process of third party prescriptions for anything the government regulated for. It has now been whittled down to a single condition.
I am already critical that we have a compromise - a vastly reduced compromise - of an original policy. I do not accept the argument that because the doctors say so we do it. There are things doctors do I do not necessarily agree with despite the fact I am not qualified. I am still entitled to an opinion. I represent a community, as do you and everybody else in this House.
Dr BURNS: I will respond to that because it is an interesting statement from the member for Port Darwin. Of course, we have controls in the act, and that is why the act runs to 150 or 250 pages. There are already schedules for drugs within the act. In some cases, they are almost schedules within schedules. No one is saying there is open slather. What we are talking about is Schedule 4 drugs.
Even in a therapeutic sense, there are limits in prescriptions through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Even if a drug or an antibiotic happens to be a Schedule 4, it can only be prescribed in certain circumstances. In some cases, it can only be prescribed with authority. There are already checks and balances within the current system: first, in the scheduling in the act; and second, in the clinical guidelines and professional judgments of doctors.
That is all I will say. I am not saying it is open slather. I am not saying there are no controls, only clinical controls and clinical decisions. I am saying there are whole layers controlled by the very fact of scheduling of drugs.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, could you explain to us the change? I want to understand the change. You have started off with any prescribed condition and, now, we have what feels like a compromise. Seriously, it feels like it is a bit of a ‘save face’ bill, or a ‘save face’ clause because you have gone from a ‘prescribed condition’ to chlamydia. Why the change? Why not chlamydia in the first place?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is not a compromise. It was during a discussion I had with the member for Nelson, and his comments made that we specify chlamydia and, then, for any other prescribed condition - a condition to be prescribed in regulations. His comment was: ‘What about bringing it to parliament so parliament can assess the other conditions?’ I thought this was a fair comment. That is why I left chlamydia.
However, looking at clause 89 from the very beginning, and reading through it, a doctor can give a prescription but commits an offence if the prescriber issues a prescription for the supply of Schedule 4 or 8 for the patient’s therapeutic use or treating a medical condition of the patient, and gives the prescription to a person other than the patient. If a doctor has given a prescription, unless the prescription is for you or your child or someone you are the carer for, he commits an offence.
What we do here for any disease - not a particular disease, any disease - is say they are only allowed to do that for a partner and for chlamydia; no other condition. It is very specific that a doctor is allowed to issue a prescription for the administration of Azithromycin for a patient with chlamydia. It clearly specifies what the conditions are. When I read it, it becomes very clear this amendment will put severe restrictions on where you are allowed to prescribe a Scheduled 4 drug to a partner the doctor has not seen. It is only for chlamydia.
Mr WOOD: I would like to give an explanation of why I asked the government to change the bill. It was in relation to the debate we had at the previous sittings. I listened carefully to the debate at that time. I felt this was the first time we have moved down this path, and thought it would be good to do that carefully because nearly all the discussion we had about this bill related to chlamydia. Then there was a clause added which said: ‘Another medical condition prescribed by regulations’. That, for me, was a bridge too far. Bearing in mind this is new legislation - and good legislation for a particular purpose - I thought it would be good if we took one step at a time.
There has been considerable debate in this House about this bill. Some people have doubts as to whether this is a good way for drugs to be prescribed. However, when we weigh up the risk to young people and look at the statistics, sometimes we have to weigh up the benefits against a procedure which might go against what is normally done.
I asked the government if it would reconsider it, bearing in mind what the opposition was saying at the time. It was concerned about the proposed amended amendment to be debated at the previous sittings, which said prescribed medical conditions means (a) chlamydia or (b) another medical condition prescribed by regulation. I felt that was too broad and it would be wiser to take up some of the concerns the opposition and I had, which was we moved from a debate which, in briefings, was generally about chlamydia, looking at statistics throughout the Territory on the occurrence of chlamydia, and also understanding the effects chlamydia had on women and men. When you look at those statistics you see an alarming increase in this disease. The debate was, generally speaking, about this disease. I asked the government to consider keeping the changes to the bill specific to the medical condition we were talking about. That is why this particular amendment to the bill has come forward.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am glad the member for Nelson has given an explanation of his perspective. I add one more thing to the conversation we were having across the floor about Azithromycin. I am advised under the regulations to this act Azithromycin will be the specified drug. No drug other than Azithromycin can be prescribed for chlamydia. It may well be treatments for chlamydia change and there may be a drug in the future that supersedes Azithromycin.
The process for changes of regulations in regard to dangerous drugs - Schedule 8 drugs etcetera - come up through a process to Cabinet, and Cabinet signs off on it. In the Northern Territory, that process would come through the Chief Health Officer of the Department of Health who, at present I believe, is Dr Barbara Paterson, who has been around a long time. Barbara Paterson would be working on advice from clinicians such as Vicki Krause and all those others in Clinic 34. They would probably be consulting with someone like Professor Frank Bowden, one of the foremost experts on sexually-transmitted infections in Australia. They would be consulting with the Australian College.
I have had a bit to do with this. These decisions are not made by one person no matter how eminent they are. There would be consultation at the local level between clinicians - those who visit remote communities, those who are in the hospital, and certainly those who work in general practice. Any recommendation to Cabinet to change the regulations is not just at the stroke of a pen; there is an exhaustive process. I believe we can take comfort in that.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, to add to that, I was very comforted by the e-mail I received from Paul Bauert, the AMA President, who said following his discussions with public health clinicians he was assured the benefits of the practice would vastly outweigh any perceived risks.
Mr CONLAN: I will save my comments for the third reading. We can go back and forth in the detail. We do not support the amendment or the clause, but I will make those comments clear in the third reading speech.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am going to ask your guidance here. I had discussions with Xavier Schobben, the CEO of Environmental Health, about a definition in relation to this bill which I probably should have brought up earlier. It was in relation to whether herbicides were covered under this act.
Madam CHAIR: If we could dispose of the amendment you can then ask questions before we look to the remainder of the bill, member for Nelson.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, it was a question in relation to another part of the bill. There has been a huge amount of discussion on this one clause - which is really important, do not get me wrong - but this bill covers many other areas that have not had much debate, especially in the area of poisons used by people in the agricultural and horticultural areas.
The one area I was concerned about was I was unsure whether herbicides - which I believe is the correct name for what are sometimes commonly called weedicides - are covered under the definition of pesticides. Pesticides are the only things mentioned in relation to the types of poisons used in the agricultural industry, but there is no definition of herbicides. I need clarification of whether it is covered under this act.
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is herbicides fall into the definition of a pesticide.
Mr WOOD: My concern, coming from that background, was a pest was generally an insect and a weed, generally, probably is a pest too. The reason they call it herbicide is weedicide has copyright and is why they moved to that. Thank you, minister. At least we have that clarified and it covers any concern I had.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for taking such an interest in this. I am glad we are a little further down the track - not as far as we would have liked as an opposition. To us, there is so much wrong with this clause it is hard to know where to begin. The more we have unpacked it the more we have found wrong with it, and inconsistent with what we stand for as a conservative party. We do not believe in dumbing down people’s responsibilities, and this is exactly what this does.
In the few minutes I have in this third reading speech, I will respond to some of the remarks by the minister for Education, the member for Johnston. One of the glaringly obvious concerns I had with this was child abuse. I could see the eyes boring into the back of my head and people looking at me saying: ‘Conlan, you are off your rocker if you think this has anything to do with child abuse’. I could not disagree more. To me, it is so blatantly obvious in the climate we have in the Northern Territory where child abuse, under all administrations, has been a major problem.
Yes, we believe child abuse and child protection in the Northern Territory under this government has plummeted every further. Nevertheless, it has always been a problem and an issue in the Northern Territory. With that said, and in this climate, the Country Liberals cannot support something that could perhaps leave the door slightly ajar for a child sex offender to cover his or her tracks. I firmly believe that is possible.
The minister said the regulations specify the age of the person. Perhaps we should put the age of the person in the bill. If it is in the regulation, why can it not go in the bill? However, why go that far? We do not agree with the clause. There was a fair bit of toing and froing when it came to whether we compromise. Do we specify in the bill children under the age of 16 years of age? Do we specify children over the age of 16? Do we even need to put children in there because they come under the Care and Protection of Children Act and that is covered in the Criminal Code itself? We had some pretty rigorous debate about whether or not we include that. However, at the end of the day, we do not support the clause for those reasons.
I do not support this bill for that reason. That was my main objection to it and, as I began to unpack and discuss the bill with my colleagues around the shadow cabinet table, another concern came to light: the issue of extended partner therapy, or EPT, as it is known in the United States. The member for Johnston specified the pharmacist asks a number of questions when drugs are being dispensed or issued across the counter. The responsibility is moved from the patient to the doctor, now to the pharmacist. The pharmacist is left carrying the can.
The only question I am ever asked when I go to the pharmacist is: ‘Will it be sign or pin?’ No one ever asks me whether I have a reaction. They might add: ‘Ensure you do not take these on an empty stomach’. That is about it; no one questions who I am. If someone has a prescription filled on my behalf, no one asks anything. Okay, sure, you are supposed to check. ‘I have this prescription for John Smith, and I would like to have this filled for John Smith, thank you very much’. The pharmacist, I assume, is required to ascertain who John Smith is and how old he is. Is there a requirement for that? The member for Johnston would know; I do not know. No one has ever asked for identification or proof of age. The medication could be for anyone - absolutely anyone.
My fear is that person may well be a child who has been a victim of child sexual abuse and the perpetrator is trying to cover that up. As remote as that might be - and I can feel people thinking: ‘Oh Conlan, you are nuts. As if! The benefits far outweigh that. The risks are so minimal’. However, if we are talking about that type of issue why even run the risk? Why would you leave the door even that far ajar, particularly in the climate we have in the Northern Territory. The landscape of child abuse is rife - absolutely rife. There is that. I could oppose this whole thing on that alone - just on that alone - and we will be.
Then, of course, there are other concerns. My colleagues and even the member for Nelson have spoken on this bill; about providing medication to someone who has not seen or been assessed by a GP, and whether or not that medication is appropriate. We still have not drilled down to the specific type of medication; it is just a Schedule 4 drug - an S4 drug. While it might be a particular drug at the moment, it could be anything. It is still an S4 drug.
Who is to say a person may not have some sort of reaction to that? Who is to say that person is unaware of the dose they have been given? Some members have mentioned sprinkling it on your Weet-Bix or whatever. As far-fetched as that may be, it can still happen. Who knows? I do not know. This goes to the heart of our core principles; that is, we seem to be dumbing this down and abrogating people of their own responsibility. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves, for our own actions, and for our own community.
That is what I cannot get my head around: because someone is too embarrassed, too ashamed, too shy - or too lazy, is probably more like it - to turn up to a doctor, maybe drop their daks, maybe have a check up and say: ‘I am infected with chlamydia’, or ‘Something is wrong, can you have a look at me, please?’ As embarrassing as it is – well, I do not like going to a doctor and having the under carriage checked out. Who does?. However, we all have to do it. As embarrassing as that might be, if it is a female doctor, or a male doctor vice versa - so what? Close your eyes and get on with it! That is the type of society we have to have; we have to live up to those responsibilities.
I cannot support legislation where it allows someone who will not do that to get off, essentially, scot-free. That person does not have to do it; someone else can do it for them. That is the biggest stumbling block for me. Someone else receiving the prescription without being seen by the doctor is one thing, the potential for child sexual abuse is another, and they all tie in to the issue about people not taking responsibility because they are too embarrassed, too shy, or whatever it is. Too lazy is probably a large part of it. Who knows why - I will not go into it - but to front up to a doctor, have a check up, receive the prescription directly from the GP, go to a chemist and have it filled, take the dose, and take some responsibility for yourself, for your family, and for your community - I do not see what is wrong with that. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are legislating to abrogate those people.
One of the first orders of business for the Country Liberals government will be to repeal this. We have made a commitment in our shadow cabinet room that it will be repealed because the potential Country Liberals’ government will not abrogate people of their responsibilities. Individual responsibility is a core principle of the Country Liberals, and a potential Country Liberals’ government, and we cannot dumb these things down because someone is too lazy, embarrassed, or for whatever reason. We will not be supporting the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I can disagree over many things with the member for Greatorex, but I will not disagree with the need to provide protection for children from sexual abuse, or any abuse.
I am disappointed that, because the member for Greatorex does not have enough information, or for other reasons, he believes this particular amendment will mask sexual abuse. Before the bill came to parliament, in the drafting stage, I asked for wide consultation. One of the things I asked was whether this will contribute to masking sexual abuse of children. The department consulted with people such as Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner; Clare Gardiner-Barnes, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families; Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician; Dr Steven Skov; Dr Barbara Paterson; Dr Vicki Krause; Dr Paul Bauert; Dr David Chapman; Dr Rob Parker and the Public Health Association of Australia; Royal College of Physicians; General Practitioner Network NT; and Australasian Chapter of Sexual Health Medicine and the response was it will not mask sexual abuse.
There is a legal obligation for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and teachers to report sexual abuse if they realise there are sexual relations between an adult and a child over a certain age. I also asked whether this had been done in Australia previously, and was pleased to read in the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, in 2011 the society endorsed these guidelines for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis in the Illawarra/Shoalhaven local health network in New South Wales. It happens somewhere else.
The other misconception is someone can turn up to a doctor and get a prescription. No, someone has to see a doctor, be examined, be diagnosed with chlamydia, and the doctor will ask if that person has a sexual partner as there is no point treating only one person because chlamydia is highly infectious. You can treat one person, get them well; however, if they continue to have sexual intercourse with their partner who is still infected, the infection will return. We have to treat both partners.
For various reasons, one of the partners may not want to go. The other thing is to start concurrent treatment of both parties if you want good results. After all, a single dose medicine will cure chlamydia and, considering in the past five years the number of chlamydia cases in Australia increased by 500%, this is a serious health risk. Chlamydia is especially prevalent in young people, affecting women severely and seriously and, in some cases, making them sterile.
The bill is a brand new bill; a very good bill. The particular section worrying the member for Greatorex was clause 89. Clause 89 now puts severe restrictions on where particular medicines can be provided to a partner without the partner presenting to the doctor. I do not believe this particular section will mask sexual abuse. On the contrary, this section will reduce the incidence of chlamydia among adults in the Northern Territory, and in Australia, because people have partners from other states of Australia.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010, for provision of travel and communication entitlements for members of Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for calendar year 2011, containing the annual schedule of government payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense.
I also table a schedule of ministerial and Leader of the Opposition mobile phone expenses during calendar year 2011.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 23 February 2012.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I can advise the House that we have given serious consideration to the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory note, and also spoken to people around town in relation to this amendment and, as such, the opposition will be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Well, I am staggered at times, Madam Speaker. You would think the member for Fong Lim would give this more than 30 seconds because it is quite an important bill. I am amazed sometimes when I hear statements in this House that there is not enough work. If we dealt with every bill like that we could be here for a day, which might not be a bad thing after all.
I hope we spend a little more time dealing with some of the important bills that have come before parliament. This bill is important to the building industry, something I would have thought the member for Fong Lim is a great supporter of. The reason it has been brought in is to assist the building industry where it has had difficulties previously dealing with disability access to premises.
My understanding is there was no way a certifier could appeal about the design of a house which would not have disability access without causing major problems to the building from a cost point of view, a design point of view, or a heritage point of view. We have a bill today which allows that to occur.
I would like to go to committee. I do not have any major questions, just a few small points I would like to raise. They might be a typing error, or me not reading it correctly. I would like to go to committee stage.
It is a straightforward, important bill for the building industry, especially in the Territory where there are a number of heritage buildings. We have the Myilly Point Heritage Precinct and other buildings which you would not want to destroy simply because there is a requirement under section 64 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth that is not so strictly enforced; that buildings of heritage quality, or buildings where it would be impractical - without perhaps buying the next door neighbour’s front yard - to put in facilities that would cover the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It is an important bill and it will be welcomed by the industry because it gives them an opportunity for a method of appeal where they believe having to abide by the existing legislation will be too harsh.
Madam Speaker, I will ask further questions during the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The member for Fong Lim made a rather more significant contribution to the debate here this evening. About an hour-and-a-half ago he used some very serious psychology to alert me I was in for it; there were going to be a real serious challenge. I took it in good faith because the member for Fong Lim always participates in great robust debate in this House. I added another trick to my arsenal because I learn from members in this House; I learn every step of the way and I spend much time here learning.
I thank the member for Fong Lim, as the shadow for Lands and Planning, for his support because, as the member for Nelson outlined, it is an important bill. It is important for the Territory and important in relation to the national building scene. Rising to conclude the debate is important because it recognises the incredible amount of work the staff of the Department of Lands and Planning have done. Once again, we have worked together and worked hard on this bill, as in others, and have brought it to the House in good faith for Territorians and are very proud of the outcomes.
The member for Nelson made several points in debate. It is assisting the building industry, that is correct, but it is also assisting Territorians and owners of buildings. He went on, rightly so, to say at the moment under the Commonwealth legislation around disability access there is no right of appeal and the Commonwealth has instructed the states and territories to put that right. That is what this bill does.
Another very good example from the member for Nelson was about heritage buildings. What this bill brings to the House - one small element is around alternative solutions, and that is what it is about. It is about good common sense and about supporting Territorians. Therefore, opportunities will be allowed for alternative solutions.
However, it is important to highlight the incredible work done by the department, by government, by my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues to go through and outline the other key points this legislation brings to the House. In regard to what we have termed the housekeeping details, some important changes will occur through the passage of this legislation - the conditions on registration of builders. The bill allows the Building Practitioners Board to place conditions on a registration where, for example, the board is of the view the experience of the applicant does not cover the full scope of work in a particular category. That can be taken as a positive because if a person does not have that experience they can continue to be part of the industry but will have conditions on registration.
In relation to the period of registration for builders, the bill spreads out the dates for registration as a once off which resulted from registration commencing in 2006. Rather than having all registrations fall due on the one date, it is proposed the new registration date will be the contractor’s birth date. That is a logical way to develop and create efficiency in processing builder registration.
Another housekeeping point was the appeal for accreditation of building products. The Building Advisory Committee considers applications for building products to be included in the Deemed to Comply Manual; however, there is currently no right of appeal. This bill allows appeals to be made to the Building Appeals Board - another good outcome of this legislation.
Some key points around the disability access provisions are the Commonwealth disability standards commenced on 1 May 2011 and states and territories were encouraged to consider amending respective building legislation to align the operation of the standards; for instance, to enable the consideration of unjustifiable hardship applications, as the member for Nelson talked about briefly. Some states had established non-legislative bodies, or bodies within already established boards, to consider matters of unjustifiable hardship. Of course, it is now the Territory’s turn.
The only certainty building owners, developers, and certifiers have to avoid a successful claim in a Federal Court is to use the Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions in the Building Code of Australia. Unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act is a complaints-based system. This means a person may apply to the Disability Discrimination Commissioner or a Federal Court alleging they have been unlawfully discriminated against in relation to access to premises. In other words, unlawful discrimination is a matter that is considered after the building work has taken place.
The building certification process operates prospectively. In other words, if a person obtains a building permit they can have comfort they will comply if they build in accordance with that permit. The provisions in this bill will offer the greatest certainty for applicants who seek to depart from the Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions before they commence the building work. This is because disability access and decisions about unlawful discrimination are a Commonwealth matter, but the standards expressly state one of the matters a Federal Court will consider is to determine unjustifiable hardship - a decision of a state or territory body.
Some states and territories have bodies that can modify and make decisions that a provision of the Building Code of Australia applies in a particular circumstance. The Northern Territory and Victoria are such jurisdictions. It is possible for a person to apply to the Building Appeals Board to seek a modification or departure from any provision in the Building Code of Australia, including a disability access provision. The board considers such applications against a public interest test. It is not, however, a decision on the basis of unjustifiable hardship. This bill will allow a person to apply to the Building Appeals Board to seek a modification or departure from an access provision in the Building Code of Australia on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship. The board will assess the application against the same grounds set out in the standards.
It was certainly a directive from the Commonwealth; a matter that had to be worked through in the Territory. Once again, we have achieved a good outcome, not only for the builder but also the owner, the developer, and the public in recognising this is a very important issue. It is about being able to provide alternatives where they are necessary.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, and we will now move into committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: My questions will not take much time. Minister, in relation to a building approved by the Building Appeals Board, for instance not to be modified, what weight is put on their decision if someone decides to object to that ruling under the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992?
Mr McCARTHY: Could I have some clarification, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: The bill says decisions of the Building Appeals Board cannot override the requirements of Commonwealth legislation. Consequently, the making of a disability access decision does not prevent a person from making a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to a contravention of a disability access provision.
Even though the Building Appeals Board has given approval for the builder or the building certifier not to go ahead with any changes or just add modifications, can that Building Appeals Board ruling be used in an argument if someone brings a case against that person under the Discrimination Disability Act 1992? In other words, can a fair bit of weight be applied by that appeal ruling?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised it certainly will be given weight. Under the Commonwealth act, they will take account of the Building Appeals Board process and decision. That will be factored in and they will work in parallel, so to speak. So, yes, it will be taken into consideration by the process, by the court, and will be given that weight.
Mr WOOD: My next question relates to clause 10 in the explanatory notes where it says section 53 is replaced. I am unsure if I am reading this correctly because I do not have the original bill with me, but it says: ‘This clause repeals and inserts existing section 53’. Why would you insert the existing section 53 in an existing section 53? Is something wrong with the explanatory notes, or is it me?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I am advised that was a drafting procedure and some of the matters from section 54 were moved to section 53.
Mr WOOD: If the drafter said so I will have to believe him. However, the wording for the layman sounds like you inserted the existing clause back into the existing clause.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I am advised it is a simple change. There is no change to the content. It was simply taken out of one section, redrafted in the other, and clause 16 explains that procedure.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. That is usually the case with some of this legislation. You get the explanation three pages afterwards, not the same page.
Just for my sake - and other people might be interested - can you give us a quick summary of the difference between alternative solution decisions and access modification decisions. Looking at those two definitions, I do not see much difference. I can see the difference in the wording, but they seem to say more or less the same thing. I know there are two sections on it, which talk quite a bit about it. However, it seems to me if you say something is an alternative solution decision that would also include a modification decision. I want to know why two different definitions are required, not just a simple alternative solution decision.
Mr McCARTHY: I will take those one at a time. Member for Nelson, I am advised an alternative solution has to be signed off by a certifier as a final decision. The Building Appeals Board has the final decision on the access modification.
Mr WOOD: Well, that gives me some idea. That, perhaps, explains why in section 129J(4) and (5), you have a different approach to how a person can inspect. An alternative solution decision is done through the Registrar, and an access modification decision is done through the chairperson of the Building Appeals Board. That makes sense; it fits in what you are saying. I will study that again because it is something that, as a local member, I may have people query. I probably need to get a better hold on what that means in relation to the changes. I said it was only going to be short, and there is nothing else I want to question. Thank you, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Nelson. It is with good faith I say yes, I really enjoyed working through this with the experts. You are most welcome. Should you have any questions about the legislation please let us know and we will provide access to the experts to work through it with you.
Bill agreed to, without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the government can relax, we will be supporting this bill. However, with a tinge of regret in one respect, we have supported the changeover - I note the staffers are getting into the advisor’s box, you will not be there for long - with a tinge of angst about our federal system. Whilst we, on this side of the House, have agreed with this for the good commercial reasons that exist to support these changes, preliminary bills were passed some time ago. This bill completes the transition of the Business Names Register, essentially, from the Northern Territory to control of a federal government department.
The reason I express a pang of angst over this is it is another small erosion of state rights or Territory rights transitioning to a national government. Whilst I support this legislative instrument and understand the good commercial reasons for it, I reiterate the Country Liberals’ position: we will only support these forms of legislation if they are good for the Northern Territory.
Curiously, this arrangement between the states and the federal government, particularly when Labor states ruled supreme, was a one-way street. There seems to be very little devolution of decision-making powers back to the states. There are a number of areas where such devolution would be worthwhile considering, particularly when you consider the vertical fiscal imbalance as it currently exists. However, this is a step along the road to rationalisation of business names nationally. This is the final step; after it leaves this House we shall not utter the words business names legislation again. As indicated the last time around, the government can continue to expect support in relation to this legislation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. It has been a number of years coming, as other members ...
Mr Elferink: You are trying to make the advisors’ trip worthwhile.
Dr BURNS: No, I love to speak on these bills. It has been three years between the time the intergovernmental agreement was signed in relation to business names and the passage of this bill in this parliament. It will achieve the goal of having a single national scheme for the registration and regulation of business names.
There is no doubt business names can cause much friction. We have seen the instance of some very well-known multinationals taking on small coffee shops and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, can you come to the point of the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance. There can be friction; there can be dispute about business names. There have been instances of large multinationals getting upset because small coffee shops have adopted a name somewhat like the multinational name. We need to have some uniformity not only to protect the big players, but also the smaller players across jurisdictions. This bill, I am advised, will make it easier for businesses to register their business names across jurisdictions, cut red tape and, presumably, expense, and also give greater protection to those business names which, of course, is very important. Names like the Australian Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party - I do not know whether they are business names, but they are brands each party protects.
As the minister said in his second reading speech on 20 October 2011, this parliament passed the Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Request Act 2011. That commenced in late 2011, and was a process for transferring the responsibility for Northern Territory business names to the Commonwealth. This bill is the second and final step and meets our obligations nationally. Basically, it is all about the migration of data to the Commonwealth. I am sure our public servants, some of whom are sitting in the box today, will work very hard and facilitate that process. It repeals our Business Names Act which, of course, is necessary for this whole process to occur. There are a number of transitional matters this bill will attend to and any outstanding matters prior to the changeover day.
It also provides, as was said in the second reading speech - I am unsure who the Attorney-General was at that time. Anyway, the second reading speech alluded to the fact the act provides the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs must notify the Commonwealth, ASIC, that certain outstanding matters are to be held on the Commonwealth Business Name Register until they are finally dealt with in the Northern Territory. These are migration issues to be dealt with.
This bill is consistent with bills introduced in other jurisdictions. I commend the bill. It is moving forward to a national system. I commend our Northern Territory Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, who has a difficult task. He always has to be on guard against unscrupulous operators, people who want to fleece Northern Territorians, people who are trying to get an advantage, even through a business name. He has a very difficult area to police, but he does a great job.
Finally, Madam Speaker, at about 4.53 pm …
Mr Elferink: We are going to committee I have realised.
Dr BURNS: Are you going to committee?
Mr Elferink: Yes, I do not know why yet, but I will let you know.
Dr BURNS: Oh, that is lovely. I commend the bill to honourable members and will leave the wrap-up to the minister. The member for Port Darwin has realised he needs to take this to committee.
Mr Elferink: I am going to ask some questions, that is all.
Dr BURNS: He has some questions. Well, that is the parliamentary process.
Mr Elferink: I do not know what they are yet, but I will let you know.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution on this fairly innocuous bill. This bill represents the second and final phase of the process to transfer responsibility for regulating business names from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. It harks back to the Howard government and its initiative around a seamless economy. I acknowledge the impetus for this bill.
Members will all recall the first phase, passage of the Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Request Act in this parliament in October last year. The passage of these two acts by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly demonstrates our commitment to the 2009 intergovernmental agreement for business names. In that agreement, all jurisdictions agreed to establish a single national scheme for the registration, also the regulation, of business names. This is highly important in today’s terms, not only for our national protection of intellectual property, but also Australian businesses operating globally.
This new national scheme is to be administered by ASIC, and is currently scheduled to commence on 28 May. That is subject to all states and territories passing transitional and consequential legislation. With the passage of this bill today the only remaining state is Western Australia, and that is expected to be passed in the coming weeks.
This national scheme will reduce the red tape and regulation burden on business, which we are certainly all about. It will give them nationwide protection for their business name, and will allow them to conduct the ABN business name and company transaction through one federal agency, through an online portal. That portal increasingly seems to be the way to go.
I acknowledge the work of the Territory Business Centres who assist people, and the great work the department of Business does in that respect.
It has also significantly reduced the cost of business name registration in multiple jurisdictions across Australia. Increasingly, I would imagine, Territory businesses are doing that.
This bill contains the necessary transitional and consequential amendments for the Commonwealth to commence regulating for business names in the Northern Territory. It ensures the orderly transition of administrative and other operational arrangements, particularly - as the Education minister spoke about - the migration of business names data to the Commonwealth. It also repeals the NT’s Business Names Act 2007 and fixes some cross-references across the statute book.
The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Gary Clements, did a great job. He has been extensively consulted in the development of this bill, and I extend my gratitude to his staff for their assistance. Also, the department of Business has been instrumental in the development of the policy and will play a significant ongoing role in the national scheme.
Prior to the changeover to the national scheme in May, ASIC will be touring the country giving a series of seminars for the business community and informing them about the new national scheme. The road show will visit Darwin on 24 April this year, and educational material about the new scheme will be rolled out by ASIC on their website. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce and the department of Business will be assisting in that regard, as well as the Department of Justice. There is a communications plan around this. There will also be a notice in the Business Territory newsletter and the e-newsletter. There will be mail-outs from DBE to a significant number of businesses. Much communication will go out, including to the legal and accounting fraternity.
Madam Speaker, this is good legislation. It is a good initiative to make it easier for businesses to get their name registered, to protect their business name, to bring some uniformity to the registration of the business, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, these are just general information questions, and if the minister wants to be fulsome and long in his answers, I do not mind.
You referred to a changeover day in May. What date is that?
Mr KNIGHT: What day of the week?
Mr ELFERINK: No. What date?
Mr KNIGHT: 28 May.
Mr ELFERINK: 28 May. Okay. On what date does this bill we pass now become operative? What day are you expecting assent?
Mr KNIGHT: We are trying to get to Executive Council on 10 April, so it will be gazetted about mid-April.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of clarification, I note the back of the bill refers to repeal of the Northern Territory legislation. You are expecting the changeover day to be 28 May and 10 April for assent for this bill. That leaves a gap of six weeks. What is the effect on business names in the Northern Territory when there is no overarching bill governing them for a period of six weeks?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised this legislation prescribes the act being repealed continues until 28 May when this act is ...
Mr ELFERINK: I am trying to look at it now; give me a second.
Mr KNIGHT: Part 1.2(2) refers to Parts 3 and 4.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am looking at clause 29. Is that the section that refers?
Mr KNIGHT: The repeal?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the repeal of the Business Names Act 2007.
Mr KNIGHT: Part 3, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is Part 3, clause 29, so I am reading the same bit. Where can I be directed to find that this bill remains operative until 28 May? All I see is a repeal date and the Business Names Act of 2007 is repealed. I am still worried about the 10 April to 28 May issue.
Mr KNIGHT: The current act will continue until such time as the ‘changeover day’. The definition of the ‘changeover day’ means the day the Commonwealth passes its legislation the current act is repealed and this legislation takes effect.
Mr ELFERINK: You understand my concern is, on the answers I have received so far, you have nominated 10 April, essentially, as when this bill receives assent. No, there is a shaking of heads in the advisor’s box. 10 April is not right?
Mr KNIGHT: Parts 1 and 2, which are the operational parts of the legislation, take effect from around 10 April when they are assented to, and Parts 3 and 4 take effect on the changeover day.
Mr ELFERINK: Can you point out the section in Parts 1 or 2 that give that directive?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 2 …
Mr ELFERINK: Whereabouts in Part 2?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 1.2(1) says:
So, everything other than Parts 3 and 4, which are on the changeover date ...
Mr ELFERINK: The part number so I can read it?
Mr KNIGHT: It is Part 1.2(1).
Mr ELFERINK: Part 1.2(1). Now I understand. Part 3, which deals with repeal of the legislation, does not come into force …
Mr KNIGHT: Until the Commonwealth …
Mr ELFERINK: My understanding of how this is going to work is at 2959 hours and 59 seconds on 2 May the Business Names Act is repealed and, at one second past midnight on 28 May, the Commonwealth act takes over. There is no capacity for any form of claim jumping on business names created by a hole left behind?
Mr KNIGHT: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that is fine. I knew it was going to be in there somewhere, I just needed somebody to join the dots for me. It would have been an oversight the department would have turned its attention to.
Minister, can you take me through the cost structure that currently applies to business names and that will apply under the new arrangements?
Mr KNIGHT: Under this, intergovernment agreement fees are to be set by reference to the fee in the lowest fee jurisdiction, plus CPI. As the NT has the lowest fee - currently $66 for three years - this means it will be a small increase on the fee; that is, the CPI. The proposed national fee for business names registration will now be $70 - the NT rate plus CPI for three years. Additionally, the new fee covers the whole of Australia which means there will be substantial savings for businesses who want to operate under one business name in more than one jurisdiction.
To give you an idea of the current fees around Australia: ACT is $151; New South Wales, $160; Queensland, $133 - this is for a three-year period - South Australia, $159; Tasmania, $140; Victoria, $85; and Western Australia, $90. It is bringing everyone back to the Northern Territory rate.
Mr ELFERINK: Bully for us. We have changed a national scheme.
This is to guide me through it to ensure we have covered off on it. In Division 4, clause 16 of the bill, which is Appeals and Revocation of Cancellation of Business Names ...
Mr KNIGHT: Was that Division 4 ...
Mr ELFERINK: Clause 16. If you go to clause 16 on page 9 you will find it.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: It refers to the Local Court, which I presume is the court with original jurisdiction over these matters. Where it refers to the Local Court, I presume it is Local Court in the Northern Territory. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Why have we not included the Supreme Court in that in case of any appellant matter?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised the way the systems works in the Territory is it has been handled by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and any action currently under way would, effectively, stay in the Local Court. There is nothing here which refers to the Supreme Court. Matters are dealt with in the Local Court.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but if somebody is unsatisfied with the Local Court determination, does the absence of the Supreme Court in this section have the effect of shutting down an avenue of appeal?
Mr KNIGHT: There are two parts to this; this is, prior to commencement and post-commencement. If matters are currently under way with respect to a business name, this says a matter currently in the Local Court – which is only allowed to be in the Local Court under the current legislation - would stay in the Local Court. Post-commencement of the legislation, it goes through the federal system - the Federal Courts. Everything past that date goes through the federal system.
If someone was unsuccessful in their action which commenced prior to commencement in the Local Court, they could reapply through ASIC and go through the federal judicial system. Does that make sense?
Mr ELFERINK: I understand. The challenge is having to commence after the commencement. Anyone listening in the gallery is probably saying: ‘What?’ However, I get what you mean.
We can be reassured then, if an action taken in the lower court, for whatever reason, has an appeal attached to it, the appeal can be heard under the new system after the changeover date in a court with federal jurisdiction.
Mr KNIGHT: No, no, that is not what I said. If there is an action at the moment, their only avenue under the current legislation for a current matter is with the Local Court. That claim will be exhausted in the Local Court. If they were unhappy with the decision, they could then apply for the same matter through ASIC, and go through the federal system under the new legislation. So, basically, they have two actions, but they are not connected by a series of appeals.
Mr ELFERINK: If I understand you correctly, under the current arrangements Local Court decisions are not appealable?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. That is correct under the current legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Really?
Mr KNIGHT: Apparently so.
Mr ELFERINK: Wow! That surprises me. Other than on a point of law, I presume?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right; a current action is exhausted in the Local Court.
Mr ELFERINK: As I understand it, many items of Territory legislation allow appeals to a Supreme Court on a point of law. Surely, that is in the existing Territory legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: The preliminary advice is there is inherent jurisdiction and they can apply through that. If you want more definitive advice, I could try to get that …
Mr ELFERINK: I am very surprised to hear there is no appeal mechanism. What happens in many Territory acts is the lower court can settle matters of fact, but an appeal is still allowed on the grounds of a point of law. That is generally what appeals are restricted to. It is my understanding that is how the Business Names Act operates at the moment. Could you confirm that particular item for me?
Mr KNIGHT: When do you want that advice? The initial advice is around appealing under inherent jurisdiction. It might take 10 to 15 minutes to get that advice, and I am unsure if this is going to …
Mr ELFERINK: I know I am being pedantic, but I want to cover off on this issue. If someone can flick through the existing legislation – appeals to the Supreme Court on a point of law only - because I want to ensure that is how the act operates. I will be very surprised if it were otherwise.
Mr KNIGHT: This is bringing any matters to an end, then they can start a new process through the new legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: However, if an action is brought before the Local Court tomorrow, the Northern Territory legislation will still apply. If that action is resolved and there is an issue - a point of law - is that issue appealable to the Supreme Court? Surely, it must be. You cannot simply draw a line under the Local Court and say even on points of law you are not going anywhere.
Mr KNIGHT: We will get that advice and come back to it. Do you have other matters you want to talk about?
Mr ELFERINK: I will talk slowly then, shall I?
Mr KNIGHT: This legal advice is not costing you.
Mr ELFERINK: $385 an hour is the standard nowadays.
Madam CHAIR: I remind honourable members that at 5.30 pm we go to General Business.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. How long is this going to take, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: We will get the advice as quickly as possible.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, whilst we are waiting for that advice and for the record, if we run over time slightly, whilst I appreciate standing orders says 5.30 pm, the opposition will accommodate the House to enable this legislation to be dealt with today as best we can.
Mr KNIGHT: I will give you an undertaking to get that advice either way, whether it is in or out …
Mr ELFERINK: Before the passage of the legislation? In the meantime, perhaps there is another way to approach this. Minister, are there any actions on foot at the moment in the Local Court in relation to the Business Names Register in the Northern Territory?
Mr KNIGHT: That question probably should have been asked earlier. No, apparently not, and this particular action is very sparingly used. That might speed things up a little.
Mr ELFERINK: Which leads to my next question: is the department aware of any disputes on foot which are not yet court actions involving the Northern Territory’s business names legislation? In other words, is there an action on the horizon?
Mr KNIGHT: The department made inquiries with the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and was advised he is not aware of any actions on foot at the present time or in the future.
Mr ELFERINK: I am going out on a limb here and will take a risk. You, as minister, will keep an eye out for any actions that may occur between now and 28 May, and will be properly advised as to how those actions will proceed. In the event that such an action is brought forward, I ask you to advise me the action is in the pipeline and there might be a problem. Would that be a sufficient solution to the issue at this stage? It is not perfect, but it will sidestep this issue.
Mr KNIGHT: I am happy enough to provide any advice I receive in relation to this situation. Those people wanting to take action would be aware of the appeal mechanisms under the current legislation. We have given a clear indication today of the enactment changeover dates for the federal legislation, so they may choose to hold off and have greater appeal rights.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and that is probably the best way to deal with this. It is not entirely perfect; it is a loose end but a risk you have to take.
I thank the minister for his indulgence on the line of questioning and the patience of the departmental staff. I will conclude this matter and get on with the business of the House.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): 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, before calling the Leader of Government Business, I have a document relating to pairs for tomorrow morning from 10 am to 12 noon for me, the member for Nightcliff, and the member for Goyder. I thank the member for Goyder for pairing with me for the period of 10 am to 12 noon tomorrow.
I table that document.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I introduce to this House a bill which is similar to the bill defeated in November last year. The government had promised at that time to refer the matter in that bill to the Law Reform Committee. Since that time, the government has remained utterly silent on the issue of one punch homicide in the Northern Territory.
I re-present members with a bill that would see what we, on this side of the House, consider to be an anomalous matter in our law. The issue orbits around the occasions that exist in our community where people take to assaulting others and, on rare occasions, causing their death. One such instance in recent times was the death of Brett Meredith in Katherine. I followed the case with interest, discussed the case with people in the legal profession, and there was a high expectation the matter would result in a finding of not guilty.
I have since spoken to the widow of Brett Meredith, Aimee Meredith, who is watching the debate right now. She clearly had been warned not to have high expectations in a finding of guilt, so much so that Mrs Meredith began a campaign to make one punch homicide - as it is known colloquially - a new type of crime even before a finding of guilt in the case of her husband’s death. There was a finding of guilt, and that case has little bearing on the matter I introduce today other than what the case highlighted in relation to the law of the Northern Territory. Had the quality of evidence been other than it was, it is conceivable there would have been an entirely different result in that matter.
The law of manslaughter demands, in the unlawful causing of death of another, the elements of recklessness or negligence must be made out. If either of those elements is described, it is then possible to return a verdict of guilty. These are not easy obstacles to overcome, and the determination left to the jury is to discover either of those elements to find manslaughter had occurred. Indeed, Justice Barr touched on the matter when referring to manslaughter as a crime; that it can occur across a broad range of circumstances from the edge of murder to a simple prank gone wrong. Under normal circumstances, one would hope such a broad offence would cover the field of public expectations but, sadly, it does not.
In the Northern Territory Criminal Code, beneath the crime of manslaughter, there is merely aggravated assault. In circumstances where a person causes the death of another by way of unlawful conduct, but in circumstances that do not amount to negligence or recklessness, which are the elements of manslaughter, a person may be found guilty of aggravated assault.
It is not inconceivable in such circumstances that a person who has unlawfully assaulted another will be found guilty of aggravated assault only. A consequence of that is a matter may be dealt with and brought before a court where a court may be told merely of injuries of the victim without mentioning the death of the victim. When the matter was drawn to my attention by Mrs Meredith, she presented me with the work of a law professor who suggested the way to create a system of one punch homicide was to make the offence an offence of strict liability. Whilst this would achieve the result, it would have made the offence easy to prove by rendering the accused a limited legal defence. This, to me, was unsatisfactory. This is not, and should not be, about prosecutorial convenience. This is about presenting the public with an offence in which a person who unlawfully assaults another causing their death is held accountable for their conduct in circumstances that would not qualify as manslaughter. This bill bridges that gap and fills the public expectation.
The other component I wish to place on the record is this offence does not replace manslaughter in our Criminal Code. Where a prosecution can make out the offence of manslaughter it is expected, and will be expected, that it is business as usual for the prosecutorial arm of government. Nevertheless, there is space for this new offence and it is intended to deal with what we, on this side of the House, consider to be a hole in Northern Territory law.
This legislation exists in other jurisdictions. They have had bills introduced in those jurisdictions because they were responding to events where the public expectation had been disappointed. This bill is not a response to an event, but a response to an event that may - dare I say, will - occur into the future. It is a foresighted parliament, a foresighted legislature that sees an issue and prepares for it rather than prepares legislation in a response to something that has already occurred.
Since November last year, the Police Association has also thrown its weight behind this bill because it understands the intent of the bill. The intent of this bill is to present the public of the Northern Territory with a deterrent. This bill is designed to get people thinking about what they are about to do when they start punching people in pubs, or wherever else this may occur. The deterrent quality of this legislative instrument is designed specifically to prevent death into the future.
One of the great challenges in preventing death is it is generally impossible to know which deaths you have prevented. It is a little like preventing car accidents. You can never say that on 26 November, a car accident did not happen on the corner of Smith and Knuckey Streets because of this legislative instrument. It will never be entirely possible to measure the success of this legislative instrument. However, I do not doubt if this is passed into law, this law will prevent a death somewhere at some time.
For the edification of honourable members, I seek leave to lay on the table an opinion from the Northern Territory Police Association.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope this government reconsiders its intransient attitude towards this legislative instrument. I hope this government understands there is a growing public expectation that such a law exists in the Northern Territory. I hope the government will support this legislative instrument, which is good law and legislation the public expects. I hope the Northern Territory government accepts the intent of this legislation, accepts this is good law, and will support its transition into the statute book of the Northern Territory.
I will even give the government a bit of wriggle room. If the government wants to sidestep a political issue – that is, supporting a bill introduced by the Country Liberals - and introduce its own legislative instrument which has the same effect as this one proposes, I will happily support that, even if I have to withdraw this one. This is not about the Country Liberals having a win over the Labor Party; this is about changing the law of the Northern Territory for the good governance and management of the people of the Northern Territory. I invite the government to consider taking that option. It can take the glory, the laurels, and everything else and good luck. However, this is something that needs to be done before a death occurs which falls through the gap in our current law.
Madam Speaker, if the government continues to be intransient on this, after the next Territory election, should the Northern Territory government be a Country Liberals government, this will become the law of the Northern Territory. I urge the government not to wait until August, but to do its homework if necessary, bring in its own bill, and we will support its passage as long as it achieves the same goals this bill before the House seeks to achieve. We could not be more fair or forthright in the way we approach this legislative instrument because, again, it is not about a political point, it is about good law.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Fong Lim is not here. This can only be moved by the member for Fong Lim.
Mr Wood: I was not going to move, I was going to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, he is not here. Okay, General Business.
You can resume your seat, Mr Clerk. Member for Fong Lim, you are a little tardy.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Rather tardy, Madam Speaker. I say at the outset thank you very much for your lenience in this matter; I was caught in the lift. I know it is a pretty poor excuse, but it happens to be a fact. I appreciate the fact you have not allowed me to be overlooked.
Madam Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to provide land release and planning strategies to support the sustainable growth of the Territory.
This is an important motion because we hear so much from the government about the wonderful things it is doing in relation to land release. The minister is a very elegant, eloquent speaker, and probably the best person in this parliament for gilding the lily. He has an amazing knack for talking things up. If I ever want to be in government and blow trumpets, I will certainly be taking lessons from the member for Barkly. He does it in such a good, passionate way; it is almost a believable way. Good on the guy. I admire him but, unfortunately, the reality is a completely different story.
The government says it is releasing blocks of land and whatnot. I do not know how many times I heard the story of Bellamack being released. It would have to go back to the start of the Labor government, somewhere around 2000 or 2001, when it decided to release Bellamack. It has taken a dreadfully long time to see the fruits of those announcements.
We are hearing now there are other subdivisions on the boil and things are happening everywhere: Lyons, Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston and Zuccoli. It says it is pushing land out the door at a faster rate than any other government in history in a range of places. That is blatant nonsense! The reality is the government is not pushing land out quickly at all. The reality is the slow release of land is contributing in a major way to the housing and accommodation crisis we have in the Northern Territory. This has to be the worst housing and accommodation crisis in our history. At no time in our history have people been forced to pay the rents they currently pay, or pay the prices they pay for houses and units, and survive.
It is a ludicrous situation at the moment. We saw a report a few days ago from the Property Council saying people in Darwin rate Darwin as one of the worst places to live in Australia. I find that alarming, because I quite enjoy living in Darwin. It is a beautiful city and a fantastic place to raise a family. We cannot ignore the realities and the reason people made those comments. People are concerned about the high rates of crime and public drunkenness that seems to be on the rise continually in Darwin. The other thing is the high cost of living, and a big part of the cost of living is the cost of housing and accommodation. That is certainly turning many people off Darwin.
We are now the most expensive city in Australia to live. Sometimes, people speak of that and are proud of the fact it is an expensive place to live. Normally, the greatest yardstick for quality is price. If you are buying a high-quality product you expect to pay a larger premium, although the concern people have in Darwin is they are paying a very high price and the product leaves much to be desired.
Obviously, this concern is not just affecting the Darwin region. Several people from outside Darwin will speak on this matter and they have similar concerns. People in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek - it does not matter where you go there are concerns about the lack of land availability and the lack of land release the government is putting onto the market.
I did a little research on this topic and have a couple of interesting documents I managed to pick up. I have a flyer from the Northern Territory government I will table in a minute. It is one that folds in half, or it might have been photocopied on both sides. It is a Northern Territory government flyer; one of those glossy brochures this government is so good at putting out. It is headed: ‘Housing the Territory – A Territory Government Initiative; Fresh Ideas/Real Results. Land Release - a 20-year plan’. A 20-year plan is marvellous stuff. It must have been done around 2003 or so. However, it says in 2009, 150 houses will be released in Lyons and another 80 released in 2010, making a total of 230 dwellings or lots in Lyons.
We all know Lyons has been completed. It is a great little suburb. How the government can take credit for that is beyond me because Lyons is a federal government project. The land at Lyons was offered to the Northern Territory government for $8m at the time, and the Northern Territory government rejected that offer. The Northern Territory government did not take control of the land at Lyons; it allowed the Commonwealth to hand it over to the Defence Housing Authority, a government business division of the federal government. The Defence Housing Authority built that area.
Quite often, we hear the minister bang on about the wonderful things the government is doing at Muirhead. It is exactly the same situation as Lyons. Those blocks of land are federal government blocks. It is being developed by the Defence Housing Authority with no Northern Territory government involvement. The Northern Territory government claims Muirhead and Lyons as its own, irrespective of the fact it turned its back on both those opportunities and walked away.
The government says it will develop Frances Park and some land has been released there. Goodness me, it says it is going to develop the Berrimah Research Farm in 2013. I hear the member for Nelson behind me saying no; however, this document says the government will release 1300 lots at Berrimah Research Farm in 2013. I could not imagine the government sticking to that time line.
Looking at Bellamack, the government says 700 houses will be constructed at Bellamack by 2012. Well, it is about two-thirds of the way with Bellamack. We have heard about Bellamack for at least 10 years, perhaps more, but it has taken well over a decade to do two-thirds of that development.
Johnston, at this point in time, should have 850 dwellings. There is nowhere near that looking at the most recent ABS data from December 2011, which came out in March this year. I cannot dig up the information about how many lots there are; however, about 10% of Johnston is completed as far as the Labor government’s plans were when this was released.
There are, supposedly, 750 houses to be built at Zuccoli by 2012. Almost 800 of those houses are supposed to be complete. Zero has been done at Zuccoli and zero at Mitchell. There were supposed to be 140 blocks by now. Rosebery Park - I do not know what is going on there. The clear message is, by the Labor government’s own plans, it is a mile behind.
Looking at the information from the ABS is quite revealing. This ABS report about dwelling unit commencements from December 2011 was published recently and I will quote from that report. Looking at the Northern Territory it says:
Dwelling unit commencements have fallen for the last four quarters, and there is a whole range of information on that. I will be happy to table that information if the minister does not already have it.
We then look at approvals. When you look at approvals for units or houses, the same appears: the trend has been dropping since July last year and continues to fall. It is quite a sad story. Sorry, that was with units. The same applies with houses. Houses have been dropping since July last year as well.
Looking at the government’s information from budget papers on the Northern Territory economy, residential land sales peaked in 2006. It is now 2012. In 2006, almost 1200 new land deals were sold. The most recent figures are 2010, and they have dropped to below 400. It is about one-third of what happened in the 2006-07 financial year.
For the government to say it is now releasing land at a faster rate than any government before, it is clearly deluding itself; it is not releasing land at all. The reality is some 1700 blocks each year need to be released and the government is failing dismally. The government needs to be condemned for its slow land release policy. The problem is, it is caught up in bureaucracy and red tape and has tied itself in knots when it comes to releasing land. Unfortunately, tying itself in knots has had an impact on Territorians who want to buy their first house, people who want to move to the Territory and buy a house, and people who want to leave mum and dad’s house to live independently in a unit. It is much more difficult in Darwin to do that because of the high price of rent and housing. It is not a good story at all.
One of the problems is there has been almost a total failure to plan by this government. It says it has a plan; however, the reality is - as I keep saying, do not listen to what it says, look at what it does. What it does is almost always entirely different to what it says it is doing. I have just demonstrated that with a whole heap of information and statistics. The minister might want to argue the Australian Bureau of Statistics is wrong, or the government’s previous commitments on housing the Territory were misplaced. However, the reality is - and there is no hiding from it - land release is not happening. Alice Springs is in a similar situation, also Tennant Creek and Katherine. The government is failing the length and breadth of the Northern Territory and that is a shame.
Whilst this motion is somewhat negatively framed, I want to talk a little about the Country Liberals’ plan. We are in opposition. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, things are not particularly easy in opposition. We do not have the resources of government: government departments ferreting away devising policy and plans. In opposition, you have to survive on meagre takings. No one knows that better than some of the long-term members of the Labor Party in the Territory who endured a long time in opposition and know how difficult it can be. To put together plans is not an easy task, but the Country Liberals, in opposition, have put this document together. It is called Planning for Greater Darwin - A Dynamic Harbour City.
It took significant resources from the Country Liberals, and supporters, to put such a document together. It is very comprehensive, very detailed, and lays out a plan for the future growth of Darwin and how we intend to get there. One of the differences between the two parties - I hear people so often say: ‘Oh, you are all the same; Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party all have the same policies and, at the end of the day, nothing will change no matter who is in government’. I know pretty well everyone - barring maybe my little chicken-loving mate behind me - might disagree with that. There is a world of difference between the two political parties. The way I see it, one mob does much talking and puts time and effort into working out how they are going to get messages out. Another mob works out what they are going to do. It does not take rocket science to work out who I am talking about.
This government is almost 100% devoted to working out the message, how to get the story out and how to frame things in the media. You have another party, our side, which is interested in the real things of government - trying to devise practical outcomes. Ultimately, what has let us down is, in many ways, we are not very good at handling the messages we send out to the media. However, this plan has been launched for some months now. It is a very detailed plan, and I encourage people to look at it because it explains how the Country Liberals will release land and, more importantly, allow for greater development to take place in the Territory across the greater Darwin area.
This plan is for the greater Darwin area. To do an entire Northern Territory plan from opposition would be very difficult. However, people can gain an understanding of how that planning will be done by a Country Liberals’ government by looking at the greater Darwin plan. Obviously, some people will say there is more work that needs to be done, and probably in some areas that is true. We will need to fill in some of the spaces. It is still a very detailed and robust plan that looks toward the future of Darwin.
I would like to see this government look inward. Rather than say it is fast-tracking land release, work out how it can do that. The reality is, it is not happening. The government needs to take a good hard look at itself. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are very flattered that government has picked up a number of Country Liberals’ policies. Good on it for doing that; it is a great thing.
We announced we would put in place a planning commission and the government pretty well did that. Other things are coming out in a range of different areas, which are also very flattering to the Country Liberals. Good on the government because, clearly, it is recognising it got things wrong and does not have a monopoly on good ideas. It would be hard to say it had a good idea, but at least it is recognising some good ideas and picking them up from the Country Liberals. That is very flattering, so good on the government.
I do not want to have too much of a crack at the government apart from saying what it says is not often what it does. In this case, when we talk about land release we know the figures do not stack up. The trend has been dropping since July last year and the government is nowhere near its target. Any target it sets fails. My view is you promise small and deliver big. This mob has a view that you promise big and deliver small. Anything you deliver you talk it up, talk it up, and talk it up to try to make something big out of it. It is shame because Territorians deserve better. It is a beautiful place to live. The last thing we need is to scare people away but, unfortunately, that is what is happening. There are figures coming out tomorrow regarding population, and we will all be keen to see them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge everyone in this House to support the motion. Send the government a message. Tell it we are not happy with the way it is dealing with land and land release and get its act together and do more.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear the member for Fong Lim’s arguments. I am not necessarily going to support the motion, but his is an issue worth debating. I say at the outset I am a little disappointed certain General Business items were taken off the list because one item was dealing with the state of Aboriginal affairs - one thing this parliament needs at the moment is a good debate on the intervention.
The second intervention is going to affect us and we have had very little discussion about it. That is a pity because it is not coming up through government statements. A possible way was through General Business Day and, unfortunately, that has been taken off the list. However, I digress, which is something I am not supposed to do. Yes, we can sometimes take digression a little too far, but it is important we discuss this issue today. I might ask the member for Fong Lim if he has that forward list of housing for Palmerston because I was interested in looking at comparing that with what is in the Greater Darwin Plan.
I need to put some things in context. I had a meeting with the Land Development Corporation recently to discuss the new Zuccoli subdivision. On the positive side, that has been a good attempt. Developing affordable housing still has to be proven by the government. It will be interesting to see how much cheaper the government can produce land for sale and see what type of housing can be built there compared to what has been happening on the more private commercial blocks. I have had concerns for a long time about how much land was being released in the Darwin area. In debates in this House long ago we told the government to take the foot off the pedal.
I will look at this document. It does not say when it was brought out. It says under ‘release area at Bellamack’ that by 2011 there should be 200 dwellings. According to this, 189 have been built. By 2010, there should have been 200. One hundred and ninety-eight were proposed, so they have kept in line with that ...
A member: That is additional.
Mr WOOD: Additional. Well, their target is 678 for Bellamack and that is what was planned for. Johnston is a fair indication of where sometimes poor planning comes in. The brochure put out by the government at that time said there would be 850 blocks. That is now down to 490 because there really was not adequate thought put into the land at Johnston - a difficult piece of land. It has some rocky outcrops and areas that have to be removed, like the heritage area for the 17 Mile. One of the dangers government has is it sees a piece of land called Palmerston and says: ‘Well, we can put that many houses there, that many houses there, and that many houses there’. In the case of Johnston, you could not. Someone thought you could and said put 850 blocks there. The government’s own figures in its Greater Darwin Plan 2012 show it will be 490. That is sometimes where the government gets into trouble because there is some spin thrown in.
Zuccoli is another classic example. It said there will be 1750 dwellings; in fact the plan is for 1400. Again, if you look on a map - a piece of paper on flat ground - you can probably say we could fit 1750 blocks in there, but Zuccoli has some very wet areas, drainage areas, some very rocky areas, and they all need to be removed before you can build housing. There is another map here which says the land release around Zuccoli is 1750 blocks. It is not going to be quite that many.
The government’s plan was to sell Zuccoli off by 2010. Let us put this into perspective, if you go to Palmerston there are many blocks of land for sale. If you throw Muirhead in, there is going to be a fair bit of land. However, the issue is: has the government got behind? By getting behind, the price of land increased and it is hard to bring that price down. The problem was the government promised much and those promises were gilded with some spin because, if anyone knew that area of Palmerston, one knew it was a difficult area to develop.
Unfortunately, Palmerston is Palmerston and the land available is the land available. In many ways it is probably not the best land to develop because of soil types, especially around Mitchell Creek, where people have had to bring in gravel to ensure the foundations of the buildings were up to scratch because, in some cases, the soil types were not suitable to lay a slab on. Other areas were too rocky and steep with water and drainage areas coming down the side. Zuccoli had the same thing. You have limitations, and you will have limitations with Mitchell because it is closer to the mangroves. There will probably be larger blocks there, at least around the periphery.
The government would be better to say: ‘Yes, we promised this number of houses by a certain time’. Now, it would be better to say: ‘Okay, we ran into some problems’. One of problems was the projections planned were lower than what happened. My understanding is a section of the department looked at development of future subdivisions, but that section was dissolved at one stage. The problem was the then government came to a standstill and, when it realised it was running out of land, it took quite some time to crank the system up again. We are only now starting to get going.
It is great to see so many blocks of land at Bellamack. You only have to go down Lambrick Avenue and see all the works happening in Zuccoli, and you only have to go to the right to see what is happening in Johnston. There is much work happening and it has, in the last year-and-a-half to two years, started to get the momentum lacking some years ago. That is why there was much hue and cry over the lack of land being released.
I will talk about the rural area. Again, it is a mixed bag. The government is always reluctant to open up land where it knows there is sufficient private land to develop. We still have quite a large number of blocks of land owned by private developers. However, private developers are not that silly; they do not open up 300 ha of land because that would drop the price of land fairly quickly. They do it in dribs and drabs and like to retain the high price. My understanding is a block of land at Howard Springs, which can be half submerged under water but has been approved by the minister, was sold for around $0.5m. Those prices are making it very difficult for young people to get a block of land in an area which is a great place to raise a family because you have space, fresh air and can have a few chooks. The kids have a place to run around and, if anyone looks at the crime figures, you will see the rural area is generally much lower.
There are opportunities for the government and, in some cases, they have not been taken up. It has been raised in documents the government released on rural villages and, since then, documents the member for Goyder and I have issued. The government has not developed land in its own district centres. It owns Freds Pass District Centre - has not done anything in the residential area at all. It has built one school, and there is childcare centre and a Christian school there. Besides that, there is nothing, yet it has been a district centre for at least 20 years - and still no move on it. It is close to the highway and is land available for suburban development. It is limited, but it can be developed that way. It can also have large urban blocks around the outside.
Humpty Doo is another classic example where the government has owned that land for ages - over 20 years – and it has been zoned as a district centre. The Darwin regional plan issued by the government downgrades, to some extent, Humpty Doo because of the growth of Coolalinga. It should not do that. Part of the reason Humpty Doo has not grown is because the government has not released land around the town. It has only built one duplex …
Ms Purick: In 20 years.
Mr WOOD: Yes, in 20 years - on behalf of NT Housing. It has not shown faith in its own district centre.
I have been calling, on a constant basis - the Chief Minister knows this - for the development of industrial land at Humpty Doo. I have already had constituents - they may even be constituents of the member for Goyder as we cross paths ...
Ms Purick: We share.
Mr WOOD: Yes, we meld in. A company which operates a road making business with trucks, graders and front end loaders on an 8 ha block at Humpty Doo has been told it has three months to get off otherwise it will be prosecuted. It went looking for more land. The only land available is either in Palmerston or Bachelor. The company operates in the rural area and cannot go to those places. There is no industrial land available for that type of activity in Humpty Doo because Spencely Road industrial area is all sold. In fact, one block was vacant. When I say vacant I mean up for sale, and Russell Fink, our rubbish man, had to purchase it because he was kicked out of the Humpty Doo Transfer Station and did not have a place to leave his skip bins.
These people do not have a place to go and I have asked the government to look at releasing land in the old tip area so this family can run their business, legally, from Humpty Doo. The reason I am starting to get desperate about which parcel of land these people could leave their equipment on is because the government has not, over many years, put the money into developing industrial estates in the rural area. We need that because people will develop industrial estates on their rural blocks and most people do not like that. That is not exactly what the rural area subdivisions were designed for. There needs to be a bigger effort by the government into its own district centres.
The other district centre the government owns is the Berry Springs District Centre. It is in the plans the government put forward. These plans, in principle, might be okay, but in practice there were far too many people. They forgot to take into consideration it is close to Weddell. Berry Springs is not going to develop as a huge area. However, there is land there; the problem is there is no water or sewerage. The government, over the last 20 years, has not even looked like putting in those types of infrastructure. Without that infrastructure, there has not been any movement in those areas.
Humpty Doo has sewerage, a good water supply, and is an area where, I hope, the government makes an announcement in this budget to open up land for release. That will make the Humpty Doo District Centre grow. At the moment, it is stagnant because the only things going there are businesses. The Humpty Doo Shopping Centre - the commercial area rather than the semi-commercial and industrial areas - needs new life in it. The way to do that is to increase the population in the area set aside for residential land.
The other land I have been hoping will be developed - it has been a long hope; I have been pushing it for years and it is part of the agreement - is the forestry land. It is a parcel of land the government owns with some issues, one being native title. My understanding is the long road of taking native title off that land will finish about 23 or 24 April. If there are no issues in relation to native title, the government should look quickly at allowing developers to move into that land and open it up for 1 ha minimum subdivision.
Government probably looks at that block of land and says: ‘Oh, look at all the little blocks we can put in there’. However, there needs to be a plan which allows for rural blocks to continue. There needs to be an opportunity for young people to purchase a block of land in the rural area. I do not want to see government planners lick their lips and say, ‘Oh, well, times are moving on, land is precious, let us open this up for little blocks’, and the whole concept of having a choice in lifestyle between suburban and rural disappears. Planners do not understand that; they end up looking like economic rationalists. They do not have what I call a social understanding.
We need a mix, and we get the mix by developing Zuccoli, Bakewell or Weddell and the rural area in such a way that people have a choice. The government, although it is tempting to have more blocks of land with more money going to Treasury - Treasury loves money - should not be the driving force behind opening up the forestry land.
Concerns have been raised by NRETAS recently that some of the land might not be suitable for septic tanks. I am having a meeting in April to discuss that with them, but that is not a key factor in stopping this land being developed. There are developers out there, and the minister might have met them. There are about eight local developers willing to develop that land pretty quickly, and that would be a great asset.
One of the problems with opening up the land is you need the infrastructure to carry all the extra traffic, the water, and the electricity. That is where the government needs to help, to some extent. It is not only the government which has to contribute to that; however, the headworks might need some contribution from the government. We know roads in the Howard Springs area - the minister has been there to have a look - are getting busier and busier. That area is developing so fast it is hard to keep up. With the prison, the Coolalinga Shopping Centre area and the new schools - Mary MacKillop Catholic College, Good Shepherd Lutheran school – the Churcher development on Girraween Road and INPEX, there is a huge load coming onto the rural area in the way of traffic.
I laugh a little – I mentioned how long it has taken to develop housing in Humpty Doo, yet a private development at Coolalinga, within about one year, produces approximately 80 houses. It is building the roads now, it has a treatment plant, and it is going to have a small suburb in Coolalinga that has taken very little time to develop from planning approval to where it is now. I contrast that with the manner in which the government has released land in the rural area. You can see this company said, ‘Right, we will go and do it’ and it did it.
I said to the government, time after time, give the land to someone in Humpty Doo and release it. Nothing happens. Here is an opportunity going missing. Land at Humpty Doo will sell; I have no doubt about it. You have three schools - a high school, a Catholic school, and a state school - right next door to a shopping centre and the new park and ride facility. You are on the Arnhem Highway, a great place to live, yet that land has been sitting there for 20 years and has not been released by the government. If the government was proactive about development, if it could not do it, as long as there is enough infrastructure there say: ‘Let us release it, let us put it out for contract, and see what we can get’.
We have been screaming out - the member for Goyder will know - for years for a retirement village and there is a great place to put one in that area. We need a retirement village in the rural area. It does not have to be big at first, but I can guarantee if you went to Masonic Home’s retirement village in Tiwi you would find many rural people there because they had nowhere else to go. They would rather be in the rural area, but nothing has happened.
Minister, I believe there have been failings. I take into consideration places like Zuccoli and Bellamack - and I have looked at the land where you have built houses I once called velcro houses. They were the affordable houses the Land Development Corporation built and are excellent houses. There is space between the houses, they have flow-through ventilation and are very good. It is good to see the government has been proactive, but it took a long time to get up and running again after dropping the ball. That is why the government has been open to criticism in that area. Any person going down Lambrick Avenue will see - and many rural people do - there is much development.
Kilgariff has to come online. I was reading in the paper today where parts of Alice Springs are going to devalue to some extent because of the way things are in some parts of Alice. They think Kilgariff will be the growth area where, if it is designed properly like Weddell, it will be the bright side of development in Alice Springs.
Weddell has been designed by more or less the same people. If the minister is responding to the motion today, I would like him to give us an update on Kilgariff and Weddell, and let us know when the first blocks of land are expected to be turned off. At the moment, it is all planning, especially in Weddell, but there are no really clear guidelines as to when we will see the first houses being built. I hope the minister also gives an update on the Tennant Creek housing subdivision. He is pretty lucky because much of that subdivision had some headworks which allowed the price of land to be reasonable. If all the land was that price we would have no trouble with affordable housing. So, perhaps an update on that as well.
I will make a comment on this plan. I have not had time to read it this time. I hoped to put a submission in. To be honest, minister, this plan compared to that plan - I know the CLP has a plan out at the moment. I would even go back to the 1990 plan, which it is, basically, a copy of, and has been done, more or less, by the same authors. It is the same old contribution about putting a dam across the Elizabeth River. I am not saying this does not have some good things in it, but what this one deals with is some of the real nitty-gritty you need to look at when planning for the growth of a large city.
I will give you two areas that need to be looked at. One is water. Without provision for water the city is not going to grow. That document and the previous one may not be perfect, but they put forward options for storage of water. That is really important when it comes to future growth of this area. We are looking at building a city at Cox Peninsula and expanding Weddell. All those areas are going to require water. We can learn to use less water, and that is important. Building a dam is not cheap, but that document talks about those options. Land has been bought by the government over the years in case those options are ever taken up. The Marrakai Dam, for instance, which is probably one of the lesser options because of its broadness and, therefore, high evaporation - most of that land was bought the government although some may be leased back now.
The other one is extractive mineral supplies. No city can be built without gravel, sand and rock. What I hoped to have seen here - it is in that book and the older book - is a clear map which shows where those resources are and the government plans to ensure those resources are not developed on. We are already seeing the problems in Goode Road where some of the gravel people have come close to residential land. That is the type of clash you can get when you do not plan properly in relation to the requirement for these resources.
I look at the city, Parliament House, and many of the buildings in Darwin and say: ‘Without Howard Springs they would not exist’. Most of the sand used in the buildings here has come from the Howard Springs sand areas. Without that sand being so close, you would have to go further out from Darwin which would increase the cost of construction.
The plan Graham Bailey originally put out was easy to read. I find the maps in this difficult to read. I get a picture of the Litchfield area - this is the book the public have to make comment on. A small thing, minister, I like to look at maps; however, when I open the legend and place it over this map I am not sure if I am looking at potential industry for most of Noonamah and Humpty Doo or what. It is grey and dotted. These maps are not clear for a lay person to read.
The other area the previous government was good at was it put a series of maps in which clearly defined the wet areas, such as for Litchfield. They had maps with the book. You could get the Murrujumuk Land Use Objectives - the land at Glyde Point – and they had a series of projections for that. They had, I believe, the Cox Peninsula one. They had the Litchfield one; they might have even had a Bachelor one, I cannot remember now. They had a series of books with more detail, which opened up the opportunity for people to see future plans. That is lacking here. I was trying to find the page, minister, with a series of small maps. They are so small they are practically impossible to read. The waterlogging map is on it. I will try to find them. I am not saying people have not put much work in, but some of the real nitty-gritty stuff - even though this is a strategic plan, you need to be strategic in conservation and waterlogging. The maps are practically useless at that size. There is a storm surge study, national parks and reserves, waterlogging and biting insects. Those maps should take up a complete page so people who want to know if they can live in the area can do so. That is what we used to get out of the other maps. This can be done much better.
The government should bring out one of these, and I said that many years ago. It needed to bring out its own version. It probably did not want to copy that one because it was from another government. Graham Bailey had a vision I did not always agree with. Graham and I might have clashed occasionally, in a nice way, over some of his thoughts. One of those would have been damming of the Elizabeth River. I had a number of discussions with Hans Vos, one of the people who had the idea damming would be a good thing. They put more guts in, and that is where this plan is lacking. Someone said it is more aspirational. It has some good things, but it is missing the guts it needs to say the government has a handle on some of the really important issues - water supply, extractive mining and future growth the area, particularly with road infrastructure. Most of what is in here is existing roads, and we need development maps of new roads into the hinterland.
Someone wrote to the paper today about the possibility of Batchelor being the centre of industrial development. Maybe that is the type of thinking we need. What is the future of Dundee and those places? That is why it needs more grunt than it has at present.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for bringing on this important motion today. It has allowed us to debate something which has not been debated for some time. I certainly am interested in hearing the minister’s comments.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to add a few comments and thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this important motion before the House, and also complement what the member for Nelson has said. I have about four items I will briefly highlight which the member for Nelson discussed, one being the requirement for release of more industrial land in the greater rural area.
Yes, we have blocks on Spencely Road, but other land has been identified as industrial land and not been developed or released. I, too, have people coming to my office looking for places to establish industrial or engineering businesses in the rural area, because it is close to their home and where their business activity is. I am interested to see what information the minister has in regard to further development of small and light industrial land, without even considering where, in the future, there might be the requirement for heavy industrial land.
In regard to the extractive industry and the servicing of the INPEX gas project, it is becoming imperative that consideration and planning is given to transport corridors in regard to the movement of extractive material. I have been on the public record, both here and in the media, regarding the proposed traffic on the Arnhem Highway and Thorngate and Tulagi Roads, which amounts to a road train every 10 minutes - and that is only one way. Both those roads are already well used by residential domestic and industrial traffic. The Arnhem Highway services Jabiru and the Ranger Mine, and also many residential people use that road. That is growing in numbers because, generally, most rural blocks have two, if not three to four, cars.
Government would have known months ago there would be a massive requirement for extractive materials to develop the INPEX project. However, it seems it has left it to the last minute to consider not only where it is going to get the material from – although that is part of it - but how to transport it from the known extractive areas to where the project is being developed. Some consideration could have been given earlier to transport corridors. Consideration can be given now for future industrial developments because those developments are going to need the extractive material from the Mt Bundy area, Sunday Creek, or even further afield.
The other item the member for Nelson touched on is the requirement in the greater rural area for aged care facilities. I know it is not government’s job to develop these types of facilities, but it is government’s job to facilitate the development, or facilitate discussions with businesses or organisations that provide aged care or residential facilities for retired people - not dissimilar to the Tiwi homes, for example. We know we have an ageing workforce and ageing population. Many people went to the rural area 20-plus years ago and, for whatever reason, are now single, elderly people. They do not want to live anywhere else in the Northern Territory. They do not want to go into urban areas; they want to be in their community. It is all about their community. They want to stay in their community, near their friends, near what they know, close to their activities and their community involvement.
Land could be identified for this kind of community facility; for example, Bees Creek Road where the government wanted to put the secure care facility. That is prime land that could be used for such a facility. Residents nearby would not have any objection to a seniors village in that area.
Also, I would like to hear from the minister what discussions government has had in regard to the use of the INPEX workers camp in Howard Springs once the project concludes. Has it considered discussion on how that could be turned into a seniors or retirement village, or something similar?
We need to care for our seniors. We have many seniors in the rural area of all shapes and sizes. I am interested to hear how the government is addressing the growing need and growing demand. It needs to be affordable and in tune with the expectations of that aged population.
That is all I wanted to comment on at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing it on, and the member for Nelson for his comments. Our electorates adjoin and we have similar issues. As I have said from the beginning, the greatest pressure will be on the greater rural area of Darwin for many reasons. It supplies extractive material, the bulk of the water for the Darwin region, and food for the Darwin region. People want to live in the rural area because of the lifestyle. It is the powerhouse of the economy and where we are going to see future growth in the Territory, without talking about Weddell, another subject altogether.
It is an important subject. Despite the release of the government’s rural villages plans, the member for Nelson and the minister still have to discuss the alternate plans we put forward about rural concepts. Perhaps we need to revisit that and have discussions with you and the department. People - and there have been many in my office and elsewhere in my travels - did not like the concept put forward at those public meetings. You are aware of that, minister, and we might need to visit the alternate rural plans the member for Nelson and I put forward. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, that the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to provide land release and planning strategies to support the sustainable growth of the Territory.
This government has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to land release in Alice Springs over the last 12 years. This is not a perception; it is a fact. The statistics speak for themselves in the number of residential land sales and land release over the period the Labor government has been in power.
In February 2010, there was an article in the Alice Springs News, as there is regularly, about land release and the critical shortage of housing in the town, asking when it comes to providing residential land, what is the problem? What has been the problem for this government? It makes sense that, for any small economy like Alice Springs to survive, you need land release to stimulate the economy. ‘We need cheap land and we need it now’ suggests this article from in the Alice Springs News on 11 February 2010.
Over the last 12 years, we have seen figures of land release in the Northern Territory drop to zero at one point. In one year, during the duration of this government, there was a 12-month period with absolutely no land release whatsoever in Alice Springs. That has an enormous impact on the economy over a very long period. In other years, you might have had 40, 50, 60 or 70 blocks released, but it has been very low for a long time.
We are hearing about the evolution of Kilgariff where, potentially, we might see many thousands of blocks on the market, but that does not do much for the economy in Alice Springs now. As I have said before during these sittings, the Alice Springs economy is sluggish. It is going through a very slow period, and the impact is businesses are suffering. My count of businesses closing over the last couple of years is up to 49. I am very happy to provide the minister with a list of businesses that have closed in Alice Springs. One of the critical reasons for that closure is the lack of land release in Alice Springs.
I was listening to a debate on ABC radio last week. They had a panel of local identities, one of them a solicitor. The question was asked of the panel: ‘Why are we facing this economic recession in Alice Springs at the moment?’ The response from a local solicitor who has been in Alice Springs for decades was the lack of land release in Alice Springs. He sprouted the figures, and it was a very grim picture of the basic neglect of this government over the last 10 to 11 years regarding releasing land for sale in Alice Springs. You can attribute the economic slump we are facing in Alice Springs to many different things, but the top three would have to include land release.
Indeed, the figures speak for themselves. In the Northern Territory budget paper of 2008-09, the first paragraph pertaining to Alice Springs said, ‘In Alice Springs, a shortage of residential land for development over the past decade was associated with ...’, and it lists a number of things. Your government has recognised, in print, a shortage of residential land for development over the past decade, and you have to take a great deal of responsibility for that, minister, as does this government as a whole.
The NT budget paper went on to say the first significant release of residential land in Alice Springs in almost 10 years was in April 2004, where 40 residential blocks were released in the subdivision of Stirling Heights. These figures are very unimpressive. Most people in Alice Springs know if land is not released in a constructive and well-managed way the economy immediately starts to slump. Here we are in March 2012, and things are looking pretty grim.
I know many people who work in the building industry. A very close friend of mine, who owns a building company in Alice Springs with her husband, rang a few weeks ago. She said they put an advertisement in the Centralian Advocate for a labourer - one labourer’s position - and she stopped counting at 37 responses to that ad. Yet, one year ago, they might have had a couple; two years ago they would have expected absolutely no response to a very small classified advertisement in the Centralian Advocate for a builder’s labourer.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is all about the lack of vision, once again, and the lack of planning when it comes to land release in Alice Springs. This government has much to answer for. I am sure we will hear from the minister about all the wonderful things the government is going to do in the next couple of years to rectify the situation. However, over 10 years of neglect in regard to land release in Alice Springs has had a very severe and long-term impact on the economy. There is probably not much more to say than this government has failed the people of Alice Springs in so many ways, and this is at the top of the list.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, no one can intonate that word ‘condemn’ like the member for Araluen. When she uses ‘condemned’ and ‘failure’ in the same sentence, I believe something viral is happening over there. Member for Araluen, you have been here for such a short time, you should chill out. I want to talk up Alice Springs, and I will in time.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this motion to the House. It is a wonderful opportunity for me to tell the government’s story of land release. Members have contributed with a very strong focus on land release; however, the motion talks about planning strategies to support sustainable growth of the Territory as well. I will not have time to tell that big story, because when we start to talk about INPEX, marine supply bases, and the whole concept of regional development across the Territory with the resources we have, I am going to need about an hour.
Telling the land use story, particularly starting with land release, the member for Fong Lim was trying to prosecute a case that the government has lied to Territorians and is falsely taking claim for all the initiatives in land release. Well, that is not exactly the case. As the member for Fong Lim knows, land release and its close relationship with housing is a multipronged approach which comprises government and private sector land release. It comprises densification with unit developments and dual occupancies. It comprises affordable housing and, in relation to what the government is doing, the development of an affordable housing rental company. It comprises stimulus packages to provide housing options and get people into homes – Buildstart and BuildBonus stimulus grants. It involves a short stay accommodation village the government is working on in Marrara where there are three proposals.
When you start to aggregate the initiatives in land release and housing options, this government is ahead of the game. When we look at straight figures, this government has turned off over 1400 new blocks from 2007-08 to 2010-11. That is 1400 new blocks and, as the member for Nelson stated, you see around the greater Darwin area there is land for sale. You can go to Katherine and there is land for sale. If you come to Tennant Creek the land is sold; it went in the first cut. However, on 19 April there will be further land for sale in Tennant Creek. You can go to Alice Springs and purchase land. There is land for sale.
It is important to also look at the different areas. Let us talk about a further 4104 lots of land to be turned off over the next few years. Let us look at what is on the stat sheet, because the member for Fong Lim was referring to rather old data. He criticised the government for being late on its targets. The thing to remember is nobody has dropped the ball. This has been game on and the Territory needs to understand, as members in this House need to understand, the process of releasing land. The member for Nelson gave some good examples, but when I came into this portfolio and started kicking dirt, I started to understand the logistics around providing headworks.
This government has provided, in the last three budgets, $71m for headworks in Bellamack, Johnston and Zuccoli. $71m is a significant package of work and represents one component of a land release program. The Country Liberal Party scaremongers in the community saying: ‘Look at all that land out there. Under the Country Liberal Party it will be released’. Well, they want to be very careful. As the member for Fong Lim said, they have been in the wilderness for some time and have forgotten what land release is all about. I am open to sharing the experts with them so they can learn and develop their policy properly if they choose.
When we talk about real stats, real time, look at the new Palmerston suburb Bellamack: 678 lots with 465 titles issues to date; transfer of land titles to 347 purchasers; 218 building permits issued; 128 new homes completed; and 25 Bellamack HomeFirst affordable house and land packages are now complete with families living in their homes. A further 24 affordable house and land packages and 10 multiple dwelling packages will be rolled out in the next couple of years. Work is completed on the Bellamack village, including Bellamack Gardens, which consists of 28 strata title dwellings. The development is now complete and the dwellings are sold. As the member for Nelson said, there is land for sale.
If we go to Johnston, there are 490 lots. I went to Johnston as minister - and I have not been in the job very long - when it was scrub. We were walking around the scrub and the department was showing me a grassroots approach to land release. In section 1A there are 114 lots; all titles have been issued and 94 lots have been sold off the plan. In 1B, which was completed first, there were 84 lots and all titles issued. In the short time I have been in this portfolio I have met a young couple who, through a government stimulus program, bought a house and land package through the HOMESTART NT scheme. We looked at that dirt and I spoke to them again after they built the house and moved in. I have not been in this House for very long and that, to me, is a good outcome within a couple of years. That is what you call accelerated outcomes.
In Johnston, 93 building approvals have been issued and 43 homes have been completed. A ballot for the sale of 24 affordable units in Johnston Stage 1A was held in November last year - 18 units have been sold with the remainder available to eligible purchasers. There are units for sale in Johnston. In Stage 2 of Johnston, the yield is 284 lots to be developed by Urbex. Development will commence in 2012 during the Dry Season.
Another thing to factor in is the difficulty working in the Territory with the seasonal challenges, Wet Season/Dry Season, but we do it well. We do it because we are Territorians and we know what we are doing. There are significant challenges in land release just from a climatic perspective. In the 2012 Dry Season, you are going to see significant work start in Stage 2 of Johnston, which the member for Nelson talked about as good, challenging land. This is, once again, the land release program.
Zuccoli, which I saw as scrub, is now well under way, as the member for Johnston outlined. Stage 1 has a capacity of 515 residential lots, with headworks under way, developed in a joint partnership between the Land Development Corporation and Urbex. Full development in that area can yield 1400 lots. As the member for Nelson said, as you get closer to the creeks and mangroves the lot sizes will increase and there will be diversity. That is an incredible area to develop, and the DCA has approved a 142-lot subdivision as part of Stage 1, with work expected to start any day now. The Dry Season of 2012 …
Mr Tollner: There should already be 170 there.
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Fong Lim is quoting from the printout. I am replying to this motion saying we are delivering; it is under way. The government has put in $77m worth of headworks to keep costs down; to reduce costs for Territorians, partnered with the Land Development Corporation and developers, to deliver this land. This is a great outcome.
I made a note. I do not want to argue with the member for Fong Lim; I want to outline the facts. We will talk about the Palmerston area. We are talking about supporting 15 000 new Territorians in this decade. That is an amazing growth area. The member for Fong Lim went off on a tangent and said there is nothing in Alice Springs, nothing in Tenant Creek, nothing in Katherine.
The member for Araluen gave a sad contribution, but I will attempt to talk up Alice Springs. The new suburb of Kilgariff, and the incredible Enquiry by Design process we went through taking the community with us every step of the way, has the capacity to deliver 1200 residential lots. At the moment, a great deal of work is going on. However, the member for Araluen is not seeing a house pop out of the ground just yet because, before you can get to that stage, you have to do the significant headworks which relate to power, water, sewerage and roads into what is greenfield country. It does not happen overnight and is not cheap. The Northern Territory government has invested a total of $13.5m in your home town, member for Araluen, just for the suburb of Kilgariff which will support 1200 lots over decades to come.
Let us talk about Mt Johns Valley developed by Lhere Artepe Enterprises. Stage 1, up to 90 dwellings, is complete and titles were issued in February. That is a great outcome for the locals, the traditional owners of that area, the Lhere Artepe. They have worked tirelessly on that subdivision. They chose to get into the development game, and have delivered up to 90 dwellings in that sensational part of Alice Springs.
We can talk about Larapinta. The member for Araluen mentioned Stirling Heights. Yes, delivered under a Labor government. In the Larapinta area, housing construction Stage 2 is under way. The Territory has purchased six single dwelling blocks for affordable housing - a Territory government policy that 15% of all our land release programs will support affordable housing. As well as that, an 18-unit seniors village has recently been completed. I have visited four times during the construction phase, and looked at the growth in that area of Alice Springs. Member for Araluen, keep your eye on Kilgariff because it is really the jewel in the crown for Alice Springs.
Member for Araluen, you said I am sending Alice Springs bust. There are significant challenges for Alice Springs. However, I took great delight in sitting with the Planning for the Future Forum the member for Stuart has been chairing, and also working positively with significant players in Alice Springs. We spoke about not only the greenfield developments the government is supporting with real cash to provide headworks to keep the costs down, but we also talked about the good infill opportunities in Alice Springs. Funnily enough, that has been going on at a great rate for the last decade. There have been many private infill opportunities in Alice Springs and, through good planning processes, government can support that.
In that forum we also mentioned talking up Alice Springs and creating new ways to attract people to Alice Springs because, member for Araluen, that is the bottom line. It is not so much about allegations of lack of land release, it is about a demographic phenomenon in Alice Springs where, currently, growth is minimal. You have to ask why. This is not just in relation to the last couple of years; this is about making Alice Springs grow. There are some very positive people engaged in that.
In Tennant Creek, 54 residential lots have been completed, 28 lots sold by auction, nine lots reserved for affordable housing, and the remaining 18 lots will go to auction on 19 April. That is a great outcome for Tennant Creek. The member for Nelson talked about existing headworks. Yes, absolutely, and congratulations; that was under a CLP administration. However, it had decayed significantly. The infrastructure had been there for 30 years and much cash is needed to rejuvenate that infrastructure, including the sewerage, water, power, bitumen roads, and the kerbing and guttering. This government has done it in Tennant Creek because it supports the regions. It has a holistic plan and has seen some incredible results with the purchase of the first 28 lots, and the remaining 18 are not going to last long.
In Katherine, the subdivision and development works are completed for 38 residential and one commercial lot. The developer was Downes Graderways, which is now actively marketing those lots. I have been to Katherine several times recently and have checked all the ‘for sale’ signs. It is good to see land is on the market and available.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about the CLP plan - good on him. He is a shadow minister and has a plan under his wing. This government also has strong plans for the Territory. We have an overarching Territory 2030 strategic plan, underpinned by a Housing the Territory plan and many other plans. The sustainable growth and development of the Northern Territory is facilitated by the effectiveness of the Northern Territory planning process. I advise the member for Fong Lim we have a point of difference because, currently, we have a single planning scheme in place for the whole of the Territory, and key infrastructure corridors and growth centres are planned and protected. I strongly encourage the member for Fong Lim, as the power player of the opposition, to throw out the CLP commitment to establish a planning commission.
The planning commission announced by the Leader of the Opposition will simply replicate the existing duties of the Development Consent Authority. All it will do is bog down Territorians in more red tape, stifle growth, and increase the price of housing development, believe you me. Member for Fong Lim, the power player, take that to the current leader and debate it because it is bad policy, bad planning, and the Development Consent Authority is the way to go.
The member for Nelson asked me to comment on land release in the rural area. He is right; there are great opportunities there and that is what the Greater Darwin Plan is all about. I would also like to add a couple of layers to the debate because, when you go into areas where there is private land - I have been meeting with many developers – there is a bit of a tension. You guys on the other side do not - well, some of you may have memories of how it was done - you really need to skill up how you do business. Developers say to me: ‘We are ready to go’. However, there are several layers you have to remember. First, they want the government to provide the headworks. The tension is I have to provide the headworks to make a profit for the private developer. Well, that is a tension you may have to challenge one day, member for Fong Lim. I continually work with them to see how we can do that. It is not easy, but it will happen.
The other layer is the shires. They now are very sophisticated and demand a high standard. Unfortunately, many developers are still living in the past and want to deliver the minimum. They want to cut up the land, rake in the profits, and walk away. The shires are saying: ‘Hang on a minute, it is a new millennia. It is a new age and we are demanding standards of amenities everyone else in Australia deserves and gets’. Therefore, you are back at the table wrangling over profits.
This government is at the table. We are open for business, and every one of these opportunities is a challenge. However, as the Chief Minister says, in the century of northern Australia, it is a challenge you want. Member for Nelson, there are many opportunities out there and we are about delivering them.
The member for Goyder spoke about industrial land. In the Greater Darwin Plan we have outlined specific areas we have targeted. That includes the Middle Arm development and the Darwin Industrial Park at East Arm, where there are considerable opportunities. That will be a growth area for industry. We have a big point of difference with the Country Liberal Party because we have identified Gunn Point, and the Country Liberal Party is determined to go into an area with significant biodiversity value at Glyde Point. These areas are in our plan. The demographers have told us this will cater for the next couple of decades. That is good planning we are proud of and have taken it to the community for discussion.
I have run out of time, unfortunately, because I have many other duties to complete that members have asked me ...
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members. The member for Nelson wanted to talk about time frames around these significant land release projects that are under way. He wanted to talk about Kilgariff, so let us talk about time frames there. When we talk about Kilgariff as proceeding - with great input from the Alice Springs community - with a potential of 1200 dwellings, there is significant work going on. That work relates to Sitzler delivering on a $4.2m contract for headworks for Stage 1, which is sewer and electrical works. Budget 2011-12 delivered an extra $3.5m for more works to the site, and the government is paying for the headworks to ensure the new land can be delivered at an affordable price. Members may want to look at the significant work on Norris Bell Avenue already under way. That has been identified as the first area to be developed in the new suburb. The tenders were awarded to the Ostojic Group to construct the new intersection as well as providing water to the new suburb. We are on track in Kilgariff, and the next stage of land release is to attract a developer.
Government is setting this up to keep it affordable, to keep costs down, and then we go into business with a developer. We still believe Kilgariff is on track for 2014. That is what we said, and we are doing the significant work. There have been budget allocations to continue that work and we believe we will attract a developer, it will be delivered on time, and we will start to see the first part of the development take place.
There has been significant work with Weddell, and the Weddell Taskforce is working towards government’s commitment to release land for development in 2014. Once again, the new city of Weddell represents good planning. It is an area where the government has invested much money to do the set-up studies. Some very creative work has been done around what will be the Northern Territory’s new green sustainable city. That creative work involved the national design competitions - the Weddell New Town Urban Design competition and the Tropical Housing Design competition announced at the opening of a public exhibition of entries at Charles Darwin University on 28 November last year. That was working back-to-back with the Enquiry by Design process. This is a new style of development throughout the country and the world. We brought it to the Territory. Significant studies are still going on to progress the development of Weddell. Territorians need to realise Weddell represents the move from Palmerston East.
In Palmerston East there are many blocks of land for sale now, but this will be exhausted. The government’s planning strategies are for Weddell when Palmerston East is taken up. There are many opportunities left in Palmerston East, so it is a matter of government managing this space. It is not a matter of releasing land willy-nilly; that can have a negative effect on outcomes. It is about managing the space. Weddell is a work in progress, as are the subdivisions in Palmerston East, where the work in progress is bulldozers and headworks and that massive civil construction going on to set it up for Territorians to purchase land and live there.
The member for Nelson made some interesting comments about the Greater Darwin Plan. He hit the key word and said he acknowledges it is a strategic plan - that is right. It was designed to engage the Territory community, and that is what we have done quite effectively because there have been many submissions. Those submissions represent good consultation in going forward. As a document, I take on board the criticism of the maps; however, the Greater Darwin Plan engages the community at that higher level and, from there, we start to look at development of specific areas. In essence, we are trying to establish the concept level. Does the Territory community support dual occupancy on blocks over 1000 m in a strategic plan? Does the Territory community understand the real constraints on land in the greater Darwin area?
When you start to work with the experts and get into this space, it is amazing the awareness you develop around that simple tension of one side saying: ‘Look at all that land over there. I flew into Darwin the other day’ - this was said in parliament – ‘and I saw all that land down there. Under a Country Liberal government, we will release it’. Then you do the investigative studies and learn about the constraints on the land viewed out the window of a QantasLink service coming into Darwin.
Member for Nelson, at that high, conceptual level, we start to unpack our land release strategies. The next level is area planning, and the next after that is the development planning. As you start to unpack from a strategic, high level to create that good consultation and get those concepts out within the community, you have the debate and take on all the responses to ensure you have good planning, sustainable outcomes, and the best new urban design principles available. You then start to unpack each block of the planning process. You then get into the next layer of area and development planning, and start to look at construction and built form stepping out of the ground.
I take on the point about the maps; it is a step in the journey. I am especially proud of the Greater Darwin Plan. I gained some very important learning in that journey. I am really pleased the Territory is engaging with that plan and bringing back many comment and input. It represents a government that knows how to plan, and is planning.
The other part of the motion mentioned sustainable growth. I did not touch on much of that, but I will share with the House a quick reminder of the Chief Minister leading the way and arguing the Territory’s case for the Ichthys LNG project which has been secured for our economic future. That is the Territory’s future, because the benefits of a project like this will be shared across the Territory.
I will talk about the $104m contract that has been signed to build and operate a Marine Supply Base at East Arm, providing purpose-built facilities for vessels that supply offshore oil and gas projects. The Territory company Macmahon will build the new facility and ShoreASCO will operate the base for up to 20 years. I will talk about the Territory government investing $6m for headworks for the site in support of this development. Darwin’s Marine Supply Base will be the first in northern Australia. This strategic investment to support the Territory’s growth will cement our place as an oil and gas hub in northern Australia. From what I remember, an esteemed Japanese gentleman representing the Ichthys project said what this Territory government has done is, effectively, put the Northern Territory on the map in respect of the global energy sector. That is something to be proud of, and something all Territorians should be proud of. That very simply relates to good planning.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will keep this brief. I listened to the minister very carefully and, to some degree, I have sympathy with his position because he is the inheritor of what he has to defend. What he has to defend is quite difficult. There is a vast chasm between what was promised and what has been delivered in the Northern Territory. This government is long on promise and short on outcome.
Whilst I appreciate the minister can give us all the reasons why the land release process is so complex, clearly, it is far more complex than his own ministerial colleagues understand. The ministerial colleagues, of whom he is the legatee, made promises on his behalf a few years ago which were, basically, astonishing. One of the minister’s forebears, the now Treasurer then Lands and Planning minister, said in April 2007 that the demand for blocks in the Northern Territory was going to be - and I quote from a Stateline program:
Even then, that was largely recognised as a gross underestimation of what was going to be required. The minister now tells us the government has great vision and planning capacity. However, it is responding, in a very belated fashion, to a land release crisis in the Northern Territory. Whilst I appreciate he is told by any number of departmental officials how difficult the process is, it is up to government to drive this. It has been driven in the past by former governments. When this government sets its mind to something, it drives matters. There is no doubt it set its mind to the Ichthys project and drove hard, but that is the exception, not the rule. The passion and lust this government brought to pursuing the Ichthys project should be reproduced in other areas.
I am curious to see where the 320 blocks ready for sale are in Zuccoli. This year - Mitchell, 140 blocks; Johnston, 170 blocks; Bellamack should be on the tail end of the last 70 blocks of 700. Like everything else with this government, you have to read the fine print. If you zoom in at an almost microfiche level to the bottom of the promises in – when was this put out – 2009? – it says: ‘Details reflect current market research conditions and workplaces and may be subject to minor changes’. There is a rider; a qualifier that it may be subject to minor change. Perhaps the Labor Party slogan for the next election should be, ‘Vote ALP, batteries not included’, because it has not come close to these figures and is now promising:
We are talking about the Kenbi land claim. How are we going with that? Is that resolved yet, three years after this document was put out? Is it still sitting in the department of Finance in Canberra as inert as Ayers Rock itself? There is always the potential the government talks about. No one moves into a three-bedroom potential, they move into a three-bedroom house. Approximately 10 000 lots from 2014 onwards - what sort of statement is that? We are going to start building 10 000 new houses in 2014, but they might be finished by 2114? That is just arrant nonsense. This government has been dishonest in the way it has dealt with the Territory marketplace in relation to this. I feel sympathy for the current minister because this is the legacy he has to carry, pick up, and defend in this House.
To his credit, he does a fairly good job of defending that legacy, but it is still a legacy of promises made that have not been kept. Whilst the minister can outline all the problems and difficulties in land release, if you want someone to outline problems and difficulties, join the opposition. What people look to you for is leadership, and getting this stuff done, driven through. You say you go out and kick the dirt and all those types of things. Good, but it is still too slow and not effective.
If anything has driven up the cost of living in the Northern Territory under the management of this government it would have to be land prices. People are carrying enormous mortgages on their little patches of land and this government has reached a point where this minister, the member for Barkly, has been left to defend the indefensible. I suspect the reason he was given the portfolio is the former Planning minister did not want any more to do with it. People in her electorate, and in the northern suburbs where every other minister did not want the Planning portfolio, knew it should be carried by someone who would get the least negative impact electorally. This has become a real issue for punters out there in the community; it is a massive issue. Government knows it, so you farm it out to the bloke who is going to be belted the least.
Being the minister for Planning in this administration is probably like being the minister for Northern Ireland in the British government. It is the one you least want. If the Prime Minister really does not like you, he will make you the minister for Northern Ireland. In the case of the Northern Territory, if the Chief Minster was trying to avoid a major problem, he would make someone else the minister for Planning.
This minister has captured a legacy and, to his credit, is doing all he can to respond to that legacy. I urge him to drive this even harder and get it sorted. Until he does, Territorians, which he professes to be the champion of, will continue to suffer under outrageously expensive land prices and cost of living pressures that will drive many away from the Northern Territory. The minister said the INPEX project is not going to have an effect on land prices in the Northern Territory. If there is not sufficient land to be released, of course it will. Whilst the minister said, ‘We are releasing this here’ and gave a list, it is not this list and is way too late.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government needs to get its act together and stop making promises - fulfilling them would be a better idea.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of this Chamber who have spoken. I was quite amazed at the level of interest in this motion. It certainly caught the interest of the members for Nelson, Goyder, Araluen, and Barkly - the minister - and, finally, the member for Port Darwin. I thank you all for your sincere contribution to this debate.
Quite clearly, irrespective of whether this motion is passed or not, the issue of land release is at the forefront of people’s minds. Everybody raised concerns. Of course, the minister did his job and tried to defend the indefensible. He always puts such a passionate ring to that. He says I relied on old data. Of course, I relied on old data; it is hard to know how a government is going to act in the future if you do not know how it has acted in the past. Quite clearly, as so many people have said, this government is so big on promises; so keen to throw stuff out there.
As the member for Port Darwin noticed - I had not even noticed because I could not see the fine print where it says: ‘Details in the tables reflect current market research conditions and workplaces and may be subject to minor changes’. Minor changes! When you look at this, an election document from 2008, it said by 2012 770 blocks will have been sold in Zuccoli. The government is big on promises and small on delivery because, as hard as the minister tried, he could not, in any way, defend the government’s slow land release policies. He even went as far as saying it has been difficult because of the seasons and the climate. I have lived here for 25 years, and there are members in this House who have been here longer. The member for Karama is keen to let us know she was born here. I would be surprised if, during the time the member for Karama has lived here - or any of us have lived here - there has not been a Wet Season or a Dry Season. We pretty well know when the Wet Season is, and we have a rough idea of when the Dry Season is. To blame the seasons for slow land release is a bit too cute.
The minister says the Country Liberals had forgotten what land release is all about. The fact is, everybody has forgotten what land release is all about. In the last 10 years, it has been almost non-existent. Goodness me! I remember back in the rotten old days of a Country Liberals government, as this government would say, when we saw things being done and ministers making decisions. We saw ministers rolling their sleeves up and driving land release. These days nothing seems to occur unless - as the member for Port Darwin said - there is a desire to do it such as with the INPEX deal. However, everything else seems to come second and there is no way known the minister will involve himself in any process at all.
I was quite amazed to hear the minister talk about the problems of shires versus private developers. He said private developers are there for profit, subdivide everything up, make a handy profit and, then, clear out - or words similar to that. Well, what has this government done? We had a Land Development Corporation to develop industrial land - a great plan; we should have a Land Development Corporation developing industrial land. But, no, not this government. It wants it to move into the residential sector competing directly with developers and other entities; stealing work from private developers and keeping private developers out of the marketplace. Why? Why is government doing that? Is it interested in the profits generated by the Land Development Corporation undertaking residential subdivisions? That is the only reason the government has done it. The Treasurer knows she is cash-strapped. She sold the farm quite some time ago and is looking to generate revenue in every area possible. The Land Development Corporation provided the perfect opportunity to push it into the residential construction market, compete with private developers and drag the profits into government. Shame, I say.
This is a government that says how concerned it is about providing affordable housing but turns a blind eye to the wanton destruction of 394 houses at the RAAF Base, Darwin. It says it is nothing to do with the government. It does not protest at all; in fact, it supported the Gillard Labor government in Canberra in its desire to get rid of the suburb of Eaton - get rid of those 394 houses; lock the gates on the RAAF Base and destroy an entire suburb. It would cost more than $1bn to replace a suburb of 400-odd houses, but this government seems to see nothing wrong with demolishing an entire suburb. It does not say ‘boo’ to its masters in Canberra and will always dance to whatever tune Julia Gillard cranks up. It is all a shame.
Madam Speaker, I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss this motion. Again, thank you for your leniency this evening. I was caught in the lift and appreciate the fact you have allowed the motion to be debated. I am very much looking forward to seeing if this gives the government a jump start. I doubt it. It keeps saying it is interested in these things but nothing ever seems to change. I have a document here which I did not refer to in my speech, but I will mention a few things from it. This is a 2009 document Land release Darwin and Palmerston which says:
Minister, you may want to pay attention to this one too:
Well, goodness me, we are at 2012 and we do not see any of that:
Again, here we are in 2012 and nothing to be seen. The government blows its trumpet in this same document about Lyons and Muirhead, both of which have nothing to do with it - they are Defence Housing Authority developments.
Well, we are a little past 2010. I have not heard of too many people buying those blocks of land. This one has to be the classic:
Well, goodness me, that leaves us two years to get construction under way in Weddell. By the minister’s own admission, he has put that back at least another 10 years. As I said, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. They are big on talk and small on action. They are big on promises and small on delivery - quite a shame really. Unfortunately, some people, mostly themselves, believe the nonsense they spruik. However, for anybody who wants to check government has failed in this area, the contribution by so many members today will, maybe, spur it on to greater things - not greater promises, but spur government on to delivering some projects. I hope members support this motion, Madam Speaker.
Motion negatived.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to address concerns relating to recreational and commercial fisheries and for failing to provide a future for Territorians.
This motion is a serious motion, more so than ever before, given the Labor government’s latest actions which are detrimental to the commercial fishing industry, and the fact decisions are made on the run. There is a complete lack of consultation and extreme tardiness when it comes to planning and future directions for the fishing industry. There is no doubt the recreational fishing industry is an important part of the Territory’s lifestyle, and the social and economic contribution to the community and economy is substantial.
In the government’s own report, it states the industry is worth around $35m per annum, which is attributed to purchase of boats, vehicles, and trailers in the Territory. That figure may be true. However, the trickle effect may have the figure much higher if indirect contributions are taken into consideration; for example, finance of boats, employment, and tourism opportunities.
Recreational fishing contributes to an open lifestyle which many Territorians and visitors embrace, and it is something we, on this side of the House, support wholeheartedly. To ensure the health and wellbeing of recreational fishing activity, we need to ensure protection of our marine coastal and aquatic environment for the continued enjoyment of all Territorians and visitors alike. We need to be vigilant to aquatic pests and incursions, and provide ongoing infrastructure to support the industries and activities. We need to be aware of the growth and popularity of recreational fishing activities, keep pace with, if not be ahead of them, and balance this with the other users of our waters, rivers, and coastal regions.
Recently, at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory Annual General Meeting, the government, through the Chief Minister and the minister for Fisheries, was keen to placate the audience with a range of promises - some promised three years ago, such as the buy-back of licences. However, many of them where either long overdue or still being developed: Blue Mud Bay - what a mess - and an in-principle agreement for the Daly River area, with other areas yet to be decided. We still do not know the cost of sorting out this deal.
At the same annual general meeting, the Chief Minister, basically, bagged the Tiwi Land Council for not coming on board. Quite simply, the Tiwi people were fed up with waiting for this government to sort out the issue and did their own thing. In reality, this negotiation should never have been necessary, as it was a Commonwealth matter and should have been sorted out by the Commonwealth government.
In the lead-up to the 2007 election, minister Ruddick said if the decision went the way they thought it would go - which it did - the Commonwealth Liberal government would bring in legislation to fix the fallout from the High Court decision. Yet, this Labor government ignored the legal realities and went down the road it had chosen, and the result is one big mess which remains to be sorted out and finalised. Given this government’s track record for delivering anything on time and within budget, we will be waiting a very long time for complete resolution of this matter, if at all.
The other key item about the Blue Mud Bay negotiations by the Northern Territory government is not once has the government spoken to the commercial fishing industry - not once. It probably spoke with other people, and rightly so - for example, land councils - but not one of the key stakeholders; that is, the commercial fishing industry which works and operates in all our coastal areas. While the commercial fishing industry may not be as large as the mining industry, it is an important industry, particularly for regional and remote coastal areas, yet this government barely gives it the time of day. There are overlapping rights, yet this government pays scant regard to the commercial fishing industry. I bet they want fish on their plate and local fish in their refrigerators, but if this Labor government sees no value in the industry it will have no future.
Only recently, we heard the Environment minister say on radio the government did not consult with the commercial seafood industry as it is not an important stakeholder. That clearly shows how much this government values the seafood industry; not very much, which is a sad indictment on all members opposite and the minister for Fisheries. Perhaps the minister for Fisheries needs to pull the Environment minister aside and explain the facts of life about the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory. Also, at the AFANT AGM, the minister tabled the long-awaited recreational fishing plan. While the report is welcome, it is two years overdue and gives people only six weeks to respond. The 2008 election commitment sat with the minister for two years and the government allows six weeks for responses. Not good enough - not good enough at all.
I turn now to a few other matters regarding the commercial seafood industry. The first is the proposed marine park in the Roper region, including Maria Island. Again, there was no consultation whatsoever with anyone - not with the recreational fishers or the commercial fisheries - so who did the government talk to? Who did the minister for the Environment talk to before making an announcement to declare a marine park? Did the government check what was in the air? If you did, you would know the crabbing industry operates along the coast near the Roper River opening, and they are very worried after this announcement. So much so, from my talks with them, they are considering pulling up their crab pots and going to Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam, not the Northern Territory. Commercial fishing people in this area have licences and have the right to be in that area.
The marine park proposal came out of the blue; there was no consultation. You tell people you will tell them what can take place in the proposed marine park after the NT election in August. That position is unacceptable and outrageous. How did the government make this decision? How did it set the boundaries in regard to this proposed marine park? What research was undertaken? When is the government intending to consult with the commercial industry and the crabbing industry? The Fisheries minister said publicly it will be okay for recreational fishing people to enter the proposed park but not commercial fishers. How does that work, minister, given they have a legal right to be in that area? You want to close off the ocean and deliver a massive boost to tourism jobs from recreational fishing activities. This is an amazing equation to devalue the commercial industry, and you are dreaming if you think a new marine park will deliver economic results to help regional Territory, as the commercial industry does at the moment.
What will be the cost of locking up our oceans and reducing the area in which professional fishers can operate? Have you done any sums? I say not, as the silence is deafening. Let us be honest, you do not support the commercial fishing industry and said so at last year’s AGM of AFANT, which also I attended. I have yet to see any serious public comments about supporting and enhancing the development of the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory. In regard to supporting infrastructure for the commercial industry, where is the planning for expanding the industry? Are you going to stand by and let the offshore oil and gas industry take over the duck pond as seems to be happening of late? Why is the oil and gas industry getting preference in regard to that facility over the commercial fishing industry? We know the port facilities are inadequate across a range of users, but I see or read nothing about plans for the expansion of port facilities to support the commercial fishing industry given they, essentially, come in and out of the Darwin Harbour port area.
Yes, there are plans to support the recreational fishing activities. I welcome them and they are to be supported. However, I see nothing for commercial fishing people. Our commercial fishing industry provides valuable supplies of high-quality seafood such as mud crabs, snapper, barramundi, shark, mackerel, prawns, and other ocean fish. Most is exported and the Territory is renowned for its barramundi, with millions of serves each month being consumed in Darwin alone. It is by far the premier fish for both commercial and recreational fishing people, and consumers, yet you have chosen to ignore your own selected Barramundi Fishery Management Advisory Committee regarding its recommendations on any future closures. Minister, I presume you know I have a question on notice about this group, and will be interested to see the reply to my question.
Regarding your government’s election commitment to buy back three more barramundi licences, what happens if no one comes forward? What happens if no one volunteers to sell their licence? What then? Are you going to force them to sell or are you going to threaten to close waters if none are sold or offered up? What will happen, minister, as there is a disconnect between the option of buy-back and the closure of more waters? The recreational people would love to close all the waters from the west across to Borroloola. However, that is not only unrealistic, it is unnecessary. If you spoke with the commercial people more often you would know this and know why.
The commercial seafood industry is an integral part of our economy and our community. It generates wealth for many Territorians and businesses and, like many industries, because it is out of sight much of the time, tends to be overlooked. However, there is an enormous level of indirect employment attached to the industry and procurement of products and services. It deserves more than it is getting and, if a Country Liberals’ government is to secure government after the August elections, we will make it, and its future development, a priority. We will consult openly and fully, as the future of the commercial and recreational fishing activities depends on it, as does the livelihoods of many Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting motion. We heard much about the commercial fishing industry, but the member opposite tends to concentrate on one part of the industry.
Our government supports both the amateur and commercial sector. We know the commercial sector is not only the barramundi industry; it is coastal fishers, barramundi fishers and Timor fisheries. The government has worked very closely with all sectors to ensure the industry remains viable and we protect our resources. I am on the record arguing with my federal counterpart of the same political persuasion about creating no-go/no-take areas in our waters, both for amateur and commercial fishers. Our support for the commercial industry went as far as to employ one of the world’s best fisheries scientists to review our management. That person found we have some of the best-managed resources in the world. Our fisheries resources provide quality fresh seafood for our consumers and a diverse range of unique experiences for our recreational anglers. Our fisheries also support the valuable fishing charter industry, and are extremely significant to our Indigenous communities for sustenance and cultural values. Our fisheries remain a major drawcard for tourists.
We know there are competing interests, and we are committed to ensure our aquatic resources are shared between competing user groups. It is not without challenge and it is never easy, but we continue to deliver. We have significantly invested to improve recreational fishing opportunities. We have delivered on a long-term commitment to raise the share of the barramundi resource allocated to the recreational sector by closing the McArthur, Adelaide and Finniss Rivers, as well as Bynoe Harbour to the commercial sector.
Although our fisheries are healthy across the Territory, some popular reef species such as jewfish and golden snapper will require ongoing attention. We have a tagging project under way in Darwin Harbour for golden snapper. Groundbreaking research undertaken by our talented Fisheries scientists has revealed many of those reef species are also vulnerable to barotrauma - being brought quickly from the depths and unsuitable for catch and release fishing. This reduces the effectiveness of controls such as size and possession limits, and adds to the complexity of the issue, as catch and release in deep water may not be overly successful.
We have proactively developed new recreational fishing controls for the Daly River area to ensure the long-term sustainability of barramundi and cherabin stocks, and we do so with the support of recreational anglers to ensure the fishing experience available today continues into the future.
This government has also made significant improvement to fishing infrastructure to improve recreation opportunities. This includes $4m for the new Palmerston boat ramp; $3.2m for a boat ramp facility at Hudson Creek; and $670 000 for a pontoon at Dinah Beach boat ramp. On top of that, we invested in a four-year development fund of $1m per annum to improve access for recreational fishers across the Top End. These funds have enabled upgrades to occur at a number of boat ramps including: Middle Arm; Elizabeth River; Southport; Six Pack Creek; Saltwater Arm; Corroboree Billabong; Gove and others. Furthermore, $1.5m is committed for new camping grounds at the popular Tomato Island boat ramp on the Roper River.
This government has also recently expanded the artificial reef complex at Lee Point with the addition of 600 culverts made of concrete, which I understand is the largest recreational fishing artificial reef in the Australia. Many thanks to Darwin Precast Products for donating over 200 tonnes of concrete culverts for that area.
Our government has recently announced an in-principle agreement with the Malak Malak traditional owners. No individual permit is required for fishing on the Daly River, with the spin-offs being an expanded marine ranger program, a multimillion dollar upgrade to the public boat ramp, expanding the parking area for this increasingly popular spot. and an erosion study - a win/win outcome for all Territorians.
There is an alternative position, and the outcome under the CLP would be permits to go fishing, I am certain. In contrast, we recognise the complexity of implementing the High Court decision - that the Fisheries Act applies to the waters, that water above Aboriginal land has the same standing as land itself, and the only solution is a negotiated outcome. The other option, of course, is to fight in the courts, and that will take time and effort.
I said before we would support the commercial fishing industry. We support the Northern Territory Seafood Council through initiatives to enhance the positive image of the seafood industry, including the Seafood Awards and improved fish labelling. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia where commercial premises have to declare publicly if the fish is caught locally or is imported. Every other state jurisdiction is still trying to do that and has not achieved it. If that is not assistance to our local seafood industry, I do not know what is.
We also organised, after considerable work, an individual transferable quota management system that has been implemented in our offshore snapper fisheries. This system will ensure sustainable catch levels are maintained in the future, and will provide certainty, economic efficiency, and flexibility for operators. The commercial fishing industry has applauded this initiative.
The government has also committed to resolve issues presented by the High Court decision on Blue Mud Bay, including, among others, economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians, appropriate arrangements for commercial fishing, and the capacity for recreational fishermen to go fishing in affected waters without charge or the need for an individual permit. There is a very clear choice; government seeks to negotiate a win/win outcome, members opposite will take an adversarial approach just like they did on Kenbi. Put simply, the position of the CLP will mean permits for anglers.
We have also provided funding, coordination and support for the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program and will continue to deliver the Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance training to marine rangers. Most recently, this course was tailored and delivered specifically to female marine rangers. Incidentally, the program won the Australian Seafood Industry Awards Training Award in 2010, and the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in 2011.
Talking about awards, I also had the great pleasure of attending the RIRDC Rural Women’s Award where Barbara Koennecke from Nhulunbuy was the Northern Territory winner. Barbara is a pioneer of the aquarium industry in the Northern Territory and principle of Arafura Aquatic Fish Pty Ltd. Barbara’s ambition is to support the giant clam industry and engage the Indigenous community in the development of the aquaculture industry in the Territory. Anyone who has met Brian and Barbara will know how passionate they are about the industry. Dr Samantha McMahon from Katherine was runner-up. Dr McMahon is a leader in the field of veterinary practices in remote Indigenous communities, having operated veterinary practices across the Territory for almost two decades.
We are taking the right approach to this and are not trying to establish fisheries before we know what is sustainable. We are first investing in the science to determine what is possible then, if appropriate, will invest in the business enterprise side of the equation to make it happen in a lasting way. Two pilot scale sea cucumber ranching projects have been developed in association with the commercial fishing industry and Indigenous communities at Goulburn Island and Groote Eylandt. The government is working in partnership with the commercial fishing industry and Indigenous communities to trial the breeding and culture of giant clams for the aquarium markets. Small scale grow-out trials of clams have already commenced in Gove and near Groote Eylandt. Australian and overseas marketing trials have also commenced.
I have listened with interest to the members opposite talking about the CLP policy when it comes to fisheries, but I have not seen any policy position yet. The only thing I heard was when I closed the Finniss River and Bynoe Harbour because of some incidents that took place - the member for Katherine was the spokesman for fisheries at the time and called it a knee-jerk reaction. I suppose the CLP does not support the closure of the Finniss River and Bynoe for the offences committed by a number of commercial fishermen. I recall it was the sawfish - they decided to break its back and throw it away. I remember it very well. There were many articles in the newspaper. My colleges also remember it.
Recently, at the AFANT AGM, I outlined this government’s position on a range of issues, including a moratorium on seabed mining. It is something we do not know, we are not familiar with, and I would rather tread cautiously than say: ‘Oops, sorry’. The CLP has never said sorry for some of their disasters, namely Mt Todd. We take a different approach, something that will have an impact, not only on the cultural environment of the area, but also the physical environment. I do not know about the policy of the CLP. I recall the member opposite complained and condemned me over seabed mining saying it was unnecessary. Well, it is absolutely necessary.
When it comes to fishing infrastructure for our growing population who love to go fishing, I am happy to compare our record with that of the CLP. The CLP policy, at the time - I do not know how it was supposed to support recreational fishing - was to sell off boat ramps without any plans for replacement. In government, the CLP even refused to allow the member for Blain’s plan of building a land-based fishing platform for Palmerston residents. We delivered that. The government has recently completed an upgrade and expansion program for boat ramps across the Territory. The government has outlined its opposition to wide-scale closure to fishing rights around the coastline. This government has implemented seafood labelling to promote Territory seafood, which has been widely supported by the industry.
We announced our intention to create a new national park and a marine park. Limmen National Park and the Limmen Bight Marine Park provide the right balance between economic development opportunities and conservation. The proposed territorial and marine parks are subject to a 60-day community consultation period which will close on 18 May 2012. That flies in the face of allegations by the member opposite that we are not consulting with the industry. We are consulting the industry; we are consulting with the mining industry, recreational anglers, and commercial fishers. I had the Seafood Council in my office discussing the same issue, and I urged them to put a substantial comprehensive response to what we proposed for the marine park, and our government will consider it very carefully.
Talking about marine parks, I recall very well that Cobourg was declared in 1983, but the CLP never got around to a plan of management until 1987. That started in 1987 and, in 2001, our government put it in place. There was no certainty for 14 years for stakeholders. Even Peter Manning complained about that. We know Peter Manning is quite open about his political affiliations. He told us it took so long they had no certainty. The previous government closed that park without compensating the commercial fishers.
Madam Speaker, in closing, our government is supporting fishers. However, fisheries is very complicated. The amateur fishermen want part of the resource, as do the commercial fishermen. Not all are trying to share the resource with amateur fishermen. Amateur fishermen are concentrated around the coastline or a few miles outside the coastline. Mainly, they are competing with barramundi fishers and, in some cases, mud crabbers, but not with the deep water fishing. Our government looks at the resource as a whole. It has opposed the federal government’s attempts - both Liberal and Labor governments in Canberra - to provide a no-go/no-take zone, and will continue to do so. At the same time, we work very closely with all aspects of the fishery industry, Indigenous interests, amateur fishermen, and commercial fishermen. We intend to support the industry. We have already proven we support the industry, and we are prepared to work with the industry further to ensure it will continue to grow and prosper in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing forward this matter. I thought it might have been an opportunity also for the minister for the Environment to comment, as the government has announced a proposed marine park. The minister has been commenting through the media on that park. It would have been good to hear his view from an environmental aspect, because it is an area we do not discuss enough in this parliament. I feel disappointed, at times, that primary industry is still the poor cousin in the debates, and out there in the broader public affairs of this government. It really is an important issue.
Page 9 of Fast Facts published in the Year in Review of the Northern Territory Seafood Council says:
That is a really important point I will take up in a little while - the number of people who are not amateur fishing, do not have boats, but rely on their fish to be supplied by the Northern Territory professional seafood industry.
I do not have more up-to-date figures than that. I am using the 2010 Seafood Council Year in Review. They did not have a 2011 edition on the website:
This highlights why the government needs to talk about our fisheries. It is a big industry. It might not be as big as mining, or as sexy as tourism, but it certainly is an important part of the Northern Territory economy. As the population grows, demand for fish will continue to grow as well. There are times when we do not get out and promote our industries as well as we should, and it is a pity.
The minister spoke for some, but there was an opportunity in this debate for the minister to talk up the industry by giving us facts and figures about how many people are employed and the production of various sections of the fishing industry. The commercial end of our fishing tends to be the poor cousin when it comes to publicity and support, because the amateur fishing people rule the airwaves, literally, sometimes. I do not have a boat - I had one years ago - and I want to go to the local fish and chip shop and buy local barra or local threadfin salmon, which is my favourite fish. I do not want to buy imported fish; I want to buy local threadfin salmon. It worries me when the government talks about buying back three licences and the Seafood Council is saying the state of fisheries is terrific at the moment. You have to wonder why, if the state of the fisheries is so good, we would talk about buying back three licences.
The CLP has bought this forward today, but I remember a few years ago listening to the then member for Goyder, Peter Maley, berating the government for not buying more licences. The problem I have is if you keep selling more barramundi licences, where are those people who do not have a boat - and there are many of them - going to get their local fish from? There has to be a balance between commercial fishing and amateur fishing and, to some extent, that balance is tipped over every time there is an amateur fishing association meeting. I have been to quite a few amateur fishing association general meetings when the previous government was in power, and while this government has been in power, and governments are certainly swayed by what the amateur fishing association says.
Referring to barramundi, the announcement by the minister at the amateur fishing association’s annual general meeting - there was a comment on the ABC which said:
I quote again from Peter Manning:
He was referring to that weekend meeting of AFANT:
That is the chair of the barramundi section of the Seafood Council saying the government is wrong. It would have been interesting to hear the minister respond to that today. I am not the fishing expert, but I keep my ears open to what is going on in the industry. Here is a person, Peter Manning, who has been involved with the commercial barramundi industry for many years and, as I said, is Chair of the Barramundi Licensee Committee of the Northern Territory Seafood Council.
It would have been good to hear what the minister thinks of the industry’s comments about the buy-back of licences. However, no, we had a very quick skim over the issues and problems with CLP’s policies, but this is not CLP policy; this is the industry saying there are concerns. He is not the only person who has concerns. For instance, the government has announced - I must admit, I knew nothing about this new marine national park. I am not against marine national parks as long as there is a scientific basis. I thought the government said it supports marine national parks as long as there is a scientific basis, otherwise we do not need them. So, out of the blue comes the Limmen Bight Marine Park. I am not saying it would not be a good park - I have no idea. I have some information off the webpage. I would like to see the scientific basis for this marine park being set up.
I have seen too many parks in the Territory set up for political reasons. I will give you two examples: Charles Darwin National Park was announced three weeks before an election; Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve was announced by the previous government because of pressure from AFANT in relation to the possible prawn farm to be built there, and they had concerns about the barramundi hatchery. That park was just zoom, zoom, zoom, marked off on a map. It might be a good park, but if we are looking at parks from an environmental point of view, there is some science behind the declaration of those parks.
From what I have seen so far, Limmen seems to be about local politics. I have not seen anything to say professionals who deal with fish can give us a scientific basis for a marine park on that side of the Territory’s coastline. Of course, I must not be the only one who was surprised because on Channel 9 a report said:
I go on further to read:
Exactly my belief:
I ask the minister for the Environment to comment on this as well. This is one of the few opportunities we have to discuss important issues. People say we have statements and we have bills, yes, but I hope it is a chance for all members of parliament to contribute to important parts of Northern Territory lifestyle and Northern Territory industry. It would be good to hear the minister’s comments on what fishermen are saying - they are very upset this park has been declared.
On the Country Hour mud crab fisherman, Sherwood Thorbjornsen, said mud crab fishermen are furious they were not consulted over plans for a marine park in one of their most productive areas:
Mr Hampton is quoted as saying:
That is not the impression I get from reading those two articles. Again, I hope the minister will comment on this statement because there are people out there with questions. They want to know what effect the marine park will have on them before the declaration. This is the type of thing where, when people’s livelihoods are at stake, the government would talk to them beforehand.
Whether or not you agree with some of the legislation that has gone through today, there has been much prior consultation with industry. With the building insurance plans - regardless of whether you agree or not - there was consultation with industry. We have just declared a proposed marine park with 60 days to look at it - and that is it. Even before you announced it, you should have been discussing it with the people who are affected - the Aboriginal people and the fishing people, amateur and commercial. You might say, ‘We are thinking of a park’, and when you have finished those discussions you might say, ‘Okay, we are still proposing the park but, as part of that park, we are going to take up these concerns’. They should show a scientific basis for developing this park. I do not have a problem with marine parks. If there is a need for a park and it is shown to be scientifically sound we should be applauding it.
However, there are other concerns which relate to this clash between amateur and commercial fishers. People like Adam Collins - I know him; he is a local in the rural area, is Chair of the NT Coastal Line Fishermen’s Association - supply fresh fish to Darwin. You normally land fish within 24 to 48 hours in Darwin. That is fresh, and his group are the people who do that. I will read the comments he made in 2010 - this is the latest - and I would like the minister to comment. Under the Seafood Council Year in Review document, he said:
Do not forget, I am reading from the 2010 report. He also went on to say:
That has been a problem for a long time. Again, it would have been great to hear from the minister to see where that is going. It is an important part of our fishery, especially for those who like fresh fish.
Another group that has problems with what is going on is the Coastal Net Licensee Committee; the Chair is Phillip Greet. He said:
Another good thing the minister should have been talking about: where are we going in relation to Indigenous involvement? Would the barramundi licences being purchased for Blue Mud Bay be better purchased so Indigenous people could take them over?
In another quote:
He has issues and it would be good to hear comments from the minister on that.
There is comment from Rob Lowden, the Chair of the Offshore and Net Line Fishery. He said:
There is also the Timor Reef Licensee Committee. Horst Fischer - another great name for a fisher person - is also the Northern Territory Seafood Council Vice Chair - or was in 2010-11. He said, in regard to the fishery:
I wonder if I could have an extension?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, member for Goyder.
That reminds me of statements made recently about oil and gas exploration in the areas around Darwin. The Chief Minister may have even mentioned it at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association meeting, if I am not mistaken. Again, it is an area I would have liked the minister to talk about.
There is so much to talk about. There is registration or boat identification. I was surprised at the AFANT meeting - it seems it is off the agenda. Two meetings were held in my office by the Howard Springs Fishing Club. The Howard Springs Fishing Club is not small. It is not as big as AFANT; it is a local fishing club of 500 fishers. They had two meetings last year in my office, and were supportive of boat identification. They wanted some changes, and were willing to have numbers or use the name of their boat. They were also looking at the possibility of charging people $5, which would go to the club, and they would keep a register. Those two meetings seemed to go quite well.
Again, I ask the minister: what happened? You had a group of fishers saying they would support boat identification. They saw the merit in it, and there is merit in it. Unfortunately, some of these discussions become tied up in politics, but there is a genuine belief that having some form of identification on a boat is a good thing. The problem can be the cost of administering and keeping those records up to date. It would have been nice to ask the minister where that is at.
The minister mentioned boat ramps. We had a boat ramp at Howard River for a number of years which was open to the public. I have been told by the owners it is going to be opened soon. That ‘soon’ has been going on for about three years. There has been an offer by Bill Boustead for a land swap at Howard River so a public boat ramp could be put at the mouth of the Howard River. That would be a great thing for government to promote.
The minister has sprouted about the numbers of boat ramps around the place. I am unsure if he can boast about the one at Southport. I am fairly sure the Litchfield Shire Council built that way back in the days when Russell Anderson was the local member. I think he had it passed on about his last day on the council. I do not believe the government built that boat ramp. There is certainly a need for a boat ramp at the mouth of the Howard River. Howard River is developing. The Bousteads have turned one of their aquaculture dams into a cable ski facility. They are having a few problems with the department of Lands, but that area is starting to develop. I hope Dixies, as it was called then - the people who have bought it can redevelop it. They hope to put a resort and caravan park there and have said they hope to open up the boat ramp, which would be great. The government should also be stepping in and saying: ‘Well, if you are not going to do it, why not?’
The government has built a great jetty at Palmerston, although the car park goes under water at high tide - a minor issue. Ensure your car is not there at high tide! There could be an opportunity for more jetties around Darwin. Kids do not need a boat; they just need to throw a line into the sea. There could be more jetties, especially in the rural area, Southport, and at Middle Arm. A jetty would be very popular venue for many people ...
A member: A ferry service.
Mr WOOD: A ferry service? We are getting off the track; however, advice from an ex-naval officer who lives in Darwin is ferries are very expensive to run unless you have a large population.
I digress, and you do not want to digress these days. No, no, no. It is a wonder the member for Port Darwin did not jump on me then. Gee, I was lucky I got off quickly.
There is another area in relation to fishing. I visited Taminmin College the other day. I was invited to tour the college and look around the farm. The college has an aquaculture project growing barramundi and redclaw. That is another avenue it would have been nice for the minister to talk about it.
What is missing is an opportunity for ministers to use General Business Day, not as the enemy - unfortunately, with an election coming up, many of these start with ‘condemn the government’. I see General Business Day as a chance to deal with matters important to people in the Territory, which might be not so well-known to some people, but are the bread and butter for many people.
Fishing is an industry which does not get enough attention, and commercial fishing gets even less. We do not understand there are some pretty hard-working people out there who do not live a life of luxury, although most probably enjoy it, especially away from the madding crowd. However, it is a tough life. You are in a boat at all hours of the night harvesting fish. We should recognise those people who are doing a hard night’s work, helping the economy of the Territory, feeding people of the Northern Territory, and developing industries in the Northern Territory.
Going through the Seafood Council’s Year in Review, we could have spoken about crabs. We have an NT crab industry which is one of the largest producers of dollars in the Northern Territory. It says here:
I beg your pardon, snapper is worth $13.4m, but it is the second-highest seafood industry in the Northern Territory. We could talk about finfish. We know about fins and know there has been some discussion about that industry. It has been controversial at times, but certainly an industry worth looking at. We have pearling. It is a quiet industry; however, if you go to the wharf there is a beautiful boat there which looks fantastic. There are several around belonging to Paspaley. A report on the pearling industry would be great.
I had people come to me late last year from the Trepang Licensee Committee to talk about the trials they are doing off Groote Eylandt. They may be looking at other areas as well, so a report on the trepang industry would be great. That is part of the industry we need to be looking at.
I have touched on a few industries. There is a Spanish mackerel group as well. We have many bodies representing different sections of the seafood industry. We have forgotten the aquarium industry. I have a gentleman in my electorate I am very proud of because of the work he does collecting aquarium fish on Aboriginal communities. In many cases he has found new species. He pays a percentage to the traditional owners of the area to take the fish away. There are some beautiful fish in the Northern Territory. He has had issues exporting these fish, but he has developed a very good industry, a bit like Billy Boustead who used to sell clownfish. Billy does not do so much now; he sold his clownfish licence to a businessman from Sydney. Billy was making more money out of clownfish than he was digging holes in the mudflats trying to grab barramundi. His clownfish were going to America in little bags of water. He had three types of clownfish with different colours - there is an industry. Who talks about that industry? There is an opportunity, minister, why are you not part of this as well?
Madam Speaker, it is an important industry. I am glad the member for Goyder has brought it up. I wish we could talk more about primary industry. How many times has the fruit and vegetable industry been spoken about in this House? Very little! How many times have we spoken about forestry? Probably never! We should use this as a valuable time, not just to learn about what is going on, but to give ministers a chance to sprout something about their own portfolios and tell us what is really happening. I hope next time something like this comes up the minister can give us a more than he has tonight, and the minister for Environment can put two bobs worth in, because the marine national park is something we need to know about. Thank you, member for Goyder.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it was listening to the member for Nelson. He hit on so many topics and is spot on in what he was saying. He is dead right about all those industries. We have a government which seems completely unconcerned about farmers, cattlemen and fishermen. This government is not interested in pretty well anyone on the land or the water. Unless you are INPEX, you can line up at the door. Do not expect an appointment - we are not really interested because we are talking about INPEX. We, on this side of the House, are great supporters of INPEX, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It is disappointing to see the way government treats people in primary industries.
Talking about mud crabs, member for Nelson, one area you left off was the mud crab farm at Gwalwa Daraniki at Minmarama. Those guys proved you could farm mud crabs. They did it in the old dams on the waterfront and took in quite a large amount of money from the Australian and Northern Territory governments. They planned to do it in three stages. Stage 1 was the pilot project they had set up to see if could raise mud crabs in captivity. They did that successfully. The next two stages were to make it a commercial operation and, of course, government did not approve the next two stages.
I am sick to death of hearing people talk about the failure of the mud crab experiment at Gwalwa Daraniki because it was not a failure; it was a huge success. They proved they could grow mud crabs in a farming environment successfully. The problem was their pilot scheme was far too small to operate on a commercial basis, and the minute the CDEP program was ruled out of existence in that area, that mud crab farm was doomed because it was not allowed to grow. It irritates the hell out of me when I see my Indigenous constituents trying to have a go, and a government which talks about how it likes to help Aboriginal people, do absolutely nothing to see that venture commercialised, which is very sad.
The other thing that concerns me is the power recreational fishers have in AFANT. It seems every time AFANT puts in a call for support, government jumps. We all know AFANT would like to see every commercial fisherman run out of the Northern Territory because they do not particularly like them, and this government responds. We saw the unconscionable actions of minister Vatskalis in shutting down a fishery, and we saw zero consultation with the new Limmen National Park and the crabbers there. I understand that is the biggest crabbing area in the Northern Territory. Those people were not even advised there was a discussion happening, and I find that absolutely appalling.
In the past few weeks we have seen the Chief Minister proudly announce you do not need permits to fish the Daly. Well, there are a few things I would like to say in relation to that. First, I did not know we had to have a permit to fish the Daly, and the part of the Daly Blue Mud Bay applies to is a very small part. For the Chief Minister to jump up and down and slap himself on the back the way he did in relation to the Daly was appalling because that represents one small section of where Blue Mud Bay applies. If it takes the Chief Minister almost four years to negotiate that small section out, how long is it going to take to do the many thousands of kilometres in the rest of the Northern Territory?
Why is the Chief Minister even involved in these negotiations? Blue Mud Bay is a creature of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is Commonwealth legislation. It is something the Australian government is responsible for. Of course, the Chief Minister’s best friend, the one who pulls his string, is Julia Gillard. If the Chief Minister had any regard at all for Territorians, the first door he would be knocking on would be that of Julia Gillard saying: ‘Look, Prime Minister, we need some help. Darwin is a town full of people who like to wet a line, who like to get out in a tinny each weekend, and this will absolutely decimate the lifestyle of people in the Northern Territory if you allow this legislation to stand without any involvement at all’.
The Prime Minister should show some regard for ordinary Territorians. It is outrageous the federal government has sat by watching this unfold and said nothing about it. Goodness me! What sort of a government do we have in the Northern Territory that does not ask the Prime Minister, or the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, what the hell is going on with Blue Mud Bay?
We have a Chief Minister who will refuse, on every single occasion, to stand up for Territorians when it comes to the federal government. What a failure this man has proven himself to be. We saw the way he sidestepped Julia Gillard in the live cattle debacle where he said: ‘Oh, we needed this’. It was the circuit breaker we needed when that fool Ludwig banned live exports from the Northern Territory. He actually welcomed it saying it was good circuit breaker. Goodness me! It did not occur to him at the time that this would create massive and widespread havoc in our pioneering cattle industry in the Territory. However, there was no way known the Chief Minister was going to pull on a fight over that one.
What chance do our recreational and commercial fishermen have when it comes to Blue Mud Bay? This Chief Minister has proven himself to be an absolute failure at standing up to Julia Gillard and her Labor government. Something like Blue Mud Bay needs to be sorted out by the federal government; it is its responsibility. The Chief Minister should be banging on the Prime Minister’s door demanding she fix the problem! But, what does he do? He turns his back on Territorians and throws Territorians’ money at the problem. Then, he will not tell Territorians how much he has thrown at the problem. This is a disgusting situation.
We saw him signing up the Kenbi deal, and he cannot remember signing up to it. What a pathetic joke the man is. What a pathetic joke! He came into this House saying: ‘We have done a deal on Kenbi’. Then, we cannot find out about the agreement because it is a secret deal. Goodness me! We have the Northern Territory government, the Australian government, and the Northern Land Council doing secret deals. How bizarre is that? All bodies are answerable to the public, and the Chief Minister does a secret deal nobody is allowed to know about. How absolutely bizarre! He then said: ‘It is wonderful. Look at the deal we have done’. We do not know what deal the Chief Minister has done on that. We do not know what deal the Chief Minister has done on the Daly River because he refuses to tell anybody in this Chamber what it is. He cannot even commit to having the deal outlined before the next election. What a pathetic joke! At the same time, he is throwing money around like a drunken sailor and not delivering the services Territorians demand.
We have crime out of control, drunks all over streets, our health system is not up to scratch, our education system certainly is not up to scratch, we have the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory, our roads are falling to bits, infrastructure has gone to pot, and the Chief Minister seems to have money to throw around on negotiations dealing with Blue Mud Bay. Goodness me!
Why can he not jump on an aeroplane or pick up a phone, talk to Julia Gillard, get this mess sorted, and get the people responsible for this mess to sort it out themselves? It is just plain wrong! It is plain wrong that the Chief Minister is doing secret deals with the NLC. It is a statutory body of the Australian government; there should be nothing secret about it. It should be open and transparent. The Northern Territory government should be open and transparent. There should not be any secrets at all. It is completely wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am so thankful to the member for Goyder for bringing on this worthwhile motion. These issues need discussing and good on her for doing it. I am keen to support the motion, and I encourage everyone else to as well.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, for commenting on this very important motion, highlighting the issues where this government has failed in regard to the High Court Blue Mud Bay decision. I also thank the member for Nelson for his articulate description of issues associated with the commercial seafood industry, which I fully endorse and agree with. He demonstrates his understanding of the industry, which the minister does not fully understand. He had the opportunity to showcase and highlight the commercial industry, the seafood industry, and what it provides for the Northern Territory people, as well as the economy and the Australian economy. He was pertinent and succinct.
More importantly, the member for Nelson highlighted what I spoke about: the complete lack of consultation about decisions this government takes which affect industries; for example, the proposal to declare the Limmen Bight Marine Park without consulting the commercial seafood industry or the recreational fishing industry. The government definitely did not consult with the offshore petroleum industry, which has applications and permits in that area. It consulted with no one. It then made the outrageous statement it would tell people after the NT election what would be possible and what would not in the marine park, despite the fact the crabbing industry and other fishing operations have a legal right to be in that area.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, it appears primary industries and fisheries are the poor cousin to some of these other larger projects. They tend to be overlooked, which was part of my point. The minister missed the point in regard to the balance and attention that should be attributed to the commercial seafood industry, and recreational activities to a lesser extent. My motion was not intended to be detrimental towards recreational fishing activities in the Northern Territory. As I said, they have our full support and are a great part of our lifestyle and our future. They also, by the sheer nature of the number of people involved, contribute to the economy and will continue to do so in the future.
What concerns me is the minister missed the opportunity to showcase where the government sees the commercial seafood industry going, and where it believes there are challenges for the recreational industry. The two types of fishing can and do co-exist; however, I agree with my colleague, the member for Fong Lim. A government should not be beholden to one sector, one organisation, or one level of activity. That, sadly, is what is happening in this situation. It is disappointing the minister did not address what we were trying to achieve with this motion. However, it is not surprising in some ways because there has been a high level of no consultation about the proposed marine park with the industry. There was no consultation in regard to the minister saying there will be a moratorium in relation to the area around Groote Eylandt and Bickerton. The government did not even ring the company which has valid licences to explore before or after it made that announcement.
An advisor from the minister for Resources’ office rang the company and said: ‘By the way, have you seen the media release in regard to the moratorium’ ...
Mr Elferink: You are kidding?
Ms PURICK: I am not kidding. The government did not have the courtesy to ring the company advising the moratorium was to be declared that day. The government has probably not told the many other companies around our Northern Territory coastline involved in exploration and potential mining. It highlights this government’s complete disdain for some very important industries in the Northern Territory. It also demonstrates government makes decisions on the run; it does not have clear policies on where these industries are going.
In regard to potential for exploration of the sea bed, there are other examples in the Northern Territory and around Australia. If the minister took the time to talk to the industry he would have discovered this. There are examples of this kind of operation in other parts of the world. Perhaps next time the minister is in WA, he could talk to the companies involved at Cockburn Sound and see exactly what is involved in this kind of activity in regard to exploration in the low-water mark areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing the Fisheries minister and, particularly, the Environment minister, did not comment in regard to this important motion because …
A member: Yes, let’s just call a spade a spade.
Ms PURICK: He is, obviously, not interested in the seafood industry or the commercial industry because the proposed marine park is clearly going to conflict with companies that have a legal right to be in that area. I commend this motion to the House, and I ask members to support it.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That this parliament recognise the Northern Territory government’s failures in terms of the state of the Northern Territory’s fiscal management.
I am sure the Treasurer cannot wait to hop into this debate and complain bitterly saying, ‘The member for Port Darwin does not understand; he lives in a bizarre world’, and all the usual tripe she trots out. What I really want her to do on this occasion is leave the venom and the vitriol aside, and answer issues of concern to the people of the Northern Territory.
You do not have to look any further than page 36 of the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report, the most recent set of numbers from government, to be concerned about the fiscal management of this government. Let us stop for a second, because before I quote figures from that document I want to say it was interesting watching the ABC television report tonight that the federal government is now buying Northern Territory police to staff police stations inside the borders of the Northern Territory, and to hear the Chief Minister say: ‘Goodness gracious me, we could not afford to do so’.
When this government came to power, the annual budget of the Northern Territory was $2.2bn. The income for this government this year - the revised figure on page 34 of the mid-year report - is $4.6bn through the operating statement. If you want to go to the cash flow statement, it is $4.8bn. This government has more than doubled its income in the past two years and cannot afford to pay for police.
This Treasurer said: ‘Oh, this member for Port Darwin has some bizarre theories and ideas on how this government manages its income’. I am worried about how this government manages its income because, if this government cannot afford to pay for police and requires the federal government to support it, what on Earth is it doing with all the money?
I know the government likes to bang on about its massive infrastructure spend during bad times, and how the opposition would drive all these people into joblessness. If that is your plan, spend the money in that financial year. However, you do not. The government only spends part of that money in a financial year and it is revoted into the next year, where the money is rolled over. So, when the government says it is going to spend $1.8bn on infrastructure, does it spend $1.8bn in that year? No. It rolls part of it over into the next year.
What control mechanisms are in place for the government’s management of our financial circumstances? Let us look at the general government sector cash flow statement, which includes the revised figures for the current financial year. The deficit this year is projected to be $396.454m. The following year, that deficit will shrink. It is still a deficit; we have still spent more than we earned, but it will become $268.962m. The following year the deficit will be $729.423m. The following year, which is 2014-15, through careful fiscal management of the Northern Territory’s income, our deficit will be $191.714m.
Picture this, Madam Deputy Speaker - and I invite honourable members to think about this. Here is a family. In that family the income has been steadily increasing for the last 10 years. You would expect them to have been able to pay off at least some of the credit card. Until recently, they did not do a bad job of getting rid of some of the debt as they had earned more than enough, particularly with unexpected income, to pay off all of the debt. However, they chose not to do it and kept the debt edging down slightly, but then came a few fiscal challenges. The rivers of gold were working for them, and they managed to pay off a bit of the credit card but, on the figures I have just given, they had $400m, $250m, $730m, and $191m worth of extra debt in the next four years. Let us translate that into our nett debt situation for the general government sector only.
When the Treasurer brought down the budget, the debt of the Northern Territory was going to be $1.529m. Within the space of six months, that budget projection changed to $1.595m, or an increase in the order of about $70m. What happened in the six months where you did not expect to spend $70m then, suddenly, you had to spend $70m?
Let us cast our eyes into the future and see where the government is taking us with all these deficits I outlined. When you keep racking up deficits you spend more in any financial year than you earn - you rack up debt and get more on the credit card. Bear in mind, the current figure projected is basically $1.6bn, where will the government’s debt situation be in the year 2014-15? It will be $2.8bn - nearly double the current debt.
This government, and this Treasurer, will talk about what great fiscal managers they are. The government has not responded to a single fiscal challenge in a fiscally responsible way. The Treasurer says: ‘Yes, we will bring the budget back into surplus; we will bring it back into surplus’. It is beyond the range of government projections to tell us when the budget will be brought back into surplus. The Treasurer or the government has not nominated a date, and the debt continues to rack up. The Treasurer does not like going down this path, but all I am talking about is the general government sector balance sheet.
Let us look at the non-financial sector balance sheet which includes all the government-owned corporations. I do not have the figures in front of me at the moment - I do not need them - but there are substantial amounts of debt parked in the Power and Water Corporation. The government has two ways to deal with this. If it says the debt is not real - it is not real money and it does not have anything to do with government - then it is because it is prepared to say it is a debt it can offload by offloading the Power and Water Corporation. That is not the plan or the policy. The debt the Power and Water Corporation carries is a debt which is, essentially, a debt of government.
If you then add the other component of debt this government carries - our ongoing superannuation liabilities tracking out to the future - by the time you reach the 2014-15 financial year you are well over $7bn worth of outstanding moneys this government has to pay, or any other future government has to pay.
I listened carefully the last time the Treasurer had a bleat about me being unreasonable and scaremongering on this issue. She said I was counting the nett financial worth of the Territory. No, I was not. I did not make any reference to the nett financial worth. I looked at the debt component attached to the area outside the general government sector and I introduced the superannuation debt, which is also real money - it has to be paid.
Currently, on an annual basis, what do we pay? About $170m out of each year’s budget goes into our superannuation expenses. That is real money. That money has to be paid into the future. I am not blaming government for that debt entirely because, to be fair, it predates the government. However, it is still a liability that has to be covered into the future. What I blame this government for is failing to get rid of the debt it could have, had it shown even a modicum of fiscal restraint.
Ever since these guys have been in power there has been a spendathon. They were warned from Day 1 that the good times would not last. So, from 2001 onwards, you would have expected they would have been mindful of the fact the good times were not going to last forever, and there was, at a point in the future, going to be a downturn in the cycle.
The Howard government in Canberra managed to wipe out its debt; the Gallop government, a Labor government, managed to wipe out its debt. Why did this government not manage to wipe out its debt? We heard all the excuses, but what we will not hear from this government is a plan to get rid of debt.
Regarding the debt to income ratio, this government has been prepared to take us to a place the Territory has never been. That was always its great defence - the debt to income ratio in the past was the yardstick by which you measured poor fiscal performance, and they were so much better than the Country Liberals ever were. Well, small wonder when the government’s income was going up so much. However, the government crossed the threshold when it said it was prepared to go to that place and beyond. That is, essentially, what came out of the mid-year report, and it shows it is prepared to exercise that attitude. What does the government spend the money on? Here is an example: a prison.
When the Country Liberals were prepared to rack up debt, what did it rack up debt for? A railway - something that would produce wealth and economic opportunities in the Northern Territory. The Treasurer says the gaol will create jobs. Yes, under the construction phase it will create a few jobs, then it will sit there like a $0.5bn lump which will house prisoners - after this government went to so much trouble to reassure us it has control of crime. Prisons were supposed to be smaller under this government and, now, we are building the biggest monster ever. It works out to be about $700 000 a bed. It has to be a pretty flash prison when a bed costs more than a house!
I am critical of the decision to build that prison, as we all are on this side of the House. The government would have been reassured by the people in the prison system it needed this wonderful prison. The member for Nelson was convinced this was highly important public infrastructure. However, what I see being built does not accord with my experience of the prisoner mix the Northern Territory has. Such a complex as the one being built is unnecessary, and was unnecessary when announced, even a few years ago. Despite the fact it was unnecessary, this government persevered on a prison which blew out by $150m on the original projection of $350m. No, the original projection was $300m, now it is $0.5bn. If you follow the contract through to its final close, we will be paying much more than that. However, that is nominal dollar terms, and I am not going to talk about nominal dollar terms here.
The government should be spending in areas identified by the member for Fong Lim: infrastructure. Let us make things that work. I listened to the minister for Planning talk about this type of thing and building infrastructure to support a Marine Supply Base. Good! We also spend extraordinary amounts of money in areas where the government should be much tighter - the area of housing. How much is the repair and maintenance bill for the housing stock?
We spend fortunes on running policies like the Banned Drinkers Register, which is half-lifted from the CLP policy except for the important component, which is the mandatory rehabilitation. The member for Fong Lim makes the point perfectly well: the system just does not work. I still receive regular complaints through my office, and I regularly complain to the police about drunks in parks in my electorate. Those drunks are not only in parks in my electorate, they are in parks in other people’s electorate up and down the Northern Territory. Is the government in a position to spend money on that? No, we are standing there, cap in hand, getting back to my starting point, which was the police are now being subsidised directly by the federal government. Income has more than doubled in the last 10 years, debt will, essentially, double in the next four years, yet we cannot afford to properly service our police force to cover the ground it is expected to.
Our NAPLAN education results are absolutely shocking. The minister for Education stood in this House and admitted there were Year 12 students passing the NTCET, the equivalent of the old matriculation, who could not read or write English. He admitted that in this House, yet he talks about making great inroads. NAPLAN results, when you see them charted out, are a sea of red with little dots of islands of white, and the occasional dot of green in the mix.
Our health outcomes are not being sorted out by current government policies. The current government’s policy is throw money at the problem. Creatinine levels in places like Kintore, where they now have haemodialysis in remote communities for the patients - there would be a group of probably 15 or 20 haemodialysis patients – make you think: ‘All right, they are working on that’. However, what about the other 300 people in that community with raised creatinine levels?
What is the government spending its money on? It is spending its money on bandaid solutions, addressing renal diseases rather than engaging in policies which would see real development in these areas - jobs and those types of things. One area where I do not blame this government is outcomes in remote communities because it is beyond this government’s control. I find it absolutely ludicrous and astonishing that the federal government, on a weekly basis, will pour millions of dollars into people’s pockets in the Northern Territory which will then be spent in such a fashion that the Territory government has to spend millions of dollars every week cleaning up the mess of the federal government’s expenditure. I am referring directly to welfare.
I am surprised to see the Northern Territory government is now announcing income management as part of its latest liquor policy. Really? Can that be done? Surely, there needs to be an agreement with the federal government? If there is an agreement with the federal government, then go the whole hog. Ask for a system of compulsory work for the dole for anyone who is not on an age pension, a sickness pension, or not in school. Make the system work properly. If you want us to see health and education outcomes that matter, get people to work. Even in those communities where there are no jobs available, create a system of work for the dole where they still find things to do in those communities. Does it sound like it is a condescending, patriarchal approach? I do not care what you call it; it is about creating dignity for people.
Do not keep wasting Northern Territory taxpayers’ money fixing the mess made by the federal government to the point where the Northern Territory government is now crying poor and asking the federal government to expend money on the Northern Territory police to fix problems created by federal government expenditure. It is just dumb. It is astonishing that we still sign up to this so neatly and quietly without arguing about it or screaming from the rafters. If this Treasurer and this government decided to really engage in fiscal responsibility by demanding the greatest challenges to their fiscal position be dealt with by the federal government, I would applaud them. I would stand up and …
How long are we going to go? Are we stopping at 9 pm?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will unless you are going to wrap up within a couple of minutes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Tollner: Give him an extra 10.
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue my comments at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Orders 41A, now it is 9 pm, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a truly remarkable man who tragically passed away in early February. For cultural reasons, I cannot state his full name, but his family has given permission for me to speak to the House tonight. They have also given permission for me to refer to this gentleman as Mr Peter.
Mr Peter was a Ngangkari man, but this word too is Kunmanara at the moment and I cannot use this term throughout my adjournment tonight. From here on I will refer to him as Mara ala. The English translation of Mara ala is ‘healing hands’.
Mara ala are Anangu traditional healers who have received special tools and training from their grandparents, and their grandparents, and their grandparents before them. They are very special people. Anangu have a culturally-based view of the causes of, and the recovery processes from, physical and mental illness. Many illnesses and emotional states are attributed to harmful elements in the Anangu spiritual world. These traditional healers are highly valued for their unique ability to protect and heal individuals and communities from this harm.
Country Health SA began a project in 2000 that was to bring traditional healers together with western medical practitioners. Mr Peter was one of the first traditional healers to take part in what has become a very important partnership. He, along with another, and then a third respected healing man, were employed through Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council - I will now refer to this organisation as NPY - to work as Mara ala in communities in the region, as well as hospitals, nursing homes, gaols, hostels and health services in regional centres. More recently, a number of women are also now Mara ala, employed by NPY, and working across Central Australia.
The sudden loss of Mr Peter, a much loved elder and traditional healer, has been a very sad event. Mr Peter was held in the highest regard by Aboriginal people across the entire Central Australian region. I mean Central Australian region in this way: the northern areas of South Australia, the eastern areas of Western Australia, and the southern area of the Northern Territory. Mr Peter was a well-known and respected elder throughout this vast region of, literally, Australia’s inland centre.
A tribute published by NPY Women’s Council stated that:
And further that:
In the words of Professor Marcia Langton, Patron of NPY Women’s Council, the passing of Mr Peter:
I will take a moment to list for you the awards that have been presented to Mr Peter over the many years. They include:
the 2011 international Sigmund Freud Prize from the City of Vienna;
in 2004, a gold medallist in the national Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health;
in 2004, a special mention for Mara ala Anangu Way: Traditional Healers of Central Australia, for an outstanding contribution to Australian Culture, Centre for Australian Cultural Studies, Canberra.
Mr Peter has also been a key speaker at conferences such as the LIME conference recently held in Adelaide. LIME is the acronym for Leaders in Indigenous Medical Education. Mr Peter truly was a leader at the interface of the crossover between western and traditional medicines. Mr Peter addressed a packed and attentive audience at a conference in 2010. I will conclude with the words of Mr Peter himself:
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I give an obituary in relation to a strong, firm and wonderful Territorian, a gentleman by the name of Cyril Young. Cyril, I note, was also eulogised in the Northern Territory News because of his contribution to the people of the Northern Territory. Cyril died just short of his 85th birthday and was a strong member of our community. I have known Cyril for several years, and his passing saddened me. However, I do not doubt it was a great deal sadder for Paula, his wife, and his family.
I did not meet Cyril until he was about 75, when he had moved to the Northern Territory from Sydney. What Cyril could not do to a ham with a knife was not worth knowing. He often demonstrated his capacity to carve a ham in the way no other human being possibly could. However, that was not just his skill; he was a true philanthropist and dedicated his life to charitable works - member of the National Seniors Australia, Northern Territory President. He was a member of the Commonwealth Club, and his enthusiasm was also well-known in the areas of the Darwin Turf Club.
When I met him at 75, he was still going strong and was, in a single word, irrepressible. The other thing about Cyril Young which really struck me was he redefined the word ‘gentleman’ in the way he conducted himself and his manners, not only to his family, his friends, his peers, but to any stranger who would come into contact with him. He was every part the model gentleman, and he was a pleasure to know.
Cyril was born in London in 1927. He had a great passion for classical music. In fact, at his funeral, Vera Lynn’s We’ll Meet Again was played, which also demonstrates the time in which he lived because that song was well-known during World War II. Cyril served during World War II with the Royal Navy in the area of Singapore. He did his bit for King and country – I nearly said Queen and country - and was a passionate contributor his whole life.
My deepest condolences go to Paula and family. I was saddened to hear of Cyril’s passing; it was not entirely unexpected. He remained a firm Country Liberals’ member, and was present at his last Country Liberals Darwin Branch meeting only a matter of months before his passing. He was a fighter to the end. He was a fighter his whole life. He never lost his dignity. He never set aside his integrity. The love his children had for him showed at his funeral, and the respect the community had for him was also demonstrated at his funeral with the broad range of people from the Northern Territory who attended. I note and thank Her Honour the Administrator, Sally Thomas, for paying tribute to Cyril for his compassion and his decency.
Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst he arrived in the Territory late in his life he, nevertheless, made a significant contribution to the people of the Northern Territory. As far as I am concerned - and I know as far as many other people are concerned - he will be sorely missed.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reference and acknowledge the following stories by Ktima Heathcote, as published on the website of the Tennant & District Times: tennantcreek.yourguide.com.au/.
I am honoured to put on the public record not only the great stories of community events in Tennant Creek, but also the incredible writing of Ktima Heathcote, a dynamic arts practitioner in Tennant Creek and founder of Barkly Writers Ink.
Story 1 – ‘Grab your goggles and swim for good cause’ - 10 February 2012:
That is in Tennant Creek:
Story 2 – ‘Swimmers lap up world record event’ - 2 March 2012:
I will speak first about the Girraween Primary School. The Principal is Helen Chatto; Chairperson is Phil Hausler; Vice Chairperson is Sharni Short; Treasurer is Jodie Connell; Secretary is Suzanne Modra; and the preschool rep is Bridie Schroeter. The council members are: Karen Archibald, Lisa Walmsley, Belinda Parry, Tanya McKenna, Natalie Fielder, Damon Bradley, Amanda Yow and Stuart Barker. The associate members are Linda Hausler and Michelle Barker, and the teacher reps are Robin Tidswell, Marisa Boscato and Danielle Hogan.
Howard Springs Primary School Chairperson is Jenny Culgan; Vice Chairperson is Adriana Dent; Treasurer is Sally Daw; Secretary at this time was vacant. Sometimes, when you are trying to get people on to a committee, a secretary is a hard one to get. I am sure during the year they will pick up someone to do the secretarial work. Parent reps are: Belinda Jeffrey, Ann O’Brien, Angelique Bos and Lisa MacDonnald.
The Good Shepherd Lutheran College Principal is Julian Denholm. The Principal of St Andrew’s Lutheran School is Damon Prenzler, and Business Manager is Neil Leek. The Chaplain of the Good Shepherd Lutheran College is Andrew Koehler, the Chair is Madeleine von Muralt, Vice Chair is Debra Twartz and Secretary is Karen Cheal. Board members are: Adam Haigh, Christine Smith, Colin Hill, Debbie Schapel, Helen Taylor and Simon Kahl.
I will speak about each school. Girraween Primary School is a fantastic school. It is a relatively new school, just a bit over 10 years old. However, it is now bursting at the seams, as it is popular. I believe they have 15 classes. I have said before, the government needs to look at it to ensure the school has the facilities to cope with the extra children.
They held Harmony Day recently and did it in a great way. They had a table which went nearly the full length of the basketball court, under the shade, and covered in food from different countries. I must admit, I joined in with all the kids. I thought they had run out of food, but some of the kids went back four times and there was still food on the table. I had a mixture of Mexican, Thai and Australian foods all on the one plate, which made for interesting eating. It was a unique way of promoting Harmony Day in a practical way, where kids saw food from other countries and appreciated other people had different types of food reflective of their countries.
Girraween also has a great farm which has previously won a Melaleuca Award. It recently received four goats or, more precisely, four kids. They turned up last week and they are so young some of the children have to bottle feed them. There is plenty of work for the children, ensuring these kids go beyond the stage of being kids. They were looking for names. Two are going to have a name starting with A and two will have names starting with E. I am unsure why they picked those letters. I thought Elizabeth would be a good name for one of them as it is the 60th anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. There was an opportunity to put some royalty into the goat paddock at Girraween Primary School!
They also have new crossbred Brahman calf called Poppy. She is a pretty friendly calf and seems to be attracted to the kids when they want to pat her. That farm is a great adjunct to Girraween Primary School and people should be proud of it.
Howard Springs Primary School had a working bee recently. They were getting plants ready for sale. One of their big fundraisers is selling plants. Tim West, who used to be with Greening Australia, has much to do with that. Every year they have a plant sale of top-quality plants. That is one way they are able to raise funds. On Friday night you might like to come along to the Howard Springs Primary School quiz night. I have the honourable job of being quiz master, and it should be a good night - it always is.
I also attended the Good Shepherd Lutheran College where they have installed the new Chaplain, Andrew Koehler. The whole school attended and, as well as the installation of the new Chaplain, all the new teachers who had started in the school this year were officially welcomed. That was a great ceremony. It was good to see the teachers recognised.
I should go back to school councils. Councils break into various subgroups. You have finance groups, grounds people, fundraisers and outside school care committees. Again, they are very important for the running of the school. They take some of the load off the principal, although the principals have a say in what happens on school councils. It also means more people are included in the running of these schools, which makes for a better school.
I congratulate all those people who have been elected. I did not see anyone not want to put their hand up, which is a change because, generally, committees are hard things to get numbers for. However, in this case there were quite a number of people who were willing to join their local school council.
On another matter, last Friday night I attended the Livingstone Recreation Reserve 10th anniversary. For those who do not know where the Livingstone Recreation Reserve is - I know the member for Daly does because he was there as well. Ten years ago I had the privilege of opening the bar there, which was, in my case, fairly rare as I am a genuine Diet Coke drinker - although the way Coke is at the moment I probably should be a genuine Pepsi Max drinker. It was my job to say a few words and remember what changes had occurred at Livingstone Recreation Reserve over the last 10 years.
The Livingstone Recreational Reserve has certainly gone on in leaps and bounds. If any of you want to know where it is, just go down the Stuart Highway until you get to Livingstone Road, turn off on the right, travel along about 1 km, and turn off on your left. If you go down on Friday night, the only night the kitchen is open, you will get the best T-bone or rump steak in existence. When they served the rump steak to me the other night, I thought there was no way in the world I was going to get through it. It was the most tender rump steak you will ever see, served with a nice salad and chips. You can get dessert as well, but I was full. There are plenty of cold drinks at the bar. It is a great place to sit; you can watch the Friday night Rugby there and the kids can play in the playground. It really is a nice spot. If you live in town and want to go somewhere a little different, pop down to Livingstone Recreation Reserve on a Friday night and you will get a good wholesome meal at a reasonable price - and it is well cooked.
I congratulate Gavin, and all the members of the Livingstone Recreation Reserve Management Board for all the hard work they have put in. Also, the previous boards have spent much time developing that reserve. It is a beautiful reserve. It is probably one of the biggest reserves in Litchfield, as it goes out to the railway line and down to Berry Creek. It has a conservation area, a volleyball court, a Rugby ground, a playground, a camping area, and a hall with a bar, kitchen, a place to play pool, and a place for people to relax at the end of the day. I recommend people go to the reserve and enjoy a good meal, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, on 23 February 2012, the member for Macdonnell gave this parliament her ‘personal assurance’ that she had ‘never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles’. Tonight, I ask the member for Macdonnell to justify that categorical assurance, given the following evidence which I will table at the end of my speech.
First is a memo signed by the member for Macdonnell, as CEO of the Papunya Council. The memo is on council letterhead and addressed to Mr P Vroom, the council bookkeeper, and states:
It is signed A Anderson and Sammy Butcher.
In essence, when she was CEO of the Papunya Council, the member for Macdonnell singed a memo transferring ownership of a vehicle to herself and her then husband, Mr Steve Hanley. This vehicle became their personal property. Furthermore, she clearly asserted that the three cars to be ‘exchanged’ for the Toyota belonged to herself and Hanley. Subsequently, in media interviews, both the member for Macdonnell and Hanley admitted they did not own the cars.
This Centralian Advocate article titled ‘Lapse of memory for MLA Anderson’ dated 24 February 2006 contains admissions made by the member for Macdonnell regarding the ownership of these three exchanged cars:
Further quoting from the Centralian Advocate article ‘Lapse of memory for MLA Anderson’ regarding the three exchange cars she said:
Second, regarding the Toyota Land Cruiser 428 254, she said:
Skelton, on page 157 of King Brown Country, also reported:
In King Brown Country, page 59, Skelton describes:
Although the vehicle was deleted from the council asset register in 1995, no sale was ever recorded. I will also table copies of these Papunya Council accounts.
In summary, the Toyota Land Cruiser was originally purchased by the Papunya Council for $45 000. The Papunya Store donated the funds to the social club which, in turn, donated $45 000 to the council. On the basis of a memo signed by the member for Macdonnell as CEO of the Papunya Council, the Land Cruiser was then transferred to the personal ownership of her and her then husband. According to the memo, there were also three vehicles to be exchanged for the Toyota Land Cruiser. The member for Macdonnell signed the memo asserting that they belonged to her and her husband. Subsequently, the member for Macdonnell and Hanley both acknowledged they did not own the three cars.
Therefore, the member for Macdonnell cannot assert that she traded or exchanged her property for the Toyota Land Cruiser. If those cars were her property, she could possibly argue they were of equal value and she did not receive a benefit. However, by her own admission, they were not her property.
Based on the evidence, I believe the member for Macdonnell received a massive personal benefit as a result of a motor vehicle transaction at Papunya; namely, a $45 000 Toyota Land Cruiser which, by her own admission, was paid for by the Papunya Store. Amazingly then, the member for Macdonnell came into this House on 23 February 2012 and categorically stated she had:
She also claimed:
Not so, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Commonwealth report into the Papunya Council she alluded to covers the period from 2003 to 2005 when the member for Macdonnell was not CEO of Papunya Council. It certainly does not deal with the period in 1994, when this motor vehicle transaction took place. It could not, and does not, exonerate her. I will table a copy of the terms of reference obtained under Commonwealth FOI. Based on all the evidence, I believe her denial has little credibility whatsoever.
I call on the member for Macdonnell to either justify her statement or withdraw it. If the member for Macdonnell fails to justify her statement or withdraw it, the Leader of the Opposition has two options. First, he could defend the member for Macdonnell and explain why he believes she was justified in making a categorical denial in face of all the evidence I have presented here tonight - evidence she is well aware of. Second, he could be courageous and remove her from her shadow parliamentary secretary portfolio responsibility.
In the absence of a withdrawal or justification of her statement that she had ‘never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles’, both the member for Macdonnell and the Opposition Leader need to explain the following:
the Papunya Council memo signed by the member for Macdonnell which transferred the Toyota Land Cruiser 428 254 to her personal ownership; and
her subsequent admissions in 2006 that she never owned the three exchanged cars and that the Land Cruiser had been bought from Papunya Store funds.
The Opposition Leader often talks about parliamentary responsibility and accountability when he is trying point the finger at government. I quote from the Parliamentary Record of 14 August 2009:
He went on to talk about a free rein to:
He went on to say later:
Meaning here in this parliament.
Leader of the Opposition, you need to practice what you preach. You need to enforce your own standards. The member for Macdonnell’s denial ticks all the boxes required for action. How could you even contemplate making the member for Macdonnell a minister in any government you might lead? You need to assure Territorians that you never will.
In a letter to the member for Macdonnell in 2009, the Leader of the Opposition offered her a Cabinet post in a CLP government without consulting his colleagues. Is he going to stick to this offer? He needs to tell Territorians how he is going to deal with the member for Macdonnell. Is he going to do the right thing and stand her down as parliamentary secretary? If not, why not? If he cannot enforce his own standards as the Opposition Leader, why should we believe he could do it as a possible Chief Minister?
Finally, I have always been prepared to answer any questions put to me by journalists on these matters outside this House. Despite assertions to the contrary, I have not hidden behind parliamentary privilege. I am prepared to repeat outside this House what I have said inside this House on this matter. One would hope that in making any serious allegations about another member, other members would have the courage to do likewise.
I now seek leave to table the documents alluded to in my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Papunya Council memo; the Centralian Advocate article; Papunya Community Council accounts 1993-94, 1994-95, 2000-01; the extract from the Acumen Alliance inquiry into the Papunya Community Council; its terms of reference; and also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the letter written by the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, to Alison Anderson in, I believe, 2009.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, these are serious issues. The member for Macdonnell’s denials did not happen in Papunya in 1994, they did not happen in Alice Springs in 2006, they happened in this House a month ago. This is not an old issue; this is a very important issue about the integrity of this House. The Leader of the Opposition needs to act. I challenge him to act; I challenge him to show courage; I challenge him to remove the member for Macdonnell as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous Policy.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4 and Year 4/5 Durack Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Jennifer Walker, Ms Glenda McGhee, Ms Sharon Hayes and Ms Sheree Billen. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I must say, honourable members, don’t they look very nice in that blue uniform.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 32
Message No 32
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator Message No 32 notifying assent to bills passed in the February 2012 sittings of the Assembly.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Withdrawal of Business
Withdrawal of Business
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, two General Business Notices previously on the Notice Paper have been withdrawn by Mr Styles and removed from the Notice Paper accordingly. The text of the notices has been circulated to honourable members.
LIQUOR AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 205)
(Serial 205)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Liquor Act and other legislation to address a number of procedural and other issues relating to alcohol, to correct minor errors or uncertainty in the operation of legislation, and to promote consistency with the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms.
Major reforms to the Liquor Act were commenced on 1 July 2011 under the Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Act. These reforms were part of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package which included the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Act, which replaced the Alcohol Court Act, and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act.
As members are aware, it is often only after legislation commences that tweaks are identified to improve and ensure the legislation operates effectively and is consistent with the policy intent. That is the case for this bill.
This bill repeals the provisions of Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act and moves the provisions to the Liquor Act. The Summary Offences Act is undergoing reform and the provisions of Part VIA, which deal with a range of matters relating to drinking in public places and known as the 2 km law, are better placed within the Liquor Act. The provisions as they currently stand within the Summary Offences Act relate back to the Liquor Act through reference to licensed premises and the Licensing Commission. Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act is repealed and moved into the Liquor Act through the insertion of a new Part VIIIB in clause 7 of the bill.
Additionally, the drafting style of the provisions in Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act is outdated so has been modernised to reflect the provisions and style of the Liquor Act, and also the manner in which consumption of alcohol or liquor is regulated. As the Liquor Act already contains offences regulating the consumption of liquor in specific types of places - general restricted, public restricted and special restricted areas - the drinking in public places, or 2 km law, is relabelled as ‘consumption of liquor in regulated place’.
Current section 45D of the Summary Offences Act provides that it is an offence to drink liquor in a public place or unoccupied private land within 2 km of licensed premises unless express permission is provided, or the public place is subject to a Certificate of Exemption, or is an exempt area and the drinking is not in contravention of the condition of exemption or declaration. The only penalty for the offence is forfeiture of alcohol. This provision has been translated into the Liquor Act within the new Part VIIIB through new section 101T which defines a regulated place, and new section 101U which provides that it is an offence to consume liquor at a regulated place. The penalty for the offence remains forfeiture of the liquor.
Division 2 of new Part VIIIB of the Liquor Act provides for police powers of search, seizure and forfeiture in relation to offences in the part. The main change to new Part VIIIB of the Liquor Act is the insertion of two new offences. The two new offences have been created as a result of police identifying that there are some persons who may benefit from the Banning Alcohol and Treatment, or BAT, notice scheme under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act but who do not currently come within the scope of the scheme, specifically, persons regularly consuming alcohol within 2 km of licensed premises in contravention of old section 45D of the Summary Offences Act.
The first offence is new section 101V, consumption of liquor at regulated place which causes nuisance. This offence is, essentially, an aggravated section 101U offence. It provides that it is an offence to consume liquor in a regulated place and, while consuming the liquor, cause a nuisance to other persons.
The term nuisance is used to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others - for example, indecent conduct or a rubbish heap - and the harm caused by the activity or condition - for example, loud noises or objectionable odours. Nuisance is addressed at stopping bothersome activities or conduct which unreasonably interferes with the rights of the general public. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience. The maximum penalty for this offence is five penalty units, currently $685, and it is an offence of strict liability.
This bill provides that section 101V is also an offence to which police may issue an infringement notice of half a penalty unit, currently $70. This enables the offence to trigger a BAT notice under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act through amendment to section 9(4) of that act which defines alcohol-related infringement notice. Three infringements within 12 months will result in the offender being placed on the Banned Drinker Register. Amendments are made to the Liquor Regulations in Part 3 of the bill and to the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act in Part 4 of the bill in this bill to achieve this.
The second new offence is new section 101W which provides that it is an offence to consume liquor at a regulated place which is a designated area ...
Madam SPEAKER: I remind the children that no cameras are allowed in the galleries and no photography, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Section 120F of the Liquor Act currently provides for the declaration of designated area by the minister when alcohol-related violence has occurred in a public place in the vicinity of licensed premises within the declared designated area and the exercise of powers by police under Division 3 or 4 relating to banning notices in relation to the designated area is reasonably likely to be an effective way of preventing or reducing the occurrence of alcohol-related violence in the area.
Police advise that in designated areas such as Mitchell Street people can be found outside of licensed premises in possession of and drinking liquor. The liquor is purchased from a licensed premise but the consumption of the liquor, as it is in a public place within 2 km of licensed premises, is contrary to current section 45D of the Summary Offences Act. Often, people are intoxicated and the containers end up as litter or broken in the street creating a public hazard. Currently, a police officer is only empowered to confiscate the liquor under section 45H of the Summary Offences Act. New section 101W is intended to address this through deterring the behaviour by applying a monetary penalty. The maximum penalty for this offence is five penalty units, currently $685, and it is an offence of strict liability.
As with section 101V, new section 101W is also an offence to which police may issue an infringement notice, and also an offence that is able to trigger a BAT notice under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act.
New Part VIIIB in the Liquor Act also sets out provisions relating to exemption notices and exemption certificates, as currently exist within old Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act, in new sections 101ZE to 101ZI. Section 101ZE provides for the publishing of an exemption notice in relation to a public place which allows consumption of liquor at that place. So, places such as the Nightcliff foreshore, which has portions declared exempt under the Summary Offences Act, can still be exempt.
Clause 8 of the bill provides for transitional matters relating to the repeal of Part VIA of the Summary Offences Act and the creation of the new Part VIIIB in the Liquor Act, including areas that are currently declared exempt continue to be exempt as if made exempt under the new provisions.
Clauses 12 to 29 in Part 4 of the bill then amend the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011. Other than amending the definition of alcohol-related infringement notice referred to previously, the bill also amends the definition of alcohol-related offence in section 9(4 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act 2011.
Section 9(2)(a) of that act allows police to issue a BAT notice to a person who is summonsed or charged in relation to an alcohol-related offence. Alcohol-related offence is then defined in section 9(4) and includes any offence where it is reasonably believed the alleged offender was affected by alcohol during the commission of the offence. However, the definition also provides that the reasonable belief is held by the police officer making the arrest. This, therefore, excludes persons who have been issued with a summons for an alcohol-related offence but not arrested at the time. Clause 15 addresses this anomaly by amending the definition of alcohol-related offence in section 9(4) so where an alleged offender is affected by alcohol at the time of the offence but is summonsed without arrest, they can be issued with a BAT notice. The amendment covers both situations where the suspected offender is either arrested or later summonsed.
Amendments are also made to the powers of the Alcohol and Drug Tribunal. While the tribunal only fully commenced operating in January this year, the tribunal clinicians and police have been working together on practical and operational tactics to locate, engage, and encourage people to attend assessments and tribunal hearings. While it is anticipated these will have benefits, the following amendments will address the gaps in the current powers of the tribunal, further encourage people to attend for assessment, and enable the tribunal to make orders requiring a person to be subject to income management through jurisdiction conferred by Commonwealth legislation.
Currently, under section 26 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act, a General Alcohol Prohibition, or GAP, order can be issued in relation to a person who fails to attend an assessment by a clinician as requested by the tribunal. GAP orders are orders stating that, for the period of the order, a person cannot purchase, possess, or consume alcohol. This GAP order will stay in place for three months, or until the person is assessed. If a person does not attend in the three months, then the tribunal can make a further GAP order; that is, GAP orders can be made in the absence of a person - ex parte - and can, essentially, operate indefinitely.
However, if an assessment is never undertaken, then the person cannot be assessed as ‘at risk’ for the purpose of the Banning Alcohol and Drugs Treatment (BADT) order. BADT orders are made under Division 3 of Part 3 of the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act, and can be made in relation to a person identified through the assessment process as ‘at risk’ and who has subsequently been referred to the tribunal. If the ‘at risk’ person is assessed as suitable, BADT orders must provide that the person is prohibited from purchasing, possessing, consuming, or using a stated substance and can be made for a longer period than the GAP order. However, BADT orders may also provide that the person undergoes specified treatment, counselling, or other intervention, or that the person is referred to a state entity for income management, that is Centrelink.
The Social Security Legislative Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced to the Commonwealth parliament in November 2011. It is anticipated that the bill will be debated in the autumn sittings. That bill allows for state or territory bodies to be determined by legislative instrument to be a recognised state/territory authority for the purposes of requiring a person to be subject to income management. The explanatory statement specifically refers to the tribunal as a likely body for that purpose. The bill amends the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act to accommodate this and allows the tribunal to exercise any power it is given in relation to income management as a recognised state/territory authority under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in making a BAT order, and provides additional incentive to attend the assessment by a clinician by allowing the tribunal to include in the BADT order that the banned person is required to be subject to income management.
The bill also amends the operation of secondary supply provisions in the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act to capture all possible prohibitions on alcohol that have been ordered by the court. The secondary supply provision in section 72 of that act, which prohibits a person from supplying a banned person, is currently only triggered for supply to a person subject to a GAP order, BADT order relating to alcohol, or a BAT notice.
Clause 29 of this bill amends section 72 to expand the type of alcohol-related orders that trigger a secondary supply BAT notice to include bail, parole, sentencing and domestic violence orders made by a court where the order prohibits the subject of the order from possessing, consuming or purchasing alcohol. These types of orders are already linked to the Banned Drinker Register through section 31A of the Liquor Act and associated Liquor Regulation, and clause 29 also links in to section 31A.
Madam Speaker, the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package is a comprehensive policy we are committed to following through. Major reforms such as this require ongoing work to ensure policy objectives are met. The legislation has commenced and tweaks have now been identified to ensure the legislation operates as effectively as possible and, ultimately, achieves the policy intent.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 200)
(Serial 200)
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, unfortunately the government will not be enjoying the support of the Country Liberals in relation the contents of this bill. Having said that, I understand and appreciate what the government is attempting to do in trying to make the workers compensation system work more equitably. However, what is equitable for a Labor government is not necessarily equitable for a business in the Northern Territory. It is our belief that the government has leaned too heavily in one direction without sufficient consideration to the effect on the other direction.
Several organisations have issue with this bill, not only the Country Liberals. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed reservations, as well as the insurance industry. In this House yesterday I spoke about the cost of doing business in the Northern Territory and that every time we pass a legislative instrument it has a potential cost impact, either on individuals in the community or business. The insurance industry says as a result of the passage of this bill there will be cost increases in the premiums paid by businesses in the Northern Territory to cover for workers compensation. Furthermore, costs incurred by business will be passed on to the consumer. We live in an environment where the cost of living in the Northern Territory is becoming a number one topic of concern for many families.
That is not to suggest members on this side of the House do not believe in a worker’s compensation system – of course we do. However, when we talk about equitable, we mean equity for the businesses, the workers, and the people who ultimately end up paying the insurance premium indirectly, which is the consumer.
Having made those general statements, there are several areas of concern in this bill. One of them is a matter for us, not a matter raised by the insurance industry or, for that matter, the Chamber of Commerce. It is a matter for us because it will have an effect on business premiums, and it is the new definition of worker.
This comes down to the use of contract employment in the workplace. The fuzziness surrounding the issue of contracts in the workplace is a matter of concern in a number of areas. Anyone who presents themselves to the workplace and needs an ABN – a bit of history here, the ABN was introduced by the Howard government very early in the piece, around the time of the GST, and enabled people to work as contractors. Many people who appear to be employees are actually employed under the contractual intention of an ABN. You have in the workplace environment many people who say to the boss: ‘I would like to work for you’, and the boss says: ‘Get yourself an ABN and I will pay you when you send me the bill’. This has the flavour of contracting attached to it; namely, paying a bill from an independent contractor from the employer’s point of view. However, people walking in off the street doing the labouring job, as far as they are concerned, are employees. It is interesting what is happening in an individual’s mind.
The intention of this bill is to sidestep that problem by essentially creating a definition of worker as anyone who goes into the workplace. Many in the workplace are actually contractors, which means they run their own ute, have their own business, the phone number is painted on the side of the ute, they work for multiple people who pay their bills, including going to job sites and, for three or four months, exclusively work for one person although they are still contractually able to pick up work elsewhere. They might pick up a three month job or a 12 month job, but every other notion, flavour, or examination would reveal these people to essentially be contractors. They are self-employed, autonomous, and have a contractual arrangement with the person who pays their bill when they issue it.
The effect of this legislative instrument is that everyone who goes onto a job site is going to be dealt with as an employee ...
Mr Knight: No, it does not.
Mr ELFERINK: No? That is how I see this is going to work. You can shake your head and have a whinge about it afterwards if you like, but the effect will be to cover everyone who enters the workplace. You are still shaking your head?
Mr Knight: It defines what a worker is.
Mr ELFERINK: I know it defines what a worker is; however, in many instances these contractors will carry their own insurance. Certainly, some people coming from labour hire firms have set themselves up as contractors. They run their own superannuation and have their own insurances. When they go into the workplace the employer, or the person paying the bills, is going to be told they have to insure that person because they are now defined as a worker in that workplace, which means this person will, possibly, be insured twice. That is an expense one way or the other. It is either an expense to the contractor or an expense to the employer. The decision of government is simply to make it an expense to the person who is running the worksite irrespective of the status of the person working there - whether they are genuinely a contractor or one of these ABN contractors who are contractors in name only.
I suggest to government a more appropriate way to deal with this issue is simply say that if someone is on the worksite with an ABN it is always a requirement they demonstrate proof of insurance. If they are not insured, they either do not get the job or are taken on as an employee properly, because that way you leave it for the marketplace and the parties to determine how the insurances work. Simply throwing a net over everyone, by defining worker the way it has been, is not a satisfactory outcome because it will have the effect of pushing up insurance premiums.
The other issue of concern is the continued weekly payments for injured workers living outside Australia. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated its concern, and we too have a concern about this because whilst the intent of the legislation, in its primary structure, is to allow a period of 104 weeks, in certain circumstances that could be extended to 208 weeks, or four years, of payments for people who live outside Australia and continue to claim workers compensation insurance. The potentiality of four years pay will drive up insurance premiums and there are not sufficient checks and balances in place to determine whether that person has an ongoing injury. What are they supposed to do? Produce a doctor’s certificate from someone in Bangkok, Manila or Denpasar?
Those things are of concern to this side of the House. They are also a concern to the Chamber of Commerce and, particularly, the insurance industry. The insurance industry is saying this will drive up premiums because insurance industries operate on risk - they do a risk analysis. If they see a greater risk of not being able to check the health of a person they are paying money to, they will assess that as a greater risk. There are two ways an insurance company deals with greater risk. The only way it can deal with one and continue to be in a commercial arrangement is to up the premiums. The other way is it does not cover. I do not expect they will not cover workers compensation; I expect they will up the premiums. The increasing level of risk for the insurer means the consumer will pay.
Those are our two big sticking points in relation to this legislative instrument. The exposure draft circulated some time before this bill was introduced has seen some amendments, particularly in the area of the definition of non-cash benefits. I suspect the government has picked up on the objections from the Chamber of Commerce on this area by changing the legislation to limit non-cash benefits to very specific things – power, water and accommodation.
____________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement - Members for Arafura and Goyder
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement - Members for Arafura and Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you mind if I announce a pair which is about to start?
I have a document relating to pairs for the member for Arafura and the member for Goyder from the period now, 10.30 am, until noon. It is signed by both Whips. I table that paper.
___________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the issue of non-cash benefits which is of concern to the Chamber of Commerce has been addressed because the reference to salary sacrifice schemes has been removed from the draft exposure and the matters have been limited to those three. Consequently, I acknowledge the government has made some effort in relation to this.
The other component is the age limits for workers compensation. We on this side of the House do not see any problem with that. I will be surprised if I retire before the age of 70 and, whilst this deals with issues of workers compensation, more generally speaking it is almost inevitable the pensionable age attached to workers compensation, and the general age of workers, will increase over time simply because we are living longer. Only so much of the community can be unproductive, if you like, and be carried - for lack of better words - by another component of the community. There is a definite ratio between the unproductive and the productive component. As we age, if we continue retiring at the age of 55 - which is what ComSuper offers as a superannuation scheme – then, eventually, it becomes unsustainable. You only have to look at what is happening in some other countries regarding promised pensions and the burden that is now representing.
Regarding workers compensation, if a person is injured under this legislation and is approaching the age of 65, it enables the compensation to be pushed out for up to two years under certain circumstances. The opposition has no major problem with that. I expect that in future years further parliaments - whether I am in them or not - will have to deal with the fact we live in an ageing community.
With respect to the change in interest rates for weekly compensation, the original interest rate was set at a time of much higher interest rates. These interest rates have the flavour, if you like, of having a punitive quality to them in an effort to try to force companies to pay the compensation in a timely fashion. Of course, we now live in an age of somewhat lower interest rates; the arbitrary figure set in the early 1990s does not particularly accord with the modern era. This came up during the briefing I had in relation to this bill. I made a suggestion that, rather than setting another arbitrary rate, you benchmark it against the 10-year bond rate. That it is now being benchmarked against CPI or some such thing; I could not be certain ...
Mr Knight: The Supreme Court rate.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Mr Knight: The Supreme Court rate.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, against the Supreme Court. That is fine, because changes in those rates will be reflected in the overall interest rate. You could have tied it to the 10-year bond rate, the Supreme Court rate, the Reserve Bank rate, or whatever. However, we will not be coming back here and tweaking these numbers every three years because interest rates go up or down. The government has picked up on that point and found a vehicle by which to deal with it, and we raise no major issue in relation to that.
Finally, as a result of this reform, the Supreme Court will be able to remit matters back to the Work Health Court. We, on this side of the House, think, yes, why wouldn’t you? That is perfectly sensible and we raise no issue with that component.
Whilst we do not have issues with some of the things attempted in this legislative instrument, they are inextricably bound to each other. We have the choice, as an opposition, to come to this parliament with a raft of amendments, trying to pull these things apart and saying yes to that or no to that. However, it is unfortunate that they have all been bundled into one and it is beyond the capacity of the opposition to get the legislative required drafting done. In fact, it is pretty much beyond the capacity of Parliamentary Counsel, based on recent experience, to ask them to do that type of drafting. So, as a consequence, we find ourselves in a position where we cannot support this bill in its entirety and, therefore, cannot support the bill.
Madam Speaker, the passage of this legislation will invariably lead to higher insurance premiums being paid by businesses and, ultimately, higher costs to the consumers. The cost of living in this jurisdiction is already too high. Whilst we understand what the government is trying to do in finding a balance between the rights of workers, the rights of businesses, and the rights of consumers, in truth, we feel the government has overstepped the mark in the areas identified. As a consequence, we cannot support a bill which will have a detrimental effect on the operation of businesses in the Northern Territory and will put further pressure on the cost of living for Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first I thank various groups for the number of briefings I have had in working my way through what is a fairly complex bill dealing with a whole range of issues. I thank the Department of Justice; NT WorkSafe; the Insurance Council of Australia, especially Colin Chilcott from QBE; Richard Harding from TIO; and the head of the NT Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, Cathy Spurr. I have also had conversations with the Chamber of Commerce through Chris Young, and a meeting with Mary Martin, Director for Workforce Growth and Skilled Migration. I mention that because it gives an indication of the complexity of what we are dealing with today. Some things may seem straightforward; others are changes which need to be debated in this House so people understand my position on this bill.
I will go through the bill looking at the issues in order. There is a definition of ‘the worker’. I do not have a problem with the change of definition; it is a very important change. The Chamber of Commerce says it understands why it has been changed and does not really have a problem with it. The Insurance Council supports the amendment, as does the TIO, although it has some concerns over a number of issues in relation to it. Generally speaking, those three organisations support it. I also support it because I believe some companies have used the ABN system to get around their responsibilities to pay workers compensation. In fact, I know of one young bloke working in primary industry who wanted to help out working with cattle in the Darwin area as part of the live cattle export business. He wanted to work for three days and was asked to provide an ABN. A young bloke under 20 years old is not going to know much about an ABN and his responsibilities. As far as I know, that young bloke has never been paid. You might ask why it has not been chased up, and I would say the young bloke just threw his hands up and said: ‘I will move on, it is all too hard’.
I see a definite need for clear delineation of who is a contractor and who is an employee. It is not fair that there are employers simply avoiding their responsibility to have workers compensation insurance by asking someone, for instance a person under the age of 20, to provide an ABN number which would mean they were a contractor and therefore would have to have their own insurance. I definitely support what has been put forward today.
In relation to the age limits, the TIO supports it on the proviso the amendments do not commence prior to 1 July 2012 so insurers will be able to prospectively factor into their premiums this estimated impact of benefit change. The Insurance Council supports this as well; it is in line with the Australian government’s decision to increase the qualifying age for workers to access the aged pension under the Social Security Act, and I agree. In the amendments there are quite a few variations of how this would work depending on how old you are at the time. That section of the act is a little complicated, but I am presuming those percentages and clauses relate to varying situations of when you might have had to apply for workers compensation - whether you were just under 65, just over 65, or just below 67. The principle is good.
I have had a number of people ask why they cannot get workers compensation for as long as they want to work. This issue needs to be tackled. There are many people who would still like to work, perhaps part-time, and it seems it is difficult to get workers compensation. A clause in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act allows some coverage for a small period of time for people if they are injured, but to some extent it is discriminatory that you cannot get workers compensation based on age. There are reasons for that. As people get older they may be in jobs where they are more likely to be injured, but you would wonder, if you were doing secretarial work in an office at age 70, why you should not be covered. Seniors, through COTA, have been pushing for changes in this area and it is certainly one that needs reviewing. If people want to keep working why should they be restricted by not being able to get proper workers compensation coverage?
The issue of non-cash payments has been a problem for the insurance industry. The Chamber of Commerce supports the proposals in the bill today because it believes it will reduce disputation and increase certainty. It says there should be some consideration given to definitions and perhaps the introduction of an upper limit. The TIO says the basis of evaluation should be the cost to the employer but, in many instances, the value adopted is a value to the worker, leading to inconsistencies.
TIO understands the expense of engaging professional valuers to travel to remote work sites and the increased risk of litigation. These were identified in the policy change process but dismissed as immaterial. They say there is difficulty that insurers cannot include non-cash benefits in premium setting, and workers will not know what they will receive in the event of an injury causing incapacity. They say the proposed amendments do not provide sufficient clarity - capped and/or fixed is feasible. They have some concerns about how that section of the bill will operate, but the Insurance Council is supportive with respect to providing a definition and clarifying the extent of non-cash benefits. However, they have some concerns. They say the amendment does not adequately address existing issues as it does not provide for any statutory maximum capping of those benefits. You have different points of view; however, what has been put forward by the government is a good compromise.
As with many things, time will tell if these changes will reduce some of the concerns of the industry. We also have to bear in mind we are trying to protect workers and have to ensure they get a fair go. This has to be given equal weight in any debate today on this issue.
The important area for me is workers receiving compensation living outside Australia. There are two major issues. There is the payment to a worker injured in an accident on a site in Australia who then goes overseas, either voluntarily or as required if a 457 visa holder and, on the insurance side, the increased cost to insurance companies passed onto businesses through increased premiums.
The present situation with an injured worker who goes overseas is insurance companies pay for rehabilitation and medical expenses as they would for workers who stay in Australia. There are requirements for an invoice from a provider, proof of ID, and a medical certificate not less than every three months. There is no compensation and his wage is paid.
The new proposal means compensation of up to 104 weeks can occur, and the requirements are proof of ID and incapacity on an approved form at not less than three-month intervals. This can be extended by another 104 weeks by the court, but only if the person is totally and permanently incapacitated. A person who is partially incapacitated can get 104 weeks and no more, but a person who may be permanently incapacitated can get an extension. There is only one extension. There is no more compensation, but medical benefits and rehabilitation continue for life or as long as required.
A number of important issues need to be taken into consideration. Injured workers going home to another country are treated the same as Australian workers when it comes to rehabilitation and medical payments. Workers in Australia, if partially incapacitated, would continue to receive compensation – wages - until rehabilitated, or part payment if partially able to return to work until retirement. Workers returning to their home overseas - 457 visa holders - could receive up to 104 weeks if partially incapacitated then it would end. Workers in Australia totally incapacitated would receive compensation to retirement. Workers returning home overseas and totally incapacitated could have up to 104 weeks compensation, plus a 104 week extension if approved by the tribunal then it would end.
Insurance companies say they would have no control over rehabilitation therefore there could be a large compensation payout and a subsequent increase in premiums. They refer to the arrival of INPEX and similar projects in the future. Insurance companies cannot say - we asked them a number of times - how many cases are presently overseas, and cannot say how they manage them. You would think there would be figures on workers compensation data available from when Bechtel was constructing the Wickham Point gas plant. Insurance companies fly doctors to remote areas in Australia to check progress of worker rehabilitation - to ensure a worker is being rehabilitated or is still permanently incapacitated. I have heard of doctors being flown from Adelaide to Darwin to check up on a patient on behalf of TIO a number of times. If they can fly them to Darwin, why can’t they fly them to Dili or Manila or wherever? In fact, someone might be being rehabilitated on the Cocos Islands. It would be costly to have a person check on their rehabilitation. Insurance companies do that now. They use that method to ensure someone is not rorting the system.
The number of workers compensation cases for 457 visa holders is quite low. You can use the statistics you find in this book, the Comparative Performance Monitoring Report 13th Edition, which talks about the number of claims per 100 000 employees - around 12 claims per 1000 employees. That means about 4% of claims would require treatment over 52 weeks. WorkSafe gave us a chart of the number of weeks people who have put in a claim would require treatment, and only 4% of people would require treatment over 52 weeks. You are not talking about many people. In fact, there are presently 1400 visa holders in the Territory - primary and secondary – and there would be 17 claimants out of that if you took the percentages. If you took the percentage of who would be claiming for more than 52 weeks compensation it would be one person.
Insurance companies say this could blowout more if workers come from Asia to work with INPEX. They do not make any mention of any extra premiums they would receive for more workers covered, and they do not have figures to support their statement even though we tried very hard, up until yesterday, to get those figures. It surprises me, as they manage these claims, that they cannot tell us how many and how they monitor rehabilitation. The issue from the insurance company’s point of view, which is an important one, is if they cannot manage the rehabilitation as an employer is required to do, they could be paying wages out forever and a day. However, they pay rehabilitation at the moment, and they pay it according to the same standards as for an Australian worker living in Australia. What are they doing about monitoring their own rehabilitation? We cannot get that answer out of them.
Insurance companies claim the premiums for overseas workers could go up by 15%. WorkSafe say increases in scheme costs could be around 0.37%.
Another factor you have to take into account - we received these figures from Immigration - 87% of 457 visa holders obtain permanent residency. If you take that as well you reduce the number who would fall into the category of being required to go home if injured.
All workers, if employed in Australia, should receive the same benefits regardless of whether they are required to return overseas or wish to return. After all, Australian companies want 457 workers to fill positions employers cannot fill using Australian labour. I put this on record: what difference does it make if an employer comes from Manila, the United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, Canada – they are the countries we get people from - or Ireland? They have a family to support so why are they treated differently once they leave these shores?
Workers permanently incapacitated should be treated as if living in Australia with checks required by a doctor of the insurer’s choice at specified intervals. The number of people who would fall into this category would be very small and, as we know, approximately 87% of 457 workers apply for and receive permanent citizenship, meaning even fewer would need to go home. Insurance companies, if they wish, can stop any rorting of the system by requiring a doctor of the insurance company’s choice to check on the state of the worker. It is done in Australia so why not overseas? For instance, a doctor might come to Darwin to check out three or four patients on behalf of insurance companies. What great extra cost would it be to fly that doctor to Kuala Lumpur, Manila, or further overseas, compared to the cost they say this will add to workers compensation?
Insurance companies now pay rehabilitation and medical costs for anyone overseas; however, they cannot say how many and what they do to check rehabilitation is occurring. How can they argue they would have no control over the system when it does not seem to bother them now? This legislation still requires workers to show proof of ID and incapacity to work every three months, otherwise payments cease.
What is desperately needed is national uniform legislation to ensure all workers, no matter where they work in Australia, are entitled to the same treatment. Presently, we have a dog’s breakfast of rules for each state. I have documentation here which tells me about all the different set-ups throughout Australia - just when you want it you cannot find it. It would be good to say in Western Australia it is capped - thank you, minister, I hope they are the same as mine otherwise we are in real trouble.
New South Wales has a scheme where the maximum amount payable for weekly compensation is up to $1838. In South Australia, there is a series of requirements you need to fulfil otherwise payments are suspended. In Victoria, a worker who is overseas is not entitled to receive weekly payments unless the medical referee certifies the worker’s incapacity is permanent. In the ACT, a worker in receipt of weekly compensation payments is not entitled to such payments if the worker lives outside Australia unless a medical referee certifies the worker’s incapacity resulting from the injury is permanent. In Tasmania, weekly benefits are not affected by a worker’s residency, and they generally cease after nine years of the commencement of incapacity. Western Australia has a maximum compensation payable of $190 000, a limitation on the amount paid for medical benefits, which is not here.
When a person is brought in from overseas to work it is a bit like pot luck depending on which state they go to. They might get a better deal in another state. This is a classic example of where you need uniform legislation. If a person is coming to work in Australia - that is all they know - they are not worried about the internal governance matters this country has in relation to cutting itself up into states and territories. So, there is certainly a requirement to revise this section of the act so we are all on the same page.
In relation to that, our present legislation and even the proposed legislation, although an improvement, is discriminatory against overseas workers who, if injured, receive a lesser package of compensation than if they were Australian or allowed to stay in Australia. If these workers were allowed to stay in Australia when injured, would it still not cost the insurance companies money? If the main complaint by insurance companies is by going overseas the system could be rorted - especially, as they say, in some Asian countries - what are they doing now to check rehabilitation costs in countries where they pay workers?
When asked, the insurance companies do not have an answer. When asked how many are under this scheme at present, they do not have an answer. I had to rely on the figures available which give the percentage of workers affected by workers compensation per 1000 head of population and relate that to the number of 457 workers in the Territory. The maths tells you this number is quite small. Insurance companies have the means to check workers to ensure claims are legitimate. Insurance companies fly doctors to Darwin to check workers, so why can’t they fly them to Manila or other places? If a worker was living on the Cocos Islands, wouldn’t they fly a doctor there? It will still cost money; it is part of the job of insurance companies.
The ICA says the government should be required to use an actuary before this legislation is passed. NT WorkSafe has shown figures and, from that, a reasonable estimation of claims can be deduced. ICA, which represents the insurance industry, has not been able to provide a history showing the number of claims and other reasonable details to argue this could be a big cost to the industry. One gets the impression the claim about a possible large increase in costs is a case of crying wolf. It is interesting our own TIO has said it supports this part of the legislation as long as there are adequate safeguards. TIO is, I believe, a member of the ICA. I am just checking if I have the letter with me. TIO said:
- This amendment is being introduced to manage a relatively infrequent situation where the injured worker is a non-resident and wishes to return home (or in fact may be required to return home due to expiry of visa) while still receiving benefits. The main issue for insurers in this reform is potential misuse of the eligibility for entitlements given that it is much more difficult to manage a claim outside of Australia. NT WorkSafe have promised legislative and administrative safeguards to minimise misuse of entitlements, through requirements for a declaration by the worker, a declaration by a medical practitioner approved by the Work Health Authority at intervals of three months, and limitation of payments to 104 weeks from the date on which the worker leaves Australia. It remains to be seen if these safeguards are sufficiently strong.
TIO has no objections to this amendment provided the safeguards against potential abuse are sufficiently strong.
One of the main insurance companies in the Territory, with provisos, says it supports this amendment. At the same time, it is saying this amendment has been introduced to manage a relatively infrequent situation, which is one of the points I have tried to emphasise through this debate.
TIO runs the MACA Scheme, which has to pay out for people injured. It has the ability to make lump sum payments through that scheme, which could be an option for those claiming workers compensation. There is the possibility of a Hopkins agreement, which I had never heard of until I had the briefing, which allows for a payment but does not exclude a future claim. As TIO runs both the MACA Scheme and workers compensation, this might be an opportunity to see if there can be some harmonisation of the schemes as we are dealing with similar matters, that is, an injured person may go overseas. It would make sense for both schemes to offer the same conditions.
The issue of workers compensation for overseas workers is a dog’s breakfast when you look at the different state legislation, some of which is private-based and some state-based. There is an urgent need for uniform law to cover these workers. There also needs to be a review of the 457 visa program so injured workers can stay in Australia for rehabilitation and not be sent home, or have to get another visa such as a medical visa. If this was resolved, some of the issues discussed today may not apply.
In discussions we had with Mary Martin, an injured person, unless sponsored for a second term in Australia - they may not be able to do that because they may have run out of options for a new term of sponsorship - can apply for a medical visa, or even a tourist visa. The problem with that is you do not know because it has to be assessed case by case and there is no guarantee it will happen. Also, that leaves the secondary 457 Visa people up in the air. This is usually the spouse or the children who come with the primary 457 Visa people who may have jobs and, all of a sudden, they have to leave Australia as well.
I ask the minister to make contact with the federal government to see if serious consideration could be given to amending the 457 Visa program to enable a worker, if injured in Australia, to stay in Australia until rehabilitated. The only proviso would be if a person is declared permanently incapacitated, it is pointless staying in Australia if they do not want to; they can go home. They would be paid the same as a worker in Australia, but would be required to have checks by an Australian doctor on a regular basis to ensure that incapacity still exists.
I will not vote on this bill because, even though it is a step forward, that is, workers will now receive some compensation, I see no real and proven reason why those workers should not receive the same entitlements as a worker in Australia. If I vote against it, those workers will receive nothing. If I vote for it, I will agree with capping which discriminates and treats those workers as second rate.
The Labor government is supposed to be a friend of the worker and proclaim workers’ rights; however, in this case it only half proclaims those rights and half proclaims the rights of insurance companies. I do not mind them sticking up for insurance companies where there is an argument to do so; however, I have put forward statistics and enough proof to show the effect of this legislation will be minimal. I also agree with the member for Port Darwin that premiums will go through the roof.
I have looked at this issue from both sides. What would the effect be? This is what we are meant to look at. I have looked at the statistics and cannot see - as I have shown, one worker in the Territory would be subject to more than 52 weeks compensation. Even if we had 10 times the number of workers - 10 people - that would not break the bank for insurance companies as they will receive extra premiums through more policies.
This debate reminds me of a certain debate in 2004 in this parliament where there was a move by the government to take away the rights of workers to have superannuation payments as part of their workers compensation claims. I opposed it then because I believed that was taking up the baton of the insurance companies to the detriment of workers. If you are 15 years out from retirement, are injured, and for the next 15 years do not pay into your superannuation, you are 15 years behind the eight ball and worse off. Workers compensation is not about making people worse off. It should be about keeping the equilibrium those people would have been able to achieve if they were fit and healthy. The government listened too much to the insurance companies and that was an unfair decision.
Workers from overseas have families and should not be regarded as inferior or less deserving of the benefits of workers compensation received by an Australian worker with a family. Why does a boundary make any difference to a person’s rights? It is easy to say: ‘We will give you a few dollars to suit the insurance company’. Is that fair? Is that ethical? They are the questions I have had to ask through this debate. That is why this legislation has taken me so long to work through. I have probably driven people from the department up the wall with the number of times we have had briefings and the number of times ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. It has been a long road to get to this position. I have tossed up either side of the equation on what I think should be right. Insurance companies should be given a fair go, which is why I have gone down the path of checking what that would mean in reality. If I thought this was going to blow out of all proportion I would be asking where WorkSafe is. You have to balance this.
We have new, uniform occupational health and safety legislation across Australia. You would hope some of the risks we had years ago are reduced. In fact, when you look at this document, the Northern Territory has been reducing its risk in relation to worker’s injuries substantially over the last few years. Balance that with are there fewer claims than 10 years ago. I have tried to look at the statistics fairly. I have had many meetings with Cliff from QBE - he must be sick of me as well. I have tried to be fair and look at this in a way which would satisfy the insurance companies and the workers.
This is not a political thing for me; it is not a socialist debate. This is about how to deal with a fellow human being – an injured worker who might live in Zimbabwe, Ireland, or Asia, and has a wife and kids to look after and a mortgage. At the moment we send them off and do not give them any wages at all. That is bad. We are now going to send him off with two years payment. That might be a help, but it probably is not going to help if it takes longer than that.
The real problem is not so much the partially incapacitated; it is the permanently incapacitated who could spend their life not being able to get a job. Under this legislation, you only get rehabilitation and medical costs. After four years you are finished. Does that help the person? Sometimes, you have to put yourself in the place of the worker: ‘I have lost both legs in an industrial accident and have been sent back to a little village or town in some country and I cannot work. I might have brain damage as well. What happens to me? Am I not entitled, because I want to go home to my family, to receive the same compensation as an Australian?’ That is what I have looked at. That is the fairness. This will not be a major cost to industry. I have statistics to show that and, on the other hand, I cannot see any argument to say because you have left our borders you should receive compensation different to someone who still lives here. ‘I worked in this country and I was injured in this country. Can someone please tell me why I should not receive the same compensation?’
The only reason I have been given is insurance companies say they cannot monitor it. However, they are supposed to be monitoring the rehabilitation and medical expenses but do not seem to be doing that at the moment. Are they fair dinkum? Are they doing the job they are supposed to? If not, it is not a real concern.
Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this bill because I need to make the statement - probably shamefully in this parliament - we removed the rights of workers to have any wages in 2002 and I was part of that debate. I may have been too green and not understood what was going through. However, from what I now know, if I had to vote on that bill I would oppose it. The rights of a worker should not be differentiated, they should not be discriminated; they should receive the same entitlements as anyone else.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I was very interested to listen to the member for Nelson’s contribution. Good on him for taking the time to do the research on this bill quite seriously. I have some concerns. He has some lofty ambitions that people should not be treated differently. I spent a little time in the insurance industry prior to entering parliament and, unfortunately, in this world all things are not equal. When I say unfortunately, it is not unfortunate. It is just a reality, and in some cases not a bad thing.
I will give you one example. I was contacted by a group of fellows who ran a large offshore oil exploration company - one of these big multinationals - in the early 1990s and, at the time, the average wage was about $1500 a week in the hand. The average rig pig was very well paid and still is, and deservedly so. These guys said: ‘We want an insurance contract to cover workers if they are injured. What do you suggest?’ I said: ‘We first do an assessment of their wages’. The going rate at that time was you insured someone for 75% of their wage. I mentioned that to these guys and they said: ‘No, no, we want to do it for 40%. We will insure 40% of their wages’. I said: ‘Why would you not do 75% of their wages?’ They said: ‘Well, if we pay 75% of their wages as an insurance component we will not have people turn up. Rather than going through the rigours and trials of working for extended periods offshore most people will say they are happy with 75% of their wages to stay where they are and not have to go onto the rigs and our claims would go through the roof’.
Unfortunately, that is the situation. We have unscrupulous employers and, sometimes, we have employees who try to get a little more than they are entitled to. Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the member for Nelson that there should be a level playing field, quite often there is not and for very good reason. All people cannot be treated equally. Similarly, someone heading overseas to some third world country being paid 75% of their Australian wage for two years could do very well in that country where costs are so much lower. They do not have the high rents or the high electricity costs.
I know of people who reside overseas permanently on our unemployment benefits, a disability pension or similar. They live in Asian countries or Third World countries simply because the cost of living is so much cheaper. When I was a federal member, I was contacted by a fellow who wanted to use Royal Darwin Hospital for a major operation and, at that time, he had been living in the Philippines for 15 years. He was quite adamant that, as an Australian citizen, he should be allowed to attend Royal Darwin Hospital and receive free medical treatment. Part of our Medicare arrangement in Australia is you have to live in the country to receive treatment.
I see a double standard when someone says: ‘I am quite happy to pick up an Australian disability pension, live and operate overseas and never come back to Australia, but be entitled to a pension’. Then, at the first hint of illness, an accident, or requirement to go hospital, they are on the first plane back saying: ‘Hang on, I am an Australian citizen. I demand my rights’. To me, there is something a bit odd about that. Member for Nelson, I agree there should be a level playing field. It is a wonderful idea if we were all living in Nirvana and everything was equal. Unfortunately, the reality is it is not.
I heard what the member for Port Darwin had to say. He was very comprehensive in his reasons why the opposition will not be supporting this. He made the point - and went into it in some detail - that insurance companies are saying this will drive up premiums. The member for Nelson said he cannot see any reason why it will drive up premiums. The member for Nelson said exactly the same thing about container deposit legislation - it would not drive up costs or the price of drinks. The government said that, and is still saying how greedy these companies are - there is much greed in the container deposit industry - and there is no reason why prices should go up, but, whoopee doo, they have gone up.
I have similar concerns with this legislation. When you have insurance companies saying this will drive up premiums you have to take those statements reasonably seriously. Insurance companies, generally, will employ actuaries, who are very clever people. They are good at statistics, they understand risk, and they understand how to devise a premium for a particular type of cover. When you have groups of actuaries suggesting certain legislation will drive up premiums it is worthwhile taking notice of them. You can disregard the information and say it is a consequence - everything comes at a cost and we are prepared to take the cost and accept premiums will go up. That is fine, but do not say that is all nonsense and these very clever people do not know what they are talking about. Fundamentally, the actuaries will determine the price of premiums.
Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin touched on the definition of ‘the worker’ and I want to go a little further with that. My concern with this legislation is this movement, right across Australia since the election of the Labor government in Canberra, to somehow rope in more workers and fewer contractors. We see it happening across Australia in the most insidious way where Labor governments are trying to do their bit for union movements. Where someone is deemed to be a contractor, generally those individuals do not join trade unions. In some cases they do, but it is not always the case. The trade unions have recognised this and seem to think we need a much more highly regulated labour market. There is a bunch of what they call ‘sham contractors’ who need to be picked up in various legislation to tell them they are not contractors, they are workers. I have some concerns about that.
I should say from the outset that I am not big on union bashing. I have spent a considerable period of my life as a union member, and a considerable period of time working with trade unions in the Northern Territory. My view of trade unions in the Territory is pretty high. I have seen the men and women of the union movement in the Northern Territory doing their jobs: getting out there and fighting for the rights of workers, seeing workers who have been discriminated against, who are poorly paid, and who are not getting their fair shake. They are being well represented by hard-working trade union officials and that is great. I encourage people in a job that brings with it an element of risk, or are concerned about their employment conditions, to become involved with a trade union. There is much benefit in that.
However, the reality of the Australian economy, the Australian workforce, is organised unionism is struggling. The reason is that we are an enterprising nation made up of enterprising, entrepreneurial people. People want to have a go; they want to make something of themselves. You see it in industries across the board where people are saying: ‘I can do better for myself by not working for someone else’. A couple of years ago, for the first time in Australia’s history, we had more small businesses than union members. Whilst trade unions will lament that and see it is a bad thing, others say it is fantastic that these people should be encouraged to get out there and have a go, make something of themselves and try to do a bit more for the country. These people are generally very entrepreneurial, very enterprising, and extraordinarily hard-working. You cannot survive in this world as a small businessperson if you are not hard-working. You cannot survive as a self-employed person if you are not hard-working. It defies logic. You also have to have a huge sense of personal responsibility. You have a personal responsibility to pay your taxes; you do not have an employer deducting them from your pay. You have a personal responsibility to look after yourself in retirement; you do not have an employer deducting contributions from your pay. In this case, you have personal responsibility to ensure your health and safety is insured. That is a requirement of everyone in small business.
Madam Speaker, you have been in small business yourself and would appreciate these things. It is unfortunate that in this Chamber there are not more people who have been self-employed, or operated in small business, because it is a very different world. It is very different from taking the wages an employer has paid you - an employer who also looks after you, pampers you, ensures your retirement is taken care of, ensures your taxes are paid, and ensures your accident, sickness and work health cover is up to date. When you are self-employed or are a contractor or a small businessperson, all of those responsibilities become yours. It is a big responsibility.
The fact is more and more Australians are choosing to go down that path every day. They are saying they can do better as small business people, as self-employed people, as entrepreneurs, than they can working for a boss, and that is to be encouraged. Unfortunately, in Australia, we now have a national government which is tied in such a way to the union movement that it disregards to a large extent those entrepreneurial and enterprising individuals in our community. The government is trying to do more and more for its friends in the Labor movement and the trade union movement by pushing as many people as it can into trade unions because it sees the departure from trade unionism as an attack on its political future.
We see it in whole range of areas. The Office of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, which was introduced by the Howard government, has subtly changed. It is going to be the Australian Builders and Contracting Commission. The terms of reference have changed subtly, from looking out for corrupt activities to looking out for sham contractors. A bunch of these spivs have now set up an office in Darwin and are going around building sites and other workplaces trying to weed out what they determine are sham contractors. Of course, they are coming down on the employers and those individuals saying this has to stop. In fact, they should be assisting people to ensure they are up to speed. Ultimately, if you are a small businessperson or a self-employed person and are not paying taxes, not paying work health cover, and not paying into a superannuation fund, the reality of life is you go without.
Member for Nelson, it would be a wonderful world if we were all looked after, did not have to worry about anything, and government did everything for us. But people are saying they do not want that. They want a little flexibility in their lives. They want to be able to determine their own futures and are prepared to take the risk to do that.
I am concerned when I see little things like this in legislation that is a further advancement of the cause to stop entrepreneurialism - to stop enterprising activity and force people into paid jobs for an employer who will take out superannuation, work health cover, pay their taxes and, of course, their union dues as well. Ultimately, that is what the goal is underneath all this; let us make no mistake about it. The goal is to get more people into trade unions because these people hark back to the good old days of industrial muscle: the ‘united we will never be defeated’ attitude, which is, in many ways, a bygone era of Australia. We look back on those times fondly ...
Dr Burns: Well, do not mention the war. What about the chicken and Work Choices?
Mr TOLLNER: Or the great demarcation disputes?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is right. Work Choices was a bridge too far they say.
Dr Burns: For you it was.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We all remember the days of the great demarcation disputes.
Dr Burns: And the great chicken.
Mr TOLLNER: ... and all of that type of thing. Yes, the chicken. Yes, being followed around by my friend up there, Hopper, dressed in a chicken suit. I believe he is working for one of you guys now. He is working for the minister over here; no wonder he is sitting in the gallery listening. Alan Paton sitting in the gallery is one of those guys in the union movement who did a damn good job ...
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: He represented the worker and did a good job. He was one of the guys - I find myself on the opposite side of the political table from him quite often, but I can never fault him on the job he did for his members when he was running the Electrical Trades Union in the Northern Territory. He did not look particularly flash dressed in a chicken suit, but whatever turns you on, Alan, whatever turns you on, mate. If you want to run around in a chicken suit you probably have a friend in the member for Nelson. He has a fondness for any poultry matter. Pardon the pun, it was a yolk. I cracked a yolk, but I digress.
I did not want to waffle on for too long or wax lyrical, but I have some interest in this. My view is if you want to fix matters of occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory there is one glaring solution: put a broom through the senior ranks of WorkSafe. It is a dysfunctional organisation; it is poorly run, poorly managed, and is not doing too much at all for workers across the Northern Territory. Some of the people who work there are some of the most decent people I have ever met - like my friend Alan, former ETU Territory Secretary. Like him, people at WorkSafe are very hard-working and decent people. However, the management in that organisation is almost dysfunctional.
It should be recognised by government, and the minister should do something to fix up the joint because, quite frankly, it is just not right. It should not be a retirement home for washed-out union hacks and Labor Party apparatchiks. I notice the Treasurer is back in here now, the minister for Business. She is doing a similar thing with the department of Business - it is becoming a retirement home for former Labor Party political operatives. I see our good friend, Adele Young, has popped up there - does not report to anyone, no one reports to her ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is usually a convention in this House that we do not mention public servants by name. That is really up to the member for Fong Lim. If he wants to keep on bashing public servants, that is up to him.
Mr TOLLNER: No, I am not bashing public servants at all. I am bashing Labor hacks ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could just come back to the bill, insomuch as we are talking about the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about the bill, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is too much disassociated from WorkSafe and this bill. That is on the topic. When you talk about WorkSafe, of course, you are talking about a large retirement home for spent Labor Party hacks and union operatives. The Business minister is doing the same now with the department of Business. She has just placed Adele Young in a job - does not report to anyone, no one reports to her, but she has a high-paying job there ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim should know all appointments to the public service are done through the PSEMA. He needs to be careful what he is alleging here.
Mr TOLLNER: Is this really a point of order, Madam Speaker?
Ms Lawrie: He is misleading the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it has been a convention that we do not name public servants. However, I have given you a level of latitude here, but if you can come back to the bill that would be helpful.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will definitely do that.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, there is a person in the department of Business who is a well-known Labor Party operative, well-known to business people. She is the one who collects the money every four years to run campaigns …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no relevance to the legislation with the misguided and wrong allegations being made by the member for Fong Lim. He is misleading the parliament right now.
Mr TOLLNER: Is that a point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe she is talking to digression. Member for Fong Lim, you have, in fact, spoken very closely to the bill and there has not been much digression. I will allow a level of digression at this point, but I remind you using names of public servants is really not appropriate in the House as there is no real right of reply.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer has accused the honourable member of misleading the House. She knows how to deal with that allegation otherwise she should withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, can you please withdraw the comment?
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. He is wrong. He is absolutely wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you it is a bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your flexibility in this matter and the fact I may well have strayed a little. However, it is interesting the truth cuts deep with some of these people ...
Ms Lawrie: No truth to what you are saying.
Mr TOLLNER: You can have a discussion about a few things, but the second you near up to the Treasurer’s friends, all of a sudden, she gets quite shirty and gets to her feet and tries to gag discussion on it. I digress, Madam Speaker.
We will not be supporting the bill, as the member for Port Darwin said. He spoke extraordinarily well and summed up all of the reasons why the opposition does not support this legislation. I encourage all members of this House to listen to the wise words of the member for Port Darwin; he is spot on.
I appreciate some of the things the member for Nelson had to say. Unfortunately, he lives in an unachievable Nirvana at times evidenced by many things. We can all aspire to live in these dream world places but, eventually, reality drags us back into the world we were born in.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I am speaking as the Minister for Public Employment because in that portfolio I have had an ongoing interest in this issue as that portfolio deals with industrial relations matters.
I commend all members for their contribution. I know the minister will be wrapping up, but up until the member for Fong Lim started taking instruction from the member for Port Darwin I thought things were fairly sensible. I thought the member for Fong Lim had a bit more to him than just taking messages from the member for Port Darwin, the author of the manifesto - putting messages in front of him, telling him where to go in pointing the finger at senior public servants. Both members should know better: appointments within our public service are made on merit. They are also made subject to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
I say in defence of NT WorkSafe, when we came to government in 2001, and prior to 2001, there was a deep perception amongst unionists within this town that work health and safety had been neglected for some time under the previous government. That was a very real perception. They pointed to instances of fairly laissez-faire inspections and enforcement of work safety issues particularly within the construction industry in the Northern Territory. So, for the opposition to criticise the work of NT WorkSafe - over the past 11 years of this government the situation has really improved. There are still accidents and unfortunate deaths within our workplaces, but there is a greater scrutiny now of our workplaces than there was when we came to power in 2001. I commend NT WorkSafe on the job it does.
Before I go to the bill specifically, there are a couple of things the member for Fong Lim mentioned. He mentioned the definition of a worker in this bill. He tried to assert there was some agenda of the Gillard Labor government to increase workers and decrease contractors. He even lauded unions. He was very effusive in his praise of Mr Alan Paton, another unionist in this town, and he talked about his close connection with the union movement and his respect for it. The fundamental question I ask is: why did he support Work Choices, which was a fundamental assault on the rights of workers within this country? If he wants to talk about the view of people in this country, that there are more people in small business than there are unionists, and go on with that type of thing, he needs to always remember and reflect on the result of the 2007 election which saw Prime Minister John Howard voted out, and the member for Fong Lim as the member for Solomon voted out of his seat on the back of the Work Choices legislation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Leader of Government Business was most insistent yesterday about members restraining themselves to the content of the bill. I see no reference to former Prime Minister Howard or Work Choices legislation in this bill.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: If I could respond to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Fong Lim raised the issue and mentioned Work Choices in his speech. He also mentioned an agenda underneath the definition of a worker included in this bill about increasing workers, increasing unionists and decreasing contractors. It is quite relevant, I believe, to this discussion.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As far as we are concerned you can have as much space as you like. However, do not whinge about the fact we digress from bills when you have a waltz around the room, think it is your right to run this parliament, and ride roughshod over everyone else. Play the game by the same set of rules and we will have a fair debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, if I could just ask you, whilst there is some latitude, return to the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I respect your ruling. I would have to say the member for Fong Lim did digress. I did not call him on his digression into all types of areas I mentioned, but I am not going to test your ruling any further - I have said sufficient. Unlike the opposition, I do not need to repeat the points I have made because they are very strong and everyone listening knows what happened in 2007.
I would like to particularly commend the member for Nelson on his offering. He talked about this being a complex bill and it is. In referring to the second reading speech by the minister, he raised six areas these amendments cover. The first, as we just mentioned, which the member for Port Darwin did not like speaking about - the definition of a worker. The second one was allowing access to compensation by injured workers who reside overseas. The qualifying age has been dealt with by members. Next was the types of benefits that can be taken into account when calculating the normal weekly earnings. Fifth was the interest rate payable, and the sixth thing was the specific power of the Supreme Court to remit matters back to the Work Health Court.
As the member for Nelson said, these are quite comprehensive amendments. There is, obviously, a range of views on this bill. The member for Nelson has researched this bill very closely, probably in contrast to some other members, particularly the member for Fong Lim. I could see from what the member for Nelson had to say that he had thought very carefully about these amendments and had consulted widely. Similarly, the minister has consulted widely. The minister, very wisely, put out an exposure draft and received comments from a range of sources: the insurance industry, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the union movement. The minister is to be commended.
These are complex matters in which people have all types of vested interests - particular perspectives, whether they be insurers, employers or unionists. The government has tried to plot the middle course, to plot the fair course and, whilst we might not please everyone in what we have done with this legislation, it is significant the member for Nelson agreed on most aspects of the legislation.
He said he cannot support it, principally in relation to the overseas workers and the benefits and assessment of benefits. I had the feeling - I am not trying to verbal the member for Nelson - that was comparatively a lesser matter for him than the overseas worker issue, and I will turn to that in a moment.
He said he would not be opposing because he recognises this is a step forward. This is a mighty step forward, but government also realises this is an area that is going to be subject to review. That is why the minister has undertaken to have a review of this legislation in approximately two years, and it may very well be that some aspects are further amended. For the time being, government believes we have taken on board all the comments and have tried to do what is right.
In relation to overseas workers, yes, they are afforded the same benefits of duration as workers in Australia. Government accepts the arguments by the insurance industry that this would add further cost and would be difficult in the longer term – beyond 104 weeks with a possible extension of another 104 weeks beyond that time. Even in that time it would be difficult. There will be difficulties in assessing, keeping contact and monitoring these cases; however, government has tried to do what is fair. It might not be fair in everyone’s book, and there can be reasonable arguments run about that, but we have to keep the middle path. We are looking at the cost to industry as well as the benefit to workers.
Fundamental to this, of course, is the definition of a worker. We have defined a worker and removed the reference to the Australian Business Number, a very important aspect. We are keeping - this is something the member for Port Darwin did not mention - the results test, which is a very important aspect to differentiate between those who are workers and those who are genuine contractors. That results test is a very important aspect of what we are doing and it is significant that the member for Port Darwin did not mention the results test, nor the member for Fong Lim.
To quote what the minister said in his second reading speech:
- The ‘results test’ provides that even if a person is supplying their own plant, equipment or tools, the person will be a worker if they are not being paid to achieve a specific result or outcome. The test ensures that people who work substantially for the provision of labour are deemed to be at work for the purposes of workers compensation unless they meet the results test.
That is important because what we are trying to do is not catch bona fide contractors in this definition, but to find those who are currently working under the banner of an ABN but are, essentially, workers working for a company and carrying out the tasks of workers. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because we believe there is a need. There are a number of workers who might sign up to an ABN - they have said: ‘Okay, you can start work on Monday but you have to sign an ABN’, but might not fully understand the ramifications of that.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about personal responsibility. Well, that is okay if you understand the ramifications and have explained to you what you need to do: get your own private health insurance, insurance against injury on the worksite, etcetera. However, through painful experience we know there are a number of workers currently with an ABN who are injured and there is no support for them beyond what is available through the Medicare system. That is not good enough. I know, through personal experience as a local member, of people who have been in that situation, have had a serious injury, and find themselves and their families in a dire situation. They cannot service their mortgage and are having difficulty putting food on the table.
These are proud people; people who work hard every day, who work in the sun doing hard, physical labour. It was disturbing for me to hear the member for Fong Lim talk about when he was in the insurance industry and people wanting to go on compo - who wanted to receive 75% of their wage. In my day they were called ‘compo kings’. For someone to have that name placed on them was a real shame job and I do not believe there are too many ‘compo kings’ in Australia. There might be some; there are always people who want to rort the system, but the people who have come to see me about this issue, or have made their circumstances known to me, are proud people with obvious, serious injuries. One of them fell off a roof at a workplace and seriously broke his leg - shattered it. I am pleased to say that person comes to see me at the markets when in town. They have recovered, thankfully, and are able to get on with their life and work. However, it was a battle for them and their families.
That is what this legislation is all about. I appreciate the heartfelt concern of the member for Nelson about protecting the workers. I know you are genuine, member for Nelson, and I know you are disappointed that we have not gone far enough with overseas workers and what we are doing. However, we have taken a mighty step in that direction. They are covered for a certain period of time. We really have to get the message out about what people are covered for and what they are not.
Member for Nelson, you mentioned 457 Visas. Yes, there are uncertainties around 457 Visas. I have many people - you probably have them too - come to my electorate office who come here on 457 Visas who, for whatever reason, have their sponsorship ceased, or there has been a dispute with their employer and they are not in a strong position. It does not only relate to this; there is a whole range of issues in relation to 457 Visas. Given the nature of labour in Australia, and the Northern Territory in particular, there are probably issues that need to be resolved at the federal government level. I am not disputing some of the things you have said here; I respect your position. However, as government, we will be looking to pass this bill and implement it. It is a first step.
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I just acknowledge these young people.
Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Avondale Grammar School in Singapore, accompanied by Ms Christine Woolley. On behalf of honourable member, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Dr BURNS: Welcome to all the students from Singapore. I hope you are enjoying your time in Parliament House, Darwin. I hope you enjoy your time in Darwin; I am sure you will.
The member for Port Darwin raised a few issues. He talked about it not being equitable for business. As I said, as government we have tried to find a middle path. We have consulted widely with business and with the union movement. Not everyone is happy. We are plotting the middle path, and the aim of this is to provide adequate protection for workers when they are injured.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned a couple of organisations, namely, the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry. As I said earlier, I understand both those organisations have been part of the committee set up to advise government on this legislation. As the member for Nelson said and, I believe, the member for Port Darwin, we have changed the exposure draft on the limit for non-cash benefits. So, there have been changes. We have tried to be flexible in relation to this legislation.
I mentioned a number of things in relation to the results test. Regarding a definition of a worker, the member for Nelson did not say he had a problem with that. However, he has really focused on the definition of a worker.
As much as I could, I tried to cover what the member for Fong Lim said on this issue. I will say again, he did roam fairly freely and it was very interesting to see his mentor, the member for Port Darwin, the Karl Marx from Port Darwin, the author of the manifesto, putting little notes under the member for Fong Lim’s nose so he could make various attacks. Some of them were a little distasteful. You are better than that, member for Fong Lim. You can think for yourself. You do not need direction from the maestro. You can run a political line yourself. If the member for Port Darwin wants to have a slice at public servants, name people, and play those types of games, he should not be hand-balling to you to do it. You are better than that, member for Fong Lim. Let the member for Port Darwin say what he has to say.
There is no doubt this is a government that respects workers. We are a government that values workers and listen to workers. If the CLP was to gain power, legislation like this would never get up. We saw evidence of the legislation the CLP loves - Work Choices - anti-worker, bash the worker, and take rights away from the worker. I say to the CLP: do not underestimate the strength of the union movement and Australian workers. They know when someone is after them and when someone is trying to take away their conditions. They also recognise when someone is trying to have a go at them and when someone is trying to help them.
That is all I have to say. I could have mentioned the chicken from 2007 that stalked the member for Fong Lim. It was not just one chicken, Madam Speaker. For the benefit of the students, it was like Big Bird from Sesame Street. It was following the member for Fong Lim around. He took it in good faith but it was a political campaign. It was a bit of fun for us anyway, wasn’t it, member for Fong Lim? I did not get a gig in the Big Bird but I know Hopper did and there were many volunteers, some of them female. Big Bird was a great gimmick and did the trick. I am sure you often reflect on that campaign, member for Fong Lim. That is probably why you lauded the union movement today. You are making up to them. They have big hearts; they can forgive you. We know you have quite significant support from the CFMEU and your mates there. I am sure you are probably good friends with them. We hear you are still friends with Martin Ferguson so you have connections all over the shop, member for Fong Lim. You do not need the member for Port Darwin to tell you what to say and do. You are going to be the boss one day, the big boss!
Anyway I digress, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the parliament. I look forward to hearing the wrap by the minister. I am unsure if that will be after lunch, but it will be very welcome. I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say. I commend him for his legislation. I commend all the public servants who have brought it this far, and all those who participated in the consultation process.
Madam Speaker, it has been an honour to address the parliament today on this issue.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 200)
(Serial 200)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I do not know about these new rules. This used to a bear pit; it is like a morgue. However, I will continue.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I liked the old parliament. This is too boring.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can keep to the point, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have given very explicit directions. Dissenting from your directions is outside the boundaries of standing orders.
Mr KNIGHT: I am summing up.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. Resume your seat. I have made a comment about it already.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Port Darwin, Fong Lim and Nelson for their contributions, and also my colleague, the Minister for Public Employment.
This bill improves the operational efficiency of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It implements some very important social and economic policy changes on the national and local scene. Many of the members have summed up in their own way and I will move through some of that summing up with respect to the six key items in the legislation.
With respect to the definition of a worker, this amendment is very significant. The general theme behind it is that every worker should be covered for workers compensation, either by themselves as a legitimate contractor, or their employer if it is that type of arrangement. The current act has the standard as holding an Australian Business Number, an ABN. Over the operation of the current act that has resulted in some inappropriate arrangements. That is widely recognised by business, by the Chamber of Commerce, and certainly by the union movement. There have been a significant number of cases where sham contracting has been operating. In those circumstances, workers are not insuring themselves because they are not clear of the arrangements. All they are required to do is, basically, have an ABN to work in a business where it clearly is an employer/employee relationship. This will change that and give us some consistency. Even the Chamber of Commerce, the peak employer organisation in the Territory, supports this. I will quote from their letter:
- The Chamber understands the consensus that the current definition of worker needs to change to accord with the nationally consistent definition based on the Queensland model.
This is the model we have adopted. With respect to the definition of a worker, this is clearly supported, by and large, across the board. In respect to these changes, the players include the insurance industry and the Insurance Council of Australia. The ICA supports this because it means more people will take out coverage so there will be more business to write. For that industry it is a good thing, for the community it is a good thing, and it provides some clarity for employers.
With respect to the non-cash benefits, when we released the exposure draft late last year salary sacrificing was part of that. Through the consultation, we listened and it was inserted to try to pick up some arrangements happening in the workplace. It was trying to clarify something; it made it slightly more confusing so it was removed.
For simplicity we have reduced the scope of non-cash benefits to the three items. That was a concession to the insurance industry. These initiatives are all about trying to find a middle path, trying to offer some concessions so everyone gets something out of these changes. By and large, the two themes through this are the protection of workers and the protection of the scheme. The scheme, if it is not protected, will not be good for anyone. Reducing the scope for non-cash benefits is supported by the insurance industry as well.
With respect to older workers, some submissions were received around this amendment from COTA. COTA would like to see more latitude provided to seniors in the workplace. Something we struck was changing entitlements for older workers to match the increasing retirement age of the Commonwealth government. That will progress, over the next few years, to 76-years old. In 2023, it will move again. For my generation, the goal posts keep moving further and further away. I, and many other people, will be working into old age because working is something people enjoy; it is part of their life and provides satisfaction as well as financial income. It is a social circle and is something we need to be mindful of and look at this down the track.
I will stop at that point and talk about what is happening in this legislation. The member for Nelson highlighted it, and it was a frustration of mine as the incoming Attorney-General introducing this legislation and getting representation from various stakeholders, including the union movement and the insurance council, that there was a lack of information. This is extremely important as this is livelihoods, this is the standard of living, and this is about health. There is very little or no information, which is extremely surprising to me.
We will put NT WorkSafe, the insurance industry, the Chamber of Commerce and the union movement on notice to collect information. You cannot say: ‘We think this is happening’. There has to be evidence behind it. The review needs to be evidence-based and, for everyone concerned, we can make changes. We acknowledge the players in this: the seniors advocacy groups, the business advocacy groups and the labour advocacy groups as well, but it has to be evidenced-based because the integrity of the scheme must be maintained. I would see this legislation pass and for everyone to be put on notice to come back with the evidence over the next couple of years with a mind to make further changes to refine it because we have struck a fairly good middle path here. How close are we to a perfect point? I cannot say, but we are close. Things like foreign workers’ entitlements needs to be looked at - how much off the mark that is with community expectations and the impact on the scheme, and the age of retirement.
The remittance of the Supreme Court back to the Work Health Court is non-contentious. With respect to the interest rate, that is not contentious either. Obviously, one of the more contentious parts is the entitlements to overseas workers. This country was built on overseas workers and will continue to be built on overseas workers. The Northern Territory dipped, a year or so ago, to 2.7% unemployment. It is a bit over 4% at the moment which is, effectively, full employment. Australia is historically low at 5%, so we are experiencing extremely low unemployment rates. Coupled with that, we have major resource projects in remote areas. For some Australians, there is a reluctance to move to some of the tougher jobs – that is, fly-in/fly-out - in remote locations. For those projects to be realised, they truly need overseas and skilled workers. Therefore, we need to support that initiative. It is not only for 457 Visa holders; this is for the whole overseas worker community.
Through the Regional Migration Agreement which has been signed off - a first in Australia for the Northern Territory; there are three identical ones for the Northern Territory - we will see skilled workers coming in to support our local small business to keep them going and, obviously, realise some of the major projects as well. It is a reality. In my role as Business minister it was the single biggest issue the business community faced. It was not: ‘We are closing down because the economy is on its knees’. It was: ‘We are going to close down unless we get some more workers’. It is a reality business needs these workers. It is a competitive marketplace around the world and we want to offer an attractive proposition and we want those skilled workers. If you are a skilled welder and are 30 or 40 years old, you have 30 or 40 years work ahead of you so you want to protect your health and your ability to earn. Therefore, we have to create an environment for our businesses to attract workers.
From the contributions from the other side of the Chamber and the Independent member, we have had the spectrum of ‘give them nothing’ to ‘give them every entitlement that is offered to Australians’. That is also the spectrum I have been confronted with in the representations made to me. We have struck a middle point which provides certainty to the insurance industry and some concession to overseas workers so their health benefits, if they continue to be incapacitated, will continue. However, their financial remuneration will be limited. I concur with the member for Nelson about the changes to the federal visa conditions. That is something that needs to be looked at in any review.
I thank the representation I received from Kathy Spurr. I acknowledge her role in presenting the case of a worker is a worker and entitlement should be provided. I acknowledge her position on that, and the member for Nelson does as well. It needs to be reviewed. What I am feeling a little more comfortable about is it is a very small number but, with a lack of substantiative evidence, we do not know. At a personal level, I believe it is small, but over the next few years we get to analyse whether that is or is not the case; whether the true costs are significant or minimal. I also accept the figures the member for Nelson provided. I had other statistics provided to me but you had to cobble together an argument; you had to add one plus one equals this, and it is a small number. The member for Nelson came up with possibly one. However, 80% of foreign workers get permanent residency so that one person would have to be injured - 80% of that one person gets permanent residency. It is not a very significant amount and when you look at the package being provided here, the insurance industry should see, through this package, they are writing more insurance and have some defined parameters around their payouts. I am sure they have their own information about the level of exposure for non-resident workers as well.
There should not be any increase in insurance premiums because of the totality of this package. However, it is a very big industry and it is surprising to me that evidence could not be provided.
The member for Fong Lim talked about rig workers. That ability to uninsure 40% goes back a long way, member for Fong Lim. These people have the ability to earn money and they look at the level of incapacity and loss of earnings at that incapacity level, and it is only 75% of that. You are injured, you are not receiving your full amount, and may be required to work in another capacity within the organisation. Being injured is not a benefit, and when you think about ongoing medical treatment for total impairment or significant partial impairment, it is not a good life. Your earning capacity as a skilled worker could be quite significant in this resources boom we have in Australia and elsewhere.
We have struck a nice middle road with the ability to review aspects of this legislation. We have struck a good balance between the rights of workers and the business model of insurance companies.
I have covered most of the legislation. I thank the Department of Justice – Candice - for all her work in this area, and other staff within the Department of Justice. I thank the members of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, an advisory council that has been actively working on these amendments for a long time. That includes the Insurance Council of Australia, the construction industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council and the Australian Medical Association. It is a strong organisation with diverse membership. It is certainly not one-sided with respect to business and the labour movement. They have been actively pursuing the integrity of this scheme. The primary objective is if this scheme does not have integrity it will not survive commercially. I thank them for their contribution.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to bring this legislation into the House. It is a great win for the business community, for workers in general, and our community. Much needs to be looked at in the review. Charges for workers compensation claims within Australia need to be looked at. We talked about the integrity of this scheme; charges within Australia need to be looked at as well. I thank members for their contribution and I look forward to it passing.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Giles
Ms Lawrie Mrs Lambley
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 ayes and 12 noes the question is found as an equality of votes.
Honourable members, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, I record my casting vote with the ayes. Accordingly, the question is resolved in the affirmative. In making this decision, I advise that I have listened very carefully to the debate today and have received detailed briefings, including on matters raised by some members today. I am convinced the legislation is fair and required.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MEDICINES, POISONS AND THERAPEUTIC GOODS BILL
(Serial 180)
(Serial 180)
Continued from 23 February 2012.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2011 (Serial 180) together with Schedule of Amendments No 71 circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 88, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 89:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I was going to move an amendment to section 89, but following the debate we had previously, in consultation with members, I withdraw the amendments I proposed and have a new amendment in place - clause 89(2)(b).
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. Is it the one circulated yesterday morning?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, no worries.
Mr CONLAN: Are we on clause 89(2)(b), minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the one circulated yesterday.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. What we have in that amendment is the Schedule 4 substance for treating the prescribed medical condition. I realise, under the next clause, the prescribed medical condition is now being defined as chlamydia - we have specified what it is. However, it still does not specify the particular drug, does it? It could be any drug on Schedule 4 that is treatment for chlamydia. It could be any Schedule 4 drug.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the prescribed medicine for chlamydia is under Schedule 4.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right. I understand that. It could be any Schedule 4 drug that is a treatment for chlamydia.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is a generic description; it does not specify in the act what drugs we use because today we use one particular medicine, tomorrow we change the medicine to another one. These medicines are listed on Schedule 4, so it is a medical decision of which particular medicine to use to treat chlamydia. You cannot specify in an act a name, either generic or otherwise, because medicines change. However, you have to use a medicine included in Schedule 4.
Mr CONLAN: I know. That is why it is still so uncomfortable for us over here, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, you mentioned – I cannot remember the name of the drug …
Dr Burns: Azithromycin.
Mr ELFERINK: Azithromycin, thank you. Azithromycin has some pretty minor side effects - upset tummy, if you have a reaction to it at all. The first question I have is: are there any other broad spectrum antibiotics that could be added, or are already on, Schedule 4 that could also deal with a chlamydia-type infection?
Mr VATSKALIS: There are many antibiotics you can use to treat particular cases, but Azithromycin is chosen because you can use one dose and it has minimal side effects.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. However, nothing then prevents a doctor from prescribing something else for the condition of chlamydia - some broad spectrum, such as Amoxicillin or something like that.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am advised all the guidelines recommend Azithromycin rather than any other antibiotic, for obvious reasons.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but what I am saying is that, other than the guidelines, it is possible for another antibiotic to be used for this purpose, and for a doctor to use some sort of general, broad spectrum antibiotic if they chose to prescribe it. Yes?
Mr VATSKALIS: A doctor would not go away from the guidelines. The doctor usually seeks advice from the guidelines. The guidelines prescribe a particular medicine to be used for obvious reasons: minimal side effects, one dose, easy to use, and easily tolerated. Either a very stupid or very brave doctor would make their own decision about drugs in case there are some side effects he is not considering.
Mr ELFERINK: These guidelines are Health Department guidelines; they do not apply to all GPs. They go to their MIMS manual, do they not?
Mr VATSKALIS: The guidelines are issued by the college not the department.
Mr ELFERINK: There might be another drug for a chlamydia infection which, conceivably, could be added to Schedule 4 at a later date. Yes?
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely. If the college decided that was the most appropriate drug it would incorporate it in the guidelines. We provide the guidelines to doctors to follow.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, if there is a drug added to Schedule 4 which we, as legislators, know nothing about and may have some other side effects, or perhaps an anaphylactic response which we do not know about yet because the drug is limited - if the drug for a chlamydial infection is added to Schedule 4, we, as legislators, essentially lose control of this process because it is then done by regulation. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: As a matter of fact, the Northern Territory parliament has no control of medicine because all are approved by federal authority. These are included in the PBS and are considered for the treatment of various diseases. No parliament in Australia has control over medication. It is only the federal parliament, through federal authorities, which controls what medication is approved in Australia and this is done after exhaustive research. In this research they consider the possible side effects and the effectiveness of the drug. There is not a parliament in Australia, or in the world, that prescribes, in its legislation, particular medications.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not saying that. What I am saying is, as legislators, we effectively lose - if this is passed - control over what happens next. We have already been asked to sign up to something this parliament has rejected. We are now going for a compromised position on this last ditch position on what was, essentially, going to be a much broader policy. It now turns out that we are also going to lose control over what Schedule 4 substance can be applied to chlamydial infections.
Surely, we as legislators have already been asked to do something we have rejected. You are now asking us to do something more again.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am not asking you to do anything. Member for Port Darwin, the Australian government schedules drugs. Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 are included in this booklet issued by the Australian government. We adopt the standards and incorporate it in our legislation. It is under this Commonwealth decision that we can prescribe medicine. We have no say, no control, over the schedule and what is included here. It is only the federal parliament, through its federal authorities, that decides what is included in Schedule 3, Schedule 4 or Schedule 8. The doctors are authorised to prescribe medicine that is already included in the different schedules as approved by the Australian government.
I do not understand your train of thought. The reality is our legislation can only prescribe drugs included in the schedules - not a particular medicine, not a particular drug - with a trade name or generic name.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I understand what you are saying: we have signed up to an agreement where the schedules operate. Ultimately, even as a minister, you still have to tick off on these schedules when they occur. They are still regulatory instruments so they will change from time to time. I imagine it would be largely procedural. From a ministerial point of view, you are not going to argue with an august body that produces the manual and say: ‘No, you are wrong’. However, you have to remember where we are coming from in relation to this, and that is you are asking us to allow these drugs on Schedule 4 to be prescribed to people for chladymial infections when some of the people receiving the prescription will not have been examined. That is what has caused the resistance from this side of the House and, I understand, caused some resistance from the member for Nelson.
This was part of a much larger proposal to start with. The original proposal was to allow, and even through your amendment process, any nominated disease to be covered through the regulatory processes and that people can have third party Schedule 4/8 access to these drugs as part of non-presentation because they are the sexual partner of a person who may be infected. That probably is a long-winded way to express it. That has now been whittled down to a single disease because of the concerns raised in this House.
What this last bastion of defence is all about is chlamydia and nothing else that was intended to be captured by it. You have simply referred to a Schedule 4 drug for chlamydia. I am asking questions about Schedule 4 drugs and what we know about them. It appears they are passed, essentially, through the federal government and we would have to rubber stamp them on the way through, I presume. It is not what was intended and, for the record, minister, what is left of an original policy proposal strikes me more as saving face than having to abandon the policy outright. You are welcome to comment on that, of course.
There is another component about the legality of the third party prescription process. I was advised during a briefing yesterday that there was uncertainty surrounding the lawfulness of third party prescriptions and that it may even be lawful. So, I ask the obvious question: why are you changing the law if it can be done? Reference was made to a legal opinion, which I was subsequently told was a verbal legal opinion; however, a written one would be provided. I have not yet received that written legal opinion. Is it available at this stage, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: I asked for advice from the department with regard to the legislation and the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, as it stands now, is silent on the prescription of medication without a medical practitioner seeing the other party. Because it is silent, it cannot be decided as legal or illegal. Usually, it is legal or illegal if it is prescribed in the legislation. If the legislation is silent, you cannot define it as legal or illegal. What we are doing now ...
Mr ELFERINK: That is nonsense. I do not believe it.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, this is the opinion I have received.
Mr ELFERINK: Where is the written version of it?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is the opinion I received from my department following the review it did ...
Mr ELFERINK: That was a verbal opinion?
Mr VATSKALIS: ... and I tend to accept it. What we are doing now will specify in the legislation you are allowed to do that. Okay. I do not know which legal opinion you are referring to. If you make it clear to me, I might try to find out, but I doubt it very much. As I said before, the advice from the department is, currently, as the act stands, is silent.
Mr ELFERINK: I struggle with that answer and I will tell you why. First, I was told that legal opinion would be available and, during the briefing, I was told this was a verbal thing. It is not good enough to try to convince me, as a legislator, that you have spoken to a lawyer and he reckons it is okay, or he reckons that is the point. I need more than that to be convinced. If you want support for legislation, you are going to have to take a few more steps than to simply say: ‘Look, trust us, we have an opinion’.
The second component is this whole legislative instrument is structured around the control of these drugs in our community. This is why we have this law. This is why we say a doctor must see a person and give them a prescription which they take away. I picked up on what the member for Johnston said during the second reading speech. He said 43% of doctors do this third party thing anyhow. I do not care if they do or do not ...
Mr Conlan: Which means 57 do not.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is, I am concerned what we are trying to do is quite contrary to the government’s intention. A doctor would be foolhardy, in the least, to dish out prescriptions to people they have never seen. We believe that is why we put these types of legislation in place. I find it hard to believe government built this whole structure around the regulation of this drug, and then said, ‘We are unsure if the legislation has any effect at all in regard to the legality or illegality of giving third party prescriptions, because it is silent on the issue’. That is a pretty long bow to draw.
I am not going to bang on about this for hours because we have business to do. We have made our point. I am sure the member for Greatorex will have one or two things to say about it.
Minister, if you are going to refer to legal opinions, or if I am being offered legal opinions in written form, I ask they be forwarded to me so I can see what a lawyer has to say about it. It is not too much to ask when a large slice of your argument is based on the assertion that because the act is silent it may or may not be legal. I am unconvinced by you simply saying: ‘Yes, that is what we reckon, and a lawyer believes it’. It is unconvincing and not enough to make me change my mind to support what is, ultimately, a remnant compromise of an original policy.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I will make some comments here. I am not aware of any legal requirement for a medical practitioner to see a patient in order to write a prescription. I will give you an example. People may be travelling overseas to a zone where there is malaria and it may involve children. The parents may ask the medical practitioner for a prescription for a prophylactic dose of an anti-malarial. The child may not be present, the medical practitioner could ascertain the age of the child, whether the medication was suitable, and may give warnings - along with the pharmacist, of course - to the person who is requiring that prophylactic dose.
There are instances, member for Port Darwin, where doctors are not required to see the patient. There may well be requirements in some cases in relation to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The only requirement under law I am aware of about use of drugs is an exclusion. That is for Schedule 8 drugs and the use of morphine as a replacement for methadone. That is a requirement under the medical benefits scheme.
The point I am getting to is legislators can, and have, put regulations in place prohibiting the use of drugs for a certain use. However, it is a dangerous path we would be treading. I listened carefully to your language: we, as a parliament, are losing control over what is prescribed to people. We have to remember our doctors are very highly trained professionals, much background research and work is done on every pharmaceutical that comes onto the list within Australia, and doctors and pharmacists are quite aware of the potential side effects of drugs. It could well be - even outside what we are talking about here - that people are prescribed a particular drug. The pharmacist will always give a warning: ‘If you have an allergic reaction, fever, or diarrhoea, you should cease taking this medication’. When I spoke on this legislation previously I said there is an important step there - not only the prescription of the drug but the warning, the dispensing by the pharmacist, and the warning given by pharmacists.
I listened to your language, member for Port Darwin, and kept thinking: ‘we, as legislators’? Most of us are probably not even qualified as legislators. We are elected, we learn about legislation. You, as a lawyer might be, but the rest of us have to learn as ministers. We have to preside over portfolios we may not have technical expertise in. We deal with legislation in this parliament where probably none of us have technical expertise. It is dangerous for us to say we are going to dictate the circumstances by which a drug will be prescribed to someone by a qualified medical practitioner. It is a dangerous path. I am prepared to leave those decisions to our medical practitioners in the Northern Territory. They work together, from the Top End to Central Australia, about the drugs they prescribe and the circumstances they prescribe them in. The Northern Territory is quite unique in that we have specialists and GPs working closely together with clinical guidelines about what should be prescribed for certain conditions. There are checks and balances in there.
In summary, it is a dangerous path for us to say we are going to dictate which drugs should be used; it is really a clinical judgment by a medical practitioner. There are fail-safe devices in regard to the pharmacist dispensing the drugs, and I am quite satisfied with the legislation as put forward by the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that. Far be it from me to argue with a doctor of pharmacology on issues of drugs; however, if we follow your argument we are not qualified to make any legislation about this at all. Why not repeal the whole act and say the medical profession can sort it out?
Dr Burns: I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: That is your logic because we are not qualified. I will tell you what qualifies us ...
Mr Conlan: We are not going to make any decisions is what you said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What qualifies us is the fact we are elected. We are elected to bring to bear upon legislative instruments not only the expertise of medical professionals, but also the opinions of our own electorates. Uninformed as the great unwashed might be - and we represent the great unwashed with our lack of expertise - the fact is we pass reams of legislation. We just passed a law five minutes ago about workers compensation of which I have no major history but am asked to pass a law on. That is what the system implies. Your argument is: ‘We cannot dictate anything’. How thick is this bill? How many pages is this bill?
Mr Conlan: One hundred and fifty-three.
Mr ELFERINK: It is 153 pages of not qualified. No, that is not how the system works. The system works when government says: ‘We have some health practitioners who think this would be a good change’. It is then up to government to convince people in this House that it is a good change. The fact is, for the large slice of what government wanted to achieve, you have been unable to convince this House. What government wanted was this very broad policy which enabled this process of third party prescriptions for anything the government regulated for. It has now been whittled down to a single condition.
I am already critical that we have a compromise - a vastly reduced compromise - of an original policy. I do not accept the argument that because the doctors say so we do it. There are things doctors do I do not necessarily agree with despite the fact I am not qualified. I am still entitled to an opinion. I represent a community, as do you and everybody else in this House.
Dr BURNS: I will respond to that because it is an interesting statement from the member for Port Darwin. Of course, we have controls in the act, and that is why the act runs to 150 or 250 pages. There are already schedules for drugs within the act. In some cases, they are almost schedules within schedules. No one is saying there is open slather. What we are talking about is Schedule 4 drugs.
Even in a therapeutic sense, there are limits in prescriptions through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Even if a drug or an antibiotic happens to be a Schedule 4, it can only be prescribed in certain circumstances. In some cases, it can only be prescribed with authority. There are already checks and balances within the current system: first, in the scheduling in the act; and second, in the clinical guidelines and professional judgments of doctors.
That is all I will say. I am not saying it is open slather. I am not saying there are no controls, only clinical controls and clinical decisions. I am saying there are whole layers controlled by the very fact of scheduling of drugs.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, could you explain to us the change? I want to understand the change. You have started off with any prescribed condition and, now, we have what feels like a compromise. Seriously, it feels like it is a bit of a ‘save face’ bill, or a ‘save face’ clause because you have gone from a ‘prescribed condition’ to chlamydia. Why the change? Why not chlamydia in the first place?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is not a compromise. It was during a discussion I had with the member for Nelson, and his comments made that we specify chlamydia and, then, for any other prescribed condition - a condition to be prescribed in regulations. His comment was: ‘What about bringing it to parliament so parliament can assess the other conditions?’ I thought this was a fair comment. That is why I left chlamydia.
However, looking at clause 89 from the very beginning, and reading through it, a doctor can give a prescription but commits an offence if the prescriber issues a prescription for the supply of Schedule 4 or 8 for the patient’s therapeutic use or treating a medical condition of the patient, and gives the prescription to a person other than the patient. If a doctor has given a prescription, unless the prescription is for you or your child or someone you are the carer for, he commits an offence.
What we do here for any disease - not a particular disease, any disease - is say they are only allowed to do that for a partner and for chlamydia; no other condition. It is very specific that a doctor is allowed to issue a prescription for the administration of Azithromycin for a patient with chlamydia. It clearly specifies what the conditions are. When I read it, it becomes very clear this amendment will put severe restrictions on where you are allowed to prescribe a Scheduled 4 drug to a partner the doctor has not seen. It is only for chlamydia.
Mr WOOD: I would like to give an explanation of why I asked the government to change the bill. It was in relation to the debate we had at the previous sittings. I listened carefully to the debate at that time. I felt this was the first time we have moved down this path, and thought it would be good to do that carefully because nearly all the discussion we had about this bill related to chlamydia. Then there was a clause added which said: ‘Another medical condition prescribed by regulations’. That, for me, was a bridge too far. Bearing in mind this is new legislation - and good legislation for a particular purpose - I thought it would be good if we took one step at a time.
There has been considerable debate in this House about this bill. Some people have doubts as to whether this is a good way for drugs to be prescribed. However, when we weigh up the risk to young people and look at the statistics, sometimes we have to weigh up the benefits against a procedure which might go against what is normally done.
I asked the government if it would reconsider it, bearing in mind what the opposition was saying at the time. It was concerned about the proposed amended amendment to be debated at the previous sittings, which said prescribed medical conditions means (a) chlamydia or (b) another medical condition prescribed by regulation. I felt that was too broad and it would be wiser to take up some of the concerns the opposition and I had, which was we moved from a debate which, in briefings, was generally about chlamydia, looking at statistics throughout the Territory on the occurrence of chlamydia, and also understanding the effects chlamydia had on women and men. When you look at those statistics you see an alarming increase in this disease. The debate was, generally speaking, about this disease. I asked the government to consider keeping the changes to the bill specific to the medical condition we were talking about. That is why this particular amendment to the bill has come forward.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am glad the member for Nelson has given an explanation of his perspective. I add one more thing to the conversation we were having across the floor about Azithromycin. I am advised under the regulations to this act Azithromycin will be the specified drug. No drug other than Azithromycin can be prescribed for chlamydia. It may well be treatments for chlamydia change and there may be a drug in the future that supersedes Azithromycin.
The process for changes of regulations in regard to dangerous drugs - Schedule 8 drugs etcetera - come up through a process to Cabinet, and Cabinet signs off on it. In the Northern Territory, that process would come through the Chief Health Officer of the Department of Health who, at present I believe, is Dr Barbara Paterson, who has been around a long time. Barbara Paterson would be working on advice from clinicians such as Vicki Krause and all those others in Clinic 34. They would probably be consulting with someone like Professor Frank Bowden, one of the foremost experts on sexually-transmitted infections in Australia. They would be consulting with the Australian College.
I have had a bit to do with this. These decisions are not made by one person no matter how eminent they are. There would be consultation at the local level between clinicians - those who visit remote communities, those who are in the hospital, and certainly those who work in general practice. Any recommendation to Cabinet to change the regulations is not just at the stroke of a pen; there is an exhaustive process. I believe we can take comfort in that.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, to add to that, I was very comforted by the e-mail I received from Paul Bauert, the AMA President, who said following his discussions with public health clinicians he was assured the benefits of the practice would vastly outweigh any perceived risks.
Mr CONLAN: I will save my comments for the third reading. We can go back and forth in the detail. We do not support the amendment or the clause, but I will make those comments clear in the third reading speech.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am going to ask your guidance here. I had discussions with Xavier Schobben, the CEO of Environmental Health, about a definition in relation to this bill which I probably should have brought up earlier. It was in relation to whether herbicides were covered under this act.
Madam CHAIR: If we could dispose of the amendment you can then ask questions before we look to the remainder of the bill, member for Nelson.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, it was a question in relation to another part of the bill. There has been a huge amount of discussion on this one clause - which is really important, do not get me wrong - but this bill covers many other areas that have not had much debate, especially in the area of poisons used by people in the agricultural and horticultural areas.
The one area I was concerned about was I was unsure whether herbicides - which I believe is the correct name for what are sometimes commonly called weedicides - are covered under the definition of pesticides. Pesticides are the only things mentioned in relation to the types of poisons used in the agricultural industry, but there is no definition of herbicides. I need clarification of whether it is covered under this act.
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is herbicides fall into the definition of a pesticide.
Mr WOOD: My concern, coming from that background, was a pest was generally an insect and a weed, generally, probably is a pest too. The reason they call it herbicide is weedicide has copyright and is why they moved to that. Thank you, minister. At least we have that clarified and it covers any concern I had.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for taking such an interest in this. I am glad we are a little further down the track - not as far as we would have liked as an opposition. To us, there is so much wrong with this clause it is hard to know where to begin. The more we have unpacked it the more we have found wrong with it, and inconsistent with what we stand for as a conservative party. We do not believe in dumbing down people’s responsibilities, and this is exactly what this does.
In the few minutes I have in this third reading speech, I will respond to some of the remarks by the minister for Education, the member for Johnston. One of the glaringly obvious concerns I had with this was child abuse. I could see the eyes boring into the back of my head and people looking at me saying: ‘Conlan, you are off your rocker if you think this has anything to do with child abuse’. I could not disagree more. To me, it is so blatantly obvious in the climate we have in the Northern Territory where child abuse, under all administrations, has been a major problem.
Yes, we believe child abuse and child protection in the Northern Territory under this government has plummeted every further. Nevertheless, it has always been a problem and an issue in the Northern Territory. With that said, and in this climate, the Country Liberals cannot support something that could perhaps leave the door slightly ajar for a child sex offender to cover his or her tracks. I firmly believe that is possible.
The minister said the regulations specify the age of the person. Perhaps we should put the age of the person in the bill. If it is in the regulation, why can it not go in the bill? However, why go that far? We do not agree with the clause. There was a fair bit of toing and froing when it came to whether we compromise. Do we specify in the bill children under the age of 16 years of age? Do we specify children over the age of 16? Do we even need to put children in there because they come under the Care and Protection of Children Act and that is covered in the Criminal Code itself? We had some pretty rigorous debate about whether or not we include that. However, at the end of the day, we do not support the clause for those reasons.
I do not support this bill for that reason. That was my main objection to it and, as I began to unpack and discuss the bill with my colleagues around the shadow cabinet table, another concern came to light: the issue of extended partner therapy, or EPT, as it is known in the United States. The member for Johnston specified the pharmacist asks a number of questions when drugs are being dispensed or issued across the counter. The responsibility is moved from the patient to the doctor, now to the pharmacist. The pharmacist is left carrying the can.
The only question I am ever asked when I go to the pharmacist is: ‘Will it be sign or pin?’ No one ever asks me whether I have a reaction. They might add: ‘Ensure you do not take these on an empty stomach’. That is about it; no one questions who I am. If someone has a prescription filled on my behalf, no one asks anything. Okay, sure, you are supposed to check. ‘I have this prescription for John Smith, and I would like to have this filled for John Smith, thank you very much’. The pharmacist, I assume, is required to ascertain who John Smith is and how old he is. Is there a requirement for that? The member for Johnston would know; I do not know. No one has ever asked for identification or proof of age. The medication could be for anyone - absolutely anyone.
My fear is that person may well be a child who has been a victim of child sexual abuse and the perpetrator is trying to cover that up. As remote as that might be - and I can feel people thinking: ‘Oh Conlan, you are nuts. As if! The benefits far outweigh that. The risks are so minimal’. However, if we are talking about that type of issue why even run the risk? Why would you leave the door even that far ajar, particularly in the climate we have in the Northern Territory. The landscape of child abuse is rife - absolutely rife. There is that. I could oppose this whole thing on that alone - just on that alone - and we will be.
Then, of course, there are other concerns. My colleagues and even the member for Nelson have spoken on this bill; about providing medication to someone who has not seen or been assessed by a GP, and whether or not that medication is appropriate. We still have not drilled down to the specific type of medication; it is just a Schedule 4 drug - an S4 drug. While it might be a particular drug at the moment, it could be anything. It is still an S4 drug.
Who is to say a person may not have some sort of reaction to that? Who is to say that person is unaware of the dose they have been given? Some members have mentioned sprinkling it on your Weet-Bix or whatever. As far-fetched as that may be, it can still happen. Who knows? I do not know. This goes to the heart of our core principles; that is, we seem to be dumbing this down and abrogating people of their own responsibility. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves, for our own actions, and for our own community.
That is what I cannot get my head around: because someone is too embarrassed, too ashamed, too shy - or too lazy, is probably more like it - to turn up to a doctor, maybe drop their daks, maybe have a check up and say: ‘I am infected with chlamydia’, or ‘Something is wrong, can you have a look at me, please?’ As embarrassing as it is – well, I do not like going to a doctor and having the under carriage checked out. Who does?. However, we all have to do it. As embarrassing as that might be, if it is a female doctor, or a male doctor vice versa - so what? Close your eyes and get on with it! That is the type of society we have to have; we have to live up to those responsibilities.
I cannot support legislation where it allows someone who will not do that to get off, essentially, scot-free. That person does not have to do it; someone else can do it for them. That is the biggest stumbling block for me. Someone else receiving the prescription without being seen by the doctor is one thing, the potential for child sexual abuse is another, and they all tie in to the issue about people not taking responsibility because they are too embarrassed, too shy, or whatever it is. Too lazy is probably a large part of it. Who knows why - I will not go into it - but to front up to a doctor, have a check up, receive the prescription directly from the GP, go to a chemist and have it filled, take the dose, and take some responsibility for yourself, for your family, and for your community - I do not see what is wrong with that. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are legislating to abrogate those people.
One of the first orders of business for the Country Liberals government will be to repeal this. We have made a commitment in our shadow cabinet room that it will be repealed because the potential Country Liberals’ government will not abrogate people of their responsibilities. Individual responsibility is a core principle of the Country Liberals, and a potential Country Liberals’ government, and we cannot dumb these things down because someone is too lazy, embarrassed, or for whatever reason. We will not be supporting the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I can disagree over many things with the member for Greatorex, but I will not disagree with the need to provide protection for children from sexual abuse, or any abuse.
I am disappointed that, because the member for Greatorex does not have enough information, or for other reasons, he believes this particular amendment will mask sexual abuse. Before the bill came to parliament, in the drafting stage, I asked for wide consultation. One of the things I asked was whether this will contribute to masking sexual abuse of children. The department consulted with people such as Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner; Clare Gardiner-Barnes, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families; Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician; Dr Steven Skov; Dr Barbara Paterson; Dr Vicki Krause; Dr Paul Bauert; Dr David Chapman; Dr Rob Parker and the Public Health Association of Australia; Royal College of Physicians; General Practitioner Network NT; and Australasian Chapter of Sexual Health Medicine and the response was it will not mask sexual abuse.
There is a legal obligation for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and teachers to report sexual abuse if they realise there are sexual relations between an adult and a child over a certain age. I also asked whether this had been done in Australia previously, and was pleased to read in the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, in 2011 the society endorsed these guidelines for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis in the Illawarra/Shoalhaven local health network in New South Wales. It happens somewhere else.
The other misconception is someone can turn up to a doctor and get a prescription. No, someone has to see a doctor, be examined, be diagnosed with chlamydia, and the doctor will ask if that person has a sexual partner as there is no point treating only one person because chlamydia is highly infectious. You can treat one person, get them well; however, if they continue to have sexual intercourse with their partner who is still infected, the infection will return. We have to treat both partners.
For various reasons, one of the partners may not want to go. The other thing is to start concurrent treatment of both parties if you want good results. After all, a single dose medicine will cure chlamydia and, considering in the past five years the number of chlamydia cases in Australia increased by 500%, this is a serious health risk. Chlamydia is especially prevalent in young people, affecting women severely and seriously and, in some cases, making them sterile.
The bill is a brand new bill; a very good bill. The particular section worrying the member for Greatorex was clause 89. Clause 89 now puts severe restrictions on where particular medicines can be provided to a partner without the partner presenting to the doctor. I do not believe this particular section will mask sexual abuse. On the contrary, this section will reduce the incidence of chlamydia among adults in the Northern Territory, and in Australia, because people have partners from other states of Australia.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 - Provision of Travel and Communication Entitlements for Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for Calendar Year 2011
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 - Provision of Travel and Communication Entitlements for Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for Calendar Year 2011
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to Paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010, for provision of travel and communication entitlements for members of Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for calendar year 2011, containing the annual schedule of government payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense.
I also table a schedule of ministerial and Leader of the Opposition mobile phone expenses during calendar year 2011.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 - Provision of Travel and Communication Entitlements for Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for Calendar Year 2011
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 - Provision of Travel and Communication Entitlements for Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for Calendar Year 2011
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
BUILDING AMENDMENT (DISABILITY ACCESS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 202)
(Serial 202)
Continued from 23 February 2012.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I can advise the House that we have given serious consideration to the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory note, and also spoken to people around town in relation to this amendment and, as such, the opposition will be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Well, I am staggered at times, Madam Speaker. You would think the member for Fong Lim would give this more than 30 seconds because it is quite an important bill. I am amazed sometimes when I hear statements in this House that there is not enough work. If we dealt with every bill like that we could be here for a day, which might not be a bad thing after all.
I hope we spend a little more time dealing with some of the important bills that have come before parliament. This bill is important to the building industry, something I would have thought the member for Fong Lim is a great supporter of. The reason it has been brought in is to assist the building industry where it has had difficulties previously dealing with disability access to premises.
My understanding is there was no way a certifier could appeal about the design of a house which would not have disability access without causing major problems to the building from a cost point of view, a design point of view, or a heritage point of view. We have a bill today which allows that to occur.
I would like to go to committee. I do not have any major questions, just a few small points I would like to raise. They might be a typing error, or me not reading it correctly. I would like to go to committee stage.
It is a straightforward, important bill for the building industry, especially in the Territory where there are a number of heritage buildings. We have the Myilly Point Heritage Precinct and other buildings which you would not want to destroy simply because there is a requirement under section 64 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth that is not so strictly enforced; that buildings of heritage quality, or buildings where it would be impractical - without perhaps buying the next door neighbour’s front yard - to put in facilities that would cover the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It is an important bill and it will be welcomed by the industry because it gives them an opportunity for a method of appeal where they believe having to abide by the existing legislation will be too harsh.
Madam Speaker, I will ask further questions during the committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The member for Fong Lim made a rather more significant contribution to the debate here this evening. About an hour-and-a-half ago he used some very serious psychology to alert me I was in for it; there were going to be a real serious challenge. I took it in good faith because the member for Fong Lim always participates in great robust debate in this House. I added another trick to my arsenal because I learn from members in this House; I learn every step of the way and I spend much time here learning.
I thank the member for Fong Lim, as the shadow for Lands and Planning, for his support because, as the member for Nelson outlined, it is an important bill. It is important for the Territory and important in relation to the national building scene. Rising to conclude the debate is important because it recognises the incredible amount of work the staff of the Department of Lands and Planning have done. Once again, we have worked together and worked hard on this bill, as in others, and have brought it to the House in good faith for Territorians and are very proud of the outcomes.
The member for Nelson made several points in debate. It is assisting the building industry, that is correct, but it is also assisting Territorians and owners of buildings. He went on, rightly so, to say at the moment under the Commonwealth legislation around disability access there is no right of appeal and the Commonwealth has instructed the states and territories to put that right. That is what this bill does.
Another very good example from the member for Nelson was about heritage buildings. What this bill brings to the House - one small element is around alternative solutions, and that is what it is about. It is about good common sense and about supporting Territorians. Therefore, opportunities will be allowed for alternative solutions.
However, it is important to highlight the incredible work done by the department, by government, by my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues to go through and outline the other key points this legislation brings to the House. In regard to what we have termed the housekeeping details, some important changes will occur through the passage of this legislation - the conditions on registration of builders. The bill allows the Building Practitioners Board to place conditions on a registration where, for example, the board is of the view the experience of the applicant does not cover the full scope of work in a particular category. That can be taken as a positive because if a person does not have that experience they can continue to be part of the industry but will have conditions on registration.
In relation to the period of registration for builders, the bill spreads out the dates for registration as a once off which resulted from registration commencing in 2006. Rather than having all registrations fall due on the one date, it is proposed the new registration date will be the contractor’s birth date. That is a logical way to develop and create efficiency in processing builder registration.
Another housekeeping point was the appeal for accreditation of building products. The Building Advisory Committee considers applications for building products to be included in the Deemed to Comply Manual; however, there is currently no right of appeal. This bill allows appeals to be made to the Building Appeals Board - another good outcome of this legislation.
Some key points around the disability access provisions are the Commonwealth disability standards commenced on 1 May 2011 and states and territories were encouraged to consider amending respective building legislation to align the operation of the standards; for instance, to enable the consideration of unjustifiable hardship applications, as the member for Nelson talked about briefly. Some states had established non-legislative bodies, or bodies within already established boards, to consider matters of unjustifiable hardship. Of course, it is now the Territory’s turn.
The only certainty building owners, developers, and certifiers have to avoid a successful claim in a Federal Court is to use the Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions in the Building Code of Australia. Unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act is a complaints-based system. This means a person may apply to the Disability Discrimination Commissioner or a Federal Court alleging they have been unlawfully discriminated against in relation to access to premises. In other words, unlawful discrimination is a matter that is considered after the building work has taken place.
The building certification process operates prospectively. In other words, if a person obtains a building permit they can have comfort they will comply if they build in accordance with that permit. The provisions in this bill will offer the greatest certainty for applicants who seek to depart from the Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions before they commence the building work. This is because disability access and decisions about unlawful discrimination are a Commonwealth matter, but the standards expressly state one of the matters a Federal Court will consider is to determine unjustifiable hardship - a decision of a state or territory body.
Some states and territories have bodies that can modify and make decisions that a provision of the Building Code of Australia applies in a particular circumstance. The Northern Territory and Victoria are such jurisdictions. It is possible for a person to apply to the Building Appeals Board to seek a modification or departure from any provision in the Building Code of Australia, including a disability access provision. The board considers such applications against a public interest test. It is not, however, a decision on the basis of unjustifiable hardship. This bill will allow a person to apply to the Building Appeals Board to seek a modification or departure from an access provision in the Building Code of Australia on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship. The board will assess the application against the same grounds set out in the standards.
It was certainly a directive from the Commonwealth; a matter that had to be worked through in the Territory. Once again, we have achieved a good outcome, not only for the builder but also the owner, the developer, and the public in recognising this is a very important issue. It is about being able to provide alternatives where they are necessary.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, and we will now move into committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: My questions will not take much time. Minister, in relation to a building approved by the Building Appeals Board, for instance not to be modified, what weight is put on their decision if someone decides to object to that ruling under the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992?
Mr McCARTHY: Could I have some clarification, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: The bill says decisions of the Building Appeals Board cannot override the requirements of Commonwealth legislation. Consequently, the making of a disability access decision does not prevent a person from making a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to a contravention of a disability access provision.
Even though the Building Appeals Board has given approval for the builder or the building certifier not to go ahead with any changes or just add modifications, can that Building Appeals Board ruling be used in an argument if someone brings a case against that person under the Discrimination Disability Act 1992? In other words, can a fair bit of weight be applied by that appeal ruling?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised it certainly will be given weight. Under the Commonwealth act, they will take account of the Building Appeals Board process and decision. That will be factored in and they will work in parallel, so to speak. So, yes, it will be taken into consideration by the process, by the court, and will be given that weight.
Mr WOOD: My next question relates to clause 10 in the explanatory notes where it says section 53 is replaced. I am unsure if I am reading this correctly because I do not have the original bill with me, but it says: ‘This clause repeals and inserts existing section 53’. Why would you insert the existing section 53 in an existing section 53? Is something wrong with the explanatory notes, or is it me?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I am advised that was a drafting procedure and some of the matters from section 54 were moved to section 53.
Mr WOOD: If the drafter said so I will have to believe him. However, the wording for the layman sounds like you inserted the existing clause back into the existing clause.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I am advised it is a simple change. There is no change to the content. It was simply taken out of one section, redrafted in the other, and clause 16 explains that procedure.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. That is usually the case with some of this legislation. You get the explanation three pages afterwards, not the same page.
Just for my sake - and other people might be interested - can you give us a quick summary of the difference between alternative solution decisions and access modification decisions. Looking at those two definitions, I do not see much difference. I can see the difference in the wording, but they seem to say more or less the same thing. I know there are two sections on it, which talk quite a bit about it. However, it seems to me if you say something is an alternative solution decision that would also include a modification decision. I want to know why two different definitions are required, not just a simple alternative solution decision.
Mr McCARTHY: I will take those one at a time. Member for Nelson, I am advised an alternative solution has to be signed off by a certifier as a final decision. The Building Appeals Board has the final decision on the access modification.
Mr WOOD: Well, that gives me some idea. That, perhaps, explains why in section 129J(4) and (5), you have a different approach to how a person can inspect. An alternative solution decision is done through the Registrar, and an access modification decision is done through the chairperson of the Building Appeals Board. That makes sense; it fits in what you are saying. I will study that again because it is something that, as a local member, I may have people query. I probably need to get a better hold on what that means in relation to the changes. I said it was only going to be short, and there is nothing else I want to question. Thank you, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Nelson. It is with good faith I say yes, I really enjoyed working through this with the experts. You are most welcome. Should you have any questions about the legislation please let us know and we will provide access to the experts to work through it with you.
Bill agreed to, without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
BUSINESS NAMES (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 199)
(Serial 199)
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the government can relax, we will be supporting this bill. However, with a tinge of regret in one respect, we have supported the changeover - I note the staffers are getting into the advisor’s box, you will not be there for long - with a tinge of angst about our federal system. Whilst we, on this side of the House, have agreed with this for the good commercial reasons that exist to support these changes, preliminary bills were passed some time ago. This bill completes the transition of the Business Names Register, essentially, from the Northern Territory to control of a federal government department.
The reason I express a pang of angst over this is it is another small erosion of state rights or Territory rights transitioning to a national government. Whilst I support this legislative instrument and understand the good commercial reasons for it, I reiterate the Country Liberals’ position: we will only support these forms of legislation if they are good for the Northern Territory.
Curiously, this arrangement between the states and the federal government, particularly when Labor states ruled supreme, was a one-way street. There seems to be very little devolution of decision-making powers back to the states. There are a number of areas where such devolution would be worthwhile considering, particularly when you consider the vertical fiscal imbalance as it currently exists. However, this is a step along the road to rationalisation of business names nationally. This is the final step; after it leaves this House we shall not utter the words business names legislation again. As indicated the last time around, the government can continue to expect support in relation to this legislation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. It has been a number of years coming, as other members ...
Mr Elferink: You are trying to make the advisors’ trip worthwhile.
Dr BURNS: No, I love to speak on these bills. It has been three years between the time the intergovernmental agreement was signed in relation to business names and the passage of this bill in this parliament. It will achieve the goal of having a single national scheme for the registration and regulation of business names.
There is no doubt business names can cause much friction. We have seen the instance of some very well-known multinationals taking on small coffee shops and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, can you come to the point of the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance. There can be friction; there can be dispute about business names. There have been instances of large multinationals getting upset because small coffee shops have adopted a name somewhat like the multinational name. We need to have some uniformity not only to protect the big players, but also the smaller players across jurisdictions. This bill, I am advised, will make it easier for businesses to register their business names across jurisdictions, cut red tape and, presumably, expense, and also give greater protection to those business names which, of course, is very important. Names like the Australian Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party - I do not know whether they are business names, but they are brands each party protects.
As the minister said in his second reading speech on 20 October 2011, this parliament passed the Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Request Act 2011. That commenced in late 2011, and was a process for transferring the responsibility for Northern Territory business names to the Commonwealth. This bill is the second and final step and meets our obligations nationally. Basically, it is all about the migration of data to the Commonwealth. I am sure our public servants, some of whom are sitting in the box today, will work very hard and facilitate that process. It repeals our Business Names Act which, of course, is necessary for this whole process to occur. There are a number of transitional matters this bill will attend to and any outstanding matters prior to the changeover day.
It also provides, as was said in the second reading speech - I am unsure who the Attorney-General was at that time. Anyway, the second reading speech alluded to the fact the act provides the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs must notify the Commonwealth, ASIC, that certain outstanding matters are to be held on the Commonwealth Business Name Register until they are finally dealt with in the Northern Territory. These are migration issues to be dealt with.
This bill is consistent with bills introduced in other jurisdictions. I commend the bill. It is moving forward to a national system. I commend our Northern Territory Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, who has a difficult task. He always has to be on guard against unscrupulous operators, people who want to fleece Northern Territorians, people who are trying to get an advantage, even through a business name. He has a very difficult area to police, but he does a great job.
Finally, Madam Speaker, at about 4.53 pm …
Mr Elferink: We are going to committee I have realised.
Dr BURNS: Are you going to committee?
Mr Elferink: Yes, I do not know why yet, but I will let you know.
Dr BURNS: Oh, that is lovely. I commend the bill to honourable members and will leave the wrap-up to the minister. The member for Port Darwin has realised he needs to take this to committee.
Mr Elferink: I am going to ask some questions, that is all.
Dr BURNS: He has some questions. Well, that is the parliamentary process.
Mr Elferink: I do not know what they are yet, but I will let you know.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution on this fairly innocuous bill. This bill represents the second and final phase of the process to transfer responsibility for regulating business names from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. It harks back to the Howard government and its initiative around a seamless economy. I acknowledge the impetus for this bill.
Members will all recall the first phase, passage of the Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Request Act in this parliament in October last year. The passage of these two acts by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly demonstrates our commitment to the 2009 intergovernmental agreement for business names. In that agreement, all jurisdictions agreed to establish a single national scheme for the registration, also the regulation, of business names. This is highly important in today’s terms, not only for our national protection of intellectual property, but also Australian businesses operating globally.
This new national scheme is to be administered by ASIC, and is currently scheduled to commence on 28 May. That is subject to all states and territories passing transitional and consequential legislation. With the passage of this bill today the only remaining state is Western Australia, and that is expected to be passed in the coming weeks.
This national scheme will reduce the red tape and regulation burden on business, which we are certainly all about. It will give them nationwide protection for their business name, and will allow them to conduct the ABN business name and company transaction through one federal agency, through an online portal. That portal increasingly seems to be the way to go.
I acknowledge the work of the Territory Business Centres who assist people, and the great work the department of Business does in that respect.
It has also significantly reduced the cost of business name registration in multiple jurisdictions across Australia. Increasingly, I would imagine, Territory businesses are doing that.
This bill contains the necessary transitional and consequential amendments for the Commonwealth to commence regulating for business names in the Northern Territory. It ensures the orderly transition of administrative and other operational arrangements, particularly - as the Education minister spoke about - the migration of business names data to the Commonwealth. It also repeals the NT’s Business Names Act 2007 and fixes some cross-references across the statute book.
The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Gary Clements, did a great job. He has been extensively consulted in the development of this bill, and I extend my gratitude to his staff for their assistance. Also, the department of Business has been instrumental in the development of the policy and will play a significant ongoing role in the national scheme.
Prior to the changeover to the national scheme in May, ASIC will be touring the country giving a series of seminars for the business community and informing them about the new national scheme. The road show will visit Darwin on 24 April this year, and educational material about the new scheme will be rolled out by ASIC on their website. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce and the department of Business will be assisting in that regard, as well as the Department of Justice. There is a communications plan around this. There will also be a notice in the Business Territory newsletter and the e-newsletter. There will be mail-outs from DBE to a significant number of businesses. Much communication will go out, including to the legal and accounting fraternity.
Madam Speaker, this is good legislation. It is a good initiative to make it easier for businesses to get their name registered, to protect their business name, to bring some uniformity to the registration of the business, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, these are just general information questions, and if the minister wants to be fulsome and long in his answers, I do not mind.
You referred to a changeover day in May. What date is that?
Mr KNIGHT: What day of the week?
Mr ELFERINK: No. What date?
Mr KNIGHT: 28 May.
Mr ELFERINK: 28 May. Okay. On what date does this bill we pass now become operative? What day are you expecting assent?
Mr KNIGHT: We are trying to get to Executive Council on 10 April, so it will be gazetted about mid-April.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of clarification, I note the back of the bill refers to repeal of the Northern Territory legislation. You are expecting the changeover day to be 28 May and 10 April for assent for this bill. That leaves a gap of six weeks. What is the effect on business names in the Northern Territory when there is no overarching bill governing them for a period of six weeks?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised this legislation prescribes the act being repealed continues until 28 May when this act is ...
Mr ELFERINK: I am trying to look at it now; give me a second.
Mr KNIGHT: Part 1.2(2) refers to Parts 3 and 4.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am looking at clause 29. Is that the section that refers?
Mr KNIGHT: The repeal?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the repeal of the Business Names Act 2007.
Mr KNIGHT: Part 3, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is Part 3, clause 29, so I am reading the same bit. Where can I be directed to find that this bill remains operative until 28 May? All I see is a repeal date and the Business Names Act of 2007 is repealed. I am still worried about the 10 April to 28 May issue.
Mr KNIGHT: The current act will continue until such time as the ‘changeover day’. The definition of the ‘changeover day’ means the day the Commonwealth passes its legislation the current act is repealed and this legislation takes effect.
Mr ELFERINK: You understand my concern is, on the answers I have received so far, you have nominated 10 April, essentially, as when this bill receives assent. No, there is a shaking of heads in the advisor’s box. 10 April is not right?
Mr KNIGHT: Parts 1 and 2, which are the operational parts of the legislation, take effect from around 10 April when they are assented to, and Parts 3 and 4 take effect on the changeover day.
Mr ELFERINK: Can you point out the section in Parts 1 or 2 that give that directive?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 2 …
Mr ELFERINK: Whereabouts in Part 2?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 1.2(1) says:
- This act, other than Parts 3 and 4, commences on the day on which the Administrator’s assent to the act is declared.
So, everything other than Parts 3 and 4, which are on the changeover date ...
Mr ELFERINK: The part number so I can read it?
Mr KNIGHT: It is Part 1.2(1).
Mr ELFERINK: Part 1.2(1). Now I understand. Part 3, which deals with repeal of the legislation, does not come into force …
Mr KNIGHT: Until the Commonwealth …
Mr ELFERINK: My understanding of how this is going to work is at 2959 hours and 59 seconds on 2 May the Business Names Act is repealed and, at one second past midnight on 28 May, the Commonwealth act takes over. There is no capacity for any form of claim jumping on business names created by a hole left behind?
Mr KNIGHT: No.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that is fine. I knew it was going to be in there somewhere, I just needed somebody to join the dots for me. It would have been an oversight the department would have turned its attention to.
Minister, can you take me through the cost structure that currently applies to business names and that will apply under the new arrangements?
Mr KNIGHT: Under this, intergovernment agreement fees are to be set by reference to the fee in the lowest fee jurisdiction, plus CPI. As the NT has the lowest fee - currently $66 for three years - this means it will be a small increase on the fee; that is, the CPI. The proposed national fee for business names registration will now be $70 - the NT rate plus CPI for three years. Additionally, the new fee covers the whole of Australia which means there will be substantial savings for businesses who want to operate under one business name in more than one jurisdiction.
To give you an idea of the current fees around Australia: ACT is $151; New South Wales, $160; Queensland, $133 - this is for a three-year period - South Australia, $159; Tasmania, $140; Victoria, $85; and Western Australia, $90. It is bringing everyone back to the Northern Territory rate.
Mr ELFERINK: Bully for us. We have changed a national scheme.
This is to guide me through it to ensure we have covered off on it. In Division 4, clause 16 of the bill, which is Appeals and Revocation of Cancellation of Business Names ...
Mr KNIGHT: Was that Division 4 ...
Mr ELFERINK: Clause 16. If you go to clause 16 on page 9 you will find it.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: It refers to the Local Court, which I presume is the court with original jurisdiction over these matters. Where it refers to the Local Court, I presume it is Local Court in the Northern Territory. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Why have we not included the Supreme Court in that in case of any appellant matter?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised the way the systems works in the Territory is it has been handled by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and any action currently under way would, effectively, stay in the Local Court. There is nothing here which refers to the Supreme Court. Matters are dealt with in the Local Court.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but if somebody is unsatisfied with the Local Court determination, does the absence of the Supreme Court in this section have the effect of shutting down an avenue of appeal?
Mr KNIGHT: There are two parts to this; this is, prior to commencement and post-commencement. If matters are currently under way with respect to a business name, this says a matter currently in the Local Court – which is only allowed to be in the Local Court under the current legislation - would stay in the Local Court. Post-commencement of the legislation, it goes through the federal system - the Federal Courts. Everything past that date goes through the federal system.
If someone was unsuccessful in their action which commenced prior to commencement in the Local Court, they could reapply through ASIC and go through the federal judicial system. Does that make sense?
Mr ELFERINK: I understand. The challenge is having to commence after the commencement. Anyone listening in the gallery is probably saying: ‘What?’ However, I get what you mean.
We can be reassured then, if an action taken in the lower court, for whatever reason, has an appeal attached to it, the appeal can be heard under the new system after the changeover date in a court with federal jurisdiction.
Mr KNIGHT: No, no, that is not what I said. If there is an action at the moment, their only avenue under the current legislation for a current matter is with the Local Court. That claim will be exhausted in the Local Court. If they were unhappy with the decision, they could then apply for the same matter through ASIC, and go through the federal system under the new legislation. So, basically, they have two actions, but they are not connected by a series of appeals.
Mr ELFERINK: If I understand you correctly, under the current arrangements Local Court decisions are not appealable?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. That is correct under the current legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Really?
Mr KNIGHT: Apparently so.
Mr ELFERINK: Wow! That surprises me. Other than on a point of law, I presume?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right; a current action is exhausted in the Local Court.
Mr ELFERINK: As I understand it, many items of Territory legislation allow appeals to a Supreme Court on a point of law. Surely, that is in the existing Territory legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: The preliminary advice is there is inherent jurisdiction and they can apply through that. If you want more definitive advice, I could try to get that …
Mr ELFERINK: I am very surprised to hear there is no appeal mechanism. What happens in many Territory acts is the lower court can settle matters of fact, but an appeal is still allowed on the grounds of a point of law. That is generally what appeals are restricted to. It is my understanding that is how the Business Names Act operates at the moment. Could you confirm that particular item for me?
Mr KNIGHT: When do you want that advice? The initial advice is around appealing under inherent jurisdiction. It might take 10 to 15 minutes to get that advice, and I am unsure if this is going to …
Mr ELFERINK: I know I am being pedantic, but I want to cover off on this issue. If someone can flick through the existing legislation – appeals to the Supreme Court on a point of law only - because I want to ensure that is how the act operates. I will be very surprised if it were otherwise.
Mr KNIGHT: This is bringing any matters to an end, then they can start a new process through the new legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: However, if an action is brought before the Local Court tomorrow, the Northern Territory legislation will still apply. If that action is resolved and there is an issue - a point of law - is that issue appealable to the Supreme Court? Surely, it must be. You cannot simply draw a line under the Local Court and say even on points of law you are not going anywhere.
Mr KNIGHT: We will get that advice and come back to it. Do you have other matters you want to talk about?
Mr ELFERINK: I will talk slowly then, shall I?
Mr KNIGHT: This legal advice is not costing you.
Mr ELFERINK: $385 an hour is the standard nowadays.
Madam CHAIR: I remind honourable members that at 5.30 pm we go to General Business.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. How long is this going to take, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: We will get the advice as quickly as possible.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, whilst we are waiting for that advice and for the record, if we run over time slightly, whilst I appreciate standing orders says 5.30 pm, the opposition will accommodate the House to enable this legislation to be dealt with today as best we can.
Mr KNIGHT: I will give you an undertaking to get that advice either way, whether it is in or out …
Mr ELFERINK: Before the passage of the legislation? In the meantime, perhaps there is another way to approach this. Minister, are there any actions on foot at the moment in the Local Court in relation to the Business Names Register in the Northern Territory?
Mr KNIGHT: That question probably should have been asked earlier. No, apparently not, and this particular action is very sparingly used. That might speed things up a little.
Mr ELFERINK: Which leads to my next question: is the department aware of any disputes on foot which are not yet court actions involving the Northern Territory’s business names legislation? In other words, is there an action on the horizon?
Mr KNIGHT: The department made inquiries with the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and was advised he is not aware of any actions on foot at the present time or in the future.
Mr ELFERINK: I am going out on a limb here and will take a risk. You, as minister, will keep an eye out for any actions that may occur between now and 28 May, and will be properly advised as to how those actions will proceed. In the event that such an action is brought forward, I ask you to advise me the action is in the pipeline and there might be a problem. Would that be a sufficient solution to the issue at this stage? It is not perfect, but it will sidestep this issue.
Mr KNIGHT: I am happy enough to provide any advice I receive in relation to this situation. Those people wanting to take action would be aware of the appeal mechanisms under the current legislation. We have given a clear indication today of the enactment changeover dates for the federal legislation, so they may choose to hold off and have greater appeal rights.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and that is probably the best way to deal with this. It is not entirely perfect; it is a loose end but a risk you have to take.
I thank the minister for his indulgence on the line of questioning and the patience of the departmental staff. I will conclude this matter and get on with the business of the House.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Nightcliff and Goyder
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Nightcliff and Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling the Leader of Government Business, I have a document relating to pairs for tomorrow morning from 10 am to 12 noon for me, the member for Nightcliff, and the member for Goyder. I thank the member for Goyder for pairing with me for the period of 10 am to 12 noon tomorrow.
I table that document.
CRIMINAL CODE (ONE PUNCH HOMICIDE) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 203)
(Serial 203)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I introduce to this House a bill which is similar to the bill defeated in November last year. The government had promised at that time to refer the matter in that bill to the Law Reform Committee. Since that time, the government has remained utterly silent on the issue of one punch homicide in the Northern Territory.
I re-present members with a bill that would see what we, on this side of the House, consider to be an anomalous matter in our law. The issue orbits around the occasions that exist in our community where people take to assaulting others and, on rare occasions, causing their death. One such instance in recent times was the death of Brett Meredith in Katherine. I followed the case with interest, discussed the case with people in the legal profession, and there was a high expectation the matter would result in a finding of not guilty.
I have since spoken to the widow of Brett Meredith, Aimee Meredith, who is watching the debate right now. She clearly had been warned not to have high expectations in a finding of guilt, so much so that Mrs Meredith began a campaign to make one punch homicide - as it is known colloquially - a new type of crime even before a finding of guilt in the case of her husband’s death. There was a finding of guilt, and that case has little bearing on the matter I introduce today other than what the case highlighted in relation to the law of the Northern Territory. Had the quality of evidence been other than it was, it is conceivable there would have been an entirely different result in that matter.
The law of manslaughter demands, in the unlawful causing of death of another, the elements of recklessness or negligence must be made out. If either of those elements is described, it is then possible to return a verdict of guilty. These are not easy obstacles to overcome, and the determination left to the jury is to discover either of those elements to find manslaughter had occurred. Indeed, Justice Barr touched on the matter when referring to manslaughter as a crime; that it can occur across a broad range of circumstances from the edge of murder to a simple prank gone wrong. Under normal circumstances, one would hope such a broad offence would cover the field of public expectations but, sadly, it does not.
In the Northern Territory Criminal Code, beneath the crime of manslaughter, there is merely aggravated assault. In circumstances where a person causes the death of another by way of unlawful conduct, but in circumstances that do not amount to negligence or recklessness, which are the elements of manslaughter, a person may be found guilty of aggravated assault.
It is not inconceivable in such circumstances that a person who has unlawfully assaulted another will be found guilty of aggravated assault only. A consequence of that is a matter may be dealt with and brought before a court where a court may be told merely of injuries of the victim without mentioning the death of the victim. When the matter was drawn to my attention by Mrs Meredith, she presented me with the work of a law professor who suggested the way to create a system of one punch homicide was to make the offence an offence of strict liability. Whilst this would achieve the result, it would have made the offence easy to prove by rendering the accused a limited legal defence. This, to me, was unsatisfactory. This is not, and should not be, about prosecutorial convenience. This is about presenting the public with an offence in which a person who unlawfully assaults another causing their death is held accountable for their conduct in circumstances that would not qualify as manslaughter. This bill bridges that gap and fills the public expectation.
The other component I wish to place on the record is this offence does not replace manslaughter in our Criminal Code. Where a prosecution can make out the offence of manslaughter it is expected, and will be expected, that it is business as usual for the prosecutorial arm of government. Nevertheless, there is space for this new offence and it is intended to deal with what we, on this side of the House, consider to be a hole in Northern Territory law.
This legislation exists in other jurisdictions. They have had bills introduced in those jurisdictions because they were responding to events where the public expectation had been disappointed. This bill is not a response to an event, but a response to an event that may - dare I say, will - occur into the future. It is a foresighted parliament, a foresighted legislature that sees an issue and prepares for it rather than prepares legislation in a response to something that has already occurred.
Since November last year, the Police Association has also thrown its weight behind this bill because it understands the intent of the bill. The intent of this bill is to present the public of the Northern Territory with a deterrent. This bill is designed to get people thinking about what they are about to do when they start punching people in pubs, or wherever else this may occur. The deterrent quality of this legislative instrument is designed specifically to prevent death into the future.
One of the great challenges in preventing death is it is generally impossible to know which deaths you have prevented. It is a little like preventing car accidents. You can never say that on 26 November, a car accident did not happen on the corner of Smith and Knuckey Streets because of this legislative instrument. It will never be entirely possible to measure the success of this legislative instrument. However, I do not doubt if this is passed into law, this law will prevent a death somewhere at some time.
For the edification of honourable members, I seek leave to lay on the table an opinion from the Northern Territory Police Association.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope this government reconsiders its intransient attitude towards this legislative instrument. I hope this government understands there is a growing public expectation that such a law exists in the Northern Territory. I hope the government will support this legislative instrument, which is good law and legislation the public expects. I hope the Northern Territory government accepts the intent of this legislation, accepts this is good law, and will support its transition into the statute book of the Northern Territory.
I will even give the government a bit of wriggle room. If the government wants to sidestep a political issue – that is, supporting a bill introduced by the Country Liberals - and introduce its own legislative instrument which has the same effect as this one proposes, I will happily support that, even if I have to withdraw this one. This is not about the Country Liberals having a win over the Labor Party; this is about changing the law of the Northern Territory for the good governance and management of the people of the Northern Territory. I invite the government to consider taking that option. It can take the glory, the laurels, and everything else and good luck. However, this is something that needs to be done before a death occurs which falls through the gap in our current law.
Madam Speaker, if the government continues to be intransient on this, after the next Territory election, should the Northern Territory government be a Country Liberals government, this will become the law of the Northern Territory. I urge the government not to wait until August, but to do its homework if necessary, bring in its own bill, and we will support its passage as long as it achieves the same goals this bill before the House seeks to achieve. We could not be more fair or forthright in the way we approach this legislative instrument because, again, it is not about a political point, it is about good law.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Government’s Failure to Provide Land Release and Planning Strategies
Government’s Failure to Provide Land Release and Planning Strategies
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Fong Lim is not here. This can only be moved by the member for Fong Lim.
Mr Wood: I was not going to move, I was going to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, he is not here. Okay, General Business.
You can resume your seat, Mr Clerk. Member for Fong Lim, you are a little tardy.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Rather tardy, Madam Speaker. I say at the outset thank you very much for your lenience in this matter; I was caught in the lift. I know it is a pretty poor excuse, but it happens to be a fact. I appreciate the fact you have not allowed me to be overlooked.
Madam Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to provide land release and planning strategies to support the sustainable growth of the Territory.
This is an important motion because we hear so much from the government about the wonderful things it is doing in relation to land release. The minister is a very elegant, eloquent speaker, and probably the best person in this parliament for gilding the lily. He has an amazing knack for talking things up. If I ever want to be in government and blow trumpets, I will certainly be taking lessons from the member for Barkly. He does it in such a good, passionate way; it is almost a believable way. Good on the guy. I admire him but, unfortunately, the reality is a completely different story.
The government says it is releasing blocks of land and whatnot. I do not know how many times I heard the story of Bellamack being released. It would have to go back to the start of the Labor government, somewhere around 2000 or 2001, when it decided to release Bellamack. It has taken a dreadfully long time to see the fruits of those announcements.
We are hearing now there are other subdivisions on the boil and things are happening everywhere: Lyons, Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston and Zuccoli. It says it is pushing land out the door at a faster rate than any other government in history in a range of places. That is blatant nonsense! The reality is the government is not pushing land out quickly at all. The reality is the slow release of land is contributing in a major way to the housing and accommodation crisis we have in the Northern Territory. This has to be the worst housing and accommodation crisis in our history. At no time in our history have people been forced to pay the rents they currently pay, or pay the prices they pay for houses and units, and survive.
It is a ludicrous situation at the moment. We saw a report a few days ago from the Property Council saying people in Darwin rate Darwin as one of the worst places to live in Australia. I find that alarming, because I quite enjoy living in Darwin. It is a beautiful city and a fantastic place to raise a family. We cannot ignore the realities and the reason people made those comments. People are concerned about the high rates of crime and public drunkenness that seems to be on the rise continually in Darwin. The other thing is the high cost of living, and a big part of the cost of living is the cost of housing and accommodation. That is certainly turning many people off Darwin.
We are now the most expensive city in Australia to live. Sometimes, people speak of that and are proud of the fact it is an expensive place to live. Normally, the greatest yardstick for quality is price. If you are buying a high-quality product you expect to pay a larger premium, although the concern people have in Darwin is they are paying a very high price and the product leaves much to be desired.
Obviously, this concern is not just affecting the Darwin region. Several people from outside Darwin will speak on this matter and they have similar concerns. People in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek - it does not matter where you go there are concerns about the lack of land availability and the lack of land release the government is putting onto the market.
I did a little research on this topic and have a couple of interesting documents I managed to pick up. I have a flyer from the Northern Territory government I will table in a minute. It is one that folds in half, or it might have been photocopied on both sides. It is a Northern Territory government flyer; one of those glossy brochures this government is so good at putting out. It is headed: ‘Housing the Territory – A Territory Government Initiative; Fresh Ideas/Real Results. Land Release - a 20-year plan’. A 20-year plan is marvellous stuff. It must have been done around 2003 or so. However, it says in 2009, 150 houses will be released in Lyons and another 80 released in 2010, making a total of 230 dwellings or lots in Lyons.
We all know Lyons has been completed. It is a great little suburb. How the government can take credit for that is beyond me because Lyons is a federal government project. The land at Lyons was offered to the Northern Territory government for $8m at the time, and the Northern Territory government rejected that offer. The Northern Territory government did not take control of the land at Lyons; it allowed the Commonwealth to hand it over to the Defence Housing Authority, a government business division of the federal government. The Defence Housing Authority built that area.
Quite often, we hear the minister bang on about the wonderful things the government is doing at Muirhead. It is exactly the same situation as Lyons. Those blocks of land are federal government blocks. It is being developed by the Defence Housing Authority with no Northern Territory government involvement. The Northern Territory government claims Muirhead and Lyons as its own, irrespective of the fact it turned its back on both those opportunities and walked away.
The government says it will develop Frances Park and some land has been released there. Goodness me, it says it is going to develop the Berrimah Research Farm in 2013. I hear the member for Nelson behind me saying no; however, this document says the government will release 1300 lots at Berrimah Research Farm in 2013. I could not imagine the government sticking to that time line.
Looking at Bellamack, the government says 700 houses will be constructed at Bellamack by 2012. Well, it is about two-thirds of the way with Bellamack. We have heard about Bellamack for at least 10 years, perhaps more, but it has taken well over a decade to do two-thirds of that development.
Johnston, at this point in time, should have 850 dwellings. There is nowhere near that looking at the most recent ABS data from December 2011, which came out in March this year. I cannot dig up the information about how many lots there are; however, about 10% of Johnston is completed as far as the Labor government’s plans were when this was released.
There are, supposedly, 750 houses to be built at Zuccoli by 2012. Almost 800 of those houses are supposed to be complete. Zero has been done at Zuccoli and zero at Mitchell. There were supposed to be 140 blocks by now. Rosebery Park - I do not know what is going on there. The clear message is, by the Labor government’s own plans, it is a mile behind.
Looking at the information from the ABS is quite revealing. This ABS report about dwelling unit commencements from December 2011 was published recently and I will quote from that report. Looking at the Northern Territory it says:
- The trend estimate of the number of total dwelling unit commencements in the Northern Territory fell this quarter and has fallen for the last four quarters.
Dwelling unit commencements have fallen for the last four quarters, and there is a whole range of information on that. I will be happy to table that information if the minister does not already have it.
We then look at approvals. When you look at approvals for units or houses, the same appears: the trend has been dropping since July last year and continues to fall. It is quite a sad story. Sorry, that was with units. The same applies with houses. Houses have been dropping since July last year as well.
Looking at the government’s information from budget papers on the Northern Territory economy, residential land sales peaked in 2006. It is now 2012. In 2006, almost 1200 new land deals were sold. The most recent figures are 2010, and they have dropped to below 400. It is about one-third of what happened in the 2006-07 financial year.
For the government to say it is now releasing land at a faster rate than any government before, it is clearly deluding itself; it is not releasing land at all. The reality is some 1700 blocks each year need to be released and the government is failing dismally. The government needs to be condemned for its slow land release policy. The problem is, it is caught up in bureaucracy and red tape and has tied itself in knots when it comes to releasing land. Unfortunately, tying itself in knots has had an impact on Territorians who want to buy their first house, people who want to move to the Territory and buy a house, and people who want to leave mum and dad’s house to live independently in a unit. It is much more difficult in Darwin to do that because of the high price of rent and housing. It is not a good story at all.
One of the problems is there has been almost a total failure to plan by this government. It says it has a plan; however, the reality is - as I keep saying, do not listen to what it says, look at what it does. What it does is almost always entirely different to what it says it is doing. I have just demonstrated that with a whole heap of information and statistics. The minister might want to argue the Australian Bureau of Statistics is wrong, or the government’s previous commitments on housing the Territory were misplaced. However, the reality is - and there is no hiding from it - land release is not happening. Alice Springs is in a similar situation, also Tennant Creek and Katherine. The government is failing the length and breadth of the Northern Territory and that is a shame.
Whilst this motion is somewhat negatively framed, I want to talk a little about the Country Liberals’ plan. We are in opposition. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, things are not particularly easy in opposition. We do not have the resources of government: government departments ferreting away devising policy and plans. In opposition, you have to survive on meagre takings. No one knows that better than some of the long-term members of the Labor Party in the Territory who endured a long time in opposition and know how difficult it can be. To put together plans is not an easy task, but the Country Liberals, in opposition, have put this document together. It is called Planning for Greater Darwin - A Dynamic Harbour City.
It took significant resources from the Country Liberals, and supporters, to put such a document together. It is very comprehensive, very detailed, and lays out a plan for the future growth of Darwin and how we intend to get there. One of the differences between the two parties - I hear people so often say: ‘Oh, you are all the same; Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party all have the same policies and, at the end of the day, nothing will change no matter who is in government’. I know pretty well everyone - barring maybe my little chicken-loving mate behind me - might disagree with that. There is a world of difference between the two political parties. The way I see it, one mob does much talking and puts time and effort into working out how they are going to get messages out. Another mob works out what they are going to do. It does not take rocket science to work out who I am talking about.
This government is almost 100% devoted to working out the message, how to get the story out and how to frame things in the media. You have another party, our side, which is interested in the real things of government - trying to devise practical outcomes. Ultimately, what has let us down is, in many ways, we are not very good at handling the messages we send out to the media. However, this plan has been launched for some months now. It is a very detailed plan, and I encourage people to look at it because it explains how the Country Liberals will release land and, more importantly, allow for greater development to take place in the Territory across the greater Darwin area.
This plan is for the greater Darwin area. To do an entire Northern Territory plan from opposition would be very difficult. However, people can gain an understanding of how that planning will be done by a Country Liberals’ government by looking at the greater Darwin plan. Obviously, some people will say there is more work that needs to be done, and probably in some areas that is true. We will need to fill in some of the spaces. It is still a very detailed and robust plan that looks toward the future of Darwin.
I would like to see this government look inward. Rather than say it is fast-tracking land release, work out how it can do that. The reality is, it is not happening. The government needs to take a good hard look at itself. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are very flattered that government has picked up a number of Country Liberals’ policies. Good on it for doing that; it is a great thing.
We announced we would put in place a planning commission and the government pretty well did that. Other things are coming out in a range of different areas, which are also very flattering to the Country Liberals. Good on the government because, clearly, it is recognising it got things wrong and does not have a monopoly on good ideas. It would be hard to say it had a good idea, but at least it is recognising some good ideas and picking them up from the Country Liberals. That is very flattering, so good on the government.
I do not want to have too much of a crack at the government apart from saying what it says is not often what it does. In this case, when we talk about land release we know the figures do not stack up. The trend has been dropping since July last year and the government is nowhere near its target. Any target it sets fails. My view is you promise small and deliver big. This mob has a view that you promise big and deliver small. Anything you deliver you talk it up, talk it up, and talk it up to try to make something big out of it. It is shame because Territorians deserve better. It is a beautiful place to live. The last thing we need is to scare people away but, unfortunately, that is what is happening. There are figures coming out tomorrow regarding population, and we will all be keen to see them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge everyone in this House to support the motion. Send the government a message. Tell it we are not happy with the way it is dealing with land and land release and get its act together and do more.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear the member for Fong Lim’s arguments. I am not necessarily going to support the motion, but his is an issue worth debating. I say at the outset I am a little disappointed certain General Business items were taken off the list because one item was dealing with the state of Aboriginal affairs - one thing this parliament needs at the moment is a good debate on the intervention.
The second intervention is going to affect us and we have had very little discussion about it. That is a pity because it is not coming up through government statements. A possible way was through General Business Day and, unfortunately, that has been taken off the list. However, I digress, which is something I am not supposed to do. Yes, we can sometimes take digression a little too far, but it is important we discuss this issue today. I might ask the member for Fong Lim if he has that forward list of housing for Palmerston because I was interested in looking at comparing that with what is in the Greater Darwin Plan.
I need to put some things in context. I had a meeting with the Land Development Corporation recently to discuss the new Zuccoli subdivision. On the positive side, that has been a good attempt. Developing affordable housing still has to be proven by the government. It will be interesting to see how much cheaper the government can produce land for sale and see what type of housing can be built there compared to what has been happening on the more private commercial blocks. I have had concerns for a long time about how much land was being released in the Darwin area. In debates in this House long ago we told the government to take the foot off the pedal.
I will look at this document. It does not say when it was brought out. It says under ‘release area at Bellamack’ that by 2011 there should be 200 dwellings. According to this, 189 have been built. By 2010, there should have been 200. One hundred and ninety-eight were proposed, so they have kept in line with that ...
A member: That is additional.
Mr WOOD: Additional. Well, their target is 678 for Bellamack and that is what was planned for. Johnston is a fair indication of where sometimes poor planning comes in. The brochure put out by the government at that time said there would be 850 blocks. That is now down to 490 because there really was not adequate thought put into the land at Johnston - a difficult piece of land. It has some rocky outcrops and areas that have to be removed, like the heritage area for the 17 Mile. One of the dangers government has is it sees a piece of land called Palmerston and says: ‘Well, we can put that many houses there, that many houses there, and that many houses there’. In the case of Johnston, you could not. Someone thought you could and said put 850 blocks there. The government’s own figures in its Greater Darwin Plan 2012 show it will be 490. That is sometimes where the government gets into trouble because there is some spin thrown in.
Zuccoli is another classic example. It said there will be 1750 dwellings; in fact the plan is for 1400. Again, if you look on a map - a piece of paper on flat ground - you can probably say we could fit 1750 blocks in there, but Zuccoli has some very wet areas, drainage areas, some very rocky areas, and they all need to be removed before you can build housing. There is another map here which says the land release around Zuccoli is 1750 blocks. It is not going to be quite that many.
The government’s plan was to sell Zuccoli off by 2010. Let us put this into perspective, if you go to Palmerston there are many blocks of land for sale. If you throw Muirhead in, there is going to be a fair bit of land. However, the issue is: has the government got behind? By getting behind, the price of land increased and it is hard to bring that price down. The problem was the government promised much and those promises were gilded with some spin because, if anyone knew that area of Palmerston, one knew it was a difficult area to develop.
Unfortunately, Palmerston is Palmerston and the land available is the land available. In many ways it is probably not the best land to develop because of soil types, especially around Mitchell Creek, where people have had to bring in gravel to ensure the foundations of the buildings were up to scratch because, in some cases, the soil types were not suitable to lay a slab on. Other areas were too rocky and steep with water and drainage areas coming down the side. Zuccoli had the same thing. You have limitations, and you will have limitations with Mitchell because it is closer to the mangroves. There will probably be larger blocks there, at least around the periphery.
The government would be better to say: ‘Yes, we promised this number of houses by a certain time’. Now, it would be better to say: ‘Okay, we ran into some problems’. One of problems was the projections planned were lower than what happened. My understanding is a section of the department looked at development of future subdivisions, but that section was dissolved at one stage. The problem was the then government came to a standstill and, when it realised it was running out of land, it took quite some time to crank the system up again. We are only now starting to get going.
It is great to see so many blocks of land at Bellamack. You only have to go down Lambrick Avenue and see all the works happening in Zuccoli, and you only have to go to the right to see what is happening in Johnston. There is much work happening and it has, in the last year-and-a-half to two years, started to get the momentum lacking some years ago. That is why there was much hue and cry over the lack of land being released.
I will talk about the rural area. Again, it is a mixed bag. The government is always reluctant to open up land where it knows there is sufficient private land to develop. We still have quite a large number of blocks of land owned by private developers. However, private developers are not that silly; they do not open up 300 ha of land because that would drop the price of land fairly quickly. They do it in dribs and drabs and like to retain the high price. My understanding is a block of land at Howard Springs, which can be half submerged under water but has been approved by the minister, was sold for around $0.5m. Those prices are making it very difficult for young people to get a block of land in an area which is a great place to raise a family because you have space, fresh air and can have a few chooks. The kids have a place to run around and, if anyone looks at the crime figures, you will see the rural area is generally much lower.
There are opportunities for the government and, in some cases, they have not been taken up. It has been raised in documents the government released on rural villages and, since then, documents the member for Goyder and I have issued. The government has not developed land in its own district centres. It owns Freds Pass District Centre - has not done anything in the residential area at all. It has built one school, and there is childcare centre and a Christian school there. Besides that, there is nothing, yet it has been a district centre for at least 20 years - and still no move on it. It is close to the highway and is land available for suburban development. It is limited, but it can be developed that way. It can also have large urban blocks around the outside.
Humpty Doo is another classic example where the government has owned that land for ages - over 20 years – and it has been zoned as a district centre. The Darwin regional plan issued by the government downgrades, to some extent, Humpty Doo because of the growth of Coolalinga. It should not do that. Part of the reason Humpty Doo has not grown is because the government has not released land around the town. It has only built one duplex …
Ms Purick: In 20 years.
Mr WOOD: Yes, in 20 years - on behalf of NT Housing. It has not shown faith in its own district centre.
I have been calling, on a constant basis - the Chief Minister knows this - for the development of industrial land at Humpty Doo. I have already had constituents - they may even be constituents of the member for Goyder as we cross paths ...
Ms Purick: We share.
Mr WOOD: Yes, we meld in. A company which operates a road making business with trucks, graders and front end loaders on an 8 ha block at Humpty Doo has been told it has three months to get off otherwise it will be prosecuted. It went looking for more land. The only land available is either in Palmerston or Bachelor. The company operates in the rural area and cannot go to those places. There is no industrial land available for that type of activity in Humpty Doo because Spencely Road industrial area is all sold. In fact, one block was vacant. When I say vacant I mean up for sale, and Russell Fink, our rubbish man, had to purchase it because he was kicked out of the Humpty Doo Transfer Station and did not have a place to leave his skip bins.
These people do not have a place to go and I have asked the government to look at releasing land in the old tip area so this family can run their business, legally, from Humpty Doo. The reason I am starting to get desperate about which parcel of land these people could leave their equipment on is because the government has not, over many years, put the money into developing industrial estates in the rural area. We need that because people will develop industrial estates on their rural blocks and most people do not like that. That is not exactly what the rural area subdivisions were designed for. There needs to be a bigger effort by the government into its own district centres.
The other district centre the government owns is the Berry Springs District Centre. It is in the plans the government put forward. These plans, in principle, might be okay, but in practice there were far too many people. They forgot to take into consideration it is close to Weddell. Berry Springs is not going to develop as a huge area. However, there is land there; the problem is there is no water or sewerage. The government, over the last 20 years, has not even looked like putting in those types of infrastructure. Without that infrastructure, there has not been any movement in those areas.
Humpty Doo has sewerage, a good water supply, and is an area where, I hope, the government makes an announcement in this budget to open up land for release. That will make the Humpty Doo District Centre grow. At the moment, it is stagnant because the only things going there are businesses. The Humpty Doo Shopping Centre - the commercial area rather than the semi-commercial and industrial areas - needs new life in it. The way to do that is to increase the population in the area set aside for residential land.
The other land I have been hoping will be developed - it has been a long hope; I have been pushing it for years and it is part of the agreement - is the forestry land. It is a parcel of land the government owns with some issues, one being native title. My understanding is the long road of taking native title off that land will finish about 23 or 24 April. If there are no issues in relation to native title, the government should look quickly at allowing developers to move into that land and open it up for 1 ha minimum subdivision.
Government probably looks at that block of land and says: ‘Oh, look at all the little blocks we can put in there’. However, there needs to be a plan which allows for rural blocks to continue. There needs to be an opportunity for young people to purchase a block of land in the rural area. I do not want to see government planners lick their lips and say, ‘Oh, well, times are moving on, land is precious, let us open this up for little blocks’, and the whole concept of having a choice in lifestyle between suburban and rural disappears. Planners do not understand that; they end up looking like economic rationalists. They do not have what I call a social understanding.
We need a mix, and we get the mix by developing Zuccoli, Bakewell or Weddell and the rural area in such a way that people have a choice. The government, although it is tempting to have more blocks of land with more money going to Treasury - Treasury loves money - should not be the driving force behind opening up the forestry land.
Concerns have been raised by NRETAS recently that some of the land might not be suitable for septic tanks. I am having a meeting in April to discuss that with them, but that is not a key factor in stopping this land being developed. There are developers out there, and the minister might have met them. There are about eight local developers willing to develop that land pretty quickly, and that would be a great asset.
One of the problems with opening up the land is you need the infrastructure to carry all the extra traffic, the water, and the electricity. That is where the government needs to help, to some extent. It is not only the government which has to contribute to that; however, the headworks might need some contribution from the government. We know roads in the Howard Springs area - the minister has been there to have a look - are getting busier and busier. That area is developing so fast it is hard to keep up. With the prison, the Coolalinga Shopping Centre area and the new schools - Mary MacKillop Catholic College, Good Shepherd Lutheran school – the Churcher development on Girraween Road and INPEX, there is a huge load coming onto the rural area in the way of traffic.
I laugh a little – I mentioned how long it has taken to develop housing in Humpty Doo, yet a private development at Coolalinga, within about one year, produces approximately 80 houses. It is building the roads now, it has a treatment plant, and it is going to have a small suburb in Coolalinga that has taken very little time to develop from planning approval to where it is now. I contrast that with the manner in which the government has released land in the rural area. You can see this company said, ‘Right, we will go and do it’ and it did it.
I said to the government, time after time, give the land to someone in Humpty Doo and release it. Nothing happens. Here is an opportunity going missing. Land at Humpty Doo will sell; I have no doubt about it. You have three schools - a high school, a Catholic school, and a state school - right next door to a shopping centre and the new park and ride facility. You are on the Arnhem Highway, a great place to live, yet that land has been sitting there for 20 years and has not been released by the government. If the government was proactive about development, if it could not do it, as long as there is enough infrastructure there say: ‘Let us release it, let us put it out for contract, and see what we can get’.
We have been screaming out - the member for Goyder will know - for years for a retirement village and there is a great place to put one in that area. We need a retirement village in the rural area. It does not have to be big at first, but I can guarantee if you went to Masonic Home’s retirement village in Tiwi you would find many rural people there because they had nowhere else to go. They would rather be in the rural area, but nothing has happened.
Minister, I believe there have been failings. I take into consideration places like Zuccoli and Bellamack - and I have looked at the land where you have built houses I once called velcro houses. They were the affordable houses the Land Development Corporation built and are excellent houses. There is space between the houses, they have flow-through ventilation and are very good. It is good to see the government has been proactive, but it took a long time to get up and running again after dropping the ball. That is why the government has been open to criticism in that area. Any person going down Lambrick Avenue will see - and many rural people do - there is much development.
Kilgariff has to come online. I was reading in the paper today where parts of Alice Springs are going to devalue to some extent because of the way things are in some parts of Alice. They think Kilgariff will be the growth area where, if it is designed properly like Weddell, it will be the bright side of development in Alice Springs.
Weddell has been designed by more or less the same people. If the minister is responding to the motion today, I would like him to give us an update on Kilgariff and Weddell, and let us know when the first blocks of land are expected to be turned off. At the moment, it is all planning, especially in Weddell, but there are no really clear guidelines as to when we will see the first houses being built. I hope the minister also gives an update on the Tennant Creek housing subdivision. He is pretty lucky because much of that subdivision had some headworks which allowed the price of land to be reasonable. If all the land was that price we would have no trouble with affordable housing. So, perhaps an update on that as well.
I will make a comment on this plan. I have not had time to read it this time. I hoped to put a submission in. To be honest, minister, this plan compared to that plan - I know the CLP has a plan out at the moment. I would even go back to the 1990 plan, which it is, basically, a copy of, and has been done, more or less, by the same authors. It is the same old contribution about putting a dam across the Elizabeth River. I am not saying this does not have some good things in it, but what this one deals with is some of the real nitty-gritty you need to look at when planning for the growth of a large city.
I will give you two areas that need to be looked at. One is water. Without provision for water the city is not going to grow. That document and the previous one may not be perfect, but they put forward options for storage of water. That is really important when it comes to future growth of this area. We are looking at building a city at Cox Peninsula and expanding Weddell. All those areas are going to require water. We can learn to use less water, and that is important. Building a dam is not cheap, but that document talks about those options. Land has been bought by the government over the years in case those options are ever taken up. The Marrakai Dam, for instance, which is probably one of the lesser options because of its broadness and, therefore, high evaporation - most of that land was bought the government although some may be leased back now.
The other one is extractive mineral supplies. No city can be built without gravel, sand and rock. What I hoped to have seen here - it is in that book and the older book - is a clear map which shows where those resources are and the government plans to ensure those resources are not developed on. We are already seeing the problems in Goode Road where some of the gravel people have come close to residential land. That is the type of clash you can get when you do not plan properly in relation to the requirement for these resources.
I look at the city, Parliament House, and many of the buildings in Darwin and say: ‘Without Howard Springs they would not exist’. Most of the sand used in the buildings here has come from the Howard Springs sand areas. Without that sand being so close, you would have to go further out from Darwin which would increase the cost of construction.
The plan Graham Bailey originally put out was easy to read. I find the maps in this difficult to read. I get a picture of the Litchfield area - this is the book the public have to make comment on. A small thing, minister, I like to look at maps; however, when I open the legend and place it over this map I am not sure if I am looking at potential industry for most of Noonamah and Humpty Doo or what. It is grey and dotted. These maps are not clear for a lay person to read.
The other area the previous government was good at was it put a series of maps in which clearly defined the wet areas, such as for Litchfield. They had maps with the book. You could get the Murrujumuk Land Use Objectives - the land at Glyde Point – and they had a series of projections for that. They had, I believe, the Cox Peninsula one. They had the Litchfield one; they might have even had a Bachelor one, I cannot remember now. They had a series of books with more detail, which opened up the opportunity for people to see future plans. That is lacking here. I was trying to find the page, minister, with a series of small maps. They are so small they are practically impossible to read. The waterlogging map is on it. I will try to find them. I am not saying people have not put much work in, but some of the real nitty-gritty stuff - even though this is a strategic plan, you need to be strategic in conservation and waterlogging. The maps are practically useless at that size. There is a storm surge study, national parks and reserves, waterlogging and biting insects. Those maps should take up a complete page so people who want to know if they can live in the area can do so. That is what we used to get out of the other maps. This can be done much better.
The government should bring out one of these, and I said that many years ago. It needed to bring out its own version. It probably did not want to copy that one because it was from another government. Graham Bailey had a vision I did not always agree with. Graham and I might have clashed occasionally, in a nice way, over some of his thoughts. One of those would have been damming of the Elizabeth River. I had a number of discussions with Hans Vos, one of the people who had the idea damming would be a good thing. They put more guts in, and that is where this plan is lacking. Someone said it is more aspirational. It has some good things, but it is missing the guts it needs to say the government has a handle on some of the really important issues - water supply, extractive mining and future growth the area, particularly with road infrastructure. Most of what is in here is existing roads, and we need development maps of new roads into the hinterland.
Someone wrote to the paper today about the possibility of Batchelor being the centre of industrial development. Maybe that is the type of thinking we need. What is the future of Dundee and those places? That is why it needs more grunt than it has at present.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for bringing on this important motion today. It has allowed us to debate something which has not been debated for some time. I certainly am interested in hearing the minister’s comments.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to add a few comments and thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this important motion before the House, and also complement what the member for Nelson has said. I have about four items I will briefly highlight which the member for Nelson discussed, one being the requirement for release of more industrial land in the greater rural area.
Yes, we have blocks on Spencely Road, but other land has been identified as industrial land and not been developed or released. I, too, have people coming to my office looking for places to establish industrial or engineering businesses in the rural area, because it is close to their home and where their business activity is. I am interested to see what information the minister has in regard to further development of small and light industrial land, without even considering where, in the future, there might be the requirement for heavy industrial land.
In regard to the extractive industry and the servicing of the INPEX gas project, it is becoming imperative that consideration and planning is given to transport corridors in regard to the movement of extractive material. I have been on the public record, both here and in the media, regarding the proposed traffic on the Arnhem Highway and Thorngate and Tulagi Roads, which amounts to a road train every 10 minutes - and that is only one way. Both those roads are already well used by residential domestic and industrial traffic. The Arnhem Highway services Jabiru and the Ranger Mine, and also many residential people use that road. That is growing in numbers because, generally, most rural blocks have two, if not three to four, cars.
Government would have known months ago there would be a massive requirement for extractive materials to develop the INPEX project. However, it seems it has left it to the last minute to consider not only where it is going to get the material from – although that is part of it - but how to transport it from the known extractive areas to where the project is being developed. Some consideration could have been given earlier to transport corridors. Consideration can be given now for future industrial developments because those developments are going to need the extractive material from the Mt Bundy area, Sunday Creek, or even further afield.
The other item the member for Nelson touched on is the requirement in the greater rural area for aged care facilities. I know it is not government’s job to develop these types of facilities, but it is government’s job to facilitate the development, or facilitate discussions with businesses or organisations that provide aged care or residential facilities for retired people - not dissimilar to the Tiwi homes, for example. We know we have an ageing workforce and ageing population. Many people went to the rural area 20-plus years ago and, for whatever reason, are now single, elderly people. They do not want to live anywhere else in the Northern Territory. They do not want to go into urban areas; they want to be in their community. It is all about their community. They want to stay in their community, near their friends, near what they know, close to their activities and their community involvement.
Land could be identified for this kind of community facility; for example, Bees Creek Road where the government wanted to put the secure care facility. That is prime land that could be used for such a facility. Residents nearby would not have any objection to a seniors village in that area.
Also, I would like to hear from the minister what discussions government has had in regard to the use of the INPEX workers camp in Howard Springs once the project concludes. Has it considered discussion on how that could be turned into a seniors or retirement village, or something similar?
We need to care for our seniors. We have many seniors in the rural area of all shapes and sizes. I am interested to hear how the government is addressing the growing need and growing demand. It needs to be affordable and in tune with the expectations of that aged population.
That is all I wanted to comment on at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing it on, and the member for Nelson for his comments. Our electorates adjoin and we have similar issues. As I have said from the beginning, the greatest pressure will be on the greater rural area of Darwin for many reasons. It supplies extractive material, the bulk of the water for the Darwin region, and food for the Darwin region. People want to live in the rural area because of the lifestyle. It is the powerhouse of the economy and where we are going to see future growth in the Territory, without talking about Weddell, another subject altogether.
It is an important subject. Despite the release of the government’s rural villages plans, the member for Nelson and the minister still have to discuss the alternate plans we put forward about rural concepts. Perhaps we need to revisit that and have discussions with you and the department. People - and there have been many in my office and elsewhere in my travels - did not like the concept put forward at those public meetings. You are aware of that, minister, and we might need to visit the alternate rural plans the member for Nelson and I put forward. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, that the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to provide land release and planning strategies to support the sustainable growth of the Territory.
This government has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to land release in Alice Springs over the last 12 years. This is not a perception; it is a fact. The statistics speak for themselves in the number of residential land sales and land release over the period the Labor government has been in power.
In February 2010, there was an article in the Alice Springs News, as there is regularly, about land release and the critical shortage of housing in the town, asking when it comes to providing residential land, what is the problem? What has been the problem for this government? It makes sense that, for any small economy like Alice Springs to survive, you need land release to stimulate the economy. ‘We need cheap land and we need it now’ suggests this article from in the Alice Springs News on 11 February 2010.
Over the last 12 years, we have seen figures of land release in the Northern Territory drop to zero at one point. In one year, during the duration of this government, there was a 12-month period with absolutely no land release whatsoever in Alice Springs. That has an enormous impact on the economy over a very long period. In other years, you might have had 40, 50, 60 or 70 blocks released, but it has been very low for a long time.
We are hearing about the evolution of Kilgariff where, potentially, we might see many thousands of blocks on the market, but that does not do much for the economy in Alice Springs now. As I have said before during these sittings, the Alice Springs economy is sluggish. It is going through a very slow period, and the impact is businesses are suffering. My count of businesses closing over the last couple of years is up to 49. I am very happy to provide the minister with a list of businesses that have closed in Alice Springs. One of the critical reasons for that closure is the lack of land release in Alice Springs.
I was listening to a debate on ABC radio last week. They had a panel of local identities, one of them a solicitor. The question was asked of the panel: ‘Why are we facing this economic recession in Alice Springs at the moment?’ The response from a local solicitor who has been in Alice Springs for decades was the lack of land release in Alice Springs. He sprouted the figures, and it was a very grim picture of the basic neglect of this government over the last 10 to 11 years regarding releasing land for sale in Alice Springs. You can attribute the economic slump we are facing in Alice Springs to many different things, but the top three would have to include land release.
Indeed, the figures speak for themselves. In the Northern Territory budget paper of 2008-09, the first paragraph pertaining to Alice Springs said, ‘In Alice Springs, a shortage of residential land for development over the past decade was associated with ...’, and it lists a number of things. Your government has recognised, in print, a shortage of residential land for development over the past decade, and you have to take a great deal of responsibility for that, minister, as does this government as a whole.
The NT budget paper went on to say the first significant release of residential land in Alice Springs in almost 10 years was in April 2004, where 40 residential blocks were released in the subdivision of Stirling Heights. These figures are very unimpressive. Most people in Alice Springs know if land is not released in a constructive and well-managed way the economy immediately starts to slump. Here we are in March 2012, and things are looking pretty grim.
I know many people who work in the building industry. A very close friend of mine, who owns a building company in Alice Springs with her husband, rang a few weeks ago. She said they put an advertisement in the Centralian Advocate for a labourer - one labourer’s position - and she stopped counting at 37 responses to that ad. Yet, one year ago, they might have had a couple; two years ago they would have expected absolutely no response to a very small classified advertisement in the Centralian Advocate for a builder’s labourer.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is all about the lack of vision, once again, and the lack of planning when it comes to land release in Alice Springs. This government has much to answer for. I am sure we will hear from the minister about all the wonderful things the government is going to do in the next couple of years to rectify the situation. However, over 10 years of neglect in regard to land release in Alice Springs has had a very severe and long-term impact on the economy. There is probably not much more to say than this government has failed the people of Alice Springs in so many ways, and this is at the top of the list.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, no one can intonate that word ‘condemn’ like the member for Araluen. When she uses ‘condemned’ and ‘failure’ in the same sentence, I believe something viral is happening over there. Member for Araluen, you have been here for such a short time, you should chill out. I want to talk up Alice Springs, and I will in time.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this motion to the House. It is a wonderful opportunity for me to tell the government’s story of land release. Members have contributed with a very strong focus on land release; however, the motion talks about planning strategies to support sustainable growth of the Territory as well. I will not have time to tell that big story, because when we start to talk about INPEX, marine supply bases, and the whole concept of regional development across the Territory with the resources we have, I am going to need about an hour.
Telling the land use story, particularly starting with land release, the member for Fong Lim was trying to prosecute a case that the government has lied to Territorians and is falsely taking claim for all the initiatives in land release. Well, that is not exactly the case. As the member for Fong Lim knows, land release and its close relationship with housing is a multipronged approach which comprises government and private sector land release. It comprises densification with unit developments and dual occupancies. It comprises affordable housing and, in relation to what the government is doing, the development of an affordable housing rental company. It comprises stimulus packages to provide housing options and get people into homes – Buildstart and BuildBonus stimulus grants. It involves a short stay accommodation village the government is working on in Marrara where there are three proposals.
When you start to aggregate the initiatives in land release and housing options, this government is ahead of the game. When we look at straight figures, this government has turned off over 1400 new blocks from 2007-08 to 2010-11. That is 1400 new blocks and, as the member for Nelson stated, you see around the greater Darwin area there is land for sale. You can go to Katherine and there is land for sale. If you come to Tennant Creek the land is sold; it went in the first cut. However, on 19 April there will be further land for sale in Tennant Creek. You can go to Alice Springs and purchase land. There is land for sale.
It is important to also look at the different areas. Let us talk about a further 4104 lots of land to be turned off over the next few years. Let us look at what is on the stat sheet, because the member for Fong Lim was referring to rather old data. He criticised the government for being late on its targets. The thing to remember is nobody has dropped the ball. This has been game on and the Territory needs to understand, as members in this House need to understand, the process of releasing land. The member for Nelson gave some good examples, but when I came into this portfolio and started kicking dirt, I started to understand the logistics around providing headworks.
This government has provided, in the last three budgets, $71m for headworks in Bellamack, Johnston and Zuccoli. $71m is a significant package of work and represents one component of a land release program. The Country Liberal Party scaremongers in the community saying: ‘Look at all that land out there. Under the Country Liberal Party it will be released’. Well, they want to be very careful. As the member for Fong Lim said, they have been in the wilderness for some time and have forgotten what land release is all about. I am open to sharing the experts with them so they can learn and develop their policy properly if they choose.
When we talk about real stats, real time, look at the new Palmerston suburb Bellamack: 678 lots with 465 titles issues to date; transfer of land titles to 347 purchasers; 218 building permits issued; 128 new homes completed; and 25 Bellamack HomeFirst affordable house and land packages are now complete with families living in their homes. A further 24 affordable house and land packages and 10 multiple dwelling packages will be rolled out in the next couple of years. Work is completed on the Bellamack village, including Bellamack Gardens, which consists of 28 strata title dwellings. The development is now complete and the dwellings are sold. As the member for Nelson said, there is land for sale.
If we go to Johnston, there are 490 lots. I went to Johnston as minister - and I have not been in the job very long - when it was scrub. We were walking around the scrub and the department was showing me a grassroots approach to land release. In section 1A there are 114 lots; all titles have been issued and 94 lots have been sold off the plan. In 1B, which was completed first, there were 84 lots and all titles issued. In the short time I have been in this portfolio I have met a young couple who, through a government stimulus program, bought a house and land package through the HOMESTART NT scheme. We looked at that dirt and I spoke to them again after they built the house and moved in. I have not been in this House for very long and that, to me, is a good outcome within a couple of years. That is what you call accelerated outcomes.
In Johnston, 93 building approvals have been issued and 43 homes have been completed. A ballot for the sale of 24 affordable units in Johnston Stage 1A was held in November last year - 18 units have been sold with the remainder available to eligible purchasers. There are units for sale in Johnston. In Stage 2 of Johnston, the yield is 284 lots to be developed by Urbex. Development will commence in 2012 during the Dry Season.
Another thing to factor in is the difficulty working in the Territory with the seasonal challenges, Wet Season/Dry Season, but we do it well. We do it because we are Territorians and we know what we are doing. There are significant challenges in land release just from a climatic perspective. In the 2012 Dry Season, you are going to see significant work start in Stage 2 of Johnston, which the member for Nelson talked about as good, challenging land. This is, once again, the land release program.
Zuccoli, which I saw as scrub, is now well under way, as the member for Johnston outlined. Stage 1 has a capacity of 515 residential lots, with headworks under way, developed in a joint partnership between the Land Development Corporation and Urbex. Full development in that area can yield 1400 lots. As the member for Nelson said, as you get closer to the creeks and mangroves the lot sizes will increase and there will be diversity. That is an incredible area to develop, and the DCA has approved a 142-lot subdivision as part of Stage 1, with work expected to start any day now. The Dry Season of 2012 …
Mr Tollner: There should already be 170 there.
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Fong Lim is quoting from the printout. I am replying to this motion saying we are delivering; it is under way. The government has put in $77m worth of headworks to keep costs down; to reduce costs for Territorians, partnered with the Land Development Corporation and developers, to deliver this land. This is a great outcome.
I made a note. I do not want to argue with the member for Fong Lim; I want to outline the facts. We will talk about the Palmerston area. We are talking about supporting 15 000 new Territorians in this decade. That is an amazing growth area. The member for Fong Lim went off on a tangent and said there is nothing in Alice Springs, nothing in Tenant Creek, nothing in Katherine.
The member for Araluen gave a sad contribution, but I will attempt to talk up Alice Springs. The new suburb of Kilgariff, and the incredible Enquiry by Design process we went through taking the community with us every step of the way, has the capacity to deliver 1200 residential lots. At the moment, a great deal of work is going on. However, the member for Araluen is not seeing a house pop out of the ground just yet because, before you can get to that stage, you have to do the significant headworks which relate to power, water, sewerage and roads into what is greenfield country. It does not happen overnight and is not cheap. The Northern Territory government has invested a total of $13.5m in your home town, member for Araluen, just for the suburb of Kilgariff which will support 1200 lots over decades to come.
Let us talk about Mt Johns Valley developed by Lhere Artepe Enterprises. Stage 1, up to 90 dwellings, is complete and titles were issued in February. That is a great outcome for the locals, the traditional owners of that area, the Lhere Artepe. They have worked tirelessly on that subdivision. They chose to get into the development game, and have delivered up to 90 dwellings in that sensational part of Alice Springs.
We can talk about Larapinta. The member for Araluen mentioned Stirling Heights. Yes, delivered under a Labor government. In the Larapinta area, housing construction Stage 2 is under way. The Territory has purchased six single dwelling blocks for affordable housing - a Territory government policy that 15% of all our land release programs will support affordable housing. As well as that, an 18-unit seniors village has recently been completed. I have visited four times during the construction phase, and looked at the growth in that area of Alice Springs. Member for Araluen, keep your eye on Kilgariff because it is really the jewel in the crown for Alice Springs.
Member for Araluen, you said I am sending Alice Springs bust. There are significant challenges for Alice Springs. However, I took great delight in sitting with the Planning for the Future Forum the member for Stuart has been chairing, and also working positively with significant players in Alice Springs. We spoke about not only the greenfield developments the government is supporting with real cash to provide headworks to keep the costs down, but we also talked about the good infill opportunities in Alice Springs. Funnily enough, that has been going on at a great rate for the last decade. There have been many private infill opportunities in Alice Springs and, through good planning processes, government can support that.
In that forum we also mentioned talking up Alice Springs and creating new ways to attract people to Alice Springs because, member for Araluen, that is the bottom line. It is not so much about allegations of lack of land release, it is about a demographic phenomenon in Alice Springs where, currently, growth is minimal. You have to ask why. This is not just in relation to the last couple of years; this is about making Alice Springs grow. There are some very positive people engaged in that.
In Tennant Creek, 54 residential lots have been completed, 28 lots sold by auction, nine lots reserved for affordable housing, and the remaining 18 lots will go to auction on 19 April. That is a great outcome for Tennant Creek. The member for Nelson talked about existing headworks. Yes, absolutely, and congratulations; that was under a CLP administration. However, it had decayed significantly. The infrastructure had been there for 30 years and much cash is needed to rejuvenate that infrastructure, including the sewerage, water, power, bitumen roads, and the kerbing and guttering. This government has done it in Tennant Creek because it supports the regions. It has a holistic plan and has seen some incredible results with the purchase of the first 28 lots, and the remaining 18 are not going to last long.
In Katherine, the subdivision and development works are completed for 38 residential and one commercial lot. The developer was Downes Graderways, which is now actively marketing those lots. I have been to Katherine several times recently and have checked all the ‘for sale’ signs. It is good to see land is on the market and available.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about the CLP plan - good on him. He is a shadow minister and has a plan under his wing. This government also has strong plans for the Territory. We have an overarching Territory 2030 strategic plan, underpinned by a Housing the Territory plan and many other plans. The sustainable growth and development of the Northern Territory is facilitated by the effectiveness of the Northern Territory planning process. I advise the member for Fong Lim we have a point of difference because, currently, we have a single planning scheme in place for the whole of the Territory, and key infrastructure corridors and growth centres are planned and protected. I strongly encourage the member for Fong Lim, as the power player of the opposition, to throw out the CLP commitment to establish a planning commission.
The planning commission announced by the Leader of the Opposition will simply replicate the existing duties of the Development Consent Authority. All it will do is bog down Territorians in more red tape, stifle growth, and increase the price of housing development, believe you me. Member for Fong Lim, the power player, take that to the current leader and debate it because it is bad policy, bad planning, and the Development Consent Authority is the way to go.
The member for Nelson asked me to comment on land release in the rural area. He is right; there are great opportunities there and that is what the Greater Darwin Plan is all about. I would also like to add a couple of layers to the debate because, when you go into areas where there is private land - I have been meeting with many developers – there is a bit of a tension. You guys on the other side do not - well, some of you may have memories of how it was done - you really need to skill up how you do business. Developers say to me: ‘We are ready to go’. However, there are several layers you have to remember. First, they want the government to provide the headworks. The tension is I have to provide the headworks to make a profit for the private developer. Well, that is a tension you may have to challenge one day, member for Fong Lim. I continually work with them to see how we can do that. It is not easy, but it will happen.
The other layer is the shires. They now are very sophisticated and demand a high standard. Unfortunately, many developers are still living in the past and want to deliver the minimum. They want to cut up the land, rake in the profits, and walk away. The shires are saying: ‘Hang on a minute, it is a new millennia. It is a new age and we are demanding standards of amenities everyone else in Australia deserves and gets’. Therefore, you are back at the table wrangling over profits.
This government is at the table. We are open for business, and every one of these opportunities is a challenge. However, as the Chief Minister says, in the century of northern Australia, it is a challenge you want. Member for Nelson, there are many opportunities out there and we are about delivering them.
The member for Goyder spoke about industrial land. In the Greater Darwin Plan we have outlined specific areas we have targeted. That includes the Middle Arm development and the Darwin Industrial Park at East Arm, where there are considerable opportunities. That will be a growth area for industry. We have a big point of difference with the Country Liberal Party because we have identified Gunn Point, and the Country Liberal Party is determined to go into an area with significant biodiversity value at Glyde Point. These areas are in our plan. The demographers have told us this will cater for the next couple of decades. That is good planning we are proud of and have taken it to the community for discussion.
I have run out of time, unfortunately, because I have many other duties to complete that members have asked me ...
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members. The member for Nelson wanted to talk about time frames around these significant land release projects that are under way. He wanted to talk about Kilgariff, so let us talk about time frames there. When we talk about Kilgariff as proceeding - with great input from the Alice Springs community - with a potential of 1200 dwellings, there is significant work going on. That work relates to Sitzler delivering on a $4.2m contract for headworks for Stage 1, which is sewer and electrical works. Budget 2011-12 delivered an extra $3.5m for more works to the site, and the government is paying for the headworks to ensure the new land can be delivered at an affordable price. Members may want to look at the significant work on Norris Bell Avenue already under way. That has been identified as the first area to be developed in the new suburb. The tenders were awarded to the Ostojic Group to construct the new intersection as well as providing water to the new suburb. We are on track in Kilgariff, and the next stage of land release is to attract a developer.
Government is setting this up to keep it affordable, to keep costs down, and then we go into business with a developer. We still believe Kilgariff is on track for 2014. That is what we said, and we are doing the significant work. There have been budget allocations to continue that work and we believe we will attract a developer, it will be delivered on time, and we will start to see the first part of the development take place.
There has been significant work with Weddell, and the Weddell Taskforce is working towards government’s commitment to release land for development in 2014. Once again, the new city of Weddell represents good planning. It is an area where the government has invested much money to do the set-up studies. Some very creative work has been done around what will be the Northern Territory’s new green sustainable city. That creative work involved the national design competitions - the Weddell New Town Urban Design competition and the Tropical Housing Design competition announced at the opening of a public exhibition of entries at Charles Darwin University on 28 November last year. That was working back-to-back with the Enquiry by Design process. This is a new style of development throughout the country and the world. We brought it to the Territory. Significant studies are still going on to progress the development of Weddell. Territorians need to realise Weddell represents the move from Palmerston East.
In Palmerston East there are many blocks of land for sale now, but this will be exhausted. The government’s planning strategies are for Weddell when Palmerston East is taken up. There are many opportunities left in Palmerston East, so it is a matter of government managing this space. It is not a matter of releasing land willy-nilly; that can have a negative effect on outcomes. It is about managing the space. Weddell is a work in progress, as are the subdivisions in Palmerston East, where the work in progress is bulldozers and headworks and that massive civil construction going on to set it up for Territorians to purchase land and live there.
The member for Nelson made some interesting comments about the Greater Darwin Plan. He hit the key word and said he acknowledges it is a strategic plan - that is right. It was designed to engage the Territory community, and that is what we have done quite effectively because there have been many submissions. Those submissions represent good consultation in going forward. As a document, I take on board the criticism of the maps; however, the Greater Darwin Plan engages the community at that higher level and, from there, we start to look at development of specific areas. In essence, we are trying to establish the concept level. Does the Territory community support dual occupancy on blocks over 1000 m in a strategic plan? Does the Territory community understand the real constraints on land in the greater Darwin area?
When you start to work with the experts and get into this space, it is amazing the awareness you develop around that simple tension of one side saying: ‘Look at all that land over there. I flew into Darwin the other day’ - this was said in parliament – ‘and I saw all that land down there. Under a Country Liberal government, we will release it’. Then you do the investigative studies and learn about the constraints on the land viewed out the window of a QantasLink service coming into Darwin.
Member for Nelson, at that high, conceptual level, we start to unpack our land release strategies. The next level is area planning, and the next after that is the development planning. As you start to unpack from a strategic, high level to create that good consultation and get those concepts out within the community, you have the debate and take on all the responses to ensure you have good planning, sustainable outcomes, and the best new urban design principles available. You then start to unpack each block of the planning process. You then get into the next layer of area and development planning, and start to look at construction and built form stepping out of the ground.
I take on the point about the maps; it is a step in the journey. I am especially proud of the Greater Darwin Plan. I gained some very important learning in that journey. I am really pleased the Territory is engaging with that plan and bringing back many comment and input. It represents a government that knows how to plan, and is planning.
The other part of the motion mentioned sustainable growth. I did not touch on much of that, but I will share with the House a quick reminder of the Chief Minister leading the way and arguing the Territory’s case for the Ichthys LNG project which has been secured for our economic future. That is the Territory’s future, because the benefits of a project like this will be shared across the Territory.
I will talk about the $104m contract that has been signed to build and operate a Marine Supply Base at East Arm, providing purpose-built facilities for vessels that supply offshore oil and gas projects. The Territory company Macmahon will build the new facility and ShoreASCO will operate the base for up to 20 years. I will talk about the Territory government investing $6m for headworks for the site in support of this development. Darwin’s Marine Supply Base will be the first in northern Australia. This strategic investment to support the Territory’s growth will cement our place as an oil and gas hub in northern Australia. From what I remember, an esteemed Japanese gentleman representing the Ichthys project said what this Territory government has done is, effectively, put the Northern Territory on the map in respect of the global energy sector. That is something to be proud of, and something all Territorians should be proud of. That very simply relates to good planning.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will keep this brief. I listened to the minister very carefully and, to some degree, I have sympathy with his position because he is the inheritor of what he has to defend. What he has to defend is quite difficult. There is a vast chasm between what was promised and what has been delivered in the Northern Territory. This government is long on promise and short on outcome.
Whilst I appreciate the minister can give us all the reasons why the land release process is so complex, clearly, it is far more complex than his own ministerial colleagues understand. The ministerial colleagues, of whom he is the legatee, made promises on his behalf a few years ago which were, basically, astonishing. One of the minister’s forebears, the now Treasurer then Lands and Planning minister, said in April 2007 that the demand for blocks in the Northern Territory was going to be - and I quote from a Stateline program:
- On average, the market demand for – for new lots for homes in the Top End is 300 per year.
Even then, that was largely recognised as a gross underestimation of what was going to be required. The minister now tells us the government has great vision and planning capacity. However, it is responding, in a very belated fashion, to a land release crisis in the Northern Territory. Whilst I appreciate he is told by any number of departmental officials how difficult the process is, it is up to government to drive this. It has been driven in the past by former governments. When this government sets its mind to something, it drives matters. There is no doubt it set its mind to the Ichthys project and drove hard, but that is the exception, not the rule. The passion and lust this government brought to pursuing the Ichthys project should be reproduced in other areas.
I am curious to see where the 320 blocks ready for sale are in Zuccoli. This year - Mitchell, 140 blocks; Johnston, 170 blocks; Bellamack should be on the tail end of the last 70 blocks of 700. Like everything else with this government, you have to read the fine print. If you zoom in at an almost microfiche level to the bottom of the promises in – when was this put out – 2009? – it says: ‘Details reflect current market research conditions and workplaces and may be subject to minor changes’. There is a rider; a qualifier that it may be subject to minor change. Perhaps the Labor Party slogan for the next election should be, ‘Vote ALP, batteries not included’, because it has not come close to these figures and is now promising:
- There is potential large scale residential development on Cox Peninsula through private sector development.
We are talking about the Kenbi land claim. How are we going with that? Is that resolved yet, three years after this document was put out? Is it still sitting in the department of Finance in Canberra as inert as Ayers Rock itself? There is always the potential the government talks about. No one moves into a three-bedroom potential, they move into a three-bedroom house. Approximately 10 000 lots from 2014 onwards - what sort of statement is that? We are going to start building 10 000 new houses in 2014, but they might be finished by 2114? That is just arrant nonsense. This government has been dishonest in the way it has dealt with the Territory marketplace in relation to this. I feel sympathy for the current minister because this is the legacy he has to carry, pick up, and defend in this House.
To his credit, he does a fairly good job of defending that legacy, but it is still a legacy of promises made that have not been kept. Whilst the minister can outline all the problems and difficulties in land release, if you want someone to outline problems and difficulties, join the opposition. What people look to you for is leadership, and getting this stuff done, driven through. You say you go out and kick the dirt and all those types of things. Good, but it is still too slow and not effective.
If anything has driven up the cost of living in the Northern Territory under the management of this government it would have to be land prices. People are carrying enormous mortgages on their little patches of land and this government has reached a point where this minister, the member for Barkly, has been left to defend the indefensible. I suspect the reason he was given the portfolio is the former Planning minister did not want any more to do with it. People in her electorate, and in the northern suburbs where every other minister did not want the Planning portfolio, knew it should be carried by someone who would get the least negative impact electorally. This has become a real issue for punters out there in the community; it is a massive issue. Government knows it, so you farm it out to the bloke who is going to be belted the least.
Being the minister for Planning in this administration is probably like being the minister for Northern Ireland in the British government. It is the one you least want. If the Prime Minister really does not like you, he will make you the minister for Northern Ireland. In the case of the Northern Territory, if the Chief Minster was trying to avoid a major problem, he would make someone else the minister for Planning.
This minister has captured a legacy and, to his credit, is doing all he can to respond to that legacy. I urge him to drive this even harder and get it sorted. Until he does, Territorians, which he professes to be the champion of, will continue to suffer under outrageously expensive land prices and cost of living pressures that will drive many away from the Northern Territory. The minister said the INPEX project is not going to have an effect on land prices in the Northern Territory. If there is not sufficient land to be released, of course it will. Whilst the minister said, ‘We are releasing this here’ and gave a list, it is not this list and is way too late.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government needs to get its act together and stop making promises - fulfilling them would be a better idea.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of this Chamber who have spoken. I was quite amazed at the level of interest in this motion. It certainly caught the interest of the members for Nelson, Goyder, Araluen, and Barkly - the minister - and, finally, the member for Port Darwin. I thank you all for your sincere contribution to this debate.
Quite clearly, irrespective of whether this motion is passed or not, the issue of land release is at the forefront of people’s minds. Everybody raised concerns. Of course, the minister did his job and tried to defend the indefensible. He always puts such a passionate ring to that. He says I relied on old data. Of course, I relied on old data; it is hard to know how a government is going to act in the future if you do not know how it has acted in the past. Quite clearly, as so many people have said, this government is so big on promises; so keen to throw stuff out there.
As the member for Port Darwin noticed - I had not even noticed because I could not see the fine print where it says: ‘Details in the tables reflect current market research conditions and workplaces and may be subject to minor changes’. Minor changes! When you look at this, an election document from 2008, it said by 2012 770 blocks will have been sold in Zuccoli. The government is big on promises and small on delivery because, as hard as the minister tried, he could not, in any way, defend the government’s slow land release policies. He even went as far as saying it has been difficult because of the seasons and the climate. I have lived here for 25 years, and there are members in this House who have been here longer. The member for Karama is keen to let us know she was born here. I would be surprised if, during the time the member for Karama has lived here - or any of us have lived here - there has not been a Wet Season or a Dry Season. We pretty well know when the Wet Season is, and we have a rough idea of when the Dry Season is. To blame the seasons for slow land release is a bit too cute.
The minister says the Country Liberals had forgotten what land release is all about. The fact is, everybody has forgotten what land release is all about. In the last 10 years, it has been almost non-existent. Goodness me! I remember back in the rotten old days of a Country Liberals government, as this government would say, when we saw things being done and ministers making decisions. We saw ministers rolling their sleeves up and driving land release. These days nothing seems to occur unless - as the member for Port Darwin said - there is a desire to do it such as with the INPEX deal. However, everything else seems to come second and there is no way known the minister will involve himself in any process at all.
I was quite amazed to hear the minister talk about the problems of shires versus private developers. He said private developers are there for profit, subdivide everything up, make a handy profit and, then, clear out - or words similar to that. Well, what has this government done? We had a Land Development Corporation to develop industrial land - a great plan; we should have a Land Development Corporation developing industrial land. But, no, not this government. It wants it to move into the residential sector competing directly with developers and other entities; stealing work from private developers and keeping private developers out of the marketplace. Why? Why is government doing that? Is it interested in the profits generated by the Land Development Corporation undertaking residential subdivisions? That is the only reason the government has done it. The Treasurer knows she is cash-strapped. She sold the farm quite some time ago and is looking to generate revenue in every area possible. The Land Development Corporation provided the perfect opportunity to push it into the residential construction market, compete with private developers and drag the profits into government. Shame, I say.
This is a government that says how concerned it is about providing affordable housing but turns a blind eye to the wanton destruction of 394 houses at the RAAF Base, Darwin. It says it is nothing to do with the government. It does not protest at all; in fact, it supported the Gillard Labor government in Canberra in its desire to get rid of the suburb of Eaton - get rid of those 394 houses; lock the gates on the RAAF Base and destroy an entire suburb. It would cost more than $1bn to replace a suburb of 400-odd houses, but this government seems to see nothing wrong with demolishing an entire suburb. It does not say ‘boo’ to its masters in Canberra and will always dance to whatever tune Julia Gillard cranks up. It is all a shame.
Madam Speaker, I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss this motion. Again, thank you for your leniency this evening. I was caught in the lift and appreciate the fact you have allowed the motion to be debated. I am very much looking forward to seeing if this gives the government a jump start. I doubt it. It keeps saying it is interested in these things but nothing ever seems to change. I have a document here which I did not refer to in my speech, but I will mention a few things from it. This is a 2009 document Land release Darwin and Palmerston which says:
- Fast tracking four new suburbs at Palmerston East.
Minister, you may want to pay attention to this one too:
- Bellamack - 215 lots already sold. Register interest for next stages at www.bellamack.net.au.
Johnston Stage 1 - 200 lots, providing up to 417 new houses and units. Register interest at www.housingnt.gov.au.
Johnston Stage 2 - providing around 290 lots available for sale in the first half of 2010.
Well, goodness me, we are at 2012 and we do not see any of that:
- Johnston - two medium density developments providing unit housing are expected to be sold for development in December 2009.
Zuccoli - providing around 1750 lots. The first lots expected to be available for sale off the plan in 2010.
Again, here we are in 2012 and nothing to be seen. The government blows its trumpet in this same document about Lyons and Muirhead, both of which have nothing to do with it - they are Defence Housing Authority developments.
- Palmerston CDU campus
Well, we are a little past 2010. I have not heard of too many people buying those blocks of land. This one has to be the classic:
- Weddell
Well, goodness me, that leaves us two years to get construction under way in Weddell. By the minister’s own admission, he has put that back at least another 10 years. As I said, do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. They are big on talk and small on action. They are big on promises and small on delivery - quite a shame really. Unfortunately, some people, mostly themselves, believe the nonsense they spruik. However, for anybody who wants to check government has failed in this area, the contribution by so many members today will, maybe, spur it on to greater things - not greater promises, but spur government on to delivering some projects. I hope members support this motion, Madam Speaker.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its failures to address concerns relating to recreational and commercial fisheries and for failing to provide a future for Territorians.
This motion is a serious motion, more so than ever before, given the Labor government’s latest actions which are detrimental to the commercial fishing industry, and the fact decisions are made on the run. There is a complete lack of consultation and extreme tardiness when it comes to planning and future directions for the fishing industry. There is no doubt the recreational fishing industry is an important part of the Territory’s lifestyle, and the social and economic contribution to the community and economy is substantial.
In the government’s own report, it states the industry is worth around $35m per annum, which is attributed to purchase of boats, vehicles, and trailers in the Territory. That figure may be true. However, the trickle effect may have the figure much higher if indirect contributions are taken into consideration; for example, finance of boats, employment, and tourism opportunities.
Recreational fishing contributes to an open lifestyle which many Territorians and visitors embrace, and it is something we, on this side of the House, support wholeheartedly. To ensure the health and wellbeing of recreational fishing activity, we need to ensure protection of our marine coastal and aquatic environment for the continued enjoyment of all Territorians and visitors alike. We need to be vigilant to aquatic pests and incursions, and provide ongoing infrastructure to support the industries and activities. We need to be aware of the growth and popularity of recreational fishing activities, keep pace with, if not be ahead of them, and balance this with the other users of our waters, rivers, and coastal regions.
Recently, at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory Annual General Meeting, the government, through the Chief Minister and the minister for Fisheries, was keen to placate the audience with a range of promises - some promised three years ago, such as the buy-back of licences. However, many of them where either long overdue or still being developed: Blue Mud Bay - what a mess - and an in-principle agreement for the Daly River area, with other areas yet to be decided. We still do not know the cost of sorting out this deal.
At the same annual general meeting, the Chief Minister, basically, bagged the Tiwi Land Council for not coming on board. Quite simply, the Tiwi people were fed up with waiting for this government to sort out the issue and did their own thing. In reality, this negotiation should never have been necessary, as it was a Commonwealth matter and should have been sorted out by the Commonwealth government.
In the lead-up to the 2007 election, minister Ruddick said if the decision went the way they thought it would go - which it did - the Commonwealth Liberal government would bring in legislation to fix the fallout from the High Court decision. Yet, this Labor government ignored the legal realities and went down the road it had chosen, and the result is one big mess which remains to be sorted out and finalised. Given this government’s track record for delivering anything on time and within budget, we will be waiting a very long time for complete resolution of this matter, if at all.
The other key item about the Blue Mud Bay negotiations by the Northern Territory government is not once has the government spoken to the commercial fishing industry - not once. It probably spoke with other people, and rightly so - for example, land councils - but not one of the key stakeholders; that is, the commercial fishing industry which works and operates in all our coastal areas. While the commercial fishing industry may not be as large as the mining industry, it is an important industry, particularly for regional and remote coastal areas, yet this government barely gives it the time of day. There are overlapping rights, yet this government pays scant regard to the commercial fishing industry. I bet they want fish on their plate and local fish in their refrigerators, but if this Labor government sees no value in the industry it will have no future.
Only recently, we heard the Environment minister say on radio the government did not consult with the commercial seafood industry as it is not an important stakeholder. That clearly shows how much this government values the seafood industry; not very much, which is a sad indictment on all members opposite and the minister for Fisheries. Perhaps the minister for Fisheries needs to pull the Environment minister aside and explain the facts of life about the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory. Also, at the AFANT AGM, the minister tabled the long-awaited recreational fishing plan. While the report is welcome, it is two years overdue and gives people only six weeks to respond. The 2008 election commitment sat with the minister for two years and the government allows six weeks for responses. Not good enough - not good enough at all.
I turn now to a few other matters regarding the commercial seafood industry. The first is the proposed marine park in the Roper region, including Maria Island. Again, there was no consultation whatsoever with anyone - not with the recreational fishers or the commercial fisheries - so who did the government talk to? Who did the minister for the Environment talk to before making an announcement to declare a marine park? Did the government check what was in the air? If you did, you would know the crabbing industry operates along the coast near the Roper River opening, and they are very worried after this announcement. So much so, from my talks with them, they are considering pulling up their crab pots and going to Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam, not the Northern Territory. Commercial fishing people in this area have licences and have the right to be in that area.
The marine park proposal came out of the blue; there was no consultation. You tell people you will tell them what can take place in the proposed marine park after the NT election in August. That position is unacceptable and outrageous. How did the government make this decision? How did it set the boundaries in regard to this proposed marine park? What research was undertaken? When is the government intending to consult with the commercial industry and the crabbing industry? The Fisheries minister said publicly it will be okay for recreational fishing people to enter the proposed park but not commercial fishers. How does that work, minister, given they have a legal right to be in that area? You want to close off the ocean and deliver a massive boost to tourism jobs from recreational fishing activities. This is an amazing equation to devalue the commercial industry, and you are dreaming if you think a new marine park will deliver economic results to help regional Territory, as the commercial industry does at the moment.
What will be the cost of locking up our oceans and reducing the area in which professional fishers can operate? Have you done any sums? I say not, as the silence is deafening. Let us be honest, you do not support the commercial fishing industry and said so at last year’s AGM of AFANT, which also I attended. I have yet to see any serious public comments about supporting and enhancing the development of the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory. In regard to supporting infrastructure for the commercial industry, where is the planning for expanding the industry? Are you going to stand by and let the offshore oil and gas industry take over the duck pond as seems to be happening of late? Why is the oil and gas industry getting preference in regard to that facility over the commercial fishing industry? We know the port facilities are inadequate across a range of users, but I see or read nothing about plans for the expansion of port facilities to support the commercial fishing industry given they, essentially, come in and out of the Darwin Harbour port area.
Yes, there are plans to support the recreational fishing activities. I welcome them and they are to be supported. However, I see nothing for commercial fishing people. Our commercial fishing industry provides valuable supplies of high-quality seafood such as mud crabs, snapper, barramundi, shark, mackerel, prawns, and other ocean fish. Most is exported and the Territory is renowned for its barramundi, with millions of serves each month being consumed in Darwin alone. It is by far the premier fish for both commercial and recreational fishing people, and consumers, yet you have chosen to ignore your own selected Barramundi Fishery Management Advisory Committee regarding its recommendations on any future closures. Minister, I presume you know I have a question on notice about this group, and will be interested to see the reply to my question.
Regarding your government’s election commitment to buy back three more barramundi licences, what happens if no one comes forward? What happens if no one volunteers to sell their licence? What then? Are you going to force them to sell or are you going to threaten to close waters if none are sold or offered up? What will happen, minister, as there is a disconnect between the option of buy-back and the closure of more waters? The recreational people would love to close all the waters from the west across to Borroloola. However, that is not only unrealistic, it is unnecessary. If you spoke with the commercial people more often you would know this and know why.
The commercial seafood industry is an integral part of our economy and our community. It generates wealth for many Territorians and businesses and, like many industries, because it is out of sight much of the time, tends to be overlooked. However, there is an enormous level of indirect employment attached to the industry and procurement of products and services. It deserves more than it is getting and, if a Country Liberals’ government is to secure government after the August elections, we will make it, and its future development, a priority. We will consult openly and fully, as the future of the commercial and recreational fishing activities depends on it, as does the livelihoods of many Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting motion. We heard much about the commercial fishing industry, but the member opposite tends to concentrate on one part of the industry.
Our government supports both the amateur and commercial sector. We know the commercial sector is not only the barramundi industry; it is coastal fishers, barramundi fishers and Timor fisheries. The government has worked very closely with all sectors to ensure the industry remains viable and we protect our resources. I am on the record arguing with my federal counterpart of the same political persuasion about creating no-go/no-take areas in our waters, both for amateur and commercial fishers. Our support for the commercial industry went as far as to employ one of the world’s best fisheries scientists to review our management. That person found we have some of the best-managed resources in the world. Our fisheries resources provide quality fresh seafood for our consumers and a diverse range of unique experiences for our recreational anglers. Our fisheries also support the valuable fishing charter industry, and are extremely significant to our Indigenous communities for sustenance and cultural values. Our fisheries remain a major drawcard for tourists.
We know there are competing interests, and we are committed to ensure our aquatic resources are shared between competing user groups. It is not without challenge and it is never easy, but we continue to deliver. We have significantly invested to improve recreational fishing opportunities. We have delivered on a long-term commitment to raise the share of the barramundi resource allocated to the recreational sector by closing the McArthur, Adelaide and Finniss Rivers, as well as Bynoe Harbour to the commercial sector.
Although our fisheries are healthy across the Territory, some popular reef species such as jewfish and golden snapper will require ongoing attention. We have a tagging project under way in Darwin Harbour for golden snapper. Groundbreaking research undertaken by our talented Fisheries scientists has revealed many of those reef species are also vulnerable to barotrauma - being brought quickly from the depths and unsuitable for catch and release fishing. This reduces the effectiveness of controls such as size and possession limits, and adds to the complexity of the issue, as catch and release in deep water may not be overly successful.
We have proactively developed new recreational fishing controls for the Daly River area to ensure the long-term sustainability of barramundi and cherabin stocks, and we do so with the support of recreational anglers to ensure the fishing experience available today continues into the future.
This government has also made significant improvement to fishing infrastructure to improve recreation opportunities. This includes $4m for the new Palmerston boat ramp; $3.2m for a boat ramp facility at Hudson Creek; and $670 000 for a pontoon at Dinah Beach boat ramp. On top of that, we invested in a four-year development fund of $1m per annum to improve access for recreational fishers across the Top End. These funds have enabled upgrades to occur at a number of boat ramps including: Middle Arm; Elizabeth River; Southport; Six Pack Creek; Saltwater Arm; Corroboree Billabong; Gove and others. Furthermore, $1.5m is committed for new camping grounds at the popular Tomato Island boat ramp on the Roper River.
This government has also recently expanded the artificial reef complex at Lee Point with the addition of 600 culverts made of concrete, which I understand is the largest recreational fishing artificial reef in the Australia. Many thanks to Darwin Precast Products for donating over 200 tonnes of concrete culverts for that area.
Our government has recently announced an in-principle agreement with the Malak Malak traditional owners. No individual permit is required for fishing on the Daly River, with the spin-offs being an expanded marine ranger program, a multimillion dollar upgrade to the public boat ramp, expanding the parking area for this increasingly popular spot. and an erosion study - a win/win outcome for all Territorians.
There is an alternative position, and the outcome under the CLP would be permits to go fishing, I am certain. In contrast, we recognise the complexity of implementing the High Court decision - that the Fisheries Act applies to the waters, that water above Aboriginal land has the same standing as land itself, and the only solution is a negotiated outcome. The other option, of course, is to fight in the courts, and that will take time and effort.
I said before we would support the commercial fishing industry. We support the Northern Territory Seafood Council through initiatives to enhance the positive image of the seafood industry, including the Seafood Awards and improved fish labelling. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia where commercial premises have to declare publicly if the fish is caught locally or is imported. Every other state jurisdiction is still trying to do that and has not achieved it. If that is not assistance to our local seafood industry, I do not know what is.
We also organised, after considerable work, an individual transferable quota management system that has been implemented in our offshore snapper fisheries. This system will ensure sustainable catch levels are maintained in the future, and will provide certainty, economic efficiency, and flexibility for operators. The commercial fishing industry has applauded this initiative.
The government has also committed to resolve issues presented by the High Court decision on Blue Mud Bay, including, among others, economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians, appropriate arrangements for commercial fishing, and the capacity for recreational fishermen to go fishing in affected waters without charge or the need for an individual permit. There is a very clear choice; government seeks to negotiate a win/win outcome, members opposite will take an adversarial approach just like they did on Kenbi. Put simply, the position of the CLP will mean permits for anglers.
We have also provided funding, coordination and support for the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program and will continue to deliver the Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance training to marine rangers. Most recently, this course was tailored and delivered specifically to female marine rangers. Incidentally, the program won the Australian Seafood Industry Awards Training Award in 2010, and the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in 2011.
Talking about awards, I also had the great pleasure of attending the RIRDC Rural Women’s Award where Barbara Koennecke from Nhulunbuy was the Northern Territory winner. Barbara is a pioneer of the aquarium industry in the Northern Territory and principle of Arafura Aquatic Fish Pty Ltd. Barbara’s ambition is to support the giant clam industry and engage the Indigenous community in the development of the aquaculture industry in the Territory. Anyone who has met Brian and Barbara will know how passionate they are about the industry. Dr Samantha McMahon from Katherine was runner-up. Dr McMahon is a leader in the field of veterinary practices in remote Indigenous communities, having operated veterinary practices across the Territory for almost two decades.
We are taking the right approach to this and are not trying to establish fisheries before we know what is sustainable. We are first investing in the science to determine what is possible then, if appropriate, will invest in the business enterprise side of the equation to make it happen in a lasting way. Two pilot scale sea cucumber ranching projects have been developed in association with the commercial fishing industry and Indigenous communities at Goulburn Island and Groote Eylandt. The government is working in partnership with the commercial fishing industry and Indigenous communities to trial the breeding and culture of giant clams for the aquarium markets. Small scale grow-out trials of clams have already commenced in Gove and near Groote Eylandt. Australian and overseas marketing trials have also commenced.
I have listened with interest to the members opposite talking about the CLP policy when it comes to fisheries, but I have not seen any policy position yet. The only thing I heard was when I closed the Finniss River and Bynoe Harbour because of some incidents that took place - the member for Katherine was the spokesman for fisheries at the time and called it a knee-jerk reaction. I suppose the CLP does not support the closure of the Finniss River and Bynoe for the offences committed by a number of commercial fishermen. I recall it was the sawfish - they decided to break its back and throw it away. I remember it very well. There were many articles in the newspaper. My colleges also remember it.
Recently, at the AFANT AGM, I outlined this government’s position on a range of issues, including a moratorium on seabed mining. It is something we do not know, we are not familiar with, and I would rather tread cautiously than say: ‘Oops, sorry’. The CLP has never said sorry for some of their disasters, namely Mt Todd. We take a different approach, something that will have an impact, not only on the cultural environment of the area, but also the physical environment. I do not know about the policy of the CLP. I recall the member opposite complained and condemned me over seabed mining saying it was unnecessary. Well, it is absolutely necessary.
When it comes to fishing infrastructure for our growing population who love to go fishing, I am happy to compare our record with that of the CLP. The CLP policy, at the time - I do not know how it was supposed to support recreational fishing - was to sell off boat ramps without any plans for replacement. In government, the CLP even refused to allow the member for Blain’s plan of building a land-based fishing platform for Palmerston residents. We delivered that. The government has recently completed an upgrade and expansion program for boat ramps across the Territory. The government has outlined its opposition to wide-scale closure to fishing rights around the coastline. This government has implemented seafood labelling to promote Territory seafood, which has been widely supported by the industry.
We announced our intention to create a new national park and a marine park. Limmen National Park and the Limmen Bight Marine Park provide the right balance between economic development opportunities and conservation. The proposed territorial and marine parks are subject to a 60-day community consultation period which will close on 18 May 2012. That flies in the face of allegations by the member opposite that we are not consulting with the industry. We are consulting the industry; we are consulting with the mining industry, recreational anglers, and commercial fishers. I had the Seafood Council in my office discussing the same issue, and I urged them to put a substantial comprehensive response to what we proposed for the marine park, and our government will consider it very carefully.
Talking about marine parks, I recall very well that Cobourg was declared in 1983, but the CLP never got around to a plan of management until 1987. That started in 1987 and, in 2001, our government put it in place. There was no certainty for 14 years for stakeholders. Even Peter Manning complained about that. We know Peter Manning is quite open about his political affiliations. He told us it took so long they had no certainty. The previous government closed that park without compensating the commercial fishers.
Madam Speaker, in closing, our government is supporting fishers. However, fisheries is very complicated. The amateur fishermen want part of the resource, as do the commercial fishermen. Not all are trying to share the resource with amateur fishermen. Amateur fishermen are concentrated around the coastline or a few miles outside the coastline. Mainly, they are competing with barramundi fishers and, in some cases, mud crabbers, but not with the deep water fishing. Our government looks at the resource as a whole. It has opposed the federal government’s attempts - both Liberal and Labor governments in Canberra - to provide a no-go/no-take zone, and will continue to do so. At the same time, we work very closely with all aspects of the fishery industry, Indigenous interests, amateur fishermen, and commercial fishermen. We intend to support the industry. We have already proven we support the industry, and we are prepared to work with the industry further to ensure it will continue to grow and prosper in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing forward this matter. I thought it might have been an opportunity also for the minister for the Environment to comment, as the government has announced a proposed marine park. The minister has been commenting through the media on that park. It would have been good to hear his view from an environmental aspect, because it is an area we do not discuss enough in this parliament. I feel disappointed, at times, that primary industry is still the poor cousin in the debates, and out there in the broader public affairs of this government. It really is an important issue.
Page 9 of Fast Facts published in the Year in Review of the Northern Territory Seafood Council says:
- The Northern Territory Seafood Council represents 270 licence holders who have invested more than $1.4bn in the industry.
More than 650 businesses are directly involved in the Northern Territory’s professional seafood industry.
The Northern Territory seafood industry produces about $60m of products each year, excluding prawns.
- Most Territorians rely on the Northern Territory professional seafood industry for their local seafood supplies.
That is a really important point I will take up in a little while - the number of people who are not amateur fishing, do not have boats, but rely on their fish to be supplied by the Northern Territory professional seafood industry.
- Licence holders fish in about 500 000 km of water from the coastline to 200 nautical miles, the limit of the Australian Fishing Zone ...
- There are 14 committees under the Seafood Council representing the different fisheries and sections of the local seafood industry.
- The three highest value wild catch harvest fisheries for the Northern Territory seafood industry in 2009 were mud crab ($11.2m), the offshore snapper fisheries ($13.4m) and barramundi ($4.9m).
I do not have more up-to-date figures than that. I am using the 2010 Seafood Council Year in Review. They did not have a 2011 edition on the website:
- The highest production aquaculture activities in 2009 in the NT were pearling ($24.7m) and barramundi ($4.9m) - 2009 Fishery Status Report.
This highlights why the government needs to talk about our fisheries. It is a big industry. It might not be as big as mining, or as sexy as tourism, but it certainly is an important part of the Northern Territory economy. As the population grows, demand for fish will continue to grow as well. There are times when we do not get out and promote our industries as well as we should, and it is a pity.
The minister spoke for some, but there was an opportunity in this debate for the minister to talk up the industry by giving us facts and figures about how many people are employed and the production of various sections of the fishing industry. The commercial end of our fishing tends to be the poor cousin when it comes to publicity and support, because the amateur fishing people rule the airwaves, literally, sometimes. I do not have a boat - I had one years ago - and I want to go to the local fish and chip shop and buy local barra or local threadfin salmon, which is my favourite fish. I do not want to buy imported fish; I want to buy local threadfin salmon. It worries me when the government talks about buying back three licences and the Seafood Council is saying the state of fisheries is terrific at the moment. You have to wonder why, if the state of the fisheries is so good, we would talk about buying back three licences.
The CLP has bought this forward today, but I remember a few years ago listening to the then member for Goyder, Peter Maley, berating the government for not buying more licences. The problem I have is if you keep selling more barramundi licences, where are those people who do not have a boat - and there are many of them - going to get their local fish from? There has to be a balance between commercial fishing and amateur fishing and, to some extent, that balance is tipped over every time there is an amateur fishing association meeting. I have been to quite a few amateur fishing association general meetings when the previous government was in power, and while this government has been in power, and governments are certainly swayed by what the amateur fishing association says.
Referring to barramundi, the announcement by the minister at the amateur fishing association’s annual general meeting - there was a comment on the ABC which said:
- Only in February, the NT Seafood Council boasted just how sustainable the barramundi fishing industry is, with only 5% of the population caught annually.
Peter Manning, who has been a licence holder for 30 years and chairs the Barramundi Licensee Committee, says the latest round of buy-backs in unnecessary. ‘There are only 21 licences for the whole of the Territory...it’s absolutely sustainable forever as far as a fishery’.
I quote again from Peter Manning:
- ‘What AFANT is on about is basically that they don’t want to see commercial fishing. It’s got nothing to do with sustainability. The people who don’t fish are the ones who depend on the commercial fishery. If you close down or reduce a commercial fishery, that is sustainable to a level that’s too small, they become insignificant’.
He says the NT government has not consulted with the commercial industry before announcing the buy-backs. ‘For the government, really from what I could see yesterday’ ...
He was referring to that weekend meeting of AFANT:
- ... ‘this is the start of an election campaign. We’re going along with the other people who belong to the management advisory committee thinking that this is the route that the minister elected us to go down. But, they’ve announced this through AFANT completely separately’.
That is the chair of the barramundi section of the Seafood Council saying the government is wrong. It would have been interesting to hear the minister respond to that today. I am not the fishing expert, but I keep my ears open to what is going on in the industry. Here is a person, Peter Manning, who has been involved with the commercial barramundi industry for many years and, as I said, is Chair of the Barramundi Licensee Committee of the Northern Territory Seafood Council.
It would have been good to hear what the minister thinks of the industry’s comments about the buy-back of licences. However, no, we had a very quick skim over the issues and problems with CLP’s policies, but this is not CLP policy; this is the industry saying there are concerns. He is not the only person who has concerns. For instance, the government has announced - I must admit, I knew nothing about this new marine national park. I am not against marine national parks as long as there is a scientific basis. I thought the government said it supports marine national parks as long as there is a scientific basis, otherwise we do not need them. So, out of the blue comes the Limmen Bight Marine Park. I am not saying it would not be a good park - I have no idea. I have some information off the webpage. I would like to see the scientific basis for this marine park being set up.
I have seen too many parks in the Territory set up for political reasons. I will give you two examples: Charles Darwin National Park was announced three weeks before an election; Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve was announced by the previous government because of pressure from AFANT in relation to the possible prawn farm to be built there, and they had concerns about the barramundi hatchery. That park was just zoom, zoom, zoom, marked off on a map. It might be a good park, but if we are looking at parks from an environmental point of view, there is some science behind the declaration of those parks.
From what I have seen so far, Limmen seems to be about local politics. I have not seen anything to say professionals who deal with fish can give us a scientific basis for a marine park on that side of the Territory’s coastline. Of course, I must not be the only one who was surprised because on Channel 9 a report said:
- Commercial fishing operators have slammed a decision to build a new marine national park in the Northern Territory.
NT Seafood Council Chair, Rob Fish ...
A fair-minded bloke:
... said NT Parks minister, Karl Hampton, had not consulted his group which represents about 250 commercial fishing operations in the Northern Territory.
‘I am angry at the minister’s position that we are not a relevant stakeholder’, Mr Fish said.
- Under plans unveiled by the NT government on Friday, a new national park, including a large marine park was declared.
I go on further to read:
- Mr Fish said by announcing the formation of the park the minister had put his group in the impossible position of having to comment after a decision had been made. ‘We can support marine parks if they are in the right places for the right reasons ...
Exactly my belief:
... but with no information we will just object to them’.
He said the area was home to sea cucumbers, barramundi and mud crabs.
I ask the minister for the Environment to comment on this as well. This is one of the few opportunities we have to discuss important issues. People say we have statements and we have bills, yes, but I hope it is a chance for all members of parliament to contribute to important parts of Northern Territory lifestyle and Northern Territory industry. It would be good to hear the minister’s comments on what fishermen are saying - they are very upset this park has been declared.
On the Country Hour mud crab fisherman, Sherwood Thorbjornsen, said mud crab fishermen are furious they were not consulted over plans for a marine park in one of their most productive areas:
- Licence holder, Sherwood Thorbjornsen, says last year almost one-third of the total catch came from the same area.
There’s no place that we can go to use 16 licences’ he says. ‘We can’t go to Borroloola because Borroloola already has enough licences and fishermen down there. This is our livelihood. I just don’t know where we’re going to go if this goes ahead. We’re worried as about this. No one talked to us, no one’s done anything’.
Mr Hampton is quoted as saying:
- ... key stakeholders were consulted in the formation of the proposal.
That is not the impression I get from reading those two articles. Again, I hope the minister will comment on this statement because there are people out there with questions. They want to know what effect the marine park will have on them before the declaration. This is the type of thing where, when people’s livelihoods are at stake, the government would talk to them beforehand.
Whether or not you agree with some of the legislation that has gone through today, there has been much prior consultation with industry. With the building insurance plans - regardless of whether you agree or not - there was consultation with industry. We have just declared a proposed marine park with 60 days to look at it - and that is it. Even before you announced it, you should have been discussing it with the people who are affected - the Aboriginal people and the fishing people, amateur and commercial. You might say, ‘We are thinking of a park’, and when you have finished those discussions you might say, ‘Okay, we are still proposing the park but, as part of that park, we are going to take up these concerns’. They should show a scientific basis for developing this park. I do not have a problem with marine parks. If there is a need for a park and it is shown to be scientifically sound we should be applauding it.
However, there are other concerns which relate to this clash between amateur and commercial fishers. People like Adam Collins - I know him; he is a local in the rural area, is Chair of the NT Coastal Line Fishermen’s Association - supply fresh fish to Darwin. You normally land fish within 24 to 48 hours in Darwin. That is fresh, and his group are the people who do that. I will read the comments he made in 2010 - this is the latest - and I would like the minister to comment. Under the Seafood Council Year in Review document, he said:
- The fishery continues to feel like it is in ‘limbo’ as it waits for the Northern Territory government to provide options for managing the fishery.
There are sill 54 licences available in the fishery, of which 37 are unrestricted, 17 are restricted, and around 25 in total are active. There are about eight licences that are used full-time.
The committee is looking at its own management strategy … and will meet in early 2011 to discuss the long-term options available to manage the fishery with regard to effort.
Do not forget, I am reading from the 2010 report. He also went on to say:
- There has been increased pressure on the fishery by amateur fishers and fishing tour operators within the Darwin zone. Both sectors are looking at how they can reduce their impacts on the fishery.
That has been a problem for a long time. Again, it would have been great to hear from the minister to see where that is going. It is an important part of our fishery, especially for those who like fresh fish.
Another group that has problems with what is going on is the Coastal Net Licensee Committee; the Chair is Phillip Greet. He said:
- The Coastal Net Licensee Committee is working with the Northern Land Council to develop training courses on the fishery to encourage Indigenous involvement.
Another good thing the minister should have been talking about: where are we going in relation to Indigenous involvement? Would the barramundi licences being purchased for Blue Mud Bay be better purchased so Indigenous people could take them over?
In another quote:
- The five remaining licence holders continue to be frustrated by the lack of certainty within the industry with no commitment from the Northern Territory government on its future.
He has issues and it would be good to hear comments from the minister on that.
There is comment from Rob Lowden, the Chair of the Offshore and Net Line Fishery. He said:
- Increasing numbers of amateur vessels anchoring at night without displaying the appropriate lights has produced a traditional hazard for fishers in the fishery, with some instances of fishing gear and vessels interacting.
We would like to see the International Marine Collision Regulations adhered to by all users of the sea, particularly in high traffic areas.
There is also the Timor Reef Licensee Committee. Horst Fischer - another great name for a fisher person - is also the Northern Territory Seafood Council Vice Chair - or was in 2010-11. He said, in regard to the fishery:
- The fishery has experienced further problems following seismic survey activity in the area. Research in Norway has confirmed that seismic survey vessels do affect fish behaviour and catchability. We are working ...
I wonder if I could have an extension?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, member for Goyder.
- We are working with the government to ensure the fishery is not negatively impacted by any further seismic survey activity.
That reminds me of statements made recently about oil and gas exploration in the areas around Darwin. The Chief Minister may have even mentioned it at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association meeting, if I am not mistaken. Again, it is an area I would have liked the minister to talk about.
There is so much to talk about. There is registration or boat identification. I was surprised at the AFANT meeting - it seems it is off the agenda. Two meetings were held in my office by the Howard Springs Fishing Club. The Howard Springs Fishing Club is not small. It is not as big as AFANT; it is a local fishing club of 500 fishers. They had two meetings last year in my office, and were supportive of boat identification. They wanted some changes, and were willing to have numbers or use the name of their boat. They were also looking at the possibility of charging people $5, which would go to the club, and they would keep a register. Those two meetings seemed to go quite well.
Again, I ask the minister: what happened? You had a group of fishers saying they would support boat identification. They saw the merit in it, and there is merit in it. Unfortunately, some of these discussions become tied up in politics, but there is a genuine belief that having some form of identification on a boat is a good thing. The problem can be the cost of administering and keeping those records up to date. It would have been nice to ask the minister where that is at.
The minister mentioned boat ramps. We had a boat ramp at Howard River for a number of years which was open to the public. I have been told by the owners it is going to be opened soon. That ‘soon’ has been going on for about three years. There has been an offer by Bill Boustead for a land swap at Howard River so a public boat ramp could be put at the mouth of the Howard River. That would be a great thing for government to promote.
The minister has sprouted about the numbers of boat ramps around the place. I am unsure if he can boast about the one at Southport. I am fairly sure the Litchfield Shire Council built that way back in the days when Russell Anderson was the local member. I think he had it passed on about his last day on the council. I do not believe the government built that boat ramp. There is certainly a need for a boat ramp at the mouth of the Howard River. Howard River is developing. The Bousteads have turned one of their aquaculture dams into a cable ski facility. They are having a few problems with the department of Lands, but that area is starting to develop. I hope Dixies, as it was called then - the people who have bought it can redevelop it. They hope to put a resort and caravan park there and have said they hope to open up the boat ramp, which would be great. The government should also be stepping in and saying: ‘Well, if you are not going to do it, why not?’
The government has built a great jetty at Palmerston, although the car park goes under water at high tide - a minor issue. Ensure your car is not there at high tide! There could be an opportunity for more jetties around Darwin. Kids do not need a boat; they just need to throw a line into the sea. There could be more jetties, especially in the rural area, Southport, and at Middle Arm. A jetty would be very popular venue for many people ...
A member: A ferry service.
Mr WOOD: A ferry service? We are getting off the track; however, advice from an ex-naval officer who lives in Darwin is ferries are very expensive to run unless you have a large population.
I digress, and you do not want to digress these days. No, no, no. It is a wonder the member for Port Darwin did not jump on me then. Gee, I was lucky I got off quickly.
There is another area in relation to fishing. I visited Taminmin College the other day. I was invited to tour the college and look around the farm. The college has an aquaculture project growing barramundi and redclaw. That is another avenue it would have been nice for the minister to talk about it.
What is missing is an opportunity for ministers to use General Business Day, not as the enemy - unfortunately, with an election coming up, many of these start with ‘condemn the government’. I see General Business Day as a chance to deal with matters important to people in the Territory, which might be not so well-known to some people, but are the bread and butter for many people.
Fishing is an industry which does not get enough attention, and commercial fishing gets even less. We do not understand there are some pretty hard-working people out there who do not live a life of luxury, although most probably enjoy it, especially away from the madding crowd. However, it is a tough life. You are in a boat at all hours of the night harvesting fish. We should recognise those people who are doing a hard night’s work, helping the economy of the Territory, feeding people of the Northern Territory, and developing industries in the Northern Territory.
Going through the Seafood Council’s Year in Review, we could have spoken about crabs. We have an NT crab industry which is one of the largest producers of dollars in the Northern Territory. It says here:
- The three highest value wild catch harvest fisheries for the Northern Territory ... were mud crab ($11.2m) ...
I beg your pardon, snapper is worth $13.4m, but it is the second-highest seafood industry in the Northern Territory. We could talk about finfish. We know about fins and know there has been some discussion about that industry. It has been controversial at times, but certainly an industry worth looking at. We have pearling. It is a quiet industry; however, if you go to the wharf there is a beautiful boat there which looks fantastic. There are several around belonging to Paspaley. A report on the pearling industry would be great.
I had people come to me late last year from the Trepang Licensee Committee to talk about the trials they are doing off Groote Eylandt. They may be looking at other areas as well, so a report on the trepang industry would be great. That is part of the industry we need to be looking at.
I have touched on a few industries. There is a Spanish mackerel group as well. We have many bodies representing different sections of the seafood industry. We have forgotten the aquarium industry. I have a gentleman in my electorate I am very proud of because of the work he does collecting aquarium fish on Aboriginal communities. In many cases he has found new species. He pays a percentage to the traditional owners of the area to take the fish away. There are some beautiful fish in the Northern Territory. He has had issues exporting these fish, but he has developed a very good industry, a bit like Billy Boustead who used to sell clownfish. Billy does not do so much now; he sold his clownfish licence to a businessman from Sydney. Billy was making more money out of clownfish than he was digging holes in the mudflats trying to grab barramundi. His clownfish were going to America in little bags of water. He had three types of clownfish with different colours - there is an industry. Who talks about that industry? There is an opportunity, minister, why are you not part of this as well?
Madam Speaker, it is an important industry. I am glad the member for Goyder has brought it up. I wish we could talk more about primary industry. How many times has the fruit and vegetable industry been spoken about in this House? Very little! How many times have we spoken about forestry? Probably never! We should use this as a valuable time, not just to learn about what is going on, but to give ministers a chance to sprout something about their own portfolios and tell us what is really happening. I hope next time something like this comes up the minister can give us a more than he has tonight, and the minister for Environment can put two bobs worth in, because the marine national park is something we need to know about. Thank you, member for Goyder.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it was listening to the member for Nelson. He hit on so many topics and is spot on in what he was saying. He is dead right about all those industries. We have a government which seems completely unconcerned about farmers, cattlemen and fishermen. This government is not interested in pretty well anyone on the land or the water. Unless you are INPEX, you can line up at the door. Do not expect an appointment - we are not really interested because we are talking about INPEX. We, on this side of the House, are great supporters of INPEX, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It is disappointing to see the way government treats people in primary industries.
Talking about mud crabs, member for Nelson, one area you left off was the mud crab farm at Gwalwa Daraniki at Minmarama. Those guys proved you could farm mud crabs. They did it in the old dams on the waterfront and took in quite a large amount of money from the Australian and Northern Territory governments. They planned to do it in three stages. Stage 1 was the pilot project they had set up to see if could raise mud crabs in captivity. They did that successfully. The next two stages were to make it a commercial operation and, of course, government did not approve the next two stages.
I am sick to death of hearing people talk about the failure of the mud crab experiment at Gwalwa Daraniki because it was not a failure; it was a huge success. They proved they could grow mud crabs in a farming environment successfully. The problem was their pilot scheme was far too small to operate on a commercial basis, and the minute the CDEP program was ruled out of existence in that area, that mud crab farm was doomed because it was not allowed to grow. It irritates the hell out of me when I see my Indigenous constituents trying to have a go, and a government which talks about how it likes to help Aboriginal people, do absolutely nothing to see that venture commercialised, which is very sad.
The other thing that concerns me is the power recreational fishers have in AFANT. It seems every time AFANT puts in a call for support, government jumps. We all know AFANT would like to see every commercial fisherman run out of the Northern Territory because they do not particularly like them, and this government responds. We saw the unconscionable actions of minister Vatskalis in shutting down a fishery, and we saw zero consultation with the new Limmen National Park and the crabbers there. I understand that is the biggest crabbing area in the Northern Territory. Those people were not even advised there was a discussion happening, and I find that absolutely appalling.
In the past few weeks we have seen the Chief Minister proudly announce you do not need permits to fish the Daly. Well, there are a few things I would like to say in relation to that. First, I did not know we had to have a permit to fish the Daly, and the part of the Daly Blue Mud Bay applies to is a very small part. For the Chief Minister to jump up and down and slap himself on the back the way he did in relation to the Daly was appalling because that represents one small section of where Blue Mud Bay applies. If it takes the Chief Minister almost four years to negotiate that small section out, how long is it going to take to do the many thousands of kilometres in the rest of the Northern Territory?
Why is the Chief Minister even involved in these negotiations? Blue Mud Bay is a creature of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is Commonwealth legislation. It is something the Australian government is responsible for. Of course, the Chief Minister’s best friend, the one who pulls his string, is Julia Gillard. If the Chief Minister had any regard at all for Territorians, the first door he would be knocking on would be that of Julia Gillard saying: ‘Look, Prime Minister, we need some help. Darwin is a town full of people who like to wet a line, who like to get out in a tinny each weekend, and this will absolutely decimate the lifestyle of people in the Northern Territory if you allow this legislation to stand without any involvement at all’.
The Prime Minister should show some regard for ordinary Territorians. It is outrageous the federal government has sat by watching this unfold and said nothing about it. Goodness me! What sort of a government do we have in the Northern Territory that does not ask the Prime Minister, or the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, what the hell is going on with Blue Mud Bay?
We have a Chief Minister who will refuse, on every single occasion, to stand up for Territorians when it comes to the federal government. What a failure this man has proven himself to be. We saw the way he sidestepped Julia Gillard in the live cattle debacle where he said: ‘Oh, we needed this’. It was the circuit breaker we needed when that fool Ludwig banned live exports from the Northern Territory. He actually welcomed it saying it was good circuit breaker. Goodness me! It did not occur to him at the time that this would create massive and widespread havoc in our pioneering cattle industry in the Territory. However, there was no way known the Chief Minister was going to pull on a fight over that one.
What chance do our recreational and commercial fishermen have when it comes to Blue Mud Bay? This Chief Minister has proven himself to be an absolute failure at standing up to Julia Gillard and her Labor government. Something like Blue Mud Bay needs to be sorted out by the federal government; it is its responsibility. The Chief Minister should be banging on the Prime Minister’s door demanding she fix the problem! But, what does he do? He turns his back on Territorians and throws Territorians’ money at the problem. Then, he will not tell Territorians how much he has thrown at the problem. This is a disgusting situation.
We saw him signing up the Kenbi deal, and he cannot remember signing up to it. What a pathetic joke the man is. What a pathetic joke! He came into this House saying: ‘We have done a deal on Kenbi’. Then, we cannot find out about the agreement because it is a secret deal. Goodness me! We have the Northern Territory government, the Australian government, and the Northern Land Council doing secret deals. How bizarre is that? All bodies are answerable to the public, and the Chief Minister does a secret deal nobody is allowed to know about. How absolutely bizarre! He then said: ‘It is wonderful. Look at the deal we have done’. We do not know what deal the Chief Minister has done on that. We do not know what deal the Chief Minister has done on the Daly River because he refuses to tell anybody in this Chamber what it is. He cannot even commit to having the deal outlined before the next election. What a pathetic joke! At the same time, he is throwing money around like a drunken sailor and not delivering the services Territorians demand.
We have crime out of control, drunks all over streets, our health system is not up to scratch, our education system certainly is not up to scratch, we have the worst housing crisis in the history of the Northern Territory, our roads are falling to bits, infrastructure has gone to pot, and the Chief Minister seems to have money to throw around on negotiations dealing with Blue Mud Bay. Goodness me!
Why can he not jump on an aeroplane or pick up a phone, talk to Julia Gillard, get this mess sorted, and get the people responsible for this mess to sort it out themselves? It is just plain wrong! It is plain wrong that the Chief Minister is doing secret deals with the NLC. It is a statutory body of the Australian government; there should be nothing secret about it. It should be open and transparent. The Northern Territory government should be open and transparent. There should not be any secrets at all. It is completely wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am so thankful to the member for Goyder for bringing on this worthwhile motion. These issues need discussing and good on her for doing it. I am keen to support the motion, and I encourage everyone else to as well.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, for commenting on this very important motion, highlighting the issues where this government has failed in regard to the High Court Blue Mud Bay decision. I also thank the member for Nelson for his articulate description of issues associated with the commercial seafood industry, which I fully endorse and agree with. He demonstrates his understanding of the industry, which the minister does not fully understand. He had the opportunity to showcase and highlight the commercial industry, the seafood industry, and what it provides for the Northern Territory people, as well as the economy and the Australian economy. He was pertinent and succinct.
More importantly, the member for Nelson highlighted what I spoke about: the complete lack of consultation about decisions this government takes which affect industries; for example, the proposal to declare the Limmen Bight Marine Park without consulting the commercial seafood industry or the recreational fishing industry. The government definitely did not consult with the offshore petroleum industry, which has applications and permits in that area. It consulted with no one. It then made the outrageous statement it would tell people after the NT election what would be possible and what would not in the marine park, despite the fact the crabbing industry and other fishing operations have a legal right to be in that area.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, it appears primary industries and fisheries are the poor cousin to some of these other larger projects. They tend to be overlooked, which was part of my point. The minister missed the point in regard to the balance and attention that should be attributed to the commercial seafood industry, and recreational activities to a lesser extent. My motion was not intended to be detrimental towards recreational fishing activities in the Northern Territory. As I said, they have our full support and are a great part of our lifestyle and our future. They also, by the sheer nature of the number of people involved, contribute to the economy and will continue to do so in the future.
What concerns me is the minister missed the opportunity to showcase where the government sees the commercial seafood industry going, and where it believes there are challenges for the recreational industry. The two types of fishing can and do co-exist; however, I agree with my colleague, the member for Fong Lim. A government should not be beholden to one sector, one organisation, or one level of activity. That, sadly, is what is happening in this situation. It is disappointing the minister did not address what we were trying to achieve with this motion. However, it is not surprising in some ways because there has been a high level of no consultation about the proposed marine park with the industry. There was no consultation in regard to the minister saying there will be a moratorium in relation to the area around Groote Eylandt and Bickerton. The government did not even ring the company which has valid licences to explore before or after it made that announcement.
An advisor from the minister for Resources’ office rang the company and said: ‘By the way, have you seen the media release in regard to the moratorium’ ...
Mr Elferink: You are kidding?
Ms PURICK: I am not kidding. The government did not have the courtesy to ring the company advising the moratorium was to be declared that day. The government has probably not told the many other companies around our Northern Territory coastline involved in exploration and potential mining. It highlights this government’s complete disdain for some very important industries in the Northern Territory. It also demonstrates government makes decisions on the run; it does not have clear policies on where these industries are going.
In regard to potential for exploration of the sea bed, there are other examples in the Northern Territory and around Australia. If the minister took the time to talk to the industry he would have discovered this. There are examples of this kind of operation in other parts of the world. Perhaps next time the minister is in WA, he could talk to the companies involved at Cockburn Sound and see exactly what is involved in this kind of activity in regard to exploration in the low-water mark areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing the Fisheries minister and, particularly, the Environment minister, did not comment in regard to this important motion because …
A member: Yes, let’s just call a spade a spade.
Ms PURICK: He is, obviously, not interested in the seafood industry or the commercial industry because the proposed marine park is clearly going to conflict with companies that have a legal right to be in that area. I commend this motion to the House, and I ask members to support it.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
State of Northern Territory Fiscal Management
State of Northern Territory Fiscal Management
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That this parliament recognise the Northern Territory government’s failures in terms of the state of the Northern Territory’s fiscal management.
I am sure the Treasurer cannot wait to hop into this debate and complain bitterly saying, ‘The member for Port Darwin does not understand; he lives in a bizarre world’, and all the usual tripe she trots out. What I really want her to do on this occasion is leave the venom and the vitriol aside, and answer issues of concern to the people of the Northern Territory.
You do not have to look any further than page 36 of the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report, the most recent set of numbers from government, to be concerned about the fiscal management of this government. Let us stop for a second, because before I quote figures from that document I want to say it was interesting watching the ABC television report tonight that the federal government is now buying Northern Territory police to staff police stations inside the borders of the Northern Territory, and to hear the Chief Minister say: ‘Goodness gracious me, we could not afford to do so’.
When this government came to power, the annual budget of the Northern Territory was $2.2bn. The income for this government this year - the revised figure on page 34 of the mid-year report - is $4.6bn through the operating statement. If you want to go to the cash flow statement, it is $4.8bn. This government has more than doubled its income in the past two years and cannot afford to pay for police.
This Treasurer said: ‘Oh, this member for Port Darwin has some bizarre theories and ideas on how this government manages its income’. I am worried about how this government manages its income because, if this government cannot afford to pay for police and requires the federal government to support it, what on Earth is it doing with all the money?
I know the government likes to bang on about its massive infrastructure spend during bad times, and how the opposition would drive all these people into joblessness. If that is your plan, spend the money in that financial year. However, you do not. The government only spends part of that money in a financial year and it is revoted into the next year, where the money is rolled over. So, when the government says it is going to spend $1.8bn on infrastructure, does it spend $1.8bn in that year? No. It rolls part of it over into the next year.
What control mechanisms are in place for the government’s management of our financial circumstances? Let us look at the general government sector cash flow statement, which includes the revised figures for the current financial year. The deficit this year is projected to be $396.454m. The following year, that deficit will shrink. It is still a deficit; we have still spent more than we earned, but it will become $268.962m. The following year the deficit will be $729.423m. The following year, which is 2014-15, through careful fiscal management of the Northern Territory’s income, our deficit will be $191.714m.
Picture this, Madam Deputy Speaker - and I invite honourable members to think about this. Here is a family. In that family the income has been steadily increasing for the last 10 years. You would expect them to have been able to pay off at least some of the credit card. Until recently, they did not do a bad job of getting rid of some of the debt as they had earned more than enough, particularly with unexpected income, to pay off all of the debt. However, they chose not to do it and kept the debt edging down slightly, but then came a few fiscal challenges. The rivers of gold were working for them, and they managed to pay off a bit of the credit card but, on the figures I have just given, they had $400m, $250m, $730m, and $191m worth of extra debt in the next four years. Let us translate that into our nett debt situation for the general government sector only.
When the Treasurer brought down the budget, the debt of the Northern Territory was going to be $1.529m. Within the space of six months, that budget projection changed to $1.595m, or an increase in the order of about $70m. What happened in the six months where you did not expect to spend $70m then, suddenly, you had to spend $70m?
Let us cast our eyes into the future and see where the government is taking us with all these deficits I outlined. When you keep racking up deficits you spend more in any financial year than you earn - you rack up debt and get more on the credit card. Bear in mind, the current figure projected is basically $1.6bn, where will the government’s debt situation be in the year 2014-15? It will be $2.8bn - nearly double the current debt.
This government, and this Treasurer, will talk about what great fiscal managers they are. The government has not responded to a single fiscal challenge in a fiscally responsible way. The Treasurer says: ‘Yes, we will bring the budget back into surplus; we will bring it back into surplus’. It is beyond the range of government projections to tell us when the budget will be brought back into surplus. The Treasurer or the government has not nominated a date, and the debt continues to rack up. The Treasurer does not like going down this path, but all I am talking about is the general government sector balance sheet.
Let us look at the non-financial sector balance sheet which includes all the government-owned corporations. I do not have the figures in front of me at the moment - I do not need them - but there are substantial amounts of debt parked in the Power and Water Corporation. The government has two ways to deal with this. If it says the debt is not real - it is not real money and it does not have anything to do with government - then it is because it is prepared to say it is a debt it can offload by offloading the Power and Water Corporation. That is not the plan or the policy. The debt the Power and Water Corporation carries is a debt which is, essentially, a debt of government.
If you then add the other component of debt this government carries - our ongoing superannuation liabilities tracking out to the future - by the time you reach the 2014-15 financial year you are well over $7bn worth of outstanding moneys this government has to pay, or any other future government has to pay.
I listened carefully the last time the Treasurer had a bleat about me being unreasonable and scaremongering on this issue. She said I was counting the nett financial worth of the Territory. No, I was not. I did not make any reference to the nett financial worth. I looked at the debt component attached to the area outside the general government sector and I introduced the superannuation debt, which is also real money - it has to be paid.
Currently, on an annual basis, what do we pay? About $170m out of each year’s budget goes into our superannuation expenses. That is real money. That money has to be paid into the future. I am not blaming government for that debt entirely because, to be fair, it predates the government. However, it is still a liability that has to be covered into the future. What I blame this government for is failing to get rid of the debt it could have, had it shown even a modicum of fiscal restraint.
Ever since these guys have been in power there has been a spendathon. They were warned from Day 1 that the good times would not last. So, from 2001 onwards, you would have expected they would have been mindful of the fact the good times were not going to last forever, and there was, at a point in the future, going to be a downturn in the cycle.
The Howard government in Canberra managed to wipe out its debt; the Gallop government, a Labor government, managed to wipe out its debt. Why did this government not manage to wipe out its debt? We heard all the excuses, but what we will not hear from this government is a plan to get rid of debt.
Regarding the debt to income ratio, this government has been prepared to take us to a place the Territory has never been. That was always its great defence - the debt to income ratio in the past was the yardstick by which you measured poor fiscal performance, and they were so much better than the Country Liberals ever were. Well, small wonder when the government’s income was going up so much. However, the government crossed the threshold when it said it was prepared to go to that place and beyond. That is, essentially, what came out of the mid-year report, and it shows it is prepared to exercise that attitude. What does the government spend the money on? Here is an example: a prison.
When the Country Liberals were prepared to rack up debt, what did it rack up debt for? A railway - something that would produce wealth and economic opportunities in the Northern Territory. The Treasurer says the gaol will create jobs. Yes, under the construction phase it will create a few jobs, then it will sit there like a $0.5bn lump which will house prisoners - after this government went to so much trouble to reassure us it has control of crime. Prisons were supposed to be smaller under this government and, now, we are building the biggest monster ever. It works out to be about $700 000 a bed. It has to be a pretty flash prison when a bed costs more than a house!
I am critical of the decision to build that prison, as we all are on this side of the House. The government would have been reassured by the people in the prison system it needed this wonderful prison. The member for Nelson was convinced this was highly important public infrastructure. However, what I see being built does not accord with my experience of the prisoner mix the Northern Territory has. Such a complex as the one being built is unnecessary, and was unnecessary when announced, even a few years ago. Despite the fact it was unnecessary, this government persevered on a prison which blew out by $150m on the original projection of $350m. No, the original projection was $300m, now it is $0.5bn. If you follow the contract through to its final close, we will be paying much more than that. However, that is nominal dollar terms, and I am not going to talk about nominal dollar terms here.
The government should be spending in areas identified by the member for Fong Lim: infrastructure. Let us make things that work. I listened to the minister for Planning talk about this type of thing and building infrastructure to support a Marine Supply Base. Good! We also spend extraordinary amounts of money in areas where the government should be much tighter - the area of housing. How much is the repair and maintenance bill for the housing stock?
We spend fortunes on running policies like the Banned Drinkers Register, which is half-lifted from the CLP policy except for the important component, which is the mandatory rehabilitation. The member for Fong Lim makes the point perfectly well: the system just does not work. I still receive regular complaints through my office, and I regularly complain to the police about drunks in parks in my electorate. Those drunks are not only in parks in my electorate, they are in parks in other people’s electorate up and down the Northern Territory. Is the government in a position to spend money on that? No, we are standing there, cap in hand, getting back to my starting point, which was the police are now being subsidised directly by the federal government. Income has more than doubled in the last 10 years, debt will, essentially, double in the next four years, yet we cannot afford to properly service our police force to cover the ground it is expected to.
Our NAPLAN education results are absolutely shocking. The minister for Education stood in this House and admitted there were Year 12 students passing the NTCET, the equivalent of the old matriculation, who could not read or write English. He admitted that in this House, yet he talks about making great inroads. NAPLAN results, when you see them charted out, are a sea of red with little dots of islands of white, and the occasional dot of green in the mix.
Our health outcomes are not being sorted out by current government policies. The current government’s policy is throw money at the problem. Creatinine levels in places like Kintore, where they now have haemodialysis in remote communities for the patients - there would be a group of probably 15 or 20 haemodialysis patients – make you think: ‘All right, they are working on that’. However, what about the other 300 people in that community with raised creatinine levels?
What is the government spending its money on? It is spending its money on bandaid solutions, addressing renal diseases rather than engaging in policies which would see real development in these areas - jobs and those types of things. One area where I do not blame this government is outcomes in remote communities because it is beyond this government’s control. I find it absolutely ludicrous and astonishing that the federal government, on a weekly basis, will pour millions of dollars into people’s pockets in the Northern Territory which will then be spent in such a fashion that the Territory government has to spend millions of dollars every week cleaning up the mess of the federal government’s expenditure. I am referring directly to welfare.
I am surprised to see the Northern Territory government is now announcing income management as part of its latest liquor policy. Really? Can that be done? Surely, there needs to be an agreement with the federal government? If there is an agreement with the federal government, then go the whole hog. Ask for a system of compulsory work for the dole for anyone who is not on an age pension, a sickness pension, or not in school. Make the system work properly. If you want us to see health and education outcomes that matter, get people to work. Even in those communities where there are no jobs available, create a system of work for the dole where they still find things to do in those communities. Does it sound like it is a condescending, patriarchal approach? I do not care what you call it; it is about creating dignity for people.
Do not keep wasting Northern Territory taxpayers’ money fixing the mess made by the federal government to the point where the Northern Territory government is now crying poor and asking the federal government to expend money on the Northern Territory police to fix problems created by federal government expenditure. It is just dumb. It is astonishing that we still sign up to this so neatly and quietly without arguing about it or screaming from the rafters. If this Treasurer and this government decided to really engage in fiscal responsibility by demanding the greatest challenges to their fiscal position be dealt with by the federal government, I would applaud them. I would stand up and …
How long are we going to go? Are we stopping at 9 pm?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will unless you are going to wrap up within a couple of minutes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Tollner: Give him an extra 10.
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue my comments at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Orders 41A, now it is 9 pm, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a truly remarkable man who tragically passed away in early February. For cultural reasons, I cannot state his full name, but his family has given permission for me to speak to the House tonight. They have also given permission for me to refer to this gentleman as Mr Peter.
Mr Peter was a Ngangkari man, but this word too is Kunmanara at the moment and I cannot use this term throughout my adjournment tonight. From here on I will refer to him as Mara ala. The English translation of Mara ala is ‘healing hands’.
Mara ala are Anangu traditional healers who have received special tools and training from their grandparents, and their grandparents, and their grandparents before them. They are very special people. Anangu have a culturally-based view of the causes of, and the recovery processes from, physical and mental illness. Many illnesses and emotional states are attributed to harmful elements in the Anangu spiritual world. These traditional healers are highly valued for their unique ability to protect and heal individuals and communities from this harm.
Country Health SA began a project in 2000 that was to bring traditional healers together with western medical practitioners. Mr Peter was one of the first traditional healers to take part in what has become a very important partnership. He, along with another, and then a third respected healing man, were employed through Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council - I will now refer to this organisation as NPY - to work as Mara ala in communities in the region, as well as hospitals, nursing homes, gaols, hostels and health services in regional centres. More recently, a number of women are also now Mara ala, employed by NPY, and working across Central Australia.
The sudden loss of Mr Peter, a much loved elder and traditional healer, has been a very sad event. Mr Peter was held in the highest regard by Aboriginal people across the entire Central Australian region. I mean Central Australian region in this way: the northern areas of South Australia, the eastern areas of Western Australia, and the southern area of the Northern Territory. Mr Peter was a well-known and respected elder throughout this vast region of, literally, Australia’s inland centre.
A tribute published by NPY Women’s Council stated that:
- Mr Peter will be remembered for his unparalleled healing abilities and was responsible for a major shift in the broader understanding and acceptance of Aboriginal traditional healing through his public speaking and educational work. He was widely respected in the medical fraternity both nationally and internationally and believed that the best health outcomes for Aboriginal people would be achieved by collaboration between mainstream medicine and traditional healers.
And further that:
- His wisdom and deep understanding of human affairs at a spiritual level gave him universal appeal across cultural and national boundaries, and he was revered for his generosity and compassion for those in need. A true gentleman, Mr Peter had an extraordinary ability to make people happy with his warmth, humour and charisma.
In the words of Professor Marcia Langton, Patron of NPY Women’s Council, the passing of Mr Peter:
- ... will be felt deeply across the Aboriginal nation, as a Mara ala teacher and leader he has helped to bridge the cultural divide by helping to raise the understanding of Aboriginal ways of healing in the broader community.
I will take a moment to list for you the awards that have been presented to Mr Peter over the many years. They include:
the 2011 international Sigmund Freud Prize from the City of Vienna;
in 2004, a gold medallist in the national Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health;
in 2004, a special mention for Mara ala Anangu Way: Traditional Healers of Central Australia, for an outstanding contribution to Australian Culture, Centre for Australian Cultural Studies, Canberra.
Mr Peter has also been a key speaker at conferences such as the LIME conference recently held in Adelaide. LIME is the acronym for Leaders in Indigenous Medical Education. Mr Peter truly was a leader at the interface of the crossover between western and traditional medicines. Mr Peter addressed a packed and attentive audience at a conference in 2010. I will conclude with the words of Mr Peter himself:
- Today we work as Mara ala over a really extensive area of Central Australia. We do it because we care; we want to look after people, that’s what we were taught. For us, we are continuing a really long tradition of healing within our world - the Pitjantjatjara world. The skills, the way that I do my work, I was taught by my father and grandfather. I grew up in a family that was really strong and clear about the proper way to do things and that is the way I work today as a Mara ala. Today it is really difficult for a lot of children - they find themselves in a really difficult situation. It’s not as clear as it was when I was growing up. In these times there are clinics within the communities and work really closely with the clinic staff. We respect what they are trying to do and they respect what we are trying to do. We know there are a lot of problems and we work really closely together.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I give an obituary in relation to a strong, firm and wonderful Territorian, a gentleman by the name of Cyril Young. Cyril, I note, was also eulogised in the Northern Territory News because of his contribution to the people of the Northern Territory. Cyril died just short of his 85th birthday and was a strong member of our community. I have known Cyril for several years, and his passing saddened me. However, I do not doubt it was a great deal sadder for Paula, his wife, and his family.
I did not meet Cyril until he was about 75, when he had moved to the Northern Territory from Sydney. What Cyril could not do to a ham with a knife was not worth knowing. He often demonstrated his capacity to carve a ham in the way no other human being possibly could. However, that was not just his skill; he was a true philanthropist and dedicated his life to charitable works - member of the National Seniors Australia, Northern Territory President. He was a member of the Commonwealth Club, and his enthusiasm was also well-known in the areas of the Darwin Turf Club.
When I met him at 75, he was still going strong and was, in a single word, irrepressible. The other thing about Cyril Young which really struck me was he redefined the word ‘gentleman’ in the way he conducted himself and his manners, not only to his family, his friends, his peers, but to any stranger who would come into contact with him. He was every part the model gentleman, and he was a pleasure to know.
Cyril was born in London in 1927. He had a great passion for classical music. In fact, at his funeral, Vera Lynn’s We’ll Meet Again was played, which also demonstrates the time in which he lived because that song was well-known during World War II. Cyril served during World War II with the Royal Navy in the area of Singapore. He did his bit for King and country – I nearly said Queen and country - and was a passionate contributor his whole life.
My deepest condolences go to Paula and family. I was saddened to hear of Cyril’s passing; it was not entirely unexpected. He remained a firm Country Liberals’ member, and was present at his last Country Liberals Darwin Branch meeting only a matter of months before his passing. He was a fighter to the end. He was a fighter his whole life. He never lost his dignity. He never set aside his integrity. The love his children had for him showed at his funeral, and the respect the community had for him was also demonstrated at his funeral with the broad range of people from the Northern Territory who attended. I note and thank Her Honour the Administrator, Sally Thomas, for paying tribute to Cyril for his compassion and his decency.
Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst he arrived in the Territory late in his life he, nevertheless, made a significant contribution to the people of the Northern Territory. As far as I am concerned - and I know as far as many other people are concerned - he will be sorely missed.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reference and acknowledge the following stories by Ktima Heathcote, as published on the website of the Tennant & District Times: tennantcreek.yourguide.com.au/.
I am honoured to put on the public record not only the great stories of community events in Tennant Creek, but also the incredible writing of Ktima Heathcote, a dynamic arts practitioner in Tennant Creek and founder of Barkly Writers Ink.
Story 1 – ‘Grab your goggles and swim for good cause’ - 10 February 2012:
- On Saturday 25 February, swimmers from all around the globe will take the plunge in an attempt to smash the current world record of 2533 people swimming 100 m at the same time with the aim of supporting the End Polio Now campaign.
To achieve this, each participating swimmer needs to complete 100 m between noon – 1 pm GMT, that’s 9.30 pm - 10.30 pm local time.
That is in Tennant Creek:
- The challenge is to record as many swimmers as possible, all swimming simultaneously, wherever they are in the world in that one hour.
Tennant Creek Rotary is one of the 80-odd clubs around the world participating in achieving the record-breaking swim to help raise funds for the eradication of polio.
Rotary Treasurer, Greg Marlow … said they need about 25 swimmers to take part in the event locally.
‘Entering couldn’t be simpler’, he said. ‘All you have to do is swim 100 m non-stop within an hour. The Barkly Shire has generously granted use of the local pool, which will be open from 8 to 11 pm’, said Greg.
‘There will also be a sausage sizzle for a gold coin donation and any other sponsorship is welcome’.
The brainchild of Grantham Rotary in the UK, the Swimarathon event has also attracted high-profile supporters including Penny Palfrey, Australian ultra-marathon open water swimming world record holder, and Paralympic medallist and five-times world champion swimmer, Fran Williamson.
Entry fee is $10 per adult and $5 for children under the age of 18 with all proceeds going to the End Polio Now 2012 campaign.
Story 2 – ‘Swimmers lap up world record event’ - 2 March 2012:
- Dozens of local swimmers took a dive for charity on Saturday and helped smash a world record.
Last Saturday night 37 locals joined thousands of swimmers around the globe to beat the world record for most people swimming 100 m at the same time to help raise funds for the eradication of polio.
By Tuesday the record stood at more than 5107; double the previous record of 2533 set at the 2002 UK National Swim marathon.
Tennant Creek Rotary was one of 150 clubs around the world taking part in achieving the record-breaking swim with the aim of supporting the End Polio Now campaign.
Rotary Treasurer, Greg Marlow, said it was an excellent turn out at the pool with Tony Boulter as the official starter and Constable Elle Bennett officiating during the night.
Local swimmers raised $950 for the eradicate polio campaign, bumping the worldwide total to $US47 900 ($AUD45 500).
‘It was great that it was such a global event and that so much money could be raised for a good cause while getting into the Guinness Book of Records’, Mr Marlow said.
‘We were really grateful to the Barkly Shire for letting us use the pool, and to Kim Bracken and Jenny Zendelli who volunteered as lifeguards for the night’.
Nyinkka Nyunyu won a bronze award in the Indigenous Tourism category of the 2011 Qantas Australian Tourism Awards in Cairns, Queensland, last Friday night.
Nyinkka’s Senior Culture Officer, Jerry Kelly and General Manager, Kate Foran received the award, which placed Nyinkka Nyunyu as the third best Indigenous tourism operator in Australia.
Mr Kelly was over the moon about the award and enjoyed being part of the ceremony with a crowd of 700 plus.
‘I was very proud to be a Warumungu man attending that awards ceremony’, he said.
‘To see Nyinkka Nyunyu get the bronze award, among eight entrants in our category, made me feel very proud’.
Ms Foran, who is also Acting CEO of Tennant Creek Foundation, said it was wonderful to witness Nyinkka Nyunyu and, indeed, Tennant Creek on the national stage.
‘Our table cheered heartily when we were announced the bronze recipient of our category’, she said.
‘Seated amongst Northern Territory tourism colleagues, it was a terrific night of fellowship within the industry’.
Last year Nyinkka Nyunyu won the Indigenous Tourism category of the 2011 Brolga NT Tourism Awards, now in its 25th year, at an event held in Darwin.
Now the centre on Paterson Street has another tourism accolade under its belt.
‘A large part of our success was in putting our town, Tennant Creek, on the national stage and showing that regional operators can participate along with the big guns’, said Ms Foran.
‘Tourism NT has been with us every step of the way and we have come away with a very satisfying result, to be rated third in the whole nation, and also with a clear goal to strive for in future awards’.
Winners of the Indigenous Tourism category were Coffs Coast Aboriginal Discovery, North Coast (Mid North Coast and Northern Rivers) in NSW, and the silver award winner was Mungalla Aboriginal Tours in Queensland.
Locals cornered a fun way to drive a fundraiser for Tennant Creek Little Athletics last Saturday.
More than 100 people took part in a car rally around town with 24 cars rocking up to the weighbridge on Paterson Street for a 4 pm start.
The event, which combined a car rally with a treasure hunt, raised $1200 for the Little Athletics team to attend the Little Athletics Championships in Adelaide on 23 and 24 March.
Resident Helen Flanagan, who organised the fundraiser, said it was a great afternoon with everyone entering the spirit of the rally.
Drivers were given clue sheets which the passengers would help work out, but as Helen explained, there were built-in cheat deterrents.
‘So if a team didn’t stop at a location because they knew the answer they might have missed a clue that they would have needed for later on’, she said.
Some teams ended up lost, a major feat in a town the size of Tennant Creek, but everyone crossed the finish line.
‘It was a real blast and everyone had a lot of fun as well as raise cash for the Little Athletics team to go to the championships’, she said.
First prize of $250 went to the Russell family with the second prize of $125 going to the McDonough family and the third prize of $62.50 won by Tennant Creek Primary School teachers, Miss Watson and Miss Doyle.
- There was all the luck of the Irish at a fundraiser for Tennant Creek Little Athletics team last Saturday.
The St Patrick’s Day quiz night at the Memo raised $2500, pushing the total up to $14 000 for the Little Athletics team to attend the championships in Adelaide this weekend.
Resident Wayne Green, who helped organise the event, said it was a great evening with questions covering a number of subjects connected to Ireland or the Irish.
‘Some people dressed up in green and everyone entered into the spirit of the Irish theme’, he said.
Twenty-three athletes, aged from eight to 15, will be flying to Adelaide today, assisted by family members.
I will speak first about the Girraween Primary School. The Principal is Helen Chatto; Chairperson is Phil Hausler; Vice Chairperson is Sharni Short; Treasurer is Jodie Connell; Secretary is Suzanne Modra; and the preschool rep is Bridie Schroeter. The council members are: Karen Archibald, Lisa Walmsley, Belinda Parry, Tanya McKenna, Natalie Fielder, Damon Bradley, Amanda Yow and Stuart Barker. The associate members are Linda Hausler and Michelle Barker, and the teacher reps are Robin Tidswell, Marisa Boscato and Danielle Hogan.
Howard Springs Primary School Chairperson is Jenny Culgan; Vice Chairperson is Adriana Dent; Treasurer is Sally Daw; Secretary at this time was vacant. Sometimes, when you are trying to get people on to a committee, a secretary is a hard one to get. I am sure during the year they will pick up someone to do the secretarial work. Parent reps are: Belinda Jeffrey, Ann O’Brien, Angelique Bos and Lisa MacDonnald.
The Good Shepherd Lutheran College Principal is Julian Denholm. The Principal of St Andrew’s Lutheran School is Damon Prenzler, and Business Manager is Neil Leek. The Chaplain of the Good Shepherd Lutheran College is Andrew Koehler, the Chair is Madeleine von Muralt, Vice Chair is Debra Twartz and Secretary is Karen Cheal. Board members are: Adam Haigh, Christine Smith, Colin Hill, Debbie Schapel, Helen Taylor and Simon Kahl.
I will speak about each school. Girraween Primary School is a fantastic school. It is a relatively new school, just a bit over 10 years old. However, it is now bursting at the seams, as it is popular. I believe they have 15 classes. I have said before, the government needs to look at it to ensure the school has the facilities to cope with the extra children.
They held Harmony Day recently and did it in a great way. They had a table which went nearly the full length of the basketball court, under the shade, and covered in food from different countries. I must admit, I joined in with all the kids. I thought they had run out of food, but some of the kids went back four times and there was still food on the table. I had a mixture of Mexican, Thai and Australian foods all on the one plate, which made for interesting eating. It was a unique way of promoting Harmony Day in a practical way, where kids saw food from other countries and appreciated other people had different types of food reflective of their countries.
Girraween also has a great farm which has previously won a Melaleuca Award. It recently received four goats or, more precisely, four kids. They turned up last week and they are so young some of the children have to bottle feed them. There is plenty of work for the children, ensuring these kids go beyond the stage of being kids. They were looking for names. Two are going to have a name starting with A and two will have names starting with E. I am unsure why they picked those letters. I thought Elizabeth would be a good name for one of them as it is the 60th anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. There was an opportunity to put some royalty into the goat paddock at Girraween Primary School!
They also have new crossbred Brahman calf called Poppy. She is a pretty friendly calf and seems to be attracted to the kids when they want to pat her. That farm is a great adjunct to Girraween Primary School and people should be proud of it.
Howard Springs Primary School had a working bee recently. They were getting plants ready for sale. One of their big fundraisers is selling plants. Tim West, who used to be with Greening Australia, has much to do with that. Every year they have a plant sale of top-quality plants. That is one way they are able to raise funds. On Friday night you might like to come along to the Howard Springs Primary School quiz night. I have the honourable job of being quiz master, and it should be a good night - it always is.
I also attended the Good Shepherd Lutheran College where they have installed the new Chaplain, Andrew Koehler. The whole school attended and, as well as the installation of the new Chaplain, all the new teachers who had started in the school this year were officially welcomed. That was a great ceremony. It was good to see the teachers recognised.
I should go back to school councils. Councils break into various subgroups. You have finance groups, grounds people, fundraisers and outside school care committees. Again, they are very important for the running of the school. They take some of the load off the principal, although the principals have a say in what happens on school councils. It also means more people are included in the running of these schools, which makes for a better school.
I congratulate all those people who have been elected. I did not see anyone not want to put their hand up, which is a change because, generally, committees are hard things to get numbers for. However, in this case there were quite a number of people who were willing to join their local school council.
On another matter, last Friday night I attended the Livingstone Recreation Reserve 10th anniversary. For those who do not know where the Livingstone Recreation Reserve is - I know the member for Daly does because he was there as well. Ten years ago I had the privilege of opening the bar there, which was, in my case, fairly rare as I am a genuine Diet Coke drinker - although the way Coke is at the moment I probably should be a genuine Pepsi Max drinker. It was my job to say a few words and remember what changes had occurred at Livingstone Recreation Reserve over the last 10 years.
The Livingstone Recreational Reserve has certainly gone on in leaps and bounds. If any of you want to know where it is, just go down the Stuart Highway until you get to Livingstone Road, turn off on the right, travel along about 1 km, and turn off on your left. If you go down on Friday night, the only night the kitchen is open, you will get the best T-bone or rump steak in existence. When they served the rump steak to me the other night, I thought there was no way in the world I was going to get through it. It was the most tender rump steak you will ever see, served with a nice salad and chips. You can get dessert as well, but I was full. There are plenty of cold drinks at the bar. It is a great place to sit; you can watch the Friday night Rugby there and the kids can play in the playground. It really is a nice spot. If you live in town and want to go somewhere a little different, pop down to Livingstone Recreation Reserve on a Friday night and you will get a good wholesome meal at a reasonable price - and it is well cooked.
I congratulate Gavin, and all the members of the Livingstone Recreation Reserve Management Board for all the hard work they have put in. Also, the previous boards have spent much time developing that reserve. It is a beautiful reserve. It is probably one of the biggest reserves in Litchfield, as it goes out to the railway line and down to Berry Creek. It has a conservation area, a volleyball court, a Rugby ground, a playground, a camping area, and a hall with a bar, kitchen, a place to play pool, and a place for people to relax at the end of the day. I recommend people go to the reserve and enjoy a good meal, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, on 23 February 2012, the member for Macdonnell gave this parliament her ‘personal assurance’ that she had ‘never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles’. Tonight, I ask the member for Macdonnell to justify that categorical assurance, given the following evidence which I will table at the end of my speech.
First is a memo signed by the member for Macdonnell, as CEO of the Papunya Council. The memo is on council letterhead and addressed to Mr P Vroom, the council bookkeeper, and states:
- Please be advised that on the 1st July 1994, the Toyota Land Cruiser Reg. No. 428 254 was exchanged for three cars from A. Anderson and S. Hanley. This was agreed to at a council meeting 28.06.94. The three cars were donated to Dickie Brown, Sammy Butcher and Tobias Raggett.
It is signed A Anderson and Sammy Butcher.
In essence, when she was CEO of the Papunya Council, the member for Macdonnell singed a memo transferring ownership of a vehicle to herself and her then husband, Mr Steve Hanley. This vehicle became their personal property. Furthermore, she clearly asserted that the three cars to be ‘exchanged’ for the Toyota belonged to herself and Hanley. Subsequently, in media interviews, both the member for Macdonnell and Hanley admitted they did not own the cars.
This Centralian Advocate article titled ‘Lapse of memory for MLA Anderson’ dated 24 February 2006 contains admissions made by the member for Macdonnell regarding the ownership of these three exchanged cars:
- She denied having owned the vehicle despite having signed the letter that she had.
Further quoting from the Centralian Advocate article ‘Lapse of memory for MLA Anderson’ regarding the three exchange cars she said:
- The cars had been given to loyal customers of the Papunya store.
Second, regarding the Toyota Land Cruiser 428 254, she said:
- The Land Cruiser was not bought out of any government money. It was purchased out of the property of the shop.
Skelton, on page 157 of King Brown Country, also reported:
- Council accounts show that the Toyota was acquired in 1994 for $45 000. The accounts also show that in the same year the council received a donation from the social club of $45 000.
In King Brown Country, page 59, Skelton describes:
- The store was operated by the Lyappa Social Club, which traded as the Papunya Social Club.
Although the vehicle was deleted from the council asset register in 1995, no sale was ever recorded. I will also table copies of these Papunya Council accounts.
In summary, the Toyota Land Cruiser was originally purchased by the Papunya Council for $45 000. The Papunya Store donated the funds to the social club which, in turn, donated $45 000 to the council. On the basis of a memo signed by the member for Macdonnell as CEO of the Papunya Council, the Land Cruiser was then transferred to the personal ownership of her and her then husband. According to the memo, there were also three vehicles to be exchanged for the Toyota Land Cruiser. The member for Macdonnell signed the memo asserting that they belonged to her and her husband. Subsequently, the member for Macdonnell and Hanley both acknowledged they did not own the three cars.
Therefore, the member for Macdonnell cannot assert that she traded or exchanged her property for the Toyota Land Cruiser. If those cars were her property, she could possibly argue they were of equal value and she did not receive a benefit. However, by her own admission, they were not her property.
Based on the evidence, I believe the member for Macdonnell received a massive personal benefit as a result of a motor vehicle transaction at Papunya; namely, a $45 000 Toyota Land Cruiser which, by her own admission, was paid for by the Papunya Store. Amazingly then, the member for Macdonnell came into this House on 23 February 2012 and categorically stated she had:
- … never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles.
She also claimed:
- There has been a detailed Commonwealth report into the allegations of fraud and bad management in the community. It exonerated me fully.
Not so, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Commonwealth report into the Papunya Council she alluded to covers the period from 2003 to 2005 when the member for Macdonnell was not CEO of Papunya Council. It certainly does not deal with the period in 1994, when this motor vehicle transaction took place. It could not, and does not, exonerate her. I will table a copy of the terms of reference obtained under Commonwealth FOI. Based on all the evidence, I believe her denial has little credibility whatsoever.
I call on the member for Macdonnell to either justify her statement or withdraw it. If the member for Macdonnell fails to justify her statement or withdraw it, the Leader of the Opposition has two options. First, he could defend the member for Macdonnell and explain why he believes she was justified in making a categorical denial in face of all the evidence I have presented here tonight - evidence she is well aware of. Second, he could be courageous and remove her from her shadow parliamentary secretary portfolio responsibility.
In the absence of a withdrawal or justification of her statement that she had ‘never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles’, both the member for Macdonnell and the Opposition Leader need to explain the following:
the Papunya Council memo signed by the member for Macdonnell which transferred the Toyota Land Cruiser 428 254 to her personal ownership; and
her subsequent admissions in 2006 that she never owned the three exchanged cars and that the Land Cruiser had been bought from Papunya Store funds.
The Opposition Leader often talks about parliamentary responsibility and accountability when he is trying point the finger at government. I quote from the Parliamentary Record of 14 August 2009:
- There is no commitment to the principles of parliament, no respect for the truth, no honesty for the people of the Northern Territory …
He went on to talk about a free rein to:
- … mislead parliament; no sanctions for failure to tell the truth. Honesty is a critical element of a stable government, a government that has the confidence of the community. Tell the truth.
He went on to say later:
- You cannot lead without reference to standards, and you certainly are not a leader if you fail to enforce those standards here.
Meaning here in this parliament.
Leader of the Opposition, you need to practice what you preach. You need to enforce your own standards. The member for Macdonnell’s denial ticks all the boxes required for action. How could you even contemplate making the member for Macdonnell a minister in any government you might lead? You need to assure Territorians that you never will.
In a letter to the member for Macdonnell in 2009, the Leader of the Opposition offered her a Cabinet post in a CLP government without consulting his colleagues. Is he going to stick to this offer? He needs to tell Territorians how he is going to deal with the member for Macdonnell. Is he going to do the right thing and stand her down as parliamentary secretary? If not, why not? If he cannot enforce his own standards as the Opposition Leader, why should we believe he could do it as a possible Chief Minister?
Finally, I have always been prepared to answer any questions put to me by journalists on these matters outside this House. Despite assertions to the contrary, I have not hidden behind parliamentary privilege. I am prepared to repeat outside this House what I have said inside this House on this matter. One would hope that in making any serious allegations about another member, other members would have the courage to do likewise.
I now seek leave to table the documents alluded to in my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Papunya Council memo; the Centralian Advocate article; Papunya Community Council accounts 1993-94, 1994-95, 2000-01; the extract from the Acumen Alliance inquiry into the Papunya Community Council; its terms of reference; and also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the letter written by the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, to Alison Anderson in, I believe, 2009.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, these are serious issues. The member for Macdonnell’s denials did not happen in Papunya in 1994, they did not happen in Alice Springs in 2006, they happened in this House a month ago. This is not an old issue; this is a very important issue about the integrity of this House. The Leader of the Opposition needs to act. I challenge him to act; I challenge him to show courage; I challenge him to remove the member for Macdonnell as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous Policy.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016