2011-10-26
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! … the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 3/4 of St Francis of Assisi School students accompanied by Mrs Margie Talbot, Miss Nabila Nadeem, and Miss Veronica Niland. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Housing Act to enable the establishment of public housing safety officers. It describes the circumstances when they may act and their powers in relation to dealing with antisocial behaviour in public housing.
Establishing public housing safety officers is part of a broader public housing safety strategy that will support the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services to deliver safe, secure, and healthy public housing in urban and remote communities, and sets a framework for effective management of antisocial behaviour in public housing properties by tenants and visitors, whether invited or not. I will talk more about the broader strategy at a later time.
Most incidents of antisocial behaviour associated with public housing premises involve alcohol. There are two aspects to antisocial behaviour occurring in Territory Housing properties: antisocial behaviour involving tenants and their invited guests; and antisocial behaviour from itinerants using common areas in public housing complexes and vacant properties. These two types of antisocial behaviour require different responses.
Given the wider government commitment to a safer Territory, the government …
Madam SPEAKER: Take that phone outside, member for Brennan, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Given the wider government commitment to a safer Territory, the government has approved implementation of a public housing safety strategy aimed at improving the department’s operational effectiveness within a framework that provides an enhanced response to antisocial behaviour associated with public housing dwellings and complexes, and contributes to safety across the Territory.
The amendments will provide public housing safety officers with powers to address antisocial behaviour occurring in public housing properties, regardless of who the perpetrators might be. Antisocial behaviour arising from tenants and their visitors is already within the ambit of the public housing provider and the Residential Tenancies Act. However, to date, dealing with antisocial behaviour from people who are not tenants or legitimate visitors has been more difficult. It is recognised that the behaviour of these people does have a significant impact on the ability of other tenants and neighbours to have quiet enjoyment of their property and community.
By far the most common incidents attended to by Territory Housing security patrols involve itinerants in common areas engaged in activities such as drinking, fighting, and sleeping off the effects of alcohol, to name just a few. The behaviour of itinerants in public housing remains a problem for Territory Housing. It is, therefore, important that Territory Housing develops a response to antisocial behaviour that encompasses management of tenants and their visitors, as well as this group of people. This is why I asked for the Housing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill to be drafted, and why I asked Cabinet to support me in establishing public housing safety officers.
You will recall that I released an exposure draft of the bill in May this year seeking comments and feedback on the proposed powers of public housing safety officers. We received nine formal submissions in response to the exposure draft, as well as other less formal feedback. After carefully considering all the feedback provided, I decided to remove provisions that provided public housing safety officers with the powers to arrest, detain, and frisk individuals and to, instead, leave it to Northern Territory police officers to determine if these actions are required.
Implementation of this bill and public housing safety officers will be supported by a memorandum of understanding between Territory Housing and Northern Territory police that will describe the respective roles and responsibility of each party in minimising antisocial behaviour, and maintaining safety associated with public housing sites. This draft bill provides the legislative framework to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of public housing safety officers, or PHSOs, and, along with targeted training, will ensure these officers are well equipped to carry out and exercise the powers they are provided with.
The community expects the government housing providers to actively manage disruptive and antisocial behaviour. In fact, it is fair to say that communities place higher expectations on public and social housing agencies to address these issues than they do on private landlords or, indeed, private owners. I do not shy away from taking hard action when tenants and individuals do not cease inappropriate behaviour that causes concerns for their neighbours and the community more generally.
Territory Housing has used the services of private security contractors in some locations to monitor and respond to incidents. However, the limits of power currently placed on Territory Housing’s private security contractors are having little long-term effect in changing the behaviours of some tenants, itinerants and others, and unwanted visitors to public housing sites who engage in antisocial behaviour. The latter groups usually move on when they are requested to do so by security guards; however, they often return well within 24 hours, or simply move to a different public housing complex.
The major provisions of the draft bill include:
appointment and procedures for public housing safety officers;
powers to be conferred on the public housing safety officers which include: powers to direct individuals to stop antisocial behaviour conduct or direct them to leave public housing premises; powers to instruct individuals to leave for up to 12 months in certain circumstances; powers to seize dangerous articles and liquor; and powers to issue trespass notices where required; and
Public housing safety officers will be recruited for their engagement and communication skills. They will have significant interaction with those people who have, or are perpetrating, criminal or antisocial behaviour in public housing properties. Although public housing safety officers will not be arresting or searching individuals, I believe they are well equipped to do their job.
We are working with the Northern Territory police and other experienced training providers to develop and deliver extensive training packages to these new officers. Training in resolving conflict, risk analysis, and how to identify if a person has mental health issues will be integral. Ongoing refresher training will also be a high priority. Training and procedures will be a developed to ensure the public housing safety officers are very clear about when to call for assistance from the Northern Territory police. We will also provide training and guidance on alternative situation management, and equip public housing safety officers with the skills to diffuse potentially difficult situations.
Along with powers, obligations and responsibilities conferred on public housing safety officers through the Housing Act, public housing safety officers will also be required to comply with a strict code of conduct. The code of conduct will provide an ethical framework for decisions and actions of a public housing safety officer, and explicitly state certain behaviours that are unacceptable for public housing safety officers. Alleged breaches of the code of conduct will be investigated by the Chief Executive of the department, and provisions of the code will allow the Chief Executive to suspend an officer or revoke their appointment as a public housing safety officer until the matter has been dealt with.
To go hand in hand with the new public housing safety officers, the department will also introduce a new three strikes policy. This policy will implement a new structured process for the department, as landlord, to deal with problem tenancies. Territory Housing will have a new set of procedures to be followed to rectify antisocial behaviour. This will enhance the department’s capacity as landlord to make applications to terminate tenancies. The department will be able to present more structured cases of reasons to evict when they take cases before the Commissioner of Tenancies. For tenants, it will also provide them with a clear, structured understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and, most importantly, what the ramifications are for disregarding behavioural expectations. We need to take strong action to manage the small number of tenants and visitors to public housing residences who do not want to comply with the rules and obligations associated with renting or visiting a public housing property.
This amendment bill supports the Territory government’s A Safe Territory initiative to develop safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods and communities, and reinforces crime and antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 16 August 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in consideration of walking into this House and discussing this bill today, I turn my attention to what this bill attends to achieve, what the bill is, and the explanation provided to this House by the Attorney-General.
One of the great delights I had dealing with this legislative instrument before the House today is the second reading speech was one of the best and most carefully written second reading speeches I have ever read. That, then, leaves me with a choice, and I congratulate whoever wrote the second reading speech. In fact, I know who wrote it and I place on the record my congratulations. This second reading speech should become the benchmark for what second reading speeches look like.
I say that because not only did it discuss the legislation before the House, it carefully explained the changes between what was and what is to be. It then leaves me with the choice, as I said at the outset, to deal with this response in two ways. I could spend the next 45 minutes going through the second reading speech and agreeing with the points in it or, if anyone wants to know what the Country Liberals’ opinion is on this legislative instrument, I could refer those people to the second reading speech – and that is what I will do.
The fact is uniform evidence legislation has now been around for quite some time. When I studied for my law degree, it was actually the legislation I studied. I have to confess to a certain conflict of interest here; it is the one I am more familiar with than the Territory legislation. In fact, I am on the record in this House, about two years ago, suggesting uniform evidence legislation be introduced. I could stand corrected on that, but I remember talking about it in the past. In any instance, the judicial profession - whether they be sitting on the bench but, more to the point, those people who approach the bar table - have to deal with the laws of evidence of different jurisdictions, and that profession has now become quite mobile in this country. As a consequence, having similar legislative instruments operating across jurisdictions makes sense.
We, obviously, are indicating our support for this legislative instrument. I believe if we were to stand in the way of this legislative instrument we would be rightly criticised by the profession, and we will not pull that particular roof down on our own heads.
I note there are some variant constructs in this legislative instrument different to the actual concept of uniformity. However, they are matters pertaining to vulnerable witnesses, from memory, and children giving evidence. I do not have a major problem with that; I understand why that is being done. I also have some questions. I might briefly take this into the committee stages simply to get some time lines. In fact, I will give you the heads up on what those questions are. Those questions will deal with the roll-out of this particular bill. I note there are still transitional arrangements which have to be made in relation to this. What I am seeking some advice on is how quickly government is going to introduce those legislative instruments, or the further bill which will be introduced at a later date, to repeal relevant parts of the Evidence Act as it currently operates in the Northern Territory.
I imagine for government, of course, there would be some impetus and pressure being placed upon it because, now it has commenced this process with the bill which is before us now, the legal profession in the Northern Territory would be seeking the transition as a matter of some priority. In fact, if the minister could – no, I will go into the committee stages; it will be easier that way.
Beyond that, I take some heart in the retention - and the deliberate retention - of the Anunga Rules which, curiously, I believe are meant to be the Anangu Rules, but they have become known as the Anunga Rules - Anangu being, of course, the traditional people of the Pitjantjatjara lands in Central Australia. However, they have become known as the Anunga Rules. From memory, Judge Foster’s guidelines in relation to the interviewing of witnesses in those sets of rules have become the benchmark of interviewing, particularly, but not exclusively, Aboriginal people by police in the Northern Territory. It created a series of expectations of fairness to be dealt with in obtaining confessional evidence from perpetrators who were less advantaged - for lack of better words - than the average citizen, particularly in areas of communication.
The term which is used by police is ‘first clip’ or ‘clip first’, depending on how it was done. I could be challenged by trying to remember what it all is, but it was the vehicle by which confessionary evidence was benchmarked by the Northern Territory Supreme Court and has been applied ever since. It is proper that that particular instrument remain within the ambit of evidence. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has mentioned that particular case, particularly in the clear intent, I suspect, to guide the courts should they ever turn their attention to the second reading speech, if there is an issue of doubt in the legislation itself.
As I said at the outset, my concerns are not of major substance. I just want to get a sense of the time lines the government will be bringing to the passage of this legislation. All I can say in relation to the second reading speech is, essentially, ditto, and the Country Liberals will not be standing in the way of what I consider to be good and sensible legislation.
In fact, this legislative instrument gives greater liberty to the courts to determine what is acceptable and useful evidence in those courts, and that is, necessarily, a good thing. It should be up to a court to determine to, as great a degree as possible, what happens internally. I make this observation but I am sometimes surprised the legal profession comes to the parliament as often as it does seeking legislative instruments to be passed in support of the industry. I would have thought the industry, with its critique of the parliamentary process, would have, from time to time, sought reasons to avoid parliamentary involvement in their job. However, that is for them to decide, and I am sure they, collectively, have a much better legal mind than I. So, if that is what they want, that is what they get.
However, Madam Speaker, this does create greater liberty for a court to operate. It does become part of a national framework. It makes sense for a whole bunch of good reasons. Without further ado, the Country Liberals indicate their support for the passage of this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the support of the opposition. I also acknowledge and thank the recognition that has gone into the accuracy and explanations within the second reading speech. I am sure Martin will be delighted and conversations will abound through the Department of Justice’s Legal Policy Unit. It is, obviously, an intent of government to ensure as much information as possible is provided within second reading speeches. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the work that has been brought forward in the second reading speech, accompanying the uniform evidence law we have before us.
We have been able to draw upon the experience of the other jurisdictions. I acknowledge the recognition of the opposition about this being a law that has been operating in other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, and Tasmania. I am advised we have had the benefit of a large and valuable body of jurisprudence built up over the past 16 years that the act has been in operation in other jurisdictions. The bill is not just a restatement of the common law but, we believe, an improvement in many areas of substantive evidence law. I can indicate that once this bill has passed, the Department of Justice will consult with key stakeholders to finalise the regulations.
In early 2012, I will introduce a bill that will deal with consequential matters and provide for the repeal of the Evidence (Business Records) Interim Arrangements Act and the Evidence Act. A new act called the Evidence Miscellaneous Provisions Act will include matters currently in the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act and the vulnerable witness provisions currently in the Evidence Act, along with various procedural provisions providing for communication links in court, confidential communications, and evidence on commission.
The Department of Justice will be working with key stakeholders to develop education and information packages, and will conduct seminars or workshops throughout the Territory in coming months. The courts, the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the various legal aid organisations will be fully consulted. Seminars will be run in conjunction with these stakeholders. Information about the new evidence law will also be made available on the Department of Justice’s website. With all these consultations and the introduction of the consequential bill into parliament early next year, we expect to commence this legislation in June 2012. We have created that extended time to allow for the passing of this bill, the commencement of the act in order that the practitioners and the judiciary become familiar with the new provisions, and to avoid any confusion when the act supersedes the existing evidence law.
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support. I am unsure if you still want to go into committee, given that I have answered those queries.
Mr Elferink: No.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (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 20 October 2011.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, it is a great statement the Minister for Alcohol Policy brought forward. This is an extremely significant issue for the Northern Territory. It has been a blight on every facet of the community over quite a long period of time. We enjoy the great Territory lifestyle, and part of that is the consumption of alcohol at various social functions or informal events. However, what we are talking about here is alcohol in excess, alcohol for vulnerable people, and alcohol, once used, attributes to antisocial or criminal behaviour.
The Northern Territory Labor government is very serious about this; that is why we came up with the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms. It is a very significant step in tackling alcohol and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. These reforms are quite significant and far-reaching and, once implemented, will benefit the wider community. From my portfolio responsibilities, I believe it will benefit the business community as well, because business suffers from a small group of people who misuse alcohol and cause much grief in our community, and for the business community.
The changes that businesses are required to undertake to comply with reforms are now largely complete. I look forward to the further roll-out of the scanners into parts of my electorate outside the Darwin area, to have a complete system where people with alcohol problems who have been cut off cannot access alcohol. I congratulate businesses on working through the initial transitional issues. Requirements will be quickly and effectively resolved.
Changes have now been incorporated into the ‘business as usual’ operating arrangements. When you look at the ID systems, it is a very small inconvenience. We are seeing the results now, and we look forward to further results coming forward about reducing the level of antisocial behaviour, and also the criminal activity.
I look at it from the police’s point of view, where the previous arrangements were just locking people up and putting people away; it was really not doing anything. It was, basically, the spin dry - which is what has been talked about. Putting people back out into the community after having a night’s sleep in the cells and a meal in the morning was not achieving anything long-term for these people. Putting people on the Banned Drinker Register, gives them a bit of breathing space to reduce their alcohol consumption and try to think about how they can resolve issues in their own life.
I congratulate the industry associations of businesses which have contributed to this reform. From their point of view, it is about the long term; it is about having an industry that is not susceptible to major policy changes. If the issues were allowed to continue, it would have resulted in a major policy change which would have affected businesses and the industry quite significantly. By industry coming on board with these reforms, they can see the longer-term view of cutting out these problem drinkers and allowing the responsible drinkers to continue enjoying and using alcohol.
I congratulate the liquor industry on their alcohol accords. These are voluntary accords and, from what I have seen in Katherine, they have been very successful in addressing some of the alcohol behaviour issues there.
I recognise some in the community might find the reform arrangements may require additional adjustment. In particular, tourists and visitors to the Northern Territory may not be aware and be surprised about these arrangements. I came from Katherine and go back there from time to time and, before the ID system was rolled out, I was caught a couple of times. Surprisingly, you will get people grumbling about it; however, the vast majority of visitors who see the system understand it and can see the benefit. When I was living in Katherine I spoke to the developers of the intellectual property for these devices and spoke about where they are used elsewhere in Australia. These systems are also used in nightclub strips. They have trialled them on the Gold Coast where people were scanned as they went in. Women were complimentary of the system because it protected them from being assaulted in various manners by idiots who go into these places.
Using ID to protect people’s interest is not isolated to the Northern Territory. Other governments will look to the Northern Territory to see how, for particular communities within their area, they can use this system to relatively cheaply target a group of people. The blunt instrument of alcohol restrictions does not work for the community because drinkers are keen to get around the system and, for the average person, it presents many problems.
These significant reforms will take some time to have full effect and for all the benefits to business and the wider community to be fully realised. The Northern Territory government will continue to work with business, the community, and community organisations - especially the non-government organisations - to achieve those benefits because there has to be a holistic approach. Once you get people off the grog, you have a window of opportunity to get them to access rehabilitation or work with a non-government organisation about housing and work issues to get them back on the right track. Alcohol is about self-medication and underlies what truly are some issues for people - whether it be mental health or homelessness issues, or whatever it might be. Non-government organisations do that much better than government ever does, and that is clearly recognised. We have some great non-government organisations in the Northern Territory and they go a long way to resolving problems that underlie the issues problem drinkers have.
I look forward to this system really kicking in and the police having a very valuable tool they can utilise and feel more confident that, by picking someone up, that person is on a pathway back to a better life not dominated by alcohol, violence and risky behaviour whilst intoxicated.
It is truly sad when many people come to town to chase unlimited alcohol availability. Families out bush worry. In my time as a local member, I know of particular people, one being a significant old man who would come to town - he was in his 70s or 80s - and it was a great worry for not only his family, but also for me. I have known him for quite some time. I would see him in town wandering across Cavenagh Street and it was very scary. It is about saying that excessive alcohol consumption or antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated, and we have a mechanism now to target individuals who have that problem, and offer those wraparound services for them to actually get support and get their lives back on track.
The government will be working with industry to ensure we continue on this pathway of reducing the alcohol consumption of those individuals, trying to also protect the Territory lifestyle. We have a great lifestyle here; we have to protect that for responsible drinkers as well. Hardened drinkers are very cunning. For all their faults, they are very cunning to chase alcohol. It is incumbent on us to provide some tough love in trying to protect them through these restrictions and trying to get them back on track. I know businesses are prepared to step up to the plate because, ultimately, it will be a small group of people who bring the whole system down if they do not really step up to the plate. I know they will; they have been working with the minister’s office and the department to try to come up with solutions. It will be an active and ongoing process, I am sure.
I congratulate the minister for her drive in this area, and also all the government departmental officials who have been working very strongly with this. Through my Business department, we are providing the feedback of information through our client managers who are engaging with business on a daily basis about this. There is, obviously, the odd grumble and niggle but, by and large, for what this reform has actually done, it is only very small complaints that have been coming through. We have had a 13% reduction in alcohol-related crime; we look forward to, in the future, seeing greater reductions than that. Obviously, we have seasonal volatility with people coming to town and the use of alcohol, so I guess we will see some fluctuation. However, we have a general annual decline in antisocial behaviour. What that means is it is better for our community, for those individuals concerned, and for the future of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her statement and look forward to updates about the progress of these reforms.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thought I would get up and have a go. I like nothing better than being able to highlight the government’s failures; it is one of the highlights of being an opposition MLA. It makes leaving home and travelling up here and listening to your puff piece after puff piece just a little worthwhile; to get up for 20 minutes and actually articulate what a disaster the Northern Territory Labor Party is and, indeed, what it has become.
This is another joke. It is 10.25 am and we are turning to the statements. I see we have another statement coming on today so, again, taxpayers of the Northern Territory are not getting value for money. It is just another piece put together by some whiz kid on the fifth floor to peddle the government’s message. You would think that is probably one of the most sought-after, creative writing jobs in history. Look at the in-house writer at Warner Bros or Universal writing scripts for Seinfeld, Three Men and a Baby, Two and a half Men, Friends, or Frasier - and then there is a job on the fifth floor, creative writing on the fifth floor. It would be one of the most highly sought-after creative writing gigs going around, I am sure ...
Mr Elferink: Warner Bros would be a documentary producer.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, exactly. Compared to this sort of stuff you are dead right. That is right, Warner Bros specialise in documentaries compared to the stuff that is peddled by this government and put together by the whiz kids on the fifth floor.
There are not too many who agree with your assertion that these policies have made a dramatic effect on alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory - very little indeed. Anecdotal evidence speaks volumes. I do not speak to or hear of too many people who agree that government has a grip on alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory. In fact, it is quite the opposite: you are weak, you have a soft touch when it comes to law and order, and your policies are nothing short of a disgrace. Ten years you have had; your lasting legacy will not be much to hang your hat on. You have pushed communities and businesses to the wall as a result of your failed law and order policies.
You crow that alcohol costs the Territory $642m each year and that is only because you have lost the battle. That is nothing to be proud of. It is nothing to crow about saying, all of a sudden: ‘Oh look, alcohol costs the Territory community $642m a year; it is a real problem and we need to get a grip on it’. No kidding! Hello! Yes, it is costing that much money because you have lost the battle; it is increasing. It was $590m in 2007-08 or thereabouts. Here we are in 2011-12, and we are looking at $642m. Your inaction and inability to get a grip on alcohol-related problems across the Northern Territory is costing the Territory taxpayer more and more. That enormous amount of money we are spending on alcohol-related issues is a result of the failed law and order policies of the Northern Territory government.
If this parliament gives the right for members to spew out falsehoods, it certainly gives me the right to ram them back down their throats. They come in here and peddle mischief and mistruths. They are part of a government that is obsessed with the Country Liberals. It is really quite extraordinary how your focus has gone off the Territory community, the people you are there to govern for. It really is quite extraordinary. I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like it before; someone taking their eye off the main game so dramatically. However, all the Northern Territory government members want to do is walk in here and make slurring allegations and accusations against individual members. They cannot play the issues anymore, they cannot play the policies, so they turn to playing the man; that is part of their DNA.
Nothing is too low. You can never scrape too far off the bottom of the barrel for the Northern Territory Labor Party, particularly this outfit over here. All they can do is try to line up a few members each day. They must sit up there in their office and say: ‘Okay, we will pick on Chandler. We might pick on Conlan today, or Lambley, we have not picked on her for a while. Let us make some smearing allegations against her; hopefully that might get up in the news. That will be a little story, a bit of a diversion. Phew! And we managed to survive another couple of days of parliamentary sittings. We have not done much, but the focus has not quite been on us; we put the focus squarely back on the Country Liberal opposition all over again’.
As I said in parliament in Alice Springs, you guys mentioned the opposition 301 times. You could not help yourselves. Forget about Alice Springs. You had a group of people out the front screaming for the Chief Minister’s attention. All they wanted was his ear for a couple of minutes to voice their concerns. They closed their businesses down, they turned up out the front of parliament at 9 am - or 10 am it was; they were waiting once parliament’s session began. Of course, no show, Hendo – as the Chief Minister was branded on the day by the protesters. They were not even really protesting; they just wanted to have a quiet word with the Chief Minister, the leader of the government - the leader of what they thought was their government which actually cared about Alice Springs - to voice their concerns. They branded him ‘no show Hendo’ because he did not have the intestinal fortitude to front up. That was a shameful display of this government, once again.
The Chief Minister was in here the other day going on about the Palmerston Super Clinic, pontificating and beating his chest, feigning such indignation, ‘I honour a commitment, and I believe if someone makes a commitment then it should be honoured; so I am very disappointed in Nicola Roxon and Julia Gillard for breaking that promise of the $5m towards the Palmerston Super Clinic’, as if to say he honours every commitment he makes. He was so disappointed and distressed that one of his own federal colleagues would break a promise which goes so against the grain of everything he stands for.
I would like to articulate that, not just the Chief Minister, but a large number of members opposite - including previous members such as the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin - have broken promise after promise when they promised to fix the issues relating to law and order across the Northern Territory and, in particular, Alice Springs.
If we have a look at these reports - a whole stack of more reports, once again. This was the absolute corker - and this was after the 500 to 600 protesters assembled out the front - and they were genuine protesters - in 2007 when parliament met in Alice Springs. This was the absolute corker put together by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin. She said: ‘
Lovely Hawker Britton phrase there:
Well, hello! There is a broken promise if I have ever heard one. The very first paragraph of this Moving Alice Ahead document which was put together after a series of forums - more talkfests, more gabfests, more of the same. We see it time and time again. Every time they talk about Alice Springs in here - how they really believe in Alice Springs, care about Alice Springs, and are interested in getting on top of the law and order issues in Alice Springs, because it is unacceptable; and just watch them take action - there is another broken promise. They cannot be trusted. You cannot trust this government.
The Moving Alice Ahead document is one that talked about alcohol and how they are going to take alcohol pretty seriously. Have a look at the time lines of government initiatives and interventions regarding alcohol. In 2002, we had takeaway hours reduced to 2 pm to 9 pm. We are now approaching nearly 10 years since you started introducing these types of regimes - 10 years on we have not seen much. In 2004, we had the removal of container size restrictions, the NT Alcohol Framework, and the final report – yes, another report - of the Alcohol Framework was presented. In 2005, we had Operation Sharp Edge. The Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, the then member for Nhulunbuy, introduced a ministerial statement to the Legislative Assembly which outlined the government’s approach to addressing alcohol issues in the community. That was 2005, that was six years ago when we had another ministerial statement.
Then, in 2006, the Alcohol Reference Panel met for the first time. A broader alcohol management plan was introduced, announced by the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, on 7 September 2006. There was a moratorium on new takeaway licences for 12 months. In 2007, income quarantining by the federal government commenced; town camps were declared dry; public restricted areas commenced on 1 August; beer in longnecks was banned; dry town decision, 9 May; and the Moving Alice Ahead project, as I alluded to before – the absolute corker – was announced on 18 April. In 2008, identification cards were introduced and CCTV surveillance. In 2009, the raid, NT Police – it goes on.
You have been at this for a long time now, about 10 years, and now we have introduced into the Northern Territory parliament the toughest alcohol measures in the history of the world, supposedly. Here we go, the Enough is Enough alcohol program, and that follows the Closing the Gap disadvantage; that follows the Alcohol Court reforms. I allude to the minister also – goodness me, where is he? – who talked about how successful the Alcohol Courts have been. The Alcohol Courts, minister, were disbanded and replaced with a SMART Court. Perhaps you should get a briefing from your own department.
Nevertheless, we have the Alcohol Court Discussion Paper and then we have this ministerial statement introduced on 26 October 2010. So, a whole stack of stuff trying to tackle alcohol reform. We not only have a whole stack of stuff introduced, but we have a stack of failures, and the evidence is there right before your eyes. I can show you a little more evidence. Here we go: ‘Thieves Keep Cops Busy’; ’West Side Story in Alice Springs’; ‘Slash, Dash and Bash - Unhappy Ending After a Night at the Movies’ – alcohol-related. ‘Death in Front Yard’; goodness me. ‘Run Over Like a Dog’, another wonderful headline. This is an example of the government’s toughest alcohol measures in the history of the world. ‘Forced To Bed Down at Work’ - people keep breaking in to steal grog at night; ‘$10 A Beer - Bootleg Grog Sold in Suburban Houses’; holy cow. ‘Terror on Stott Terrace’; Alice Night Patrol Fiasco’; ‘Bill Them and We Will Sue Them’; ‘Off the Hook’. This stuff is all over the place. Enough is Enough. ‘Nightmare in the Park’; ‘Sorry Business’ - it does not stop. Where does it end? When will it end?
It might end with the departure of the Northern Territory Labor government. Perhaps we can get a government that is interested in the people of the Northern Territory, not blowing its own trumpet, not picking fights and running smear campaigns about individual members because it has lost the battle. You can no longer take on the policy issues, so you have to start playing the man. ‘Let us play the man. Let us pick on so-and-so and run some sort of smear campaign across the parliament to see if we can get a news story to detract from our inaction because we can only work for about 25 minutes’.
We come here at 10 am; after prayers it is 10.05 am; at 10.25 am, all of a sudden, that is it - all legislation gone. If we look at the Notice Paper there is plenty here we could be doing. Yesterday I tried to talk about something serious and of great interest to me and the Alice Springs members: item No 3 on the Notice Paper dealing with the impending summer of crime in the wake of the government’s failure. To its credit, the government admitted it failed and dropped the ball last year and was, no doubt, dragged kicking and screaming by the police who said: ‘Well, hang on, we have to admit there were some gaps in our policies’.
There is a real fear that 2011-12 will also see another serious crime wave in Alice Springs. We have seen five businesses close in the last six or seven months. We heard the Chamber of Commerce yesterday and some local business people commenting on the news - unsolicited by us; they freely volunteered their comments - squarely targeting the government’s failed law and order policies. Confidence in places like Alice Springs and Katherine is ever diminishing because the government has dropped the ball when it comes to protecting one of the great iconic towns of Australia, Alice Springs. It is ridiculous.
This is another report. We have this one too, Harms and Costs of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory. We can have a look at – this is a beauty – all those other headlines added up to this, too. All those equal that - the worst government in the nation.
Look at sobering-up shelter admissions. Not much has changed there either. So much for getting a grip on rehabilitation and sobering up! Alice Springs has stayed about the same from 2000 to 2008 – in eight years, not much has changed. In Darwin, it has significantly dropped, and I daresay that has a fair bit to do with the lack of restrictions in the Top End. In Katherine it has increased a little, and in Tennant Creek it has pretty much stayed about the same as well. We have not seen a marked increase in sobering-up shelter admissions or closed episodes either. We are not seeing much in the rehab side of things. This government is not putting the amount of money or resourcing into rehabilitation to the extent it should be.
The Country Liberals, in 2008, introduced this policy which I know you love to bring up every now and again because it is a policy you have, essentially, adopted. However, you will not take it far enough. You really are not mandating rehabilitation and that is the key difference between us and you - we will actually mandate rehabilitation. People will be issued with a custodial sentence if they do not partake in rehabilitation. It is very simple - quite simple. Anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months will be declared an habitual drunk. An habitual drunk will be issued with a control order that keeps them off the streets and require they undergo alcohol rehabilitation treatments - simple as that, step two. Step three, breaching a control order would trigger an automatic prison sentence. So, there is a bit of a carrot and a bit of a stick.
There is nothing wrong with mandatory rehabilitation. Anything that takes people away from that situation, gets them off the grog for whatever it is - if it is a month, two months, three months, 12 months – it is a good thing. That person then has the ability to sober up for starters, and start making some conscious decisions about their life. If they lapse back into it, they lapse back into it. However, to actually arrest that problem for a short period of time has to be a good thing for anyone.
Our policy is pretty clear. I know you like to say we do not have any policies, and the member for Bungles, the member for Johnston, loves to pick a fight. However, he has a little ground to make up too, because I have his measure. I have had his measure since my first radio interview in 2001 over Virgin Airlines coming to Alice Springs. That was a wonderful little era, so I know he wants to try to exact some kind of revenge on me personally. It has been a long time coming. There is nothing he can say that really is going to offend me. In fact, I actually have made a conscious decision now to not really even bother listening to anything he has to say. I would rather go up and watch reruns of The Bold and the Beautiful in my office than actually listen to anything that comes out of his mouth.
We know he has dropped the ball, and completely lost the battle when it comes to law and order. Your alcohol policy is a joke, and you have pushed great communities and great iconic towns like Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek to the wall. They are on the ropes; they are in serious trouble. It is not just lighting fires or fanning flames up here to try to make a political point. I could not care less if I score a political point or I get my name in the newspaper - I could not care less.
The fact is people of Alice Springs are speaking loud …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: It is okay, member for Drysdale, I am happy to wrap up. People in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Darwin know all too well your law and order policies and, indeed, your alcohol policy, are failing. They go hand in hand. You cannot get a grip on law and order in the Territory unless you get a grip on alcohol consumption, and that is something we both agree on. We both agree on that, but it is how you go about it.
Madam Speaker, I highlight again this is the worst government in the nation and, potentially, the worst government in history - certainly of the Northern Territory.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, first, I commend you on such beautiful flowers that are here in the parliament this week. They are a very real reminder of the beauty that is in the Northern Territory, especially when you hear some of the debates that go on in this House. They are a real reminder that we all have to have hope about building a future that is one; that is better for all people across the Northern Territory.
The reason our government brings in policies and statements for discussion like alcohol is for one reason alone – it is the absolute scourge that impacts on our families and children across the Northern Territory. We bring it into this parliament so we, all 25 members in this Assembly, can have a mature debate and discussion about a scourge that deeply affects and troubles so many families across the Northern Territory. That is why we bring it into this Assembly. That is why we put it on the table, time and time again because, as legislators, as members for our constituencies across the Northern Territory, we are here to bring to the attention of one another policies made by government, policies supposedly made by the opposition, about how we can improve the lives for the people we are here to work for and represent in the parliament. It is an absolute shame we cannot have a mature debate about such important matters that hit at the heart of many of our issues - domestic violence, assaults, the impact on our children going to school, and the impact on people working in jobs.
To bring in constant despair on an issue that we know causes great distress is a sad indictment on this parliament and, in particular, the opposition. We, on this side of the House, are very genuine, sincere, and firm about wanting to build a future that provides opportunities for every single person in the Northern Territory. We know we have a hell of a way to go, and we have never said we are going to create a perfect system overnight - we have never said that. We, on this side of the House, recognise we have to bring it in here. We bring it into this Assembly so we can have that mature debate, discussion, and feedback, and have some constructive criticism from your side of the House. Your criticism is so destructive, so despairing, and so trashy that it is no wonder the people of the Northern Territory must be wondering: ‘What is going on with these guys?’ There is no mature debate, there is no sensitivity, sensibility, and responsibility coming from what should be a parliament that discusses things in a very mature way. If anything, all we hear is constant criticism …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … destructive criticism that compounds the absolute despair that affects our families and our children across the Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Ms McCARTHY: In fact, right across the regions; in particular, in the bush …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Ms McCARTHY: We are the ones who are tackling the very real issues such as domestic violence. We have seen enormous impacts of domestic violence in the Northern Territory where, not once, did members opposite raise that as part of any of their discussions. We know, on this side of the House, that unless we tackle these hard issues, unless we have the courage to look long-term about building a foundation that is firm and prosperous for all people, we are kidding ourselves. We know that by bringing in the mandatory reporting of domestic violence, we have said certain behaviour is intolerable. Every person deserves to feel safe. No matter where they live - in the cities, towns, remote communities, and outstations - they deserve to feel safe. Not one of you on that side of the House ever discussed or talked about that; all you wish to do is trash the Territory. All you wish to do is to destroy, destruct, and never bring in any constructive criticism - no policy whatsoever.
In Alice Springs, we have worked as a government with our Minister for Central Australia to work with the people of Central Australia in every capacity possible. In the first couple of months of this reform alone, we have seen a 19% reduction in assaults in Alice Springs. If we were to have a mature debate about this, you would think the members opposite and, in particular, the members for Central Australia, would at least say: ‘Hey guys, there is something pretty good about what you have done here’. But, no, no, it is all constant criticism. In fact, if anything they want to see more grog out on the streets. They want to sell more grog …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen!
Ms McCARTHY: … because they know it works for them. They want people to fall down before sunset by drinking more grog. That is their response. They cannot even give constructive support for something that is very real statistically. You cannot even see that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Have a mature debate, member for Araluen, have a mature debate.
Mrs Lambley interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Your debates are trashy; they bring down Central Australia. They bring down the people of Alice Springs. Not once have you come in here with very constructive commentary …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! Member for Drysdale! Member for Arafura!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, conquering substance abuse and alcoholism was a priority identified in the 2007 inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, Little Children are Sacred report; and the subsequent Northern Territory Emergency Response. The Little Children are Sacred report made it absolutely clear that we, as Territorians, with government leadership, must take on and overcome the problem of excessive alcohol consumption and the harm it causes to our communities. The report also emphasised the importance of building local leadership and maximising opportunities for Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities.
These key priorities of supporting local leadership and working in partnership are also a key feature of the submission by the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council to the Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory discussion paper. IAAC’s submission takes the form of a charter of principles, each of which should be adopted by the Australian government as it moves forward from the Northern Territory Emergency Response. The principles within IAAC’s charter link closely with the recommendations from the Little Children are Sacred report. Importantly, the charter calls for a genuine partnership approach by all levels of government with Aboriginal people that involves Aboriginal people in the design, management and decision-making; respect for local decision-making structures, tailored and appropriate responses to issues rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach; and long-term strategies for services delivery and building stronger families.
These principles, which are based on strong community engagement, also align with a report prepared for the Department of Justice by Menzies School of Health Research in June last year in relation to the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. I referred to this report last year when I spoke about our alcohol reform package. This report explains the view of Peter d’Abbs and others. I quote:
We know local community engagement is absolutely pivotal for all areas in wanting to assist people to determine the way they wish to see their areas grow. Alcohol has been a consistent scourge across the Northern Territory, in particular our remote communities dealing with the results and the outcome of that on their families.
I am pleased that alcohol management plans have been introduced into every regional centre outside of the Darwin region and, importantly, alcohol management plans are negotiated between local communities, community organisations, local governments, government agencies, licensees, and other key stakeholders. Rather than being a set of rules imposed upon a community, our alcohol management plans are tailored to be locally appropriate. In this way, the AMPs are delivering local responses to address alcohol issues specific to that community or region. We certainly have a way to go, but it is clear on this side of the House, by bringing this constantly before the House, we bring it because we are vigilant about the fact we have to continue working in this space. We are vigilant about the fact that we do not have it perfect. We are vigilant about the fact that we must keep working on this together. To not talk about it or bring it into this House would say otherwise.
As AMSANT highlighted in a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009, and related bills in February last year, the ability to tailor local alcohol solutions is important. AMSANT identified that successful alcohol management plans are ones that are driven by locals.
As the Minister for Alcohol Policy described to this House, the process of developing the Enough is Enough reform package involved important community consultation. Prior to the commencement of the reform, we undertook an extensive public consultation process with stakeholders such as AMSANT, the legal profession, police and other non-government alcohol and other drug treatment agencies, as well as the general community. Since then, AMSANT has confirmed that the new package of reforms is a good way forward. It is not the perfect solution, but it is a hell of a lot of a good way forward. That is why we bring it into this House; because we need to have it at the forefront of government policy, agencies, and all employees who travel across our regions that this is a top priority to the Northern Territory Labor government. It is certainly not a top priority to the CLP; it is a top priority to the Northern Territory Labor government.
Last year when I spoke about these reforms, I reminded members on the opposite side of the House that when we talk about problem drinkers we must be careful not to revert to the flawed stereotype that all problem drinkers are Indigenous. I highlighted then that the 2005 ABS National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey found the proportion of Indigenous adults who reported drinking at high levels, 15%, were similar to that of non-Indigenous adults, at 14%. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s national health and welfare statistics and information agency, reported in 2009 that Indigenous Australians were also more likely to abstain from alcohol compared with non-Indigenous Australians. That is 23% compared with 17%.
I refer to these statistics again to point out that, in addition to turning off the tap for problem drinkers, we also need to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. I will repeat that. The Northern Territory Labor government wants to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. We are about the holistic approach of everyone in that family. We are not about trashing the Territory and rubbishing the reforms we are trying to introduce. We know we have to keep consistently working on it. That is why I am pleased, from 1 January 2012, the Enough is Enough reform package will provide for the referral for assessment of people misusing alcohol and other drugs by family members. This is about Territorians being supported and assisted to take responsibility for the scourge of alcoholism and to participate in planning the future of their families.
We are committed to effectively dealing with alcohol abuse. We are not ashamed to bring it forward in this House, time and time again, to ensure it is a vigilant part of government policy across the Northern Territory.
Importantly, we are delivering $700 000 for community-based outreach services in major centres and our growth towns. I am also pleased there will be an Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT specialist recruited to work across the Territory to identify gaps in services in remote regions and identify where new resources for treatment will be allocated.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I highlight the important linkages in the work we are doing with the community to reduce the level of alcohol harm in the Northern Territory and the priorities identified in the national plan to reduce violence against women and children. The national plan has been developed to support all women and children experiencing violence. Important priorities under the national plan are to foster community initiatives, to reduce alcohol and substance abuse, and support community-led solutions for addressing alcohol and substance abuse.
Our government is about wanting every person in the Northern Territory to feel and be safe. We have much work to do every single day; we are not ashamed or afraid to tackle the hard issues in the Northern Territory.
As Minister for Tourism, I update the House about the work done to get the message out to visitors and tourists since the alcohol reform package commenced on 1 July this year. A total of 194 hire vehicles, caravan parks, and hostels have each received brochures which provide information about the requirement to show ID to purchase takeaway alcohol, and lists the type of ID accepted. Tourism NT and the Department of Justice are also sending out similar information to hotels, motels, and self-contained accommodation. The new package of alcohol reforms, including the introduction of a Territory-wide Banned Drinker Register and electronic ID systems, has had little impact on visitors being able to access alcohol to enjoy a drink at the end of the day.
I believe it is also important to note we have a serious problem in the Northern Territory with alcohol, and we should not be afraid to be talking about that very publicly with those people who wish to come to the Northern Territory to visit. We have a way to go, and we are working our way through that. We want a future for the Northern Territory where people can have a choice where they live free of the violence that comes from alcohol and any assaults related to alcohol.
I have been encouraged in my time as the member for Arnhem to see the good work that has been done, particularly on Groote Eylandt – the good work those communities can do when they come together to determine the way they wish to handle alcohol in their regions to decrease the violence and the social impact on their families. Our government is precisely about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know it is not about perfection, but we certainly know it is not about sitting there and doing nothing, either - which is the alternative when you listen to the CLP. The alternative for them is about trashing the Territory, rubbishing any courage to try to take a step, not even taking mature debate into the parliament to give constructive criticism - all they give is destructive criticism without any option for the future of the people of the Northern Territory. That is the alternative government over there, and they cannot come in here and have a debate about something which affects every single person across the Northern Territory. That is an absolute shame, and it is absolutely disappointing we cannot have a serious and mature debate about this issue.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy for bringing forward this important statement. I join with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, in adding my disappointment. Obviously, they are going to have one speaker from the opposition. I reiterate this is a great opportunity for all of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly representing our constituencies, to talk about the experiences in our electorates, in our shadow portfolios, our parties - what our position is, what our ideas are, what our concerns and issues are regarding alcohol policy in the Northern Territory. It is a major issue for Territorians; we hear it all the time in the media and when we are out and about in the streets talking to people, and we get plenty of e-mails and inquiries from people about the issue of alcohol.
To have one person from the opposition speak on such an important issue is a real indictment on the opposition - a real indictment on them. It is obvious they have no vision or policy when it comes to these very important matters which concern Territorians, their own constituents. This is a trend we see from the opposition. It is, obviously, a bit of a political strategy for them: ‘All right, important issues facing Territorians. We will get in and get out. We will have a go at the government, blame the government for this, blame the government for that, but we will not actually have any real ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I understand the minister is involved in misleading Territorians. We have had numerous speakers on this statement, and it is up to him to tell the truth ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, he should tell the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order ...
Mr ELFERINK: You guys have a problem with the truth …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: .. and your problem with the truth is you cannot handle the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! Resume your seat!
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister was referring to the one speaker this morning.
Mr Elferink: Oh, no he was not! Oh, rubbish! You are just making this up …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat! You do not have the call, and there is no point of order. Minister, you do have the call.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Port Darwin gets very touchy and feely about it, then he walks out because he knows there is no - they know there is no policy on this ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You cannot make a reference to the presence or otherwise of members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr HAMPTON: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Turning the focus to this government’s proactive reforms in alcohol policy, I again congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Policy on the huge amount of work she has done. It is a tough issue. We are not always going to get it right. As a Cabinet and Caucus, it is an issue we always talk about. On our side of the House we share ideas, the issues, and concerns, and we have our own debates and our own ideas to put in to policy. That is what a really good government is all about; sharing those experiences amongst the Caucus members. We represent a diverse range of constituents in the Territory - from the bush, from regional areas, right through to Alice Springs and Darwin, across the Territory.
This policy does not just happen by mistake or by coincidence; much work has gone into this policy. I thank the minister, her office, and my Caucus colleagues, for the huge amount of work we have put into this. As I said, we do not always get it right, but we are in there, we are having a go, and we did much work in getting this policy ready and getting it out there. Much work has gone on. I congratulate many people in the departments across all those areas of government. It is a whole-of-government approach to tackling the problem of alcohol issues in the Territory. I thank those public servants, people from the non-government organisations, and community-based organisations who are the frontline soldiers, in many regards, in dealing with the issues we see on the streets with those people who have a problem and a sickness with alcohol. Those people deserve a pat on the back; much work goes into it. I really am proud to be part of a team that does much work on important issues for Territorians.
Central Australia is an issue that is on the opposition’s business day and I welcome it. It is motion No 3 on their notices, so again I welcome the opportunity to debate with the opposition about these issues. As I said, we do not have all the answers, or solutions. As my colleague, the member for Arnhem said, it is about a mature debate in this Chamber. It is what our constituents expect of us; not to come in here, beat our chest, walk out, and get a few slaps on the back. It is about a mature debate; about presenting ideas, issues, and challenges on the floor of parliament. If the opposition has some good ideas, no doubt, government will listen. Government will try to capture some of those ideas the opposition might have. Mature debate in this Chamber is what we are elected to do.
I welcome any debate on Central Australia and what I am trying to do as the minister, as someone who is passionate about Alice Springs, who was born there, has grown up there, and who will live there long after my political career is finished. I have a real interest in what goes on in Alice Springs. I say to people listening to the broadcast that this government does take the issues in Alice Springs very seriously. We hear from the opposition about the spin, that government does not care; the Berrimah line. I can say to people listening to this broadcast that Central Australia is an issue that always comes up in Cabinet and Caucus. My colleagues on this side of the House visit Alice Springs regularly. Both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister visit and the minister for Business gets down there and talks to local businesses, so we are aware of the challenges. We genuinely care and want to assist the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia. For the opposition to say we do not care is just not true - just not true - and the people of Alice Springs can see that.
I welcome any debate on Alice Springs. Alcohol policy is a significant issue for us in Alice Springs. This government’s Enough is Enough strategy and the Banned Drinker Register are the things that are making a difference concerning working with local police and the issues we faced over the last summer. It was a difficult time for people in Alice Springs; there is no doubt about it. We have not walked away and denied it was not a challenging time. It, is times like that you need leadership. This government has been able to show some leadership, working with the community, community groups, the police, and non-government organisations.
There were a number of meetings we held earlier in the year and the Chief Minister came to some of those meetings. I do not want to go back on to issues about Action for Alice, and some of the campaigns that went on. As I said, I sympathise with businesses that did it hard. At times like that, how do you respond to those issues? What is real leadership? Real leadership was about getting amongst the community, the business community, and the Aboriginal community in Alice Springs. Credit to our Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan, who showed real leadership as well in tackling these issues. That is real leadership. That is why people vote for you to be a member of parliament. When times get tough, I believe people look at what you do and how you react. People can read your genuineness in how you are trying to tackle some of these difficult issues such as alcohol policy and alcohol, particularly in Alice Springs. It was a tough time. Government showed leadership; we worked with the community and our mayor in Alice Springs to tackle the huge problems we had. A very important part of this statement focused on leadership.
In Alice Springs, it was a matter of having to meet with many of these different stakeholder groups. We had various meetings. We engaged some people to put together a report for government and, more importantly, for the community of Alice Springs. There were a number of forums held in particular areas the community identified through these meetings. The result was the Community Action Plan Committee, co-chaired by Catherine Liddle and Damien Ryan. It has to be a community response, as well as a government response, to issues such as antisocial behaviour, which is, most of the time, fuelled by alcohol. I am very confident in that community action group and the leadership of Damien Ryan and Catherine Liddle. They are outstanding Central Australians. We in government, on this side of the House, will certainly work with those people and leaders to find solutions.
Regarding the police, I meet with police on a regular basis, and I thank the minister for Police for that. I work very closely with local police. I inform the House and those people listening to the parliamentary debate this morning that we have already seen encouraging results from Operation Thresher, which police ran as a planning phase for what will be a major 60-day operation over the summer holidays. We know what we went through last summer, and the police are on top of it this time round. I inform the House that in the first two weeks of Operation Thresher, police took more than 200 people into protective custody, tipped out 591 L of alcohol, and issued 18 banning notices.
I will quote directly from Superintendent Michael Murphy from Alice Springs:
We know what the opposition spokesman for Alcohol Policy said: there are no links between community violence and alcohol consumption; they are negligible. Here we have Superintendent Michael Murphy directly linking alcohol to antisocial behaviour. I go on with the quote from Superintendent Michael Murphy:
We say it often on this side of the House about the opposition: they are not serious about tackling crime because they refuse to tackle alcohol. It is as simple as that.
I certainly have faith in our police force - particularly those hard-working officers in Alice Springs - and the support services and programs we have put in place to ensure we have a pleasant summer in Alice Springs. We cannot do anything about the weather; it is going to be hot. However, to say Alice Springs is going to be a crime hot spot is just the opposition again trying to use our town for political gain. I am the only government member in Alice Springs and there are four opposition members who live in Alice Springs. I urge those members opposite who live in Alice Springs to be very careful about how they deal with the issues, to show leadership, and not get caught up in the politics of it. I am happy to work with those members; we all live in the town and I am sure we are all passionate about Alice. I would welcome the opportunity to work with opposition members who live in Alice Springs and who have a very strong constituency. Let us work together; let us not go through this again. The reputation of Alice Springs has suffered - there is no doubt about it. Let us not go through it again; let us work together. I am happy to work with you in a bipartisan way for the sake of, and a better future for, Alice Springs.
Regarding the community action plan, I welcome and thank Damien Ryan, our mayor, and Catherine Liddle. We have confidence in their leadership and ability to drive and develop the implementation of the plan. They have had a series of consultations - people have shared information about what is going on - and they have developed potential action for the short, medium and long term.
I thank other members including: Brad Bellette, Neil Ross, Liz Martin, Harold Furber, Jenny Nixon, Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government, and Mark Coffey from the Australian government. That group of people is very representative of Alice Springs. I urge people on both sides, particularly the opposition, to respect and work with those people on the committee, and let us focus on better outcomes for Alice Springs in general.
In relation to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, it is a really good example of governments working together at all levels, working with communities and people from the town camps, as well as organisations. I thank many of those organisations involved: people who are part of the joint steering committee; Lhere Artepe, the native title organisation in Alice Springs; Tangentyere Council; the Alice Springs Town Council; and both levels of government, particularly Mark Coffey from the Australian government.
Things such as the Alice Springs Transformation Plan are making a difference. We have seen huge investment by the Commonwealth government into Alice Springs of $150m. I know it is not always about money, but if you look at what that money can do - $50m into social support services for town campers and for Alice Springs people in general. One of those support services is the Safe and Sober program, which has more than 370 people currently receiving intensive support. That is 370 people receiving support that otherwise may not be receiving that support if it was not for the Australian government’s huge investment into town camp people. We cannot underestimate those types of programs.
We should acknowledge the good work being done. Many of the local leaders who are part of those programs from the non-government organisations such as Congress do a fantastic job. They are the frontline soldiers who have to deal with these issues every day.
I also thank the licensees who are playing a strong leadership role by promoting the responsible service of alcohol and high standards of behaviour in and around licensed premises. In 2009, several licensees formed the Alice Springs Licensees Alcohol Accord which now has more than 20 members. A similar organisation has been formed in Tennant Creek, of which I am sure my colleague, the member for Barkly, is aware. The alcohol accords are enforcing common barring, so if you are barred from one of the accord’s members’ premises you are banned from them all. The licensees call them the seven sins and offences that could incur a barring and they include: drinking underage on a licensed premise, assault, and drink spiking. I commend the members of the Alice Springs alcohol license accord who have recognised the harm excessive consumption of alcohol can have in a community and are taking a strong proactive step in tackling it.
I turn to one of my favourite portfolios, Sport and Recreation. It is great being known as the minister for fun with that portfolio. However, it is really important in relation to the statement we have before us. Getting our kids active, getting adults active and participating in sport at the grassroots level is important to deal with the issue of alcohol abuse. Through my involvement in football for a long time in Alice Springs and Central Australia, having played for the Pioneer Footy Club and the Yuendumu Footy Club, my experience is - and I have read about this - when you see young fellows who seem to drop off, not turn up to training - or sometimes they turn up to training and they do not turn up for a game which is something I would never dream of doing - once they stop participating in footy, there are a few issues. Once they stop turning up for a game then sometimes it is the worst thing you think of. Those guys have drifted off and maybe they are involved in excessive drinking.
We need to continue to promote healthy life through sport. Promoting healthy life through sport, through things such as football, can be part of the solution to the issues and the scourge of alcohol abuse in the Territory. I really value sport and recreation; I find it important we get more sport active recreation happening in our remote communities. As I said, it is part of the solution.
We need to also commend many organisations and sporting groups which do a fantastic job. There were issues last year with the AFLNT and the sale of alcohol at their games. They responded strongly with their own alcohol policy for AFLNT games, and I think they are reaping the rewards of a tough decision they had to make. From what I have seen, crowd numbers have increased and the sales through the cafeteria at AFLNT games has increased. They link that, to a large part, of their strong stance on alcohol sales at AFLNT games. I commend the AFLNT, Tony Frawley and the crew there, who have done a fantastic job …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and my colleagues for the extension.
I congratulate AFLNT, Tony Frawley, and the crew at TIO - well done on a hard decision; you are reaping the rewards. As I said, the AFLNT has reported that revenue from alcohol sales has reduced by about 25% since the introduction of the plan. However, to counter that reduction, attendance figures are up, kiosk sales are up, which the AFLNT believes is a direct result of their alcohol management plan.
I also acknowledge the AFLNT in Katherine. Denis Coburn has been a great worker there for many years. They rely heavily on volunteers. They now have a team in the NTFL Under 18 competition, the Hawks - I think they are in their second year. I am certainly proud to be a sponsor of the Katherine Hawks or the Big River Hawks. They also took that stand quite some time ago - a strong stance on alcohol sales at their AFLNT games in Katherine. Talking to those people in Katherine, it has been the right move for them. Junior numbers are just going through the roof. They incorporate many of the remote communities around there: Barunga, Beswick, right down to Ngukurr, Kalkarindji and Lajamanu. It is really important when those people are coming into Katherine there is a real culture of behaviour, of going to the footy, and responsible drinking.
Also in Alice Springs, the AFL Central Australia took a stand on this many years ago as well. They are reaping the rewards in crowd numbers and sales. I congratulate those people in those organisations who made a strong stand some time ago.
The Arafura Games is an alcohol-free event. We know how popular the Arafura Games events are. In sport and recreation, it is vitally important as part of the solution in prevention and getting people busy, active, and involved in sport. It is one I will continue on, and I know I have the support of my colleagues on this side of the House. This government has done an enormous amount of work in sport and recreation in its budget, and in getting participation levels up at the grassroots level across the Territory. Getting really good facilities out in the bush is important to engage those young people, and that is something this government can be very proud of concerning sport and recreation and getting young people involved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to this alcohol policy statement, and I again congratulate the minister on the great work she is doing.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the Alcohol Policy Minister’s statement today. I do so primarily as Police minister because we all know alcohol is the Territory’s biggest social problem. I am acutely aware that with policing in the Northern Territory, it is the single biggest issue that affects our police day in, day out, across the Northern Territory with picking up the pieces of people’s lives, the assaults, the abuse, and the antisocial behaviour that is caused by alcohol. I pay tribute to every single officer in our police force who works so diligently, day after day after day, dealing with the consequences of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory; they do an amazing job. As well as impacting on police, the impact of alcohol abuse destroys families, and significantly affects communities and the Territory in general. It has been fuelling antisocial behaviour and crime for decades.
What we have with the alcohol policy, the Enough is Enough reforms we are implementing as a government, is the most strategic, comprehensive assault on alcohol abuse the Territory has ever seen. The reforms are unique to the Northern Territory. This is not policy that has been copied from somewhere else; we took a bold leap into unknown waters with the policy course we are charting to deal with the tragedy of alcohol abuse here in the Northern Territory. Slowly, we can see that already we are reaping some rewards.
This is an important policy debate in this parliament because, as we have said, we all know that so much of the crime and antisocial behaviour is alcohol-related, and it is important we debate this topic and the various approaches to dealing with it.
Apart from a couple of minor contributions, there has been very little contribution from members opposite in this debate, which is somewhat surprising. Maybe it is not a surprise, given the member for Sanderson, a former police officer, is on the record as saying there is no link between alcohol and crime. I do not know what his current thoughts are on that, but all thinking Territorians know that is a laughable proposition. More than 70% of the Territory’s prison population offended whilst under the influence of alcohol.
Unless we deal with alcohol, we are going to be dealing with a significant incarceration problem in the Territory. We also know alcohol causes 60% of all violent crime. Those are ABS statistics. When 70% of the prison population is in prison because of offences committed whilst under the influence of alcohol and 60% of all violent crime is alcohol-related, how the member for Sanderson, a former police officer, can deride the link between alcohol and crime and say there is a negligible link is just patently ridiculous.
It is also costing us in dollar terms - some $670m a year - cleaning up the problem. This policy debate is an opportunity to debate policy in the Northern Territory. In this policy debate, we have no alternate policy from what the opposition put forward. What we did have - I heard a couple of minutes of it before I turned it off upstairs - was a rant from the member for Greatorex about this issue - nothing but a rant, no solutions, just a series of outrageous statements that bear no relevance to the debate and certainly no solutions going forward. The member for Greatorex has said this in the House a number of times now. He has come here and, basically, said he does not want to be here and he would rather be back home watching The Bold and the Beautiful. He has said on a number of occasions that he wonders why he bothers attending parliament at all. Well, I say to the member for Greatorex: save the CLP Central Australia pre-selection panel the problem. Save them from the problem of disendorsing you, because you are such a hopeless local member; you are invisible in Alice Springs in serving the needs of your electorate ...
Mr Styles: Not true, and you know it.
Mr HENDERSON: Because the opposition leak so assiduously and continuously to us on this side, given the divisions on policy and leadership they have, we know the member for Greatorex is unlikely to be pre-selected for the CLP at the next election. Therefore, save them the problem. You do not like coming here, you hate parliament, you hate debating in parliament. Well, save them the problem – resign and go back to watching The Bold and the Beautiful, or whatever it is you would rather be doing ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Before the Chief Minister continues to be dishonest, the member for Greatorex has been pre-selected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, thank you. Chief Minister …
Mr Elferink: He is just not an honest person. Every time your lips move and anybody else’s lips move …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr Elferink: You are not telling the truth! That is twice today.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning! You are on a warning, member for Port Darwin.
Mr HENDERSON: Dear, oh dear, they wind up pretty easily, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going off the comments that he hates coming to Darwin. He hates Darwin - hates Darwin with a passion, hates coming to Darwin, hates coming into parliament, would rather be back home watching The Bold and the Beautiful.
Well, if the CLP Central Council has reindorsed him, I have to ask why, given his appalling level of contribution to this parliament, his appalling attitude and the contempt he has for parliament and debate in parliament, and for the Speaker of this parliament. Given his record of being thrown out of this parliament for outrageous behaviour, I would have thought the CLP Central Council could have found someone better to represent the good people of Greatorex than the person who masquerades as a member of parliament in this place. He hates being here, he hates Darwin, he hates debate in this House; he has nothing to offer apart from insults and invective, his head has never been violated by an original thought, and he would rather be home watching The Bold and the Beautiful. Well, if that is the type of person the CLP wants to pre-select, I suppose that is an issue for them.
As a government we acknowledge, on behalf of the people of the Territory, that this is a very significant problem which needs a very significant policy response, and that is what we are implementing across the Territory ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, could I just interrupt you momentarily to welcome our visitors?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 2/3 Holy Family Catholic Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Rachael Joyce, Mrs Bernie Kenwrick, Mr Andrew Shaw, and Mrs Liz Kruger. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Hear, hear! It is great to see students in the parliament.
The truth is, if you are not tackling alcohol, you are not tackling crime, and that is what we are doing.
The Banned Drinker Register came into effect in July this year. It certainly has exceeded my expectations in the number of people, in three short months, who are on the Banned Drinker Register across the Northern Territory. Cutting people who abuse alcohol off from alcohol is part of dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. We have had senior police - two Assistant Commissioners - make very public comments over the past couple of weeks saying these new laws are the best tools they have to combat crime. They have also said for the sake of the Northern Territory these laws must be retained. That is from police. We have four serving ex-police officers on opposition benches; I hope they are listening to their former colleagues regarding the police support for these laws.
In the three months since the register began, more than 1500 people have been banned from drinking - 1500 people who committed alcohol-related offences or who were picked up and taken into protective custody three times in three months. That is an extraordinary number. Once again, I commend our police across the Northern Territory for embracing this new tool - this best tool they have - the way they have to get problem drinkers off tap.
Already, about 170 people are on the Banned Drinker Register for assault, and another 290 for high-range or repeat DUI offences. There were 1075 BAT notices issued to the end of September, and these notices have meant 760 people are on three-month bans for a first notice, 150 people are on six-month bans for a second notice, and 165 people are on 12-month bans for a third notice. This final group of 165 are largely people taken into protective custody three times since 1 July.
That outcome is very significant: 170 people who have been charged with assault are on the Banned Drinker Register. They, obviously, cannot control their alcohol intake, and they become violent when affected by alcohol. That is 170 people who are on the register pending their court appearance and not able to access alcohol.
There is another 290 for high-range or repeat DUI offences. We all know one of the great killers on our roads is people who drink and drive. That is 290 people who now are banned from accessing alcohol as a result of high-range or repeat DUI offences. Over time, this has to reduce our road toll because all of the evidence shows people who repeatedly drink-drive do so over and over and over again. Banning them from accessing alcohol has to mean those people are not on the roads severely affected by alcohol, potentially being a lethal force to kill themselves and other people.
In relation to people being taken into protective custody, I have said time and again if it was somebody in my family who was so destitute they were being taken into protective custody repeatedly - these are people with a chronic problem with alcohol or are choosing a lifestyle that is going to lead them to a chronic problem with alcohol. We now have a significant number - 760 people on a three-month ban for a first notice, 150 people on a six-month ban for a second notice, and 165 on a 12-month ban for a third notice – who are banned from accessing grog. They have an opportunity to wake up sober and look at themselves, figuratively, in the mirror and make the decision that they need to change their lifestyle rather than going through a revolving cycle of grog and protective custody.
It is early days, but there are promising signs. Preliminary data shows alcohol-related assaults have dropped 15% across the Territory in the first quarter. In Darwin and Palmerston, the effect has been even greater with alcohol-related assaults down 20% in Darwin and 23% in Palmerston. If you are looking at evidence-based policy it is early days; however, given these results are consistent across the Territory over that quarter it does not seem to indicate these are aberrant statistics. The only thing that has changed in that quarter is the Banned Drinker Register and the new reforms.
The fact that we have around a consistent 20% decrease in alcohol-related assaults across the Territory means they are starting to bite. In the stark light of 1500 people banned or on the register, senior police officers making public comments these are the best tools they have and they do not want the laws to be scrapped, and the statistics to show there is a 20% reduction in alcohol-related assaults across the Northern Territory, what do we have as opposition policy? Scrap the laws.
For the life of me I cannot contemplate why the opposition would want to scrap these laws in light of the figures I have spoke about if we are serious in this parliament in reducing alcohol-related harm. So much of the debate in this parliament revolves around alcohol-related harm. Whether it is kids not attending school, crime, needing to build a new prison, the impacts on our health system, or the impacts on our Corrections system, everything we debate in here regarding the problems of the Northern Territory has its roots in the problems with alcohol. Yet, the opposition is saying: ‘No, no, we would scrap these laws. We would do away with the Banned Drinker Register. We would ignore advice and recommendations from police’. What would they put in its place? Well, we have not seen anything.
The ludicrous proposition that you would, somehow, lock up 1500 people and put them in to some therapeutic program to get them off the grog is (1) insane, (2) unaffordable, and (3) would probably see us in the High Court with legal challenges of recriminalising drunkenness. The proposals, as scant, unfunded and unformed as they are, just do not fly. The opposition wants to cling on: ‘We are going to scrap this register’. Well, they need to do better than that if they are going to be taken seriously.
As the Police minister, I am not going to strip police of the best tool they have to combat crime - I am just not going to do it. We have strong support from our police. I can honestly say I have a pretty good relationship with police officers across the Northern Territory. It is a relationship that has been born of me being a minister for many years, my family connections with police, and the fact that I have visited virtually most of the police stations throughout the Territory during my time in parliament. I speak to police on a daily basis when I am out and about. Even as Joe Citizen, if I see police officers on duty I always go up and say g’day to them and ask how they are doing and have a bit of a chat. Every police officer I have spoken to since 1 July says these tools are fantastic and are making a difference. That is the response or comments from senior police officers …
Mr Mills: And they are not working.
Mr HENDERSON: The rabble that masquerade as an opposition have no policies - they are divided on the leadership, they are divided on policies, they have no coherent policies, they have decided as a political strategy they are not going to contribute to debate in this House on policy because they have nothing to offer because they cannot get agreement amongst themselves.
We will continue to do the hard yards in taking the tough decisions that, hopefully, are making a difference across the Territory, leading to women being safer from perpetrators of alcohol-induced domestic violence, making our roads safer from the terrors of repeat and high-range drink-drivers, and making our streets and communities safer as a result of dealing with the tragedy of people who get caught in a cycle of never-ending alcohol abuse and protective custody. That is what I am interested in doing as the Chief Minister: making this Territory a better place for Territorians, a safer places for Territorians, a safer place for women, a better place for kids, a safer place on our roads, and better communities in reducing antisocial behaviour. That is why I put up my hand for public life. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the opposition will not give this thing a go and say it is a good thing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call for questions, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the members for Stuart and Brennan for the period 6 pm to 7 pm tonight.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms – Report on the First Three Months
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there has been an agreement with the opposition that we would adjourn the statement and move to the Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you just adjourn it then, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Agreement? I copped an e-mail on the e-mail system a couple of seconds ago; that is hardly an agreement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call. Minister, are you wishing to adjourn the debate?
Dr BURNS: That is what I was advised …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, are you going to adjourn the debate?
Debate adjourned.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the final report of the Council of Territory Cooperation’s Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee dated 26 October 2011.
The Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee’s final report details the subcommittee’s findings on the Territory’s animal welfare governance, associated processes and systems, including investigations into animal welfare concerns at Mataranka Station. The subcommittee’s terms of reference were specific to understanding how the Territory’s animal welfare governance framework works, and if the associated processes and systems are effective. The context for the inquiry was the Ombudsman’s investigation and report following the raising of animal welfare concerns at Charles Darwin University’s livestock training facility, Mataranka Station. The subcommittee included inquiring into what unfolded at Mataranka Station, and the university and government’s management of it, as an example of processes and systems in action.
The subcommittee determined to seek answers to three key questions through its inquiry. The first was to ask: is the legislation for animal welfare relevant, contemporary, and best practice? Seeking answers to this question helped the subcommittee to understand what was good and working about existing legislation, but also about what needed to be improved.
The second question asked if the Territory has the right framework for animal welfare legislative governance. In answering this question, the subcommittee heard from witnesses about current governance processes in government and the Territory’s only Animal Ethics Committee, and about associated monitoring systems.
The third question was to understand the failures in government, Charles Darwin University and its Animal Ethics Committee, and in systems and processes associated with animal welfare concerns at Mataranka Station in 2009.
In its report, the subcommittee detailed its findings and made 21 recommendations. All members of the subcommittee wanted to ensure that lessons were learnt from what went wrong at Mataranka Station so we would, hopefully, never see a recurrence of an event like this. The subcommittee found that systems and processes failed at all levels at Mataranka Station, the university, and within government agencies.
Recommendations have been made to address each of the identified failures and to improve the Territory’s animal welfare legislative framework and the systems in place to give the legislation effect. Four recommendations have been made to address the lack of governance surrounding companion and animal management and control, particularly in our remote communities.
I do not intend to go into too much detail about the report. It is there for people to read and for government to respond to. However, I draw attention to one particular recommendation at this point. The subcommittee wants to ensure animal welfare legislation and processes are improved and recommended the subcommittee reconvene in six months time to scrutinise progress in addressing the recommendations of this report. I want to spend a little time now to discuss three issues raised during the inquiry which form the overarching reasons for dissatisfaction with existing animal welfare governance identified during the inquiry.
The subcommittee found the existing animal welfare legislation inadequate for the purposes it was created. The objectives of the Animal Welfare Act are to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to prevent cruelty. Expert opinion from earlier reviews and to the subcommittee indicates that it currently does neither very well. The expert legal opinion sought by the subcommittee, and included as an attachment to the report, makes a number of important points about existing legislation. Two of these are to discuss the impact of the legislation remaining largely unamended since being commenced in the year 2000.
While the legislation may have been adequate by standards some 10 years, the legislation is dated and has not been regularly amended, which is one way legislation can reflect change in community priorities and expectations and, therefore, keep it contemporary. To put it simply, the Territory’s legislation has not kept up to date with changing community standards which now demand a higher standard of animal care, increased public interest in monitoring, and widespread expectation of enforcement of legislated requirements.
The subcommittee heard of two reviews of the Animal Welfare Act: one by an external consultancy in 2007, and one by government late in 2009. The subcommittee understands the department with responsibility for animal welfare, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, is waiting for the subcommittee’s report before making recommendations on changes to the act. The subcommittee has made 10 recommendations to improve the act, as well as endorsing the recommendations and findings of earlier reviews and expert opinion.
The second issue I want to talk about is the need for companion animal management and control to become an integral part of animal welfare governance in the Territory, particularly covering the issues in remote communities and towns. This issue was something else the subcommittee sought independent advice on. While the Territory’s former Coordinator-General highlighted the issue of dog control in his last report, the issue has not been recently examined in any detail.
One of the submissions to the subcommittee makes the point that unacceptable standards of animal welfare directly affects community members, with many community dogs carrying diseases that are passed on to people. The submission further described the impact of dog diseases on humans, and how poorly nourished hungry dogs can and do affect community safety.
Because the Territory does not have centralised regulation of animal management, the administration and enforcement of animal management is dependent on local government bodies and their capacity to introduce, administer, and enforce by-laws. I acknowledge the municipal councils with by-laws in place and the work the shires are undertaking to introduce some level of companion animal management and control.
One of the problems of not having an effective animal management and control legislative framework is that animal management issues all too often become animal welfare concerns. The subcommittee was told complaints from remote communities about animal welfare cannot be expected while there is limited education and, therefore, knowledge of requirements of responsible animal ownership. The subcommittee believes there is a need for the government to take the lead on this and address the significant issues surrounding animal welfare, management and control, particularly in the Territory’s remote Indigenous communities.
The subcommittee has made four recommendations to assist in this, two of which seek to address the legislative gaps. The subcommittee has recommended the government addresses the linkages between the Animal Welfare Act and local government’s responsibilities for companion animal management and control. In addition, the subcommittee recommends the Territory and local governments look at the desirability of introducing separate legislation for companion animal management and control.
I turn to the third issue I wanted to draw to members’ attention. One of the consistent themes throughout the inquiry was the undeniable need for better resourcing of animal welfare. Submissions, witnesses and expert opinion all said it. Legislation cannot be fully effective without sufficient resources, clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and a culture of responsible enforcement. The subcommittee heard of the considerable additional resourcing provided to the Animal Welfare Branch since the Ombudsman’s investigation and report last year. Although this level of resourcing needs to continue, it is only part of the solution to raising the standard of animal welfare, not just in towns but across the Territory.
I quote from one of the submissions to the subcommittee which expresses the point well:
The Animal Welfare Branch described the improvements made with additional resourcing. The subcommittee calls for improvement in all facets of animal welfare governance which includes companion animal management and control.
I thank my fellow subcommittee members, the members for Arafura, Nelson, Goyder and Port Darwin for their time which, between public hearings and deliberative meetings, was considerable. I also acknowledge the members’ enthusiasm and considerable effort throughout this inquiry. All members contributed to preparing and supporting the report, and all commend the report’s recommendations.
I also place on the record my appreciation for all the work of our secretariat staff who have worked with the subcommittee since May. I thank Ms Helen Campbell, our secretary; Ms Jan Whitehead, our principal research officer; Ms Alison Stirrup, research officer; and her predecessor, Mr Simon Flavell; administrative assistant, Ms Amanda O’Donnell; and her predecessor, Ms Robyn Appleby.
Secretariat staff carried a considerable workload in sourcing, collating, sequencing and cross-referencing a small mountain of documents, as well as background researching and the constant logistical challenge of scheduling meetings and public hearings, synchronising the schedules of members and witnesses who were providing evidence. Most of the secretariat did all of this while continuing to work on other CTC matters in addition to the subcommittee’s inquiry. For this, and on behalf of the subcommittee, we are most grateful to have had the support of such diligent and dedicated staff.
Madam Speaker, I thank the many witnesses who appeared at hearings, provided submissions, or in other ways provided information to the subcommittee. The comprehensiveness of the final report could not have been achieved without your valuable input.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the member for Nhulunbuy and thank her for the role as the chair. I acknowledge the meetings got a little difficult from time to time, but the issues were, nevertheless, resolved. As a consequence, I am pleased to report the Country Liberals will not be submitting a dissenting report in relation to this matter because the report itself contains the criticisms I would have expected a report of this nature to contain.
However, I remind honourable members, in the briefest possible terms, the history of this particular series of events. We had all tracked, through the newspapers and the reports by the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, the awful events which led to the death of an unknown number of cattle on the Mataranka Station. I do not want to get into the numbers debate necessarily. Some people have suggested - such as Toby Gorringe, who was part of the cattle station staff - in evidence that the number of dead cattle as a result of neglect was well over 1000. I note the Auditor-General rated the number substantially lower, in the order of about 125, and the Ombudsman used a figure, on page 69 of her report from memory, of about 800. Much of that matter of the actual numbers of cattle relate to the birth rates of cows, and presumptions built into that. Because the record keeping of the cattle station was so poor, the best I suspect we will ever get is educated guesses, rather than an actual number.
I cannot, with any confidence, assert how many cattle died. What I do know is if the cattle were not dying in such large numbers, it is because the condition of the heifers was so poor they were not capable of throwing out or giving birth to as many calves as they normally would. So, in any instance, the cows were either calving and in poor condition, and many died, or the circumstances were so poor they were not calving, which leads to a lower death rate but, then, reflects just as badly on the animal management that was offered to them.
The cattle station itself was, in truth, in a state of crisis in the relationships between staff. Those poor relationships led to breakdowns in communication between numerous staff, for better or for worse. Some culpability must, ultimately, lie on the cattle station’s manager’s shoulders. However, having said that, that culpability is not his and his alone. It is clear this cattle station was the property - and the cattle on it - of Charles Darwin University through the Katherine Rural College Campus. There was an up-line at the Katherine Rural College. That up-line, as I understand it, has now moved on. It was clear that up-line was either ignorant, chose to be ignorant, or chose to ignore the issues that were occurring on the cattle station itself. The management practices of Charles Darwin University and, to a lesser degree, the Animal Ethics Committee of the university, meant the systems were simply not in place to look after the asset and to ensure the asset was being properly looked after - a sad reflection on the university.
Having made that observation, the university has acknowledged its shortcomings as a manager of the cattle station and has implemented substantial change both in its management practices, as well as poured a substantial amount of money into the cattle station, bringing the cattle station back up to an acceptable and operational standard.
I do not want to make my observations in relation to CDU a rehash of well-established shortcomings; I also acknowledge they have made those efforts. Government, too, has responded as a result of the offence to enhance their systems which were in place. Those systems, at the time, were nothing shy of poverty stricken in two different ways. In the first way, the single Animal Welfare Officer was a part-time job to an AO5 somewhere in the department, and that was an unacceptable support for a legislative instrument passed by this House. Government’s duty is to ensure the regulatory instruments that it covers and maintains are properly policed. A policing and investigative role which lay on the shoulders of that person in no way reflects on that person; that person should never have been placed in that position in the first instance.
Also, the relationship between departments in the Northern Territory government has been resolved, in part, by the creation of the memorandum of understanding. I confess I find it somewhat surprising that such a document which was sitting on a shelf for as long as three years is actually necessary. Surely, government departments are capable of talking to each other without having to have contracts of communication between them? However, that was held up by the departments as a vehicle to resolve some of the issues these events highlighted.
Officers of the Department of Resources arrived at the cattle station in 2009, and one of those officers was sufficiently well offended by what he saw that he determined to caution the manager of the cattle station, which is a precursor to the process of collecting forms of evidence, including confessionary and admission evidence. The DoR officer, on all evidence I have seen, was well justified in making that determination. It is not the first time the Mataranka Station has come to attention. Indeed, evidence was received by the committee that, in 2008, a year prior to this matter coming to a head, there were already problems with animal husbandry and animal welfare concerns. Those matters were reported at the time, but I have seen no evidence of that being followed up in any substantial way.
As a result of that set of circumstances in 2009, the DoR officer made a report to their up-line, and the response from the up-line was one of the points where the wheels started to fall off the whole circumstance. I am not being exceedingly critical of that DoR officer up-line, other than to say that up-line merely erred in an attempt to deal with the issue. Evidence was received from the senior person at DoR in Katherine, and I am satisfied that person was acting in good faith and carries no culpability of any form of fundamental negligence. However, it was clear from the evidence that person did not have a clear understanding of their function as a regulatory authority, and defaulted to trying to assist the cattle station with its current issues, rather than concentrating on the potential for a prosecution.
Delays were then incurred, and DHLGRS, which is the department that has carriage of animal welfare issues, finally got wind of the matter, and there was some toing and froing in DHLGRS. Once again, a prosecution was not pursued by DHLGRS as a result of the information they eventually received.
All of this is, essentially, by the by in some respects, because there was then a third party that come into this whole series of events, and that was the Ombudsman herself. The Ombudsman became aware of some of the fundamental issues that were occurring on the cattle station, and was starting to collect a substantial amount of evidence which would have supported a prosecution, but for the truism that any evidence collected by the Ombudsman was not capable of being used directly in a prosecution, and any prosecutorial authority would have had to have relaunched the investigation.
The Ombudsman’s Office did have a meeting with the minister and the CEO of DHLGRS, and this is one of the areas where I become very critical. I believe it was Julie Carlsen from the Ombudsman’s Office who did the briefings – she is a former police officer and understands prosecutorial norms – and advised the CEO of DHLGRS and the minister that a prosecution, or at least an investigation, would be warranted. The determination to choose to do otherwise was a critical failing.
The determination to do otherwise was examined, oddly enough, not by the committee. The evidence in relation to the determination to do otherwise came up in the Estimates Committee process when questions were asked of the minister and the minister’s CEO. In the instance of the CEO answering questions, basically, he advised that, in the absence of an evidence profile there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution. That assertion was based on a presumption that the evidence should be examined as it was. That, to put a kind word on it, was nave. An investigatory process means an active thing is done. Looking at some photographs and determining that, because there is an absence of dates on those photographs it forms insufficient evidence, is to take a passive role, whereas an active investigation would have, in my opinion, created sufficient evidence for a prosecution to proceed. By this stage it appears – and this is my opinion – the CEO of DHLGRS and the minister had decided not to pursue a prosecution in deference to trying to assist Mataranka to deal with the management issues. Under the circumstances, that was a wrong decision.
The reason I am critical is, rather than investigating the matter further, a passive defence was taken and no further action was advanced upon. It was clear during the estimates process when I put a simple suggestion to the minister and her CEO that it was something they certainly had not thought about. The suggestion was simply: why did the minister or the CEO not call the police to ask for assistance with establishing an investigation? If you take, for example, comments by the CEO in the estimates process that a photograph could not be authenticated, that is actually correct. However, no photograph has ever found its way into a courtroom, that I am aware of, unless there was a person giving testimony relating to the authenticity of the photograph.
It is fairly clear to me the person who had taken the photographs which were in the possession of the CEO and the minister, should have been afforded an opportunity to give a statutory declaration and give evidence in a court of law averring to the circumstances, times and dates those photographs were taken. It is also my understanding there were some seven other people present when the photographs were taken – namely, students - anyone of which, or all of which, could have provided sufficient corroborating evidence to assert beyond reasonable doubt those photographs were, in fact, taken at the time, date, and place which would have satisfied a court.
However, it was not done and that is simply the most calamitous failure in this whole process because the minister, unfortunately, was unaware, I suspect, of how an investigation was run, as equally was her CEO. I find that disappointing. A simple telephone call could have ensured the arrival of maybe one or two police officers from Katherine to do a couple of days overtime, take the appropriate statutory declarations, and sufficient evidence would, I imagine, have then been forwarded on to the Department of Public Prosecutions to determine whether or not to proceed by way of summons.
The vicarious liability which was carried by CDU would have, in every likelihood – by the way, that vicarious liability is part of the Animal Welfare Act – seen CDU as the defendant in a case of a criminal matter in the lower courts, along with the manager of the cattle station. It would then have been up to the court to determine the quality of the evidence and the guilt or otherwise of CDU or the manager of the cattle station. No such opportunity was afforded to a court, and it is on that issue that so much public concern has been expressed. This was a substantial failing. However, I acknowledge the minister understands that failing and has laid, to her credit, an apology before the committee. However, it will lead me to some comments I will make in relation to recommendations.
In regard to what happened previously, I raise the issue of the member for Daly’s role as the previous minister to the existing minister. Elliot McAdam, the original minister with carriage of this portfolio, issued media releases saying there was going to be a review of the Animal Welfare Act. Those media releases were followed up with a real review which was handed in, in 2007, to the then minister Knight. Minister Knight goes down on record as the minister for walking between the raindrops because he has been in charge of SIHIP, the Territory Power and Water authority and several other functions, including the local government reform process - and the hospital pass has been passed to the current minister in many respects.
I remain seriously critical of minister Knight’s failure to respond to the 2007 report. Had minister Knight acted upon that report, which was the review of the Animal Welfare Act, and adopted two of its recommendations, then minister Knight would have set in train a series of events which would have saved his successor a great deal of public embarrassment. Minister Knight had the option to have the act reviewed, which was done, and bring a new act into this House.
The 2007 review outlined two particular issues: (1) there was an unclear line of responsibility between the two departments involved - a self-fulfilling prophesy as it turned out; and (2) the statute of limitations be extended to 18 months. Had that statute of limitations been extended to 18 months in the year 2008 through legislative amendments recommended by the 2007 review, minister McCarthy, the current minister, would have had sufficient time to seek advice beyond the boundaries of her own department and, as a consequence, would have been able to save the day – putting it bluntly - regarding the embarrassment which flowed for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory as a whole.
That is ancient history, which just goes to demonstrate that when you spend $30 000 or $40 000 on a review, it is worth reading it. I urge the member for Daly to think about that in his current roles.
As I said, I do not want to turn this into a government bashing exercise; I want to make it an attempt at reasoned criticism. Following on from that, I want to talk about what we should learn from this process, which is, we as an institution, as a parliament, have created, I imagine, 100 regulatory instruments all of which are dotted throughout our government departments: health inspectors, child welfare inspectors, police officers, port inspectors, parks and wildlife inspectorial roles – there at least 100 of them; I have to guess. All of those people with regulatory roles are in exactly the same position - or most of them I should say - as was the AO5 in the animal welfare department. They have no training and, in most circumstances, they would not even recognise an offence if they saw one and, even if they did, they would not know what to do about it.
It is tempting then, at this stage, to say: ‘I recommend lots and lots of training for the hundreds of people with these regulatory roles across government’. I actually think that would be counterproductive because something like that would be hideously expensive. To train a police officer to simply do their basic training for the first year of them being a police officer, is – what? - a $150 000 to $200 000 exercise per officer.
To ask government to do that would be excessive, considering all of the regulatory roles government has; moreover, when you consider a prosecution outside of the police department is quite a rare thing, because most government departments actually try to assist. That is what happened in this instance. The Department of Resources tried to assist Mataranka Station, overlooking their regulatory role and the expectation the public has of that regulatory role. As a consequence, I make a different recommendation and that forms one of the recommendations in the report. I truly and genuinely draw government’s attention to this suggestion because it may well serve as a very functional and inexpensive way to deal with that problem.
When I suggested to the minister and the CEO during the estimates process, saying, ‘Why do you not call the police?’, it clearly was not on their radar to do so. However, what I would like to see is the creation of a single person – or maybe two people – in a public service role who is, essentially, a former investigator - somebody who has spent their whole life, or a large part of their working career, doing criminal investigations, who can then be the go-to person for any person across government who thinks they may have stumbled across an offence or a breach of the law relating to the areas they have responsibility for. I will even put a name to a suggestion in this case, and it would be perfect for the role.
There is, at the moment in the Northern Territory Police Force, a police officer who is approaching the age of 65. He has been a police officer for as long as I can remember; he was in the police force when I joined in 1983 - and he was around a lot longer before that. Unfortunately, he will be, because of the Police Administration Act, unavailable to serve the Northern Territory any more despite the fact he wants to, because the Police Administration Act says when you turn 65 you are retired.
I have spoken to this police officer on numerous occasions - and I will name him shortly. I believe he would be perfect for a role like this. It could either be done by way of consultancy, or you keep him on staff. You advise all departments with a regulatory role that former Senior Sergeant Gert Johansson will assist with any investigation for any department with a regulatory function, so that when – let us say - a stock inspector or a Parks and Wildlife inspector stumbles across something that may or may not be an offence - they do not know - they can ring up Gert and say: ‘I have these set of circumstances that have occurred; I am not sure if it is an offence. I am not sure what to do. How do I do an investigation?’ Then, that person in the department actually goes to that inspector and says: ‘This is how you run an investigation. These are the elements of an offence if you are seeking to prove something. I will help you’. I am not suggesting for one second that the investigation is taken over by this person but, rather, that they assist the regulatory officer to do their job.
It would be surprisingly inexpensive; we are talking about a single position. They would no longer, essentially, be a police officer. There might have to be some administrative changes in relation to the exercise of powers. However, a person of that nature would be perfect. By not having to train every regulatory officer in the Northern Territory but leave one person in a position like that, you would have a simple, cheap, and effective solution. I can tell you now, had any police officer, but somebody like Gert Johansson, been available to the Northern Territory government in 2009, and they had gone to him and said, ‘Can you help us with an investigation’, this would have never occurred. It is a recommendation I make in all seriousness because it would be an appropriate and effective way of dealing with this problem into the future.
Government has admitted and accepted its culpabilities for its failings. The circumstances which occurred were, in many respects, the perfect alignment of the dominoes. If any of the players involved had made an alternative decision, it is likely it would have acted as a circuit breaker at any point along the chain of events and this outcome may never have occurred. However, that is what happened, and what we realise from this process is the government continues to carry a substantial exposure to a similar series of events occurring in the future. I urge government to look at a way to deal with those circumstances where a circuit breaker can break the chain of events.
What I and the committee has recommended, is exactly that: a simple circuit breaker so even when a departmental CEO is not sure, they simply ring up this person and say: ‘We need a hand’. I put a name to it because I know Gert does not want to retire; he wants to keep being an active servant of the people of the Northern Territory. I could not think of a person more perfect for the job; I think he joined the police force when Jesus was playing fullback for the Jerusalem first 15. He would bring the right temperament and personality to the position. Of course, you would have to advertise such a position, but he would be a great example of the person I would put in there. It would be somebody CEOs, Department Secretaries, whatever, could go to just so they could get an idea of what their position is in relation to an effective investigation, and whether or not, in the first instance, there is a prima facie case to be made in any department.
The most useful thing this committee can offer to government is a solution, and to ring an alarm bell for government saying this problem, which was manifest in DHLGRS, could have occurred anywhere in government for want of a clear understanding of how these processes work in departments outside the police force. This is bread and butter stuff for police; they do it every day. Yet, other government departments are, essentially, ignorant of the prosecutorial process. It would not take a great deal of effort to cover the ground. On the back of that, that is the recommendation I make to government. I ask it to cast a benevolent eye upon that recommendation, because I genuinely believe it would substantially change or lessen the risk of similar circumstances occurring again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Port Darwin for their comments. I will try not to repeat much of what they said because I agree with it all. I will put some things in context from my own point of view.
I very much agree, when it comes to the 21 recommendations of this Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee, the key is not only that we ask the government to agree, but they also have to act upon the recommendations. They also have to supply sufficient funds to ensure these recommendations actually happen, otherwise we will be back here again in a few years time with a similar problem.
Recommendation 14 actually says that:
I believe we, as a committee, would say that was one of the major problems. The department, or the Animal Welfare Branch, was not able to fulfil its responsibilities because it really did not have the resourcing which was required. Of course, there were other reasons, but I believe that was one of the key reasons.
It should also be noted this is not an Ombudsman’s report. This is not dealing with the same issues the Ombudsman raised. This is dealing with the matters which are required to fix the problems the Ombudsman has highlighted. The subcommittee was working on a reference from the Legislative Assembly. It then based its work program on that reference. It had three questions that it used to find answers in relation to its inquiry. They were: (1) is the legislation for animal welfare relevant in contemporary and best practice; (2) does the NT have the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance; and (3) what were the failures in animal welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University?
In summary, if I was asked what was the answer is to question (1) - is the legislation for animal welfare relevant in contemporary and best practice? - I would have to say presently it is no. To the second question of whether the NT has the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance, I would say no. To the third question of what the failures in any welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University were, I would say there were many.
From that bottom of the line report, I believe the committee has put together, based on the findings of the report, a good set of recommendations which will turn those questions into positives. What we really want to do is have legislation for animal welfare which is relevant, contemporary, and best practice. We want to have the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance, and we want to stop the failures in animal welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University. That is why the government, if it does not want to have a repeat of what happened at Mataranka, needs to act, and act quickly, concisely, and with sufficient funds to ensure this does not happen again.
People who pick up this report will be able to understand where our recommendations have come from. The report is broken up into chapters, and the answers to the questions I just asked are laid out in a much more detailed form. That way, you can see why things were not good within the department and within Charles Darwin University. From that, the subcommittee has brought forward recommendations based on those findings.
Ensuring the time limit on the commencement of proceedings against an offence be extended to at least two years might be a small recommendation, but it is an extremely important one. It is very similar to other states which have extended the period to two years. If we had that in place at the time, it would have at least enabled the government to act on the issues that have caused so many problems. I refer to the member for Port Darwin’s comment on the report the member for Daly received, the Cairns and Partners report. If it had been acted on perhaps some of these issues we face today would not have occurred.
One of the excuses for not bringing the Cairns report forward in the form of changes was they were waiting for national legislation. However, there was also a case for saying: ‘While that is happening, we could amend the existing act with some of the important recommendations Cairns and Partners had put in as part of their recommendations for change’. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Perhaps you could say it was a case of people sitting on their hands hoping something else might happen. In the meantime, the Mataranka matter highlighted the fact that nothing was being done to change the existing act and, when we had a problem, the existing act really could not work to cope with what was happening.
I agree with the member for Port Darwin about developing and implementing a protocol for the whole of government for investigating offences under Territory legislation by using appropriately trained people as expert investigators. I was talking yesterday on another bill where I was asking whether the people involved – the Heritage Bill - had investigative qualifications and were appropriately trained. The member for Port Darwin was saying by the government having someone who specialises in this area it may be able to cover not only the animal welfare area, but also other areas within government where an investigative facility is required.
We discussed the Animal Ethics Committee. It was obvious, from the mountains of files and paperwork we had to go through - not only did we go through a fair amount of material, the executive had to go through nearly every piece of paper delivered to NT House to find out what had happened. When they did they found people working for the Animal Ethics Committee were overworked, and it was not operating in the way it should have been. One of the recommendations is to change some of the guidelines in relation to the Animal Ethics Committee. I will get back to that a little later.
Another important issue was for the government to advise its workers that they have responsibilities as well when they see any instances of a potential breach of the act. It is important people realise if they are in a position where they see cruelty, it is expected they report that cruelty. That could be reflected in the case of a person who was being interviewed at the Mataranka hearings, where the lady said she went to the police to report animal cruelty and the police did not know whether they had the power to do anything. Everyone needs to be aware - not just Territory government employees, but people in general - if they see cruelty to animals they need to report it. In the case of the police the question is: do police know they have the same powers as animal welfare inspectors under the animal welfare legislation?
The issues about the failures of systems and processes within government and CDU are laid out quite clearly within this document.
The area I comment on this evening is the section about the Animal Ethics Committee. One of the areas that has been highlighted, from some of the legal advice we have been given, is there needs to be a clarification of what the role of the Animal Ethics Committee is because, in the Territory, it talks about science and teaching. One of the issues we have in the Northern Territory is, technically, that means pony club teachers would have to have a permit, and the pony club would have to have a licence under an Animal Ethics Committee because they are teaching and they are using animals. Whereas, in some other Animal Ethics Committees, they only deal with the scientific use of the animal. That is an area that needs to be looked at from a point of view of common sense. The whole idea of teaching is not about science; it is simply to see whether you can jump over a hurdle or you can do equestrian. That is an area that needs changing.
It should be highlighted there were major issues with Charles Darwin University’s running of Mataranka Station. They admit that. However, it goes further than that. I believe the poor management - which is not just about the manager, but the whole management of what was happening there - was responsible for what happened.
The good thing out of that is Charles Darwin University, for whatever reason - whether it was because they were worried about bad publicity or they had a genuine desire to ensure this did not happen again - has spent a considerable amount of money in bringing Mataranka Station up to a high standard. The council has visited the station and seen cattle there that are healthy, well fed, and have adequate supplies for the rest of the Dry Season. So, there has been great improvement. It should be recognised that, out of this debacle, has come some good things. At least from that point of view, the university needs to be congratulated for putting the station back on an even keel.
The issue for the station - which was one of the problems that is highlighted in this report - is it was operating both as a commercial cattle station and as a teaching facility. To some extent, those two ideas clash. One of the considerations the university is looking at right now is whether it retains the cattle station or allows it to be developed as a commercial cattle station and simply leases the station back, or has an agreement to use the station whenever needed for teaching purposes, so it does not have the responsibility of running the commercial side of the cattle station.
I am still one of those who has my doubts that universities should run agricultural colleges. Universities have a great role to play. Mataranka Station is a long way from Charles Darwin University. I wonder sometimes why it could not have stayed as Katherine Rural College or part of the Katherine Rural College campus? It provides a specialist area for the pastoral industry. My daughter went there in the mid-1990s. She became a jillaroo and worked on cattle stations because they wanted people trained in stockmanship. That is exactly what they were doing.
If you want a more scientific approach – and I am not saying they do not do science at the Katherine Rural College; they certainly do – and move into Agricultural Science, maybe that is something the university would do. However, if you want to develop a facility which, basically, deals with the day-to-day management of cattle, then Katherine Pastoral College should be investigated as to whether it should be run as part of the department of Education or whether it should come under the university. That is only my opinion, not the subcommittee’s opinion. It is something I know was the trend some years ago throughout Australia where universities took over agricultural and horticultural colleges. I am not sure that was of great benefit, but it is just a point of view.
The last area we covered was the companion animal welfare and control section. This is to do mainly with dogs - not only dogs, but cats and other feral animals that hang around the Northern Territory. It highlighted more about the problems with dogs in communities. We know dogs can lead to health problems and safety issues in communities. We also know the new shires have had to take up the responsibility for dog management. If anyone has any knowledge of the cost of dog management in places such as Darwin and Palmerston, you would realise it is a very expensive operation. For councils that have a fairly low rate base, this is not an easy task for them. If the government accepts the recommendations of this report and believes it is time we acted on how many dogs are in our communities; if they believe they are a health and safety issue, they have to step in and help councils fund the recommendations that have been put forward.
The recommendations in relation to dog control are:
It highlights that we have set up councils which have these core functions. However, I do not think anyone assessed the high cost of controlling animals in these shires. I note we received some correspondence late from a veterinarian who works for the East Arnhem Shire. I would imagine that is a fairly expensive cost to the shire, plus a vehicle, plus the cost of going out to all those communities. So, it is not cheap and, if the government really believes, and puts its heart and soul behind these recommendations, particularly No 18 - that they introduce a coordinated, uncompromising dog control program with a goal of decreasing the number of unhealthy dogs in the Territory - it has to give adequate ongoing funding, not for one or two years, but continuous funding specifically for this purpose to local government, because it is a huge problem.
Of course, you have to take the community along with you. People love their dogs and, before you act in this area, you have to consult with people, the shires - and the shires do work in this area and consult. If we are to make a big and a fairly sudden change to reduce the number of dogs, you have to work together with all those people involved, and you have to be determined ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and minister.
We really need to have adequate funding if we want to make this work. Councils do not have the money and, as I found out when I was at the Roper Gulf Shire meeting at Borroloola recently, they receive $500 000 in rates. They will get some money from the Commonwealth and Territory governments but, by the time they pay wages, I am not sure they have much money for animal control. They are looking at the AMRRIC program which is being funded by Aboriginal Benefits Trust to help run dog control programs in three of the shires in the Northern Territory, but when that funding runs out, someone has to pick up the tab. Again, it is a real issue, but it needs to be taken seriously by government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you as the chair of the committee; the members for Arafura; Port Darwin and Goyder, for being part of what I thought was a really good committee that worked well together. We had our moments but, in general, by the time we had been out to Mataranka and Katherine and met those people who were involved; I believe we realised this was a bipartisan task, because we were trying to do something beneficial for the whole of the Territory, especially the animals of the Territory, and we were trying to ensure that what had happened at Mataranka did not happen again.
It was a good committee and it worked hard together. It could not have got anywhere near today’s report if it had not employed Ms Jan Whitehead. She is a member of the secretariat and has done an absolutely enormous amount of work. I probably should say she deserves a holiday, but we have some other committee work to happen. I believe she does deserve a break, as she has done an excellent job. She has put up with some strange people called politicians who have been working through this with her. I thank her for her patience and her professionalism, and just because she is a great person for the work she has done.
In no way do I take away from any of the work done by Ms Helen Campbell, our secretary/research officer and other staff: Simon Flavell was with us for quite a while, going through piles of documents. Alison Stirrup, who has the job as a research officer, was also administrative assistant. Ms Robyn Appleby also helped out, and Ms Amanda O’Donnell, is still helping out. Without these people, we could not have got to where we have today. I thank them all very much because this is an important document.
It is one I believe that can make a difference, and will make a difference if the government gets behind every one of these recommendations and continues to do that, not just for one year, not just for two years, but ongoing, and ensure there is adequate funding, otherwise we will be back to where we were with Mataranka. I do not think any of us want to ever see that again. We can do better than that. The Territory does not need to be scarred by those sorts of stories, because most people in the Northern Territory love their animals, they care for their animals, and do not want to be seen as people who do the opposite.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, when the motion to establish either a select committee or another form of committee was first raised some time back to address the serious issues that occurred at Charles Darwin University’s owned and managed Mataranka Station, I spoke of my keen interest in the subject material and concerns over what occurred at the station, and within the university and government. I also wanted to get to the bottom of what occurred, or did not occur, that ultimately led to the death of livestock and the detrimental impact on many people associated with either the university, government, or the station.
From the outset, as I did previously, I have had more than a passing interest in the subject matter and declare now that I have a family member who works at the university, and also works very closely, or has done, with the Animal Ethics Committee, and I place that on the public record.
In my view, there were four key areas that needed to be addressed by the committee. Firstly, the Animal Welfare Branch, its resourcing, the legislation associated with animal welfare, and the decisions made regarding this incident.
The second is the Department of Resources, notably the primary industries people, the stock inspectors and the government vets – how they went about their work and their relationship with the Animal Welfare Branch.
Third, the Animal Ethics Committee itself; its governance arrangements; how the university managed the committee and its work.
The fourth component in this matter was the role and management - or lack of good management as the case may be - of Charles Darwin University as the lessee of the pastoral property at Mataranka Station.
There is no doubt this incident where stock perished at Mataranka Station and people’s lives were detrimentally impacted upon, was a combination of serious mistakes, flaws, weaknesses, poor management and, in some instances, possibly cover-ups and hiding of information. There was no act of God, but years of accumulation of errors and questionable decisions by government, and Charles Darwin University and its sub-agencies, being the rural college campus and even the station. Most of them were rooted in organisational failures, structures, procedures, policy and culture. When systems, procedures and poor management combine together and impact on each other, everything will come together in the worst possible way. In this instance, it did come together in the worst possible way, culminating in the death of livestock at Mataranka Station, workplace bullying, misuse of university property, workers compensation claims, reputation damage, possible cover-ups and devastation to people, families, community and industry.
The committee looked at and reviewed which human decisions and actions influenced the occurrence of the basic events and, then, tried to identify the organisation roots of these decisions and actions. As the previous speakers have said, an enormous amount of material was provided, evidence was given, submissions received, which clearly showed pretty much everything had broken or was about to break. Lack of leadership, lack of sound management - both within government agencies and the university and its sub-agencies - contributed to the problems. There was miscommunication within government agencies and across agencies; the minister possibly was not getting the correct or enough advice; the Animal Ethics Committee was being misused by CDU and, perhaps, not supported as well as it should have been; and staff were not being supported at the station. Indeed, it is my firm view - and I have put this before the committee – CDU failed in its duty of care to provide a safe working environment for station staff, including the station manager.
Since this incident has come to light and has been addressed, and there have been many reports and reviews, there have been great improvements made at the station by the university. However, more needs to be done. The university has done much to address its past failures, but more needs to be done. People want an apology. A stiff apology is a second insult. People who have been wronged by the university’s actions do not want compensation, figuratively speaking. Because they may have been wronged, they want healing as they have been hurt. The same applies for staff within some of the government agencies. In my view, Charles Darwin University is yet to do this and needs to do it, otherwise it cannot move on properly from this incident.
I urge the minister and the government to take this report seriously, as I am sure it will, and implement all the recommendations and carefully review the advice from Mark Hayes from Maddocks legal firm. In particular, I ask the minister to look at the findings and comments as they relate to the Animal Ethics Committee. I quote from some of the advice on page 64 of the report:
This is in regard to animal ethics committees:
in South Australia, the relevant minister is empowered to establish AECs and choose their members.
National code:
We have mentioned that before. Some of the previous speakers said we need to do better:
Minister, you have, from your comments before the committee, had an active interest in the work of the Animal Ethics Committee, so I urge you to look at the advice of Mr Hayes, and also further review the report to see how we can make large improvements. I am concerned there may be activities and people out there undertaking work in regard to teaching or research who are unaware they need to have licences or permits pertaining to the legislation. I am not saying they are doing anything wrong necessarily, or mistreating animals in any way; they may be just unaware. Perhaps government, through its agencies, needs to undertake a review and audit of some kind to find out exactly what is out there - or not out there.
I also still have concerns that, through the department of Education and all the schools in the Northern Territory which use animals for scientific purpose and training, some people believe they do not need licences or permits. I believe that needs to be investigated fully to work out whether they do to ensure good procedures and systems are in place for the protection and management of animals if they are used by the department of Education.
I place on the record my thanks to my fellow members of the committee, and also to the staff in the secretariat who supported us in this work over the past five months - I believe it is. I also thank you, minister, for your openness when you went before the media saying mistakes had been made, and you wanted to learn from the mistakes. I believe that is the first step in trying to get a better system in place. Clearly, we need a better system in place with regard to the management of a property such as Mataranka Station, and to have better procedures, systems, and legislation in place with regard to Animal Ethics Committees and their work.
I believe we still have a great deal of work to do - whether it is this subcommittee or some other committee - in regard to animal management and dogs in Aboriginal communities. I do not think it is good enough to say the dogs are special to people, therefore, they can be poxy, flea ridden, and all pink. That is not good enough and is a cop-out. We have much more work to do in that regard, and I am happy to help if it is a situation where I could help.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that. I thank all my committee members, and I commend the report to the parliament. I look forward, in six months time as it says in the report, when we have to revisit what is happening at Mataranka Station within Charles Darwin University’s management. I want to see more improvements because more improvements need to be made. I also want to see the university step up and be more accountable and apologetic for what has happened before, so they can move forward to a better place in the community.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not speak long because most members have talked ad nauseum about this report.
Like all members, I acknowledge the work of the secretariat, particularly Jan Whitehead, who has done a fantastic job pulling together this report for tabling in parliament today. I particularly want to single out the member for Nhulunbuy. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; there were tense moments. I missed one or two meetings because of ill health; nevertheless, I did have some tense moments with the member for Port Darwin, as we often do. I acknowledge the member for Goyder who, with the member for Nhulunbuy, kept things in check, and also the member for Nelson who reminded both the member for Port Darwin and me what we were there for.
I acknowledge the work of all the committee members to produce and table an important report in parliament today; a road map going forward for government. We could go over and over who is to blame and point the finger. The member for Goyder is right; whilst a number of people within those structures were to blame, those areas within Charles Darwin University and also in government, have been addressed.
It was interesting going through the information, that people felt this type of issue did not and should not occur. That is what all the members of the committee had focused on; that we have to come together to look across the board to ensure this issue does not occur anytime now or in the future.
When I was going through much of the information to do with Mataranka Station, it clearly showed a similar issue happened in 1991. I have tried to go right back into the records to see whether a review or an audit had been done to try to ascertain what had gone wrong back in 1991. That included Parliamentary Records to see if the government of the day, the CLP, had acted to address this issue and stop it then. It did not happen. Fast forward to now, an issue happened; it has been addressed. We have had this inquiry - and quite an effective one.
I agree with the member for Goyder, and I am sure the Chair of the Animal Welfare Subcommittee, the member for Nhulunbuy, would join with us regarding the issue of dogs in our remote communities and the focus on animal companion legislation. The work we have to do in our remote communities needs to happen, and we need to ensure we are vigilant and there is commitment from government to resource local government to be able to deal with this issue.
I note that AMRRIC, the national body looking at animal welfare issues, was given substantial funding from the Aboriginal Benefits Account to target specific communities to deal with animal welfare issues. One of the recommendations in this report - and it may seem contentious to some - is the committee calls for a dog eradication program. Any of us who have visited many communities acknowledge we have some major issues in our communities, and an eradication program needs to happen. We had one when it came to cattle, it was called BTEC – I should not mention that word. It was a similar eradication program. When it comes to some of the unhealthy situations with dogs in our remote communities in the Northern Territory, it certainly needs to be addressed.
I hope government looks at this quite seriously because we have some critical issues on the ground in the communities. The buck-passing that often happens between agencies because it is an animal control versus animal management issue has to stop because that is where we constantly run into problems. When you have buck-passing, these issues fall through the gaps. I hope the government and the minister pick up particularly those recommendations that will look at closing that gap in the welfare of many of those animals in our remote communities.
I acknowledge and commend all the members. Under the member for Nhulunbuy’s effective and efficient control, all hearings went well. The evidence was frank and fearless and the subcommittee created an environment and gave a great deal of support, particularly to vulnerable witnesses to ensure they were not only protected, but were able to come forward with their evidence and tell their story, because that was important. That was something those vulnerable witnesses wanted to do; to tell their story. Giving them that reassurance and creating that environment so they were able to do it without fear was an important step forward in a healing process for those witnesses who had gone through horrific experiences. I just hope we can see a better system and a structure put in place than what we saw with Charles Darwin University, Mataranka Station, and the two agencies that were involved here.
I commend the minister. I was not at that meeting, but I certainly read all the minutes and received feedback. It is a brave and courageous minister to come forward and acknowledge there were issues, and to say: ‘Okay, there are the issues. Do not focus on those issues but let us look at the solutions going forward’. I commend you, minister. Not many have the intestinal fortitude to come before the committee when, clearly, this issue was a political hot potato. It would have been easy not to do anything. I believe you should be commended and recognised for your courage in coming forward, giving evidence to the committee, not glossing over the issues but putting the facts on the table, and allowing committee members to have access to all the information, both in your department and the minister for Resources’ department.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the report clearly reflects some very strong recommendations on how we can close that loophole and the gap that often falls between these agencies as to who is, ultimately, responsible for animal welfare in the Northern Territory - whether it is animal welfare management or control. The report clearly defines control versus management and where that should sit. Like all members who have contributed to the debate, I commend the report to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this, but I am compelled to do so for a number of reasons. One is, whilst we should never live in regret, I will always regret not putting myself forward to be on this committee in the first place. My understanding was it was going to be tackling the horrible things that went on at Mataranka Station. The scope was then broadened to include animal management on rural and remote communities, and that is something I have some appreciation of, and some knowledge and experience. I now regret I did not bring some of that knowledge and information forward.
I will talk today about some of the recommendations, and perhaps add a little sense of how, not just the Northern Territory government, but many governments around this country, have treated animal management in general, in its ranking of importance, I suppose. No one wants to fund anything they do not think is necessary, but once someone is either bitten savagely, or been killed by, in particular, a dog, then all of a sudden it becomes a political hot potato and people ask questions on how something was not done, or why something was not done, or how we could do something better.
In a nutshell, it comes down to resourcing. What I often put forward to people is why is there an expectation in the general community that an animal management officer, for instance, may be required to attend court and provide the same level of evidence, of professionalism, as a police officer does, yet, we do not ever resource animal management officers or officers of the department of Animal Welfare to the same level as we do police officers? A magistrate sitting on the bench does not care one iota about the person on the other side. What they care about is the evidence that has been put forward. Police officers and animal welfare officers, for instance, need to have a level of professionalism and knowledge behind them before they can do their job. To put this into context, I recall a few years ago people were often calling the Palmerston council about animal welfare matters, and we were referring them to the department of animal welfare.
We need to put this into context; the department of animal welfare is a misnomer because the department is a few people, not a department. It is a unit that sits somewhere with the department of Water Safety or something like that. It is not a department; it is a group of people - and no disrespect to these people, they are doing the job funded by this government.
There are models around this country of animal welfare managed to a very high standard. There are different countries that manage animal welfare, animal cruelty and animal control - which I will term as animal management - around the world. It can be done better, it should be done better, but it requires resources.
I recall being in the United States in 2007; I wanted to know how they had been able to, over the years, raise the standard of animal management officers in respecting the community, and also in the level of professionalism. It was interesting to find out they legislated many years ago, starting in the state of Arizona, where 10% of every - over there they are called citations, we call them infringement notices here - infringement notice issued to a person who had broken the law when it came to managing their own animal went into a training budget.
Straightaway governments of the day, whether they were state or local governments, had access to training resources. That is what this comes down to - resources. By placing that 10% levy on each of the infringement notices or citations issued, they quickly found the people who were breaking the law when it came to animal management were the ones paying to increase the resources for the local jurisdiction or state.
The same thing can be done in the Northern Territory. We have many local governments with their own animal management by-laws. It could be legislated that 10% of every fine issued could be mandated to go into a training fund. There are programs out there, Certificate IVs and diplomas, people can do in animal management and animal welfare.
I want to know why in Australia, we still have many councils that will throw a dog lead and a set of keys to a person and say: ‘Now, catch dogs’. How is it in a jurisdiction like Australia we still have this mentality in many areas where no training is required, none or little training is provided, and we say we adequately resource animal management and animal welfare? The problem in the community, particularly with local government, is often the animal control officer becomes the enemy of the community because they are the old catch phrase ‘dog catcher’, and nobody likes going around the streets picking up the average dog wandering around not doing much harm. It is only when that dog bites somebody or causes a nuisance that it becomes problem.
However, in the United States, all animal management officers not only manage control, but they manage cruelty. The resources obtained provided the governments, the states, the jurisdictions with the ability to train their officers to manage both cruelty and control. This changed the dynamics in the community of what people saw as the average ranger on the street to someone who can help with cruelty issues as well as control. The same thing is replicated in the United Kingdom with the RSPCA, the body councils all over the United Kingdom call on whenever there is an animal welfare issue, whether it be cruelty or control.
How silly it is in this country! We have legislation such as local by-laws in councils which, basically, limit the officers’ ability to act when they find cruelty. I will give you one particular case. If an animal management officer was to be at a property outside a fence line, and they noted a dog had tied itself round and round the clothesline to the point where it was being choked, under the local by-laws in most jurisdictions, an officer cannot enter that yard to undo or help that dog. In my experience, most officers would jump the fence, go in there and, at the same time, put their jobs at risk and potentially face litigation because their interest is in saving the dog.
However, the laws are not that specific. What they do is give the right for an animal control officer to enter that property, if the dog has been at large, if it attacked someone or, in fact, was an unregistered dog. An officer can enter a property if they suspect the dog is unregistered, but they cannot if the poor dog is choking itself. In the United States, in the United Kingdom - whether it be the SPCA in the United States, or the RSPCA in the United Kingdom - those same officers, through their legislation, have the ability to go in there because they are dealing with an animal welfare issue.
The Local Government Act actually provides the vehicle for animal welfare to be handled by local government. It is already in the act but it is not resourced - the training is not provided, there is certainly not the resources, the staff, nor the skill base there, at the moment, to do it. This would have to change. I have already given you a mechanism of being able to raise money through infringement notices, to train people, to change the dynamics in this country where local government officers could deal with both animal management control - and that is your dog at large, dogs attacking people, dogs that are unregistered; all the common things - and second, they could handle cruelty cases or animal welfare issues. Welfare and cruelty sometime overlap.
There are models in this country. South Australia is a good model; it has the Dog and Cat Management Board which provides oversight. It has someone on the board appointed by the minister. They have representatives from different local governments around South Australia on the board. The board provides direct advice to the minister and to local government and, at the same time, provides an auditing process to ensure local government is meeting its commitment. These models already exist.
In the Northern Territory, we could have the Northern Territory version of the Dog and Cat Management Board, for instance, to be that body in the middle, offering advice to the minister and to local government. There are mechanisms around the world, and even in this country, that could help with animal management. However, until we resource it and actually provide the training and the staff, and build the skill level required, we are not going to go anywhere - and we will have another Mataranka and a continued dog problem, in particular, in rural and remote areas. It all comes back to resourcing.
Only two weeks ago in Townsville at the AMRRIC Conference, it was good to see a member from the department of animal welfare in Darwin present, at least at the Urban Animal Management Conference. As a member of parliament at the AMRRIC Conference, with no representative from this government there, it was painful to sit through presentation after presentation from professors and veterinarians from a number of different bodies where they used case examples from the Northern Territory - PowerPoint presentations and videos of the atrocious conditions of dogs; the old leatherbacks, there in full, for everyone to see. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament, I was feeling very ashamed of how we deal with, particularly, dogs in rural and remote areas.
Zoonotic diseases are true and present. The Minister for Health talked to me one day in the Chamber here off to the side, saying there was no link between animals being sick and passing any of those sicknesses on to children. At the time, I was suggesting that the Department of Health provide some level of funding for animal management in rural and remote communities, and he did not think it necessary. He did not think there was a link. Zoonotic diseases do exist and there is much we can learn about healthy dogs, healthy children, in our communities. AMRRIC is an organisation that needs to be further funded, and it needs to be ongoing funding. It will not survive if it is not provided ongoing funding. Unfortunately, in this country that is the way animal management is usually handled by any number of jurisdictions where it is always ad hoc funding.
Look at the PAWS scenario in Palmerston. PAWS provided a wonderful service to the community. Whilst I acknowledge there was some really bad financial management going on at that shelter, the service they were providing was A1. It has sunk for many reasons, and one is that it was never adequately resourced in the first place. Yes, the government provided funding from time to time. I know minister Knight stepped in at one stage with a $50 000 grant which went towards resourcing the centre. However, it is always this ad hoc approach. We do not fund the police department in an ad hoc manner; every year, funding is provided. It is guaranteed funding because we need to have our police. When it comes to animal management issues, it is always an ad hoc basis.
AMRRIC has recently been given some funding, but it is for a specific amount of time. There is no ongoing program. How in the world are you going to recruit the best people if they are not sure that funding for their particular program is ongoing? Is there a problem? You are damned right we have a problem! Go and visit some of the rural and remote communities. For any Indigenous member in this Chamber to say they have not seen some horrific conditions on some of these communities would be very misleading. There are some horrible conditions that dogs, in particular, are left in, on our remote communities. It is not an easy job to fix. I am not suggesting this is all going to be done easily, but it needs resourcing, and it needs ongoing commitment from a government to get it right.
I go back to what I said before. In the United States they had linked a couple of things. They had changed the dynamics of how animal management officers were seen in the communities - the same thing happens in the UK where the RSPC officers are held in high regard in the community because they are not the people who are the traditional dog catchers, but they deal with cruelty, welfare, and control. They are the people the professionals turn to when they have a problem.
To do this. we need resources, and a board similar to what we have in South Australia. There will come a day when officers from right around the country will all go to one academy, for instance, where we have introduced a model set of rules, a bit like the Australian road rules. It does not have to cover everything. The bottom line is we have different rules for animal management wherever you go in this country. You can go from one community to the next and, in one community you need to register your dog, in another one you do not. That is one of the problems we have; there is no consistency across the country. You need to educate people, and you cannot educate people unless you have a consistent approach.
If a model set of laws were introduced across the country, other local government jurisdictions and shires could adopt them but they could develop them to make them specific to their own area. Until we resource it, until we have consistency, until we lift the standards and the laws, we are not going to make a huge impact. If this government is serious - if you are seriously looking at all 21 recommendations - I suggest you look at how you are going to resource those recommendations, and what action plan you are going implement.
Do not make this like so many reports we have where we come in here, we see the reports, we see the horrific outcomes, we have a review which ends up in a report, and you have a government that accepts recommendations and, then, what happens? Nothing, this sits on the shelf and we will be talking about it in 12 months, two years, or three years from now - unless we fix it and provide the resources.
Minister, it must have been a hard job to have to deal with some of these issues, but that is the job of a minister. To the people who were on the committee, well done for having the courage and taking the time to investigate this matter. As I said before, my only regret is that, knowing the scope had been included, I did not put myself forward. I have a background in this field. I have a huge network of very professional people who know a great deal about urban, rural, and remote animal management. I believe, with that network and with that availability of information, we could have provided much more information to this report. I am not saying we would have provided any better recommendations than those which have been made. I am saying you now have to have the courage not just to be a minister who stands in front of the actual review board, but the real courage will be in the actions the minister takes on the recommendations now, and backs up with real resourcing to actually make a difference.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make a ministerial statement, Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as an aside, I thank the Council of Territory Cooperation for tabling that the report. I will be reading the report and will give due response to the parliament with the recommendations and a response to them. So, thank you to all members.
I wish to update the House on the progress of the government’s A Working Future policy and our steadfast, long-term commitment to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people living in remote areas of the Northern Territory.
The most recent ministerial statement on A Working Future occurred in late 2010, and I believe it is worthwhile to reflect on the contribution made by the Chief Minister in that debate. The Chief Minister, along with my colleagues in the government, has a deep and abiding conviction to put in place the structures, systems and partnerships required to assure the future of our remote towns, communities and homelands. This conviction was encapsulated by the Chief Minister when he said last November:
Unlike the failed approaches of the past, which were ad hoc, reactive and disconnected, the A Working Future policy provides the strategic framework to move from decades of neglect to decades of prosperity. It involves a hub-and spoke service delivery model which enables rational decisions to be made about how to deliver services and where to deploy appropriate types of infrastructure. It involves local implementation plans - agreements between the three levels of government and local people - about service delivery and infrastructure priorities.
It involves putting in place the fundamentals for the development of our regions which have been in the too-hard basket for so many years - town plans, lot boundaries, zoning maps, urban design plans, street names, infrastructure plans, secure land tenure - the foundations other towns in Australia take for granted which we are forming for the future decades of prosperity for all people of the Northern Territory.
It involves a commitment to delivering, over time, the same services and infrastructure non-Indigenous towns of a similar size and location would expect anywhere in the country, including good local government, education, health, essential services, community safety, early childhood and housing. It is about creating jobs in the bush providing Territorians, wherever they live, with the opportunity to embrace the pride and dignity which comes with real and meaningful employment.
For the first time in the Territory’s history, a comprehensive approach to remote service delivery has been developed and implemented. It is a huge undertaking and will take time to yield lasting results. We need the Commonwealth government to continue its investment in our policy framework. We will need to win back and maintain the trust of many Aboriginal people feeling branded and trampled on by the 2007 intervention. We need to continue to support the shire reforms to create a stable and reliable system of local government. We need to maintain the focus of our agencies on improving our services in remote areas.
While there are many views about remote service delivery, a majority of people agree on one thing - the need for certainty and stability. We are determined to deliver this. Of course, this government’s strong commitment to Indigenous Territorians was evident long before the A Working Future policy was announced. In March 2002, then Minister for Local Government, John Ah Kit, gave a defining speech in this Chamber where he spoke about acknowledging government failures, recasting the reform and development agenda, finding ways funding from all sources could be pooled and applied on a basis of need, working in partnership with Aboriginal people, moving away from headline seeking, and applying the needs and ideas of social justice.
In August 2007, we released a package of measures called Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage, the precursor of the national Closing the Gap reform agenda. The ongoing commitment by our government and departments in the bush has started to produce long-term measurable results. For example, the recent Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011 report found increased life expectancy for Indigenous Territorians, with a mortality rate declining by 27% between 1991 and 2009; significantly reduced young child mortality for Indigenous infants and young children under four-years of age since the early 1990s; improvements in literacy rates for children in Year 3 and 7; and an increase in Indigenous employment between 2002 and 2008.
Our shared challenge is to turn these small waves of success into a tide of permanent improvements in all areas of Indigenous wellbeing. To achieve this we need to work closely with local people at the community level. One of our prime vehicles for achieving this is local implementation plans, or LIPs. The LIPs set out the priorities for a community and includes targets, actions, success measures, and time lines for achieving them. Local people are heavily engaged in shaping their future, determining their places through LIPs. LIPs for the 15 growth towns identified as priority locations in the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement have been formally agreed by the Northern Territory government, and all but two of these LIPs have been signed by all stakeholders at signing ceremonies.
Development of the LIPs for the six non-RSDNPA growth towns is progressing, and I look forward to government endorsement of the remaining LIPs before the end of the year. Through the LIP process, we have significantly boosted the calibre and range of remote services. They are not just wish lists that have characterised community plans in the past; these are real agreements of structural reform and community development.
Through LIPs, we are developing transport options for those living in the bush. As a result, bus services are now operating to Ali Curung, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Yuendumu, Lajamanu, Dagaragu, Kalkarindji, Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Yirrkala making it easier for residents to access workplaces and services. Through the LIP process we have worked with the East Arnhem Shire and the Commonwealth government to reseal all of Milingimbi’s internal roads, as well as widening and resealing Milingimbi’s major link road, making it safer to travel on the island.
The LIPs have helped guide the way we deploy our remote Police, Fire and Emergency Services. In addition to funding for more police in our remote towns and communities, we have seen the establishment of a new cooling-off shelter in Angurugu, new safe houses in Gunbalanya and Wadeye, and a new Emergency Services facility in Hermannsburg. Local safety and security is also being strengthened in remote communities by the deployment of eight additional community engagement police officers. These officers are working closely with local communities to develop local community safety plans.
Each LIP contains commitments to improve the capacity and capability of Northern Territory Emergency Services’ volunteer units. We now have volunteers to support Police and Emergency Services personnel in Borroloola, Dagaragu, Kalkarindji, Elliott, Hermannsburg, Galiwinku, Lajamanu, Maningrida, and Yuendumu.
In the field of education, the LIPs for each Territory growth town set out our combined efforts to deliver remote schooling and student engagement programs, including growing our own teachers through the Remote Indigenous Teachers Education Program. At Galiwinku alone, we have five Indigenous teachers in training. The LIPs also includes enrolment and attendance initiatives under the Every Child, Every Day strategy. For example, the LIPs have commitments to establish school attendance working groups in Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Gapuwiyak, Hermannsburg, Lajamanu, Milingimbi, Numbulwar, and Yuendumu. They set out our commitments under the Strong Start, Bright Future initiative which is establishing a regional college model of education in locations such as Jabiru, Gunbalanya in West Arnhem, Angurugu, Alyangula, Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt, and the Warlpiri triangle of schools in Central Australia.
The LIPs also establish our agreements with the local people on early childhood services. For example, through the Mobile Preschool program, we are providing new access to preschool for children living in Gapuwiyak and Ramingining. Every LIP contains a commitment to implement the Families as First Teachers program, an early learning and family support program for remote Indigenous families with preschool age children. The program provides playgroups, parent workshops, home visiting, books on home services, and assists with children’s transition to preschool. Through the program, local Indigenous family liaison officers have the opportunity to complete a Certificate III in Community Services in the workplace.
Our government is focused on making a real difference to the wellbeing of our children, no matter where they live. Through the LIPs at Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Hermannsburg, Ngukurr, Wadeye, and Yuendumu we are partnering with the community to deploy Aboriginal family care workers who are working to improve the lives of vulnerable children.
The commitments are also improving Indigenous health outcomes. For example, the local reference group at Ngukurr stressed in their LIP the need for a new clinic. As a result, it was prioritised in the Northern Territory’s application to the Commonwealth Health and Hospital Fund, and I am delighted to see funding allocated for a new Ngukurr clinic in May this year. In addition, new clinics will be built to address LIP priorities at Numbulwar, Elliott, Galiwinku, and Ntaria, and upgrades will occur at Papunya and Maningrida.
Each LIP also contains actions to implement the Health eTowns IT infrastructure program through which we are upgrading telecommunication services, health education, and police business systems in 17 of the growth towns. This is enabling expanded clinical consulting and diagnostic services in the bush. The LIPs also contain commitments that link to this government’s record $1.12bn health investment, including ongoing support for the operation of remote health centres and the ongoing implementation of coordinated care for Indigenous patients with chronic conditions.
I stress, however, that investment is not confined to our growth towns. Our approach is true hub-and-spoke model, and our smaller remote communities are benefiting from a range of ongoing infrastructure and service improvements. To name just a few examples, we have established a new police station at Yarralin, Ampilatwatja has a new power supply, Emu Point has a new school, and a solar power station is being established at Lake Nash. We have also committed $9.4m for the new Arlparra Police Station. Primary school upgrades are planned for Lake Nash and Nganmarriyanga. New primary healthcare clinics are proposed for Robinson River and Canteen Creek, and clinics in Titjikala and Docker River will benefit from upgrades. We have also committed to upgrading a range of homeland learning centres.
Bush bus services are operating to and from Mutitjulu, Yulara, Wallace Rock Hole, Ipolera, Areyonga, Mt Liebig, Kintore, Yuelamu, Ti Tree, Wilora, Barrow Creek, and Jilkminggan to assist people to access hub towns and their regional centres.
We have also seen over the past five years a range of outcomes that benefit Indigenous people across the Northern Territory, including: an increased number of Indigenous employees in the Northern Territory public sector as a whole; 118 new businesses funded by the Indigenous Business Development program; 137 Indigenous essential services workers on homelands transitioned from Community Development Employment Projects to regular employment; over 1100 Indigenous employees employed across the Territory under SIHIP; 324 new houses, 1272 refurbishments, and 320 rebuilds under SIHIP as at 30 June; a 590% increase in Aboriginal Interpreter Service delivery since 2001; hundreds of new non-CDEP Indigenous jobs delivered through local government reforms; and the establishment of 22 safe houses in 17 Northern Territory communities.
I take a moment to specifically address the provision of services to homelands. Homelands and outstations are incredibly important to the social and cultural fabric of the Northern Territory. While the challenges of service delivery to some of the most isolated locations in the world cannot be underestimated, and the amount of public funding is never enough, this is not a challenge we shy away from. In fact, our government’s determination to rise to this challenge is precisely why we are putting in place a comprehensive hub-and-spoke service delivery model to ensure systems and structures are in place to support homelands over the long term, to continue and provide and expand a range of services including policing, schooling, health services, ranger programs, employment support, economic development programs, housing management and maintenance, and municipal and essential services.
Services to homelands are not diminished by our commitment to growth towns; they are enhanced by it. Let us not forget that important Indigenous organisations such as Bawinanga, Mabunji, Marthakal, and Tjwampa have been providing homeland services from growth towns for decades. Maningrida is a great example in the hub-and-spoke model, a growth town where over 30 homelands are serviced from a large service centre.
The services provided by this approach are not only those delivered by the resource centre, but also by the Territory government. For example, there are seven homeland learning centres supported from the hub school in Maningrida. Of course, not all homelands are serviced from growth towns and, where this is the case, we have established different hub-and-spoke approaches. For example, in the Utopia region, Arlparra has been established as a shire service centre. In 2009, their high school was completed and is now the hub school for five homeland learning centres, providing education services for the people of the Utopia region. The Utopia homelands are now also serviced by a permanent police presence in Arlparra with a new police station set to be constructed in the future. The Utopia homelands are also serviced by the Utopia clinic which provides a range of outreach health services to regional homelands.
We know the state of the housing stock in homelands continues to be a major concern. As my colleague, the Housing minister, continually states, we are dealing with an enormous housing and infrastructure backlog, and our emphasis has to be on ensuring we support the greatest possible number of people with the limited public funds available. The challenge of homelands housing is one where the support of the Australian government is crucial. Most homeland dwellings were constructed with grants from the Commonwealth, and I believe the Australian government has an ongoing obligation to assist homeland residents in the maintenance of these assets.
In the meantime, the Northern Territory government continues to support water supply and power generation to over 400 homelands across the Northern Territory through grants to over 30 service providers.
Our government is committed to working with Indigenous people and Indigenous organisations to implement the A Working Future policy. I take a moment to provide some examples of our efforts in the area of engagement and consultation. I am pleased to inform the House I continue to receive valuable and expert advice from the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. The council was established in September 2008 to provide high-level input to government to ensure policy and programs are as effective as possible at a local level. Consisting of 12 high-profile Aboriginal members from across the Territory, together with the chairs of the four Northern Territory land councils, IAAC is currently providing advice to me on a range of policy areas, including services to homelands. IAAC also recently delivered a charter of principles to minister Macklin outlining a better way of doing business which all levels of government should apply in developing and implementing programs to build on and progress the work that was started under the NTER.
However, IAAC is not our only source of policy and service delivery advice. For example, across 82 remote communities and town camps, housing reference groups are providing cultural and local advice on issues relating to housing design, living arrangements, housing allocations, tenancy support services, employment initiatives, and workforce development.
Our government is working with leaders in each of our Territory growth towns through the local implementation planning process. Each growth town has a group of senior people who are developing and implementing the plan for the future of their town, and surrounding homelands and the smaller communities - all together, in partnership with both government and shires. There are more than 200 leaders, including men, women and youth, involved in this shared effort. These local leaders are stepping up to set the future direction for their communities, assessing progress against key performance indicators, and holding governments to account for the commitments that each - the Northern Territory and the federal government, and local government - have made in the LIPs.
I was very pleased to announce just last week the appointment of Ms Olga Havnen as our new Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services. Olga is a highly experienced and knowledgeable Territorian who will build on the work of former Coordinator-General, Bob Beadman. Ms Havnen will independently oversee, monitor, assess and report on the delivery of remote Indigenous services, a crucial commitment by this government to see the reform for all people, no matter where they live, in every area of the Northern Territory.
Our government has worked to build and maintain an open, honest and respectful relationship with the administrative and elected leaders within the four land councils. This is demonstrated through our ongoing regional partnership agreement with the leaders of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, and our joint efforts with the Central Land Council and Northern Land Council to secure leases for remote public housing and government infrastructure across the 50% of the Northern Territory that is Aboriginal land. We are also working closely with our local government leaders, remembering that the vast majority of our elected members in shires are Indigenous people.
My department’s Chief Executive chairs a quarterly regional shire forum with shire council CEOs, mayors, and presidents to discuss relevant issues affecting local government - forums I regularly interact with in each of these shires. They are attended by senior officers from the Australian government, and they provide an opportunity for all three levels of government to work together on issues affecting our regions.
It is timely to reflect on the progress of local government reform, which has seen the legislative and administrative framework put in place for the long and difficult journey towards a professional system of local government across the bush. Councils are now required to operate in an open and transparent manner, and conduct service delivery planning in a way that has never been seen before in the remote regions of the Northern Territory. There is now a code of conduct for all elected members, and strict legislation concerning procurement and financial reporting. These changes are essential for a strong local government, and ensuring that communities have confidence in the integrity of their councils. Although only three years old, shire councils have already made significant achievements for their communities in the areas of Indigenous employment, planning, governance, and leadership development, to name but a few areas. We know we still have a fair way to go.
Since the local government reform, total employment positions in the shire councils have increased by 40%. This excludes CDEP positions. The eight large shire councils employ 2508 staff in total, of whom 1852 are Indigenous. The average percentage of Indigenous workforce in the large shire councils is 72%. This percentage is far and above the average level of Indigenous employment in other local governments across Australia.
Our government is contributing $8.4m per year to assist shire councils offset the cost of entry level and near-entry level Indigenous positions delivering core local government services. Councils are able to claim up to half of the cost of supported positions. This program was not possible to fully implement prior to the formation of shire councils, and has contributed significantly to the increased total of non-CDEP Indigenous employment in the bush. It is currently supporting approximately 460 full-time and part-time positions.
The Australian government has committed $1.6m per year for the three years ending June 2014 to employ workplace mentors in shire councils. Shire human resource departments provide a professional level of staff development, including personal development plans that did not exist with the majority of the former councils.
Shire councils have been able to access funding through the Australian government to undertake an assessment of their current assets and infrastructure, and to develop consistent asset and infrastructure plans, management registers, and policies. This is something the former community government councils were never able to undertake.
Shire councils have been able to provide consistent governance training to elected members. My department has been able to provide direct support to council members where additional training or development is required or requested on particular subjects such as budget processes. This was simply not possible pre-reform.
The department has also been able to provide scholarships to a number of elected members to attend the inaugural ANZSOG Excellence in Local Government Leadership course run by ANU and attended by over 40 elected members from across Australia and New Zealand. Further, the department has also provided assistance to council staff and elected members to undertake the inaugural Graduate Certificate in Local Government Leadership.
This government has listened to local people about their feelings of disconnect, much of which, I believe, has been caused by the intervention. I know the work we have to do in regard to the shires. Nonetheless, we will be redoubling our efforts to ensure that local boards have an increased and meaningful say in the operations of shire councils, and that shire councils improve their capacity to meet core service delivery standards.
In closing, I briefly turn to the future of the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Emergency Response. There has been much attention over the past few months on the future of the NTER, not least because the Commonwealth has been conducting consultation sessions on its Stronger Futures discussion paper across the Territory, some of which I have attended. I have been on the record many times about the way the intervention was introduced. As Minister for Statehood, I have expressed both publicly and in this House legislatively our constitutional vulnerability as Australians in the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth act.
It is the case, however, that the NTER has delivered nearly $285m this financial year alone in much-needed additional services for Aboriginal people across the Territory. That funding, along with many of the legislative provisions that define the NTER, is scheduled to come to an end in August 2012. Some elements of it will come to an end a few months earlier.
The Northern Territory government is working closely with the Commonwealth to chart a course for the future. Underpinning our approach to these negotiations is a clear message to the Commonwealth: work with us; a strong working partnership is what is required, not intervention over the top of us.
The Territory government has provided the Commonwealth with an overarching policy framework for its investment in the remote areas of the Territory, and we are now working with the Commonwealth government to negotiate what this investment will look like over the next 10 years to maintain reform momentum and support the Territory government to implement the A Working Future agenda.
It would be most fitting if a decade on from John Ah Kit’s defining speech on Indigenous affairs, the Commonwealth and Territory governments were to reach agreement on a package to continue fundamental reform and necessary investment in partnership and, with the voices of the Territory’s Aboriginal people, contribute to each step we take.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously, the other side does not care, does not have any policy directions, or they are not interested. It is disappointing. I speak in support of the Minister for Indigenous Development about the important progress we are making to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
Our government believes all Territorians deserve quality healthcare, regardless of their income or location. An important area of health and wellbeing, nearly 6% of the Northern Territory health budget is dedicated to healthy life for Aboriginal people. This includes funding for hostels, community health initiatives, and support services. Since 2001, there have been significant improvements to Indigenous health delivered by the Henderson government, including new remote health centres. They have been established in Milikapiti, Daly River, Yuendumu, Nguiu, Jilkminggan, Kalkarindji, Maningrida, and Wadeye. We have introduced a child health initiative with $2.2m recurrent funding for the largest expansion ever of child health services across the Territory. This program has seen more child health nurses, Aboriginal Health Workers and nutritionists engaged to improve the health of our children.
A boost of $50m per year through the enhanced Health Service Delivery Initiative has been provided for improved primary healthcare and community control in remote areas. This is the largest expansion of primary healthcare for remote areas with more doctors, nurses and health workers in chronic disease, child and maternal health, health promotion, and eye and ear health.
We have awarded the new Top End Medical Retrieval contract to CareFlight of $256m over 10 years, for a fully integrated service - new planes, extra specialist medical and nursing staff, and maintenance system.
We have opened new renal dialysis units in Alice Springs, Gap Road, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Palmerston. We have opened renal rooms in Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Barunga, Kalkarindji, Yirrkala, and Umbakumba, with an extra $24m from the 2007 budget. There are also relocatable renal units in Galiwinku, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Ngukurr, Angurugu, Borroloola, Ti Tree, Amoonguna, Ali Curung and Lake Nash. There is expansion for Tennant Creek dialysis unit this year. There are 29 renal patients now self-managing their haemodialysis treatments in their home communities. We have opened the Alyerre Hostel in Alice Springs for safe, culturally appropriate accommodation for 24 renal patients to focus on peritoneal dialysis.
We have also rolled out e-Health which means important health information is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when consumers present for care at any of the 110 participating health clinics, GPs, or hostels spread out across the Territory and the APY Lands. There are 45 000 people now registered with the shared electronic health record service. We are moving the shared electronic health record service to go with the national personally controlled electronic health record with our partners, AMSANT, General Practice Network NT, WA Country Health Service, and the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia. This will bring the electronic health record into urban GP practices, nursing homes, as well as the regional and remote areas including the Kimberley and tri-state areas in Central Australia.
In relation to health planning for the future, Health of Territorians, new funding of $50m has been committed through the Commonwealth Health and Hospital Fund, with a focus on Indigenous health. There will be new clinics in Robertson River, Ngukurr, Canteen Creek, Numbulwar, Elliott, Galiwinku and Ntaria, and four upgrades for remote health centres in Titjikala, Papunya, Maningrida and Docker River. There will also be improvements to all regional hospitals: a new emergency department at Gove Hospital with $30m provided by the Commonwealth; an upgrade of the emergency department at Tennant Creek, $3.7m; an expanded emergency department at Katherine opened this year; fly in surgical teams for Katherine, Gove and Tennant Creek; and extra surgical specialist equipment for ear, nose and throat, eye surgery, and general surgery.
We have also increased access to patient accommodation. For Gove Hospital, short stay accommodation has been allocated $5.8m. For Katherine short stay accommodation, the Commonwealth has provided $7.7m. Renal patient accommodation at Alice Springs and Tennant Creek has been increased by $30m.
In addition to the improvements in the wellbeing of Territorians, I draw your attention to some significant health outcome improvements. The member for Greatorex always says we spend too much money, but asks what the outcomes are. I will read them for him because they are significant outcomes. The outcomes are: a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women; Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%; anaemia rates for Aboriginal children have fallen by 20%; cervical cancer rates have fallen by 61%; the mortality has fallen 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women in the last decade; and patients with renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia - an improvement of seven years in their life expectancy.
These are all decisions and actions by the Henderson Labor government in the past 10 years. We have a clear policy that every Territorian, wherever they live, deserves the same health service. The health service will be equivalent to the one you can receive if you live in Perth, Adelaide, or Sydney. I do not think we will be hearing much from the member of Greatorex because, as we saw yesterday, he tried to gag the debate after three minutes because he either did not have anything to say or he did not like what he heard. Obviously, the opposition is bereft of policies on many aspects - not only in health but, as we have seen, on business and other areas of government. They are here to criticise. It is easy to criticise, but it is very difficult to come up with a constructive argument. That constructive argument is nowhere to be seen.
I turn to another area of my portfolio that is committed to Indigenous development, which is the area of fisheries within the Department of Resources.
We believe that working with Indigenous communities is the best way forward. The Department of Resources is working to create opportunities for real and sustainable Indigenous employment. The Department of Resources currently provides annual grants of $60 000 for fisheries monitoring services to eight ranger groups: Anindilyakwa, Djelk Sea Rangers in Maningrida, Gumurr Marthakal Rangers in Galiwinku, li-Anthawirriyarra in Borroloola, and rangers in Warrawi, Numbulwar, Wadeye, and Tiwi Islands. The Department of Resources has also facilitated the development and delivery of tailored formal and on-the-job training for rangers, including Certificate II Fisheries Compliance course that is nationally accredited, biosecurity monitoring, fisheries research sampling techniques, fisheries surveillance, safety at sea, and vessel operations.
This year, the department commenced consultations regarding the establishment of the East Arnhem fisheries network. This network will coordinate the development of prospective fishing and agricultural business in the region and will compliment Blue Mud Bay negotiations. The consultation phase is due to conclude early in the new year, with the development phase to commence shortly afterwards. Feedback to date indicates support for this concept.
In the pastoral area of my portfolio, the Indigenous Pastoral Program is under way. The Indigenous Pastoral Program is a multi-agency partnership including the Northern and Central Land Councils, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and my department. The aim of the program is to increase cattle numbers and land in production on Aboriginal land, and to increase Indigenous participation in the Northern Territory pastoral industry.
Under an MOU, external core funding is received from the Indigenous Land Corporation for positions within the program, including development of some positions, one in Katherine and Alice Springs, and a program manager position with pastoral production, were funded. The funded positions provide program coordination, extension services support, and enterprise development support for established and emerging Indigenous pastoral enterprises.
Since 2003, some Indigenous pastoral program achievements include: an increase in cattle numbers on Indigenous land of 86 000 head; an additional area of 20 000 km land fenced, watered, and in pastoral production; in excess of 55 jobs; and improved land management in fire management, weed control, feral animal management, and access to country. The Indigenous Pastoral Program partner agencies have agreed to a further five-year term for the program. The program is to build on current achievements and continue to enhance Indigenous pastoral participation.
The Gunbalanya Meatworks is owned by the Indigenous Land Corporation, employs local Indigenous staff, and is licensed by the Department of Resources. The department is working with the Gumatj Association to support their plans to build up the head of their cattle property some 100 km from Nhulunbuy. Their aim is to improve the supply of fresh meat into the local community.
In addition to pastoral activities that aim to increase Indigenous development, there are a number of agricultural initiatives that have contributed to the development of jobs in remote areas. In fact, the objectives of the Northern Territory Agribusiness Industry Strategy 2011 to 2015 identifies the importance of increasing Indigenous participation in agribusiness.
The Growing our Country initiative was launched this financial year with a budget allocation of $300 000 per annum. The initiative is aimed at supporting willing Indigenous community members, stakeholders, and corporations to build a foundation for sustainable commercial and non-commercial farms and garden enterprises. It also facilitates new agribusiness opportunities that employ Indigenous people to develop horticultural skills in Indigenous communities through capacity-building activities.
We are also working with the Western Australia government to maximise opportunities for development of the Ord Irrigation Scheme, with potential for Indigenous economic benefit to flow to the region and, with the Gumatj Association, support their forestry aspirations. The Gumatj Association currently has a range of mills in the East Arnhem area, and they are harvesting trees on their traditional land. The wood is then transformed to furniture in the workshop and sold to the local community and beyond. We are also working with the McArthur River Mine Community Benefits Trust project officer to support development of more food production business in the region. This is early days, but there is interest from local people.
Across all my portfolios and, in fact, across all agencies of government, there is considerable energy and effort being channelled into Indigenous development. Even within the minerals and energy portfolio we find examples of how our commitment to develop and secure the wellbeing and development of Indigenous Territorians.
Under the Mining Management Amendment Bill 2011, our government is seeking to amend the Mining Management Act to now include the provision of economic and social benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to environmental regulation. This is a consequence of the government’s belief that large mines have a long-term impact on the communities where they operate and that miners need to demonstrate how they will address this. This provision would only come into effect at the point where actual mining commences; that is, after the exploration has proved up a minable deposit, a mineral lease is applied for, and authorisation for mining has been sought. The government’s view is that mining companies need to be involved in a conversation with the community over a period of time. In the lead-up to a decision on whether to proceed with developing a mine, the proponents should be identifying opportunities to support local communities and planning how this will occur.
The government does not seek to be prescriptive about community benefits. There are many ways in which mining operators might deliver benefits to the local community, ranging from increased employment and the supply of goods, to the establishment of community benefit trusts. Some of these will occur as a matter of course, and I see that companies are generally placing a much higher focus on local employment and training, especially Indigenous employment. The government’s view is that community benefits should become part of a development planning process.
The mining company spends an amount of money on jobs, services and businesses as a matter of course and, through these amendments, government is endeavouring to improve the channelling of other expenditure into local communities. In due course, guidelines will be issued in the amended act to assist operators to further scope the nature of their community benefit.
Within the Department of Resources itself, there are 24 Indigenous employees as of 24 October 2011, which means 5% of total employees. To increase the percentage of Indigenous employees, the Department of Resources has an Indigenous Employment Strategy, which includes entry level programs, cross-cultural awareness training, and mentoring.
In 2011, the department supported the following entry level programs: Indigenous Cadet Support; two Indigenous students received agency support for their degree-level studies through the Indigenous Cadetship Support Program - one is studying at Charles Darwin University, and one is undertaking study at James Cook University. The department has three apprenticeships, all of whom are due to complete their qualification in February 2012.
Regarding apprenticeship outcomes, we saw one mature-age apprentice leave his apprenticeship with the department on very good terms. He successfully completed a Certificate III in Business and other study and decided to return to his community to participate in and support the development of a local business initiative. The department permanently placed an apprentice with Minerals and Energy following the completion of his apprenticeship. The department’s regional apprentice was awarded Apprentice of the Year by Group Training for the Katherine region.
The department also conducts cross-cultural awareness and mentoring training. Seven cross-cultural sessions have been held this year, with 116 employees attending training in 2011. The department’s Indigenous Mentoring Training Program was conducted in August 2011, titled Indigenous Australians in the Workplace. As part of the department’s Senior Leadership Program, the Managing and Diversity Indigenous Workforce Workshop was successfully developed in September 2011.
We know that Indigenous children and families represent a high proportion of those who interact with the child protection system. This fact needs to change. It is why we have committed over $130m to address child protection issues through the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry. It is why it is important we have Indigenous people working within the Department of Children and Families, and why the department is committed to reform.
The Department of Children and Families is committed to meeting the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy which outlines Indigenous employment direction for the Northern Territory Public Service. The department is working towards the four key areas of the workplace: environment; attraction, retention; and communication. Workplace reform in the Department of Children and Families and across the child protection and family wellbeing sector in the Northern Territory is a key recommendation of the board of inquiry. We are investing in a number of innovative studies to help attract, retain, train, and grow a skilled workforce. As recommended by the board of inquiry, the department is developing strategic workforce plans to support the future development of the child and families sector workforce, both within government and across the community sector.
This year, it has recently tendered for the development of a specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce plan that aims to attract, increase, support, develop, and retain an Aboriginal workforce. Wherever possible, the department actively participates in initiatives aimed at increasing the participation of Aboriginal people in the workplace. Recently, the department employed four Indigenous employment program graduates on a permanent basis. We also participate in entry level programs such as the National Indigenous Cadetship program and other traineeship programs.
The department recognises its commitment to increasing the proportion of Aboriginal staff in leadership and professional stream positions. Core training in Aboriginal cultural practice in care and protection is provided by an Aboriginal professional development coordinator. The delivery of other core training is co-facilitated by an Aboriginal development facilitator. Key developmental training is brokered in consultation with Aboriginal staff to ensure all training is cultural appropriate …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, if I could interrupt you, given that it is 5.30 pm in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence until 9 pm. You will have an opportunity to resume your comments tomorrow.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have one page left.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 5.30 pm, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: Okay.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move-
That, this Assembly –
(a) calls upon the Gillard government to remove Senator Joe Ludwig from the Agricultural portfolio for his incompetent handling of issues pertaining to the live cattle export trade; and
I urge members of this Assembly to support this motion. The fact is, the actions of the federal government in the lead-up to, and following, the ban on the live cattle export trade were abhorrent to all Territorians and all people who understand even the smallest part of that industry. The fact is, it was a knee-jerk reaction in relation to a Four Corners report that aired on the television. There were some shocking scenes in that Four Corners report, but the fact was, the steps the industry have made over the years have not been taken into account and were never given any sufficient airing.
Of course, the Northern Territory live cattle trade industry has been with us for many decades. The improvements to animal welfare in that industry have been absolutely enormous; not only here in the Northern Territory, but also in the transportation of those cattle overseas and, indeed, in Indonesia where the cattle were destined for slaughter. The industry has put in enormous efforts over the years to ensure they have an industry that is very much sustainable.
I believe the cattle industry in the Northern Territory was done a large disservice by the Australian government and by the Northern Territory government, bearing in mind that when the ban was announced, the Chief Minister actually welcomed it. He said: ‘This is a good circuit breaker’. Many on this side of the Chamber were shocked and horrified by that announcement of the Chief Minister.
Fortunately, he did not stick with that point of view for too long. He realised the ramifications on the Northern Territory economy and social fabric, and he quickly recanted from those comments, and went into bat, to some extent, for the industry. Some of us believe he could have done more. Some of us believe the minister in the Northern Territory could have done more. The fact is, they eventually saw the errors of their ways, and supported the trade.
The worst part of it all is that the Northern Territory government never actually condemned the Gillard government. That is something this motion calls for. We need to send a very strong message to Canberra in this case, and tell them not to meddle in our affairs until they have at least consulted with Territorians on these issues.
We saw widespread hurt to many families across the Territory, not only those involved in the raising of cattle, but also those who support that industry - the trucking companies, the people who run feedlots, the people who provide hay, the people who provide other types of fodder and the like across the board. That decision was felt almost immediately in the Northern Territory.
It seemed to me, at the time, the minister in Canberra, Joe Ludwig, had very little regard for the welfare of Territorians, or any idea of the impact it would have on Territorians to go ahead and ban the live cattle trade - not to mention the very clear message it sent to our overseas trading partners. Jakarta is not that far from Darwin - Bali is sometimes a $100 airfare away; certainly a lot closer than Canberra. Territorians have always had a very special relationship with our near neighbours overseas. It was appalling, at the time, to see the way the minister and the Gillard government ignored those relationships, the impact it would have on our trade, and the damage it would do to relationships between the Northern Territory and Indonesia, in particular.
The message the Australian government sent to Indonesia was along the lines of: ‘You are a cruel little bunch of monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That was the clear message Australia sent to Indonesia. That is an appalling message - an absolutely disgraceful message we can send to our near neighbour. It is completely the wrong message.
It is interesting to note the footage that was aired on the Four Corners report that showed those dreadful acts of cruelty were actually illegal in Indonesia. Legally, you could not do that. The Indonesian authorities have been working for some time to crack down on that sort of vile behaviour. Instead of the Australian government working with the Indonesians, helping them stamp out those problems, we sent a nasty message and turned our backs on them. That was the wrong thing to do.
By way of history, I will explain a little about this trade. This trade was started many decades ago. When it was started, life for cattle was very harsh. The boat to Indonesia was very difficult; it was hard on animals and the people doing it. When the cattle got to Indonesia, life was just as hard. Quite often, our cattle would be in rice paddies, up to their guts in water, slopping around in mud, with inadequate feed. There was no real regulation and no real infrastructure in place to ensure cattle were looked after and maintained in a way Australians would expect they should be.
Over the decades, the cattle industry and previous Northern Territory governments worked very hard and diligently to improve standards of the trade, to the point now where a trip from Darwin to Indonesia is a very safe trip. I made a point the other night on the Q&A show that there is a lower mortality rate on these cattle ships than there is on a P&O cruise - and that is simply a fact. The cattle put on weight. The way cattle cope on that trip has been as a result of years of research and effort to ensure nutrition is right, they are getting the right feed, and they are not put under any undue stress. I have had people say: ‘They are being fed grain, that is why they get fat on these trips’. The fact is that no animal puts on weight if it is sitting around fretting, and these animals are not fretting. They are on a ship travelling to Indonesia in a very safe and healthy way.
Once in Indonesia, these days they are unloaded and transported to feedlots. These feedlots are also world’s best practice in feedlots. It has not happened by accident or by some quirk of fate. The fact is, North Australian cattlemen have been in Indonesia over the decades working very closely with the Indonesians to ensure everything is done to ensure cattle thrive. Australian nutritionists have been into communities in Indonesia. They have checked the crops, the feedlots, and the food basics around those towns, and they have developed diets for cattle. The feedlots have been constructed and much effort has gone into making sure cattle thrive whilst they are in Indonesia in those feedlots.
What is more, I know from my experience in the federal parliament and having a lot to do with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association over those years, that much effort has been put in to putting in place knocking boxes. The way Four Corners ran the show, it would make you believe that the knocking box is the worst thing in the world. However, the reality is that prior to the knocking box, there was no way of restraining cattle before they were slaughtered - and that is a fact. It has been a great step forward.
Of course, all Australians were horrified when we saw that footage. The fact is we should have been over there working with the Indonesians. Rather than banning trade, we should have been working with Indonesians to support good animal welfare practices. That is what the Australian government should have been doing. That is what the minister, Joe Ludwig, should have been doing, and that is the advice the minister received from his own department. His department advised him to get in there and work with the industry, to lift standards, prior to that Four Corners report going to air.
I draw the Chamber’s attention to an article in the Weekend Australian on 15 October, only a couple of weekends ago. The article was headlined: ‘Joe Ludwig ignored live cattle ban advice’. I will read the entire story on to the record so people can be under no doubt of the contents of that story:
That is the story that appeared in The Weekend Australian of 15 October. That story almost tells it all. That tells the story of a minister who was advised by his department to work collaboratively with the industry. It tells the story of a department that told the minister of the outcomes a ban would have on the economy and the social fabric of the Northern Territory. It tells the story of a minister who ignored that advice - he ignored that advice.
Given that, and the impact that has on the Northern Territory, and the reliance we, as Northern Territorians, have on that industry, it is time this minister got out of the way. It is time he resigned from that position. It is time the Prime Minister sacked him. It is the time this government here in the Northern Territory finally stood up to the Gillard administration and told them we are not happy. We need to send a clear message to the federal parliament and, in particular, to Senator Joe Ludwig, the minister for Agriculture who banned our industries and almost sent hundreds, and possibly thousands, of farmers to the wall.
That is the nature of this motion. It is a rather testing motion for this government because, to date, this government has never ever stood up for Territorians when it comes to either the Rudd or Gillard governments. They have been mere apologists for those governments. In the matter of live exports, this government was very quick to belt up the Independents in Canberra for their calls for a ban. However, they did not raise their voices as far as the Prime Minister or the minister for Agriculture were concerned.
Around the time of the ban, the Prime Minister was in the Northern Territory. The whole time we saw that footage and the pictures of the Prime Minister getting around the Northern Territory, who was there at her side smiling and nodding? It was our very own Chief Minister. Not once, in that entire time was the Chief Minister seen to be castigating the Prime Minister and saying: ‘Hang on, Prime Minister, what is going on is wrong’ - not once. Not at any single time did the Chief Minister stand up and castigate the minister, Joe Ludwig, in Canberra for his actions and his decision.
Whilst I am on my feet, we on this side of the House are very thankful for the support we and the cattle industry received from our little mate behind me, the member for Nelson. He was a person who stood up and decried the decision, and said it was wrong. I am very interested to see what the member for Nelson has to say about this ban, now that the dust has somewhat settled.
Madam Deputy Speaker, fundamentally, this motion is aimed at the federal parliament, the federal government, in particular, and at Senator Joe Ludwig particularly. Senator Ludwig should resign from this; he should be bought to heel. He needs to be punished for this unconscionable decision he has made. I would love to see, for a change, the government here getting on board, supporting this motion, and clearly sending a message to Canberra.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard the member opposite, with amazement, because what he is trying to do is politicise the whole issue - the current crisis we are facing with the cattle industry and the live cattle export - exactly the very outcome the industry has asked both the government and opposition not to do. Both parties of parliament have been asked not to politicise the current crisis.
Even as recently as last week on the ABC’s Q&A, when the member for Fong Lim was invited on the program as the public face of the CLP, Mr Ian McBean, whom everyone knows and who has been in the Territory for a long time, asked why politicians were not working together on that issue. He did not ask us make to political grandstanding. He asked: ‘Why can you not work together on that issue?’
What I find most surprising is the member for Fong Lim was making a fiery speech against Senator Ludwig, who happens to be in the Labor Party government. But, not once did he mention there were two private member bills seeking to ban live cattle export. He did not even mention that once …
Mr Tollner: Neither of them got up.
Mr VATSKALIS: What message is sent to our international trade partners, when you do not even consider those bills? They might not have got up; the reality is they were introduced to parliament, and that was a strong message. Quite a few people mentioned that to me during my recent trip to Indonesia.
The last thing that puzzles me at the moment is political grandstanding. For what benefit, member for Fong Lim? What has really led to this motion is the tension between the current Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim and his aspirations. Industry is looking for leadership, not a fight over leadership. The community will see this for what it is: the member for Fong Lim’s return to the front bench and out of the window goes the bipartisan approach in the situation with the live cattle export. I recognise the current Leader of the Opposition supported the unanimous motion of this parliament. The member for Fong Lim returns, and it is simply cast aside.
This side of the House refuses to use our pastoral industry as a political football. Industry has asked us to work together. We are prepared to do that, and we want to do that. Obviously, the opposition does not; they send in the member for Fong Lim. This parliament passed a unanimous motion to support our live cattle export industry and ensure the welfare of cattle, and to do everything possible to recommence the trade. I remind the member for Fong Lim, when we all saw this particular footage on Four Corners not only were we astounded, we were horrified. Yes, it was illegal to do it under the Indonesian law, but the reality is the Indonesians themselves acknowledge it was impossible to police the legislation in the 140 different abattoirs they have spread out through the archipelago of Indonesia. Even the Indonesian Embassy issued a media release condemning the practice. Any civilised person would condemn that practice.
The reality is, even the pastoralists in Australia, in the Northern Territory, have said they were so horrified at what they saw on Four Corners that they would rather keep their animals here than export them to the abattoirs to be treated like that. It was not the reaction by political leadership in Australia, it was the reaction by the people who breed, feed, and export these cattle to Indonesia. They were horrified by what they saw; they were very upset. Yes, it was a reaction to close down the industry for four weeks, but it was justified because it gave the Australian industry the opportunity to have a good look at itself, and the Indonesian industry to have a look at the practices that were happening in their own country.
I have worked in abattoirs; they are not a nice place to be. It is a place where you kill animals. The difference is that animals in Australia are killed humanely and, in Indonesia, what we saw in that particular abattoir was not humane killing. Not that there are not abattoirs that kill animals humanely, but there is no way we could actually trace animals leaving Darwin and arriving in Indonesia, and going to an abattoir, to ensure they went to the right abattoir that kills animals humanely. That was impossible.
Minister Ludwig reacted quickly and closed the trade for four weeks. That gave us the break we needed to have a look at the industry. Let us not kid ourselves; there are some faults by industry, especially Meat and Livestock Australia. MLA, quite rightly, expanded trade but, unfortunately, did not take into account the expanded trade meant more abattoirs would use Australian animals for processing. They did not have either the manpower on the ground or the expertise to have a look at those abattoirs and the way the animals were killed.
On Thursday, 9 June, at the opening of CDU pharmacy building, the Chief Minister and I briefed the Prime Minister of Australia. Yes, we briefed, but certainly not in front of the cameras. We spent 20 minutes with Julia Gillard to brief her about the consequence of the closing of the trade. We all acknowledge there was a situation that could not be avoided at the time following what happened on Four Corners. Julia Gillard committed herself to the reopening of the trade subject that they have found new conditions to ensure animals from Australia, when exported to Indonesia, will be treated and slaughtered humanely.
This political grandstanding by the member for Fong Lim - I have an excellent working relationship with Terry Redman, the minister for Agriculture of the Liberal government in Western Australia, and Tim Mulherin, the minister for Agriculture in the Labor government in Queensland. We three made a joint approach to Senator Ludwig to convene a national teleconference with the minister’s office. That happened on 10 June 2011.
An industry and government working group was appointed to jointly develop the protocols to ensure traceability of all Australian livestock exported to Indonesia. I personally lobbied to have the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association part of the working group rather than simply be represented by its national body - and they did; they became part of that group. The group now is working to ensure animal welfare and recommencement of the trade, the management of the domestic implications of the trade suspension and, of course, a course of action for managing Australian relationships with other international markets. The working group has formulated the supply chain protocols which have to be rolled out to other export markets.
At the request of the federal government, and a personal request by the minister for Agriculture, Senator Ludwig, I travelled to Indonesia with Mr Rohan Sullivan, the President of NTCA and Mr Adam Hill, the Chief Executive Officer of the exporters, to meet with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture; Mr Mahendra Siregar, the Vice Minister of Trade; and Mr Toni Wibowo, the Director of Lembu Jantan Perkasa, which operates a cattle breeding feedlot and trading company, about operations in Indonesia.
I had a personal view. I visited Indonesia with the industry, I met with a Vice Minister for Trade and officials from the Ministry of Agriculture. I visited feedlots to have a look at the impact in Australia, because I was well aware of what was happening in Australia, but also in Indonesia. All this information was fed through the Ambassador of Australia in Jakarta, Mr Moriarty, to minister Ludwig’s office. I gave a frank and open description of what was happening in the Territory, in north Australia and in Indonesia and, to his credit, I received a telephone call from the minister’s office when I was at the airport in Jakarta to fly back to Australia, to advise me the ban had been lifted.
In Indonesia, I met with Dr Ackerman, who now works for MLA. I understand he has taken great strides in developing a protocol, inspecting abattoirs, and recommending upgrades to abattoirs in Indonesia. Dr Ackerman is familiar with the situation in Indonesia because he worked previously with the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.
Senator Ludwig had also appointed a former Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Bill Farmer, to lead the review across the live animal export industry; not only in Indonesia, but in other countries in the region where we are exporting cattle.
The problem we have is, in Australia, we trade animals from gate to plate through the national livestock identification system. However, there were exemptions. Animals that were bred to be exported to Indonesia did not have to be registered in NLIS, and did not have to have a tag in their ear so it could be traced. So, an animal could actually go from Australia to Indonesia and no one would know where it finished up.
The other thing that was pointed out to me is Indonesians have used many animals from Australia to improve their breed. Many animals in Indonesia look exactly the same as the Brahmin cattle from Australia, so anyone can take footage from an abattoir where they can slaughter Indonesian animals and highlight that these animals are Australian.
The other problem we have is there is always slippage in Indonesia. It is not a watertight trade. Animals that come from Australia to the feedlot, yes, the majority of them will find their way to an accredited abattoir. However, some of them might slip and find their way somewhere else. So, we have to be able to trace the Australian animals from the port to the abattoir in Indonesia, and that is now happening.
The live cattle trade in the Territory is significant. We are talking about $166m to $200m annually. The same animals, when they arrive in Indonesia, will be worth between $A250m and $A280m. It is a significant industry that employs hundreds of people, not only in Australia, but also hundreds of people in Indonesia.
The other thing which is important for Indonesia is, when I was there, I found that the price of beef had significantly increased, and the Indonesian government was expecting to increase it even further during the Ramadan holidays. We were fortunate there was no politicians who made mileage out of it, blaming Australia, because it was not blaming Australia; it was a situation that developed and involved Indonesia.
Despite coming here and grandstanding and talking about Senator Ludwig being sacked because he did not do his job properly, instead of making a lot of noise, I decided I should go where our trade takes place, or there is potential to have a trade in the future. From the very beginning, when I became minister for Primary Industry, I was horrified that all our eggs were in one basket in Indonesia. I pointed it out repeatedly to the industry. I advocated opening new markets. I went to Sabah, Sarawak, and to Vietnam a few years back. This time, I did the same again. Together with Luke Bowen and the industry’s Mr Adam Hill, we went to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
In Indonesia, I met with the Deputy Trade Minister, Mahendra Siregar; Indonesian government officials; Dr John Ackerman; and the Australian Ambassador. I also had a meeting with the cattle importers, and I had dinner with them.
Indonesia has a keen interest in capacity building when it comes to abattoir workers. They know they have shortcomings, and they are looking to us to train the people who work not only in the feedlots and the farms, but also in the abattoirs handling and slaughtering animals and food processing.
They are also aware that Indonesia is looking for self-sufficiency, especially in meat. However, even though they talk about self-sufficiency, they admitted to me the number that will be imported from overseas was still 10% of the national herd. There is no way they will ever meet total self-sufficiency because in Indonesia there is an emerging middle class to which new numbers are added every year. They have a better income and they want better quality meat and protein.
I visited Malaysia on 20 September 2011. I met with the Acting High Commissioner, Ms Jane Duke; the Minister for Agriculture Micro-based Industry, Datuk Noh Omar, whom I had the opportunity to meet a year ago in Darwin; and industry representatives. The meeting with the minister went very well. The Malaysian minister told me about the government’s plans to increase meat production. He was aware of the good relationship we had with Sabah and Sarawak, and the good work we did there. He also advised me the delegation from the Australian government went to Malaysia to look at their procedures and they were quite pleased with what they saw.
There was discussion around the national feedlot program for feeders, and Malaysia’s goal of having 71 satellite feedlots running by the end of the year, with 1000 animals per feedlot, and also running animals on oil palm plantations. The Malaysian minister suggested he would be very keen to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Northern Territory. I am currently examining this situation for the national feedlot program. We are looking forward to further cooperation with Malaysia which intends to import a significant number of animals in the next few years.
On 21 September, I went to the Philippines and met with Ambassador, Mr Rod Smith; the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines, Mr Segfredo Serran; government officials; and local industry representatives. The Philippine market remains extremely price sensitive. An agricultural forum was recently held with the Australian government. The Philippine government is well aware of the standards of the OIE with regard to handling and slaughtering of animals and the livestock tracking system. They have to admit the live cattle export to the Philippines depends on the strong Australian dollar. However, there is much interest in the Philippines from the importers and processors about importing Australian meat, feedlotting it, and then processing it for export as boxed meat to China. Last year, the Philippines imported 6481 cattle. This year, the Philippines imported 10 750 cattle - nearly double the number.
On 22 and 23 September, I visited Vietnam. In Vietnam, I met with the Ambassador, Mr Allaster Cox; the Vice Minister of the Vietnamese government for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Bong Ba Bui; the General Director of Red Star International, Mr Dang Thai Nhi; the Vice Chairman of the People’s Committee of Hai Phong, Mr Do Trung Thoai; and the General Director of Hai Phong Investment and Animal and Poultry Import, Mr Hoang Dzung. The Ambassador offered to assist the promotion of Vietnamese slaughter of Australian beef. I travelled to Hai Phong and visited the feedlot where the animals that had recently been imported from Australia were held. I also visited the abattoir and the slaughter facilities. I was very pleased to see the abattoir was very similar to an Australian abattoir, and also that the animals were stunned before they were slaughtered.
They were very appreciative of the assistance they received from the Department of Resources during the transport of the animals to Vietnam. My department people are currently in Vietnam further assisting the importers with animal handling, welfare, and meat processing.
Rather than grandstanding or jostling for the leader’s position opposite, I am getting on with the job the pastoral industry expects. The message from the industry was clear: they do not want the issue to be politicised; they want both political parties in this plan to work together. As I said before, I am prepared to work with the opposition. I work very close with the Liberal Agriculture minister of Western Australia, and the Labor Agriculture minister in Queensland with no problems at all, because we have a common interest. So it can be done; it was done.
The industry in the Territory seeks leaders, not a fight over leadership. I would welcome debate about an alternative approach, or even policy positions by members opposite. We have not seen any policy positions, or any alternate ideas. We have not seen any ideas at all about live cattle export. The only thing we hear is the live cattle export was closed down, now it has reopened. Where are the ideas about what are we going to do with our industry? Do we have to diversify? Do we have to find different markets? Are we going to actually convert our live cattle export industry to other industries, like boxed meat?
We have to remember the live cattle export to Indonesia is so attractive for the Indonesians because many of the animals they get from Australia are not only used for feedlotting and added value, but also for religious ceremonies. Some of their customs are different than ours; their religion is different than ours. But we can appreciate the difference in religion and we learn from other experiences.
I was very disillusioned the other day when someone stopped me on the road and told me we had to ban live cattle export. When I asked why he said: ‘Because the way they handle it is barbaric’. I said: ‘That is true, but we are trying to educate them and we have to train them’. I said: ‘You have to remember they do not buy their meat in the supermarket there. Some of the villagers buy their meat in the local markets. Also, they are used for religious ceremonies’. Of course, I was absolutely dumbfounded when the person said to me: ‘Well, in that case, they had better change their religion’. Obviously, that person was living on another planet. He needs to realise that on this planet there are many people - different colours, different nationality, different language, and different religions.
Madam Speaker, our government is working with the live cattle industry. We want to expand the market. We want to ensure what happened before will not happen again. I have made clear to my counterparts in Indonesia that my government, our government, is prepared to work with them. We are happy to have people in the Northern Territory to train them in farm management, animal management, animal handling, and even meat processing and how to slaughter animals in the way we do it in Australia.
I passed the same message to the other countries in Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. I will continue to say, if we are going to work together with industry, if we are going to save our industry, the best thing we can do is work together rather than against each other.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, one of the problems with general business is that by the time you get to a particular topic, it can be somewhat outdated and, to some extent, this is. I have given some thought as to whether I would support this motion because I have been very strong in my views that the government did the wrong thing for the Northern Territory cattle industry. It was one of the worst decisions I have seen by a government for a very long time; it has practically destroyed one of the most important industries in the Northern Territory. It is just only getting back on its feet. I believe the jury is out as to whether it will have permanently damaged some of the smaller stations in the Northern Territory. Whether they are able to get themselves out of debt, I do not know.
When I looked at this statement, I thought there is much discussion about ministerial responsibility. Sometimes, it goes overboard because the minister has been given advice, and perhaps he or she has been given bad advice, or simply did not know what was going on. My understanding, in this case, is the Senator, the minister for Agriculture, did know what was going on and approved an action which was disastrous for primary producers in the Northern Territory …
Mr Tollner: Contrary to the advice he received.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is what has been in The Australian in recent times; that he had advice and if he had taken that, we may not have ended up in the disastrous position we found ourselves.
I had not so much personal knowledge of the previous minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, but I was sad when he went because he was respected across the board by people in agriculture throughout Australia, and especially the Northern Territory. I had heard him speak at a number of Cattlemen’s Association dinners and thought he was someone who had a good knowledge of the industry. I could not believe that, if he had been the minister for Agriculture, this necessarily would have happened.
In the case of Senator Ludwig, I do not believe he had the capabilities Tony Burke had, because Tony Burke had been in the business for quite some time and had good knowledge. I wonder why governments shift their ministers around. They might want to give them an opportunity to learn more from different portfolios but, I believe, where they have good ministers, they should leave them there, especially in the agricultural sector. The industry sees it as beneficial that the ministers are there for a long time. They can get to know them, and the minister can get to know and understand the problems the farming sector has. It is an area that needs stability. When there is a new minister - because the minister was relatively new - to make a decision about the banning of cattle trade to Indonesia, was partly the case of someone who was new in the job and, perhaps, did not understand fully the ramifications of what the decision he made would have on the live cattle producers. I believe the minister should resign, because the buck stops with him, and this was one of the worst decisions the government could have taken. He was the lead in this, and that is why I support this.
Normally, I would probably not support such a motion because, sometimes, it could be seen as just having a political pot shot at someone in a parliament a long way from here. However, I support this, just to emphasise, once again, that, to me, this was the worst decision a government could make. People’s livelihoods were just not thought about. Relationships with Indonesia were not thought about. The effects on all those people who are dependent on providing services for the live cattle industry were affected. It had huge ramifications for families, and stress on people who were involved in the industry. There was even documentation, through the MLA about four years ago, which showed the effect of banning the live cattle trade to Indonesia would have on Northern Territory cattle producers. It clearly showed in that report this would be devastating. It was not as if the information about what this particular action would result in, was not known - it was known. As I said, the MLA did a report about four years ago which clearly showed all the ramifications of a live cattle ban. I would have thought the minister’s advisors, at least, would have known of that document, and shown the minister what was going to happen if he decided to close down the cattle trade. What was in that report is exactly what happened.
For me, it was disappointing, especially when the Territory is a relatively small economy, of which there is a relatively small private sector economy - mining, tourism, primary production. They are industries we really want to develop, as I have said time and time again, so we are not relying on the Commonwealth for all our funds; we are developing a diverse economy. Then, to get part of that diverse economy, the cattle industry, hit for six by an ill-thought-out decision by the minister for Agriculture really showed quite a bit of incompetence and a lack of understanding of the ramifications his decision would have on the Northern Territory. I do not have anything personal against the minister, by the way. I probably relate more to the position. However, the minister for Agriculture made the decision and it caused huge ramifications for us in the Northern Territory.
It also sends a signal out that the Northern Territory is an important part of Australia, regardless of whether it is a territory or state, and we should be treated just like someone in other parts of Australia should be treated. I sometimes think we were brushed off, simply because of the political backlash from people down south. Sometimes, when you look at the little text messages that go across during Q&A, you realise people from down south who make comments, really have no idea about the truth of the matter when it comes to how the Northern Territory operates. Again, if the minister had all the knowledge about what was going to happen if he closed off the live cattle, you would have thought he could have explained that to people in the southern areas. He could have looked at giving the industry some time to try to develop those protocols without shutting off the live cattle trade. However, he did not. He made this decision which, basically, said that is it, and overnight, people were just absolutely devastated.
I was sitting in the lounge room of Mt Riddock Station on the Plenty Highway watching Four Corners with the family of that cattle station, and those people were just devastated. I was also visiting - I am just trying to think of the name of the station now, on the Sandover Highway - Elkedra, when it was announced on the radio that Four Corners were going to show this program the next Monday. I just happened to be visiting cattle stations at the same time as this announcement was being made, and the people in those stations were absolutely devastated about what was going on. At that time, they did not know exactly what was going to happen, but they knew the report from Four Corners was going to have major ramifications for their industry and, of course, within about a week, it certainly did have.
In fact, I was driving along the Plenty Highway from the Queensland border, and there were two large road trains heading east towards Queensland, obviously going to pick up some cattle. It was only the next day that the announcement was made and I thought to myself: ‘What is going to happen to those cattle? Those trucks have gone out there to pick up cattle, the drivers have been paid to go out there and pick them up. I wonder whether they know that is going to be a waste of time?’ Perhaps they had to turn around when the decision was made and take those cattle back; I do not know. That was how sudden the decision was made.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this motion is a little dated, but that is the process we have in parliament. Normally, I would probably not make a fuss about a motion like this, but I am in this case because it was a serious error by the government, especially the minister, and it affected the Northern Territory no end. It sends out a message to the Gillard government that we believe they have made a dreadful error and, if they had any feelings for the Northern Territory, one way to say they are sorry for what they have done would be to replace the minister with a new minister. From my personal point of view, Tony Burke would do a great job in that same portfolio.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I first thank the two other speakers, the members for Casuarina and Nelson for their contributions to this motion. I agree with the member for Nelson in relation to his comments regarding the former minister, Tony Burke. I know Tony Burke reasonably well, had a bit to do with him over the years. Not that that matters so much, but I know people in the cattle industry across the Northern Territory who also know Tony Burke very well and believe he has a great deal of empathy for the industry - something I feel is sadly lacking in the current minister, Joe Ludwig.
I have an issue with a number of the comments made by the minister, the member for Casuarina. First, he said we did not jump up and down about the two bills that were put to the federal parliament by the two Independents. The fact is, as much as they might like to think so - even in this place, the member of Nelson might like to think they run government; the fact is they do not. They do not run government and, in that regard, the two Independents had very little likelihood of getting their bills up without the support of the government or the opposition. To suggest we should have been screaming more about those two Independents, in this case, on their completely unjustified and crazy journey with those two bills, is ludicrous.
The other thing the minister, the member for Casuarina said was that the decision was justified. I cannot believe a minister in the Northern Territory would suggest that banning the live cattle trade to Indonesia is a decision justified. He said it was a decision that could not be avoided. Goodness me! I do not know whether our minister was listening to this debate, but the federal minister’s own department advised him everything had to be avoided; that he should work collaboratively with the industry to improve animal welfare standards, and the worst-case scenario was a regulatory response; that is, a ban in trade. They said that the worst possible scenario, and then they went on to outline what a ban in the trade would mean to north Australia. Indeed, he spent tens of millions of dollars in compensation packages right across the top of the Northern Territory.
We have the member for Casuarina here acknowledging those practices that were seen on the Four Corners report were illegal in Indonesia. He acknowledged that. Goodness me! Then he went on to say even the Indonesians did not have the resources to police all of those slaughterhouses. Can I suggest, for the price of the compensation package which the minister made available to farmers, we could have easily sent those tens of millions of dollars to Indonesia to assist in providing extra police to ensure cattle were being slaughtered properly. That would be the neighbourly thing to do. This is one of our nearest neighbours. These people are a trading partner, particularly of the Northern Territory.
We have Northern Territory governments going back decades that stood proudly for the Territory and for Indonesia, saying how closely they worked together. This government here seems to have completely dropped the ball on that relationship. It is quite bizarre that we have a minister here saying there is nothing we can do about helping the Indonesians police abattoirs. Goodness me! The price of labour in Indonesia is a skerrick compared to what it is here. Getting people to police abattoirs I would not have thought would be very difficult in a country where you have high unemployment and very low wages. Surely, something more could have been done to ensure animal welfare standards were being improved in Indonesia, rather than banning the trade here and seeing a whole heap of Territory farmers and other people put on the brink of complete disaster?
The minister also said he is very disappointed that we are not acting in a bipartisan way. The fact is, when the ban was called for, the opposition was very quick to get in there and say we will act in a bipartisan way because, at that particular time, there was a great need to work together with the government to send a single message from the Northern Territory to get that ban dropped. That was the priority, and for that reason, both sides put politics to one side. We said: ‘All right, there is greater goal in place at the moment. We need to get down to Canberra. We need to get over to Indonesia. We need to get this problem fixed straightaway’. The opposition was very happy to work with the government on that. I believe that, in some ways, we did a reasonably good job together.
At the end of that process, just as importantly, we need to do a postmortem. We actually need to pick over some of the decisions that were made to ensure this sort of thing never ever happens again. Quite frankly, this government is not interested in doing that. They are not interested in looking at things retrospectively and doing a postmortem on the events and the decisions that led to a ban of our trade with Indonesia. The reason they are not prepared to do that is because they will not cross Julia Gillard, the Gillard government, or anyone in that government. They will never ever stand up to those people down there.
That is what is so disheartening, because we need to have a look at all those things that went into making that decision to find out what went wrong. Now things are starting to come into greater light - that is, the fact that the minister’s own department advised him that a ban was the last option - we should be looking at those things objectively. When these things come to light, we should be saying to the federal government: ‘You got it wrong, and that minister you have is a dud. He needs to be removed’. That is what we should be doing.
I know the member for Nelson does not like supporting these types of motions but, for that reason, as the member for Nelson said in his own words, he is prepared to look objectively at this, take the politics out of it, and do what needs to be done; that is, send a clear message about ministerial and government responsibility to Canberra because, of all places, they need it most - possibly even more than this joint.
The fact is the Gillard government is the worst government in the history of Australia in so many areas. We are feeling it on so many fronts. However, this decision, out of all the decisions, affected us worse in the Northern Territory than any other of their bungled decisions. I suppose we did not have people die in house fires as a result of pink batts. I believe this is much worse than the pink batts decision; but that is a matter for argument. I do not think there is any argument, except coming from the other side, that this was a bad decision. I am still absolutely amazed that our minister for Primary Industry can stand up and say this decision was justified; that the decision could not be avoided. What a load of nonsense!
Madam Speaker, I ask that every member in this Chamber support this motion because we need to send a clear message to the Gillard government, and we do need to see Senator Joe Ludwig sacked as the agriculture minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move –
Bagot Community has, in years gone by, been a wonderful, vibrant community - absolutely no doubt about it. It has played an integral role in the development and social fabric of Darwin over a long period of time. However, over recent years, things have spiralled downwards at the Bagot Community. Their community government council is practically non-functioning. There is very little effort being made to keep the community clean. There is very little effort made to keep the blow-ins, I suppose - people from other parts of the Territory - in order.
I have to say, without a word of a lie, with my hand on my heart, almost every single day I have been in this job and have been the member for Fong Lim, I have received complaints about the Bagot Community. That is a sad thing to have to report to this Chamber. People from the streets and houses right around that community are often ringing up, complaining about noise, violence that is going on, and rubbish that emanates from that community.
The previous member for Millner, Matthew Bonson, organised to put a fence up around that community. It is quite a nice fence, and I congratulate the government for putting the fence up …
Mr Wood: And a garden.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, and a nice garden at the front. If you drive down Bagot Road these days, you do not have to look into Bagot and see what is behind that fence. That was a response by the government at the time to some of the complaints from people who were driving in from the northern suburbs to work, who would look across Bagot Road and into Bagot Community, and wonder why there was so much degradation and filth. At that time, the community was certainly on a downward spiral as well.
The downside, of course, of putting up the fence is what happens behind it. Now, it is out of sight, out of mind. It seems to me that the government is completely ignoring the residents of Bagot and their welfare, the antisocial problems that emanate from Bagot, and the housing and living standards of people who live in Bagot. I have to say I have had a great deal to do with the Bagot Community over a long period of time, and there are some really wonderful people who live there - really lovely people. Some, I believe, are some of the best citizens we have in Darwin. I think of people like Helen Fejo - she is in everything. She is involved in programs all over Darwin; she works very hard and is very passionate about her people. She is a wonderful person.
At the same time, it seems to me the problems inside Bagot are caused by people, more often than not, who are visiting from other communities around the Territory. Bagot Community, of course, is a prescribed area. Alcohol has been banned there. You cannot have alcohol there. However, I guarantee you there is not a day that you cannot walk around the grounds inside behind the fence and see people, somewhere, drinking.
It seems to me police have given up on the Bagot Community. I have almost given up calling police. If I called police every time I got a call, police would never be out of the place.
It is very sad the Northern Territory government has made commitments to the people of Bagot about fixing up their law and order problems. I note at the last election, August 2008, government made a whole swag of commitments to the people of Bagot, and said they would do all sorts of things to improve the situation in Bagot. I have a document here entitled Paul Henderson’s Labor team – Strong leadership, secure future, media release 2008, dated 7 August 2008, the headline being ‘Greening the Territory – Improving our lifestyle’. On the second page of that media release it said:
This is in inverted commas, comments from the Chief Minister:
This is a government that runs around talking about how they are meeting all their election commitments, and they have not missed one. I do not know how they missed Bagot, but that police post was promised, according to the Chief Minister. According to this media release, in August 2008, it was going to be established in 2009-10. I will read that bit again, Madam Speaker:
Well, big words - big words; something you run to an election with: ‘This is what we are going to do’. Interestingly enough, in that media release, the Chief Minister committed to $6.7m to improve Bagot by 2009-10, and $2.7m of that being for the police post. On 7 August, the same day they issued the media release, on the ABC news, Matthew Bonson, said:
of Fong Lim:
We had the Chief Minister announcing a $2.7m police post, and the then candidate, Matthew Bonson, announcing it would be $4.5m. Bit hard to decide what the post is going to cost. It is either $2.7m or $4.5m, or somewhere in between. You know how these things work: whatever they announce, the price by the time they build it will surely be double that. The point is that was promised for 2009-10. Here we are in 2011, and still no police post. Residents around Bagot and in Bagot are being driven mad by antisocial and law and order problems, and this government does not seem to care. It is a hollow joke. The Chief Minister’s last line on that media release:
Well, ask them at Bagot whether they are enjoying a better quality of life since this government has been re-elected. I tell you what; I do not think you will find any of them enjoying a better way of life.
The motion is that the government immediately actions its plan to develop the land known as the Bagot Community and create a beautiful new suburb. That is what the motion is about; creating a beautiful new suburb. It looks like the member for Johnston is about to speak on this, but I know he will stand up and say: ‘No, no, no, no. We never promised to turn it into a suburb’. I bring the attention of the member for Johnston to an article that appeared in the NT News on 8 July 2009, written by the government’s then favourite journalist, Nick Calacouras. Nick Calacouras wrote an article headed ‘Government pressures Bagot’:
Further on in the article, there is a little about me which I will omit, saying I came up with the idea, but further down, the article says:
That is the Chief Minister’s words on 8 July 2009, a bit over two years ago.
On the ABC the day before, there was an article titled ‘Henderson ‘dreams’ of Bagot suburb’:
That is what this motion is based on; the fact that we have a Chief Minister - who says what he says gets done - dreams of one day seeing Bagot turned into a suburb. I have to tell you, this motion is about getting the Chief Minister off his butt and actually doing something about his dreams, and turning Bagot into a suburb because, quite frankly, we are not serving anyone well by allowing the current situation to continue. It is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We cannot allow Bagot to continue on the downward spiral it is currently heading, and has been heading for the last few years. It is not right by the residents of Bagot. It is not right by the people surrounding Bagot. It is certainly not right for all those people who live and work in Darwin. People living in Bagot should now have the rights of other citizens of Darwin. They should be able to expect their rubbish will be collected. They should expect their house will be at a good standard, they will have a fence around their house, and they will be protected from blow-ins who turn up at times of football matches or other cultural events and decide to sit here and get blind rotten drunk in their community and stay up until all hours of the night, screaming and fighting. That is what they should be able to expect: they will be protected and looked after by government.
The Country Liberals have a plan for Bagot, and have had a plan for quite some time. It comes after considerable consultation with a number of the residents - most of the residents in Bagot. I have to say there is a fair whack of them who support the plan. That plan is very simple: the residents who have been there for a long period of time will be, in many ways, gifted the houses they live in, on condition they are brought up to an acceptable community standard, which means they will have to go out and more than likely apply for a mortgage or get some financial support. The Country Liberals, if in government, would, in some way, try to provide that support through organisations like the TIO or Indigenous Banking Australia, or some other such organisation. In any case, those people would be assisted into private home ownership. They would then become responsible for mortgages, the same as every other person who owns a house.
On the other hand, if people do not want to take up that option, they can continue to live in those houses, but those houses would be brought up to a community standard, renovated and fixed up, and be provided to Territory Housing as Territory Housing stock.
The community would be subdivided, and more houses made available for first homeowners and other people in the marketplace trying to find a house. There would be provision made for community facilities. The health centre would be expanded to provide more health services in the Darwin area. The school would be improved to accept the additional people a new suburb would bring to the area and, fundamentally, the whole look of the place would be massively improved.
I have to say we have been shopping this idea around for quite some time and it has broad community support. The other thing I can say - and I hope they do not get too upset - is we have been talking to the Larrakia Development Corporation which has prepared plans and draft ideas of what may be possible in that community. I do not want to pre-empt the due diligence that would be required in government to deliver such a plan but, all in all, the view that has been pushed by our side of parliament is that the Bagot Community needs to be improved. People should have the ability to own their own houses. There is such demand for housing in Darwin we would have no problems at all creating a new suburb.
I do not want to pre-empt or guess at what the government’s ideas are for a new suburb. Clearly, the Chief Minister must have some ideas on how he would see this new suburb eventuating, considering he dreams of the day when Bagot is like any other suburb like, I believe he said, Ludmilla, or any other part of Darwin. ‘That is what we have to aspire to, not having people essentially in compounds isolated from the rest of Darwin’. They are the Chief Minister’s words. I applaud him for those words. Good on him! He is saying what everyone else thinks. All I want to know now is when the government is preparing to action those words.
The other thing I would like to know is, if they are not going to turn Bagot into a suburb, when are they going to honour their election commitment for a $2.7m or $4.5m police post? When are they going to build that? When are they going to build the street lighting, the concrete kerbing, and all the other things they committed to in the 2008 election campaign? Quite frankly, they certainly have not spent $6.7m in Bagot as they said they were going to do and that, in itself, is quite shameful.
You would think, in times when you are seeing all these terrible reports coming out about how we treat Indigenous people in the Northern Territory - the poor housing standards, the poor educational outcomes, the poor health outcomes, the poor job outcomes - there would be some focus on what we can do right here in Darwin. I find it appallingly embarrassing. I am very embarrassed about the things that go on in remote communities, and I have said that to this place time and time again. I am very embarrassed about that. What happens in Darwin and our urban centres is only that much worse because there is no great excuse about why we are not fixing those problems. For people living out in the middle of Woop Woop, a thousand miles from anywhere, you can blame the tyranny of distance and the difficulty to get services and products to those places. However, right here in the centre of a capital city in Australia - get real! There is no excuse for the government not spending this money and improving that community.
Madam Speaker, I ask the Assembly and members here to consider this motion that the government acts on the Chief Minister’s dreams, acts on their plans to develop the new suburb of Bagot - or whatever they want to call it - outline some plans, give us some time frames. These things are hollow words for government. It seems very easy to promise things but not so easy to deliver. Or, at the very least, tell us when they are going to put the police post in or when they are going to do some of the kerbing, fencing, or street lighting they committed to in 2008.
I will be very interested to listen to members of the government and any other speakers who want to talk on this, because it is right in the heart of my electorate. It causes me considerable anguish, and I would like to know what action is happening in Bagot.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this motion - not so much because I know about Bagot, although I do go past every now and then and wonder what goes on behind those walls. I hear from people occasionally who work with the little church there that, at times, Bagot certainly has its fair share of social problems. Obviously, there are some good people there who are working hard to try to turn things around.
I am speaking also because there are two communities in my electorate, the Knuckey Lagoon community and the 15 Mile community or the Palmerston Indigenous Village – although, thankfully, it got rid of that name. I just cannot think of the new name. It was in my electorate; it has been taken out of my electorate and has come back into my electorate. I will include that in my discussions today.
I fully support what the member for Fong Lim has said; that Bagot, like Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile community – and I should include the 1 Mile community – are right in or very close to a major urban centre in Darwin and Palmerston. Yet, I can stand in some of those communities and think I was way out bush somewhere, in a far-flung community where it is much harder to get services.
The government has to come up with a plan. The member for Fong Lim has come up with a plan. It is funny that he spoke about the ownership of houses. I was visiting the 15 Mile community and was speaking to a woman there. I just put to her: ‘Would you like to own this house? Why could you not buy this house out of your rent?’ She said she was interested. Of course, under the present leasing arrangement for that community, which is through the Aboriginal Development Foundation, that is probably not possible. However, there have been, over the last few years, a number of good, solid block houses built in both communities. They will suffer the tyranny of poor management because they will be someone else’s houses. In fact, they are not NT Housing houses, they are Yilli Rreung houses. To complicate matters, at Knuckey Lagoon there are two Larrakia harmony houses.
It is something that should be done in consultation with the community. People like Ronny Agnew at Knuckey Lagoon would be one of the people you would be wanting to talk to. It is time that option was given to people on those communities. Also, at the same time, sit down with those people and ask where these communities are going. Are we just going to have these little enclaves just where Aboriginal people live that have very little room to expand? What is the future of those places?
The 15 Mile community is a classic. It is actually in Palmerston. I was talking to one of the people from Palmerston. I do not know whether it was a councillor or one of our local members who did not believe that the 15 Mile community was in Palmerston. It is served by an easement - a Power and Water easement which used to be graded by the Litchfield Council. It is a community that is not in the Litchfield Shire, but is actually in Palmerston. I have always wondered where it fits into the great Palmerston plans. We build these beautiful new suburbs, you step across the road because, when Johnston comes right up to the highway, within 100 m you actually step back into a community which you could picture anywhere else in a remote Northern Territory.
There needs to be some plans set out for how these communities - Bagot is one of them, the 1 Mile, the Knuckey Lagoon community, and the 15 Mile community – will go in the future. What is their future? Can people in those communities purchase their own houses? What will happen to the leasehold the Aboriginal Development Foundation has?
To some extent, we have put them in the too-hard basket, probably like Bagot. Yet, I believe it is time there was a plan done, in consultation with the residents of those communities, which identified where those communities will be - could I put it in government’s terms? - as part of the 2030 plan. Do they fit into the 2030 plan? Do we always talk about Indigenous communities out there, or do we realise we have Indigenous communities right on our doorstep, and our plan needs to be put in place to say what is going to happen there. We need to be realistic and say there are some major social problems in those communities.
I recently issued a media release in relation to one of those communities where it was obvious the intervention was not really relevant, because the number of VB cans that were stacked up in a 44-gallon drum and piled up in plastic bags was quite enormous. You really wonder about the relevance of the intervention.
I am not saying the government or the police, from time to time, do not go into those communities. However, if there is not a constant surveillance of those communities, then the idea of no liquor in them is just writing on a sign, and it is not taking place in reality.
I was there and kids were jumping on the trampoline at 9 am on a Monday morning. I said to them: ‘Where do you go to school?’ I think they went to Driver, but it does not matter which school. I said: ‘Why are you not going?’ There was some excuse about mum, or something or other, but they were not at school. So, I rang up the department and the department, thankfully, got – I call them a truancy officer still - someone out there to see them, and I gather the parents were signed up for a responsibility agreement. I am not sure what happened after that.
Again, there needs to be a plan of what those communities are about. It would not be simple. The member for Fong Lim mentioned in Bagot you get people who come in and take over people’s houses. That is exactly what happens at Knuckey Lagoon; that is where some of your extra trouble comes from. However, you also have to realise the history of the 15 Mile, the 1 Mile, and the Knuckeys Lagoon communities; they were really a haven for drunks. When they came to town, the government set up places where - they knew these people were going to get drunk - at least they could come back to a safe area. You have Maningrida people at 15 Mile; Port Keats, Daly River, and Adelaide River people at the Knuckey Lagoon area; and at the 1 Mile you have people from Belyuen as well.
Times have moved on; the government said there was no more grog in those communities. The houses have been built, especially at Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile - good houses, families are in those houses. However, where is their control? I will give you a classic example. At the 15 Mile, for instance, the house is owned by Yilli Rreung. I do not know whether the occupier of the house has to ring up Yilli Rreung to kick someone out of that house, because they do not own the house and, then, when you get them out of the house and on to the ground outside, that land is owned by Aboriginal Development Foundation. So, do you have to ring up Bernie Valadian and say: ‘Bernie, I need these people out of the community’.
There needs to be some rationalisation of what will happen to those communities. Does, for instance, Palmerston go to the 15 Mile community and carry out dog control? I am not sure what they do there. Who looks after the roads? There is a road there that is attached to an easement. It is a funny situation; it actually does not go out on to a road. Does the Litchfield Council’s dog people go to Knuckey Lagoon and say to the people: ‘You have to have your dogs registered’. Are the dogs managed? I have been there delivering newsletters and I can tell you, just occasionally, my heart has been in my mouth, because some dogs do not like people like me. I thought: ‘Hang on, you are in the Litchfield Shire, we have dog by-laws; that will save me, won’t it?’ No, it does not save me there. When Rottweilers are as high as me, they can put the fear of God in you.
Where are we going with those communities? What is the plan? The member for Fong Lim has said he has a plan. I also believe the ownership of houses might be part of the plan for those other communities. Knuckey Lagoon would need kerbing and guttering. You have some bitumen there, but you have places there where you disappear through a big hole of water in the Wet Season. There is very little beautification of Knuckey Lagoon. At least Bagot has a nice front fence and a bit of beautification, but Knuckey Lagoon does not have that, and the 15 Mile does not have it either.
I take up what the member for Fong Lim is saying because I support what he is saying. I could move a motion to amend this motion, but I do not need to do that. The message I want to get back to government is: what are your plans for those communities? Are you working with those communities under a set of plans?
I have been to meetings. Ronny Agnew is a great bloke. He tries his best to run that community at Knuckey Lagoon. I have been to these community days he has occasionally. He invites all these people - I do not know where they all come from. There are banking people, people about alcohol; there is just a stack of people from all these agencies. I do not know where they come from, but they will come on that day and they end up at that community. That is great, but why do we need that many agencies to run a community of 15 houses? What is going on here? Yet, the place does not have much organisation. It is not part of our community, it is separate, and it is treated as separate. It is time we made up our mind whether you are in or out. It does not mean Aboriginal people cannot use that as their community, but are we turning places into future ghettos when they do not need to be that?
Darwin is a multicultural place. I do not expect us to stick Chinese in one place or Vietnamese in another place. We have these little groups that, historically, have been round for a long time that we need to identify and ask: ‘What is the future for these places? How can we help the people, give them a certain future?’ One of the ways to give people a certain future is to offer them the chance to buy their house. Even though we talk about it, and you hear other people talk about the importance of owning your own home, here we have an opportunity on a micro scale to do it close to the Darwin community, close to Palmerston, where people might be able to have an opportunity to own their own house. It would be a good experiment, to some extent. People will say that if you own your own house, there is a better chance you will look after it than if it is just someone else’s house and you do not care.
That is an area the government should seriously look at. Get out and talk to those communities. I am certainly happy, if the government wanted to look at this as a possible plan for the future, to go with government people and talk to the community and see if we could set up something that, in reality, might turn the lives of those people. I will be honest with you, there are people in some of those communities who find it, I suppose, scary to live in those communities because of some of the problems they have with alcohol, people who come into that community, and some of the people who live in that community. The good people feel threatened at times. I believe the government has to work with the community to overcome some of those problems but, at the same time, give them a good sense of security by offering for them the opportunity to buy their own houses.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Fong Lim’s motion. It has opened up discussion about this whole area. It is something we should not just leave for this particular General Business day. I would like to see some of these issues come back to parliament, and some plans from government, so we just do not forget it after it has been passed; that we do actually take it seriously and come back with some fair dinkum responses from the government.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion bought forward by the member for Fong Lim. As the member for Nelson said, these are very important issues. I believe it is timely and important that we are speaking about these issues here tonight, the basis of which is the motion by the member for Fong Lim. The member for Fong Lim moved:
From the history, as read out by the member for Fong Lim here this evening, the pledge that was made some years ago did not really extend to the extent of your motion, member for Fong Lim. That is the first thing to acknowledge.
I could be cynical; I am not cynical. If I was cynical and did not know the member for Fong Lim better, you could say this whole thing is just a political ploy. If you were a real political cynic, you could say the member for Fong Lim wants this development within his electorate so he could get the first homebuyers there; he could alleviate the problems of the Bagot Community that are confronting him at present as a local member and shore up his support even more regarding different types of people in his electorate to make his vote go up. However, that would be cynical of me to suggest that. Of course, I would never suggest that.
I could be cynical and say there have probably been developers knocking on his door and saying: ‘That is a pretty good piece of land at Bagot, member for Fong Lim’. Sometimes, as developers do, they say: ‘It is not about me. It is not about me making money, it is about the Territory’. I have been Planning minister and I have had a few of those conversations: ‘It is not about me or making money; it is for the good of the Territory’. There are many developers out there who have those motives. Usually, the alarm bells start ringing with me when that is the first thing someone says, particularly if I do not know them. When someone comes up to me and says: ‘I have been a Labor Party voter all my life and if you do not do what I ask, I am going to change my vote’. Of course, they might say, ‘I have been a CLP voter all my life’, and the same stuff. Or they could even say: ‘I have been an Independent voter all my life and I am going to really change and vote for a political party next time’. I am sure the member for Nelson gets that.
There is no doubt there has been some politics around this. The member for Fong Lim mentioned the 2008 election, the former member, and the Chief Minister and some of the undertakings that were given there. I will turn to some of those undertakings in my speech. Also, you focused on, essentially, what is a Police Beat. I remind the member for Fong Lim that the official position of your party is you oppose Police Beats.
I just love this photograph from the 2007 federal election. I will table it. The caption reads: ‘Divine Intervention’. There is the former minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mr Mal Brough and, right beside him, is the member for Fong Lim. Over the top is our good Lord, almost an apparition looking over minister Brough as if he has a divine imprimatur for what he is announcing for Bagot. It says: ‘Brough to make Bagot a suburb’. God bless him, Mal Brough, he was a can-do sort of a bloke. He got in his tank and he made announcements such as he was going to make Bagot a suburb. I really wonder how much prior consultation with the whole Bagot community went into that particular announcement.
I take on board what the member for Fong Lim has said; that there has been a great deal of consultation. No doubt, he has spoken to members of the Bagot Community about making Bagot a suburb. However, I have been around a fair while as well, member for Fong Lim, and I have had a bit to do with Bagot - probably over three decades and long before I ever got into politics. I know a little about the politics of Bagot and it is very complex. It is much more complex than the politics of this place and both sides interacting, and even the politics within one side here. They are Indigenous politics. They are about families, connections - a whole range of things. The politics of Bagot is very complicated.
We saw a simple announcement - Mal Brough making the announcement. We know the resistance there was in some quarters in Alice Springs, in getting lease arrangements over the town camps. We saw our old friend - is it Mr George Newhouse? - the lawyer coming in representing some sections of that community, talking about human rights and all the rest of it and, I believe, really obstructing the process of the federal government. We could get into the politics of it, but the federal government needed to have leases over that land so they could build assets there and have some control and management of those assets. That makes sense; I do not care whether it is the Coalition or the Labor Party in power.
We saw incredible resistance that even goes on to this day. You see it in the media; you hear people talking about their rights being taken away. However, I applaud what has happened in those town camps in Alice Springs. I applaud the Alice Springs Town Council for the way they have taken responsibility for the services in those town camps, in rubbish collection and other elements. That is a very positive model. This underlines not only regarding the assets that have been built there such as the houses - and even the member for Braitling has acknowledged those new houses which have been built on those town camps in Alice Springs are beautiful houses. I think he called them show houses. They are great assets and it is a very positive thing that has happened there.
From what the member for Fong Lim just said about the Chief Minister’s comments, that is the sort of thing he probably had in mind when he was talking about Bagot. I do not think he had in mind the subdivision you are talking about. I am not ruling that out. I am not saying it is a silly …
Mr Tollner: You mean like Ludmilla or any other part of Darwin?
Dr BURNS: Well, it is the same. The aspirations for those town camps is to make them part of the wider Alice Springs community. That is what I am talking about. I suppose we can play pedantic little games and semantics about what has been said, but I believe that is the intention there …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: I am trying to be fair here, member for Fong Lim. I am not ruling out your idea. I am saying it would take a great deal of negotiation. It would get pretty evil, medieval, and legal.
The member for Nelson mentioned 1 Mile camp, and I know there has been much investigation and examination of the leases there, and where the ADF stands. We are talking about very complex legal issues. What I am flagging here - I am not saying it is not a reason to do it - is I can see all sorts of barriers being put in the way of these ideas progressing. However, that is no reason not to do it. I can tell you there has been examination, a focus, and an assessment of some of the things that have been proposed here tonight, including what the member for Nelson has spoken about with Knuckey Lagoon, etcetera.
I do not think we should also underestimate the value or the cost of the headworks that would be required in a place like Bagot. In Knuckey Lagoon, because I have been out there - I am not an engineer but I know enough about it - we are talking about tens and tens of millions of dollars just to upgrade what is already there, let alone having a completely new suburb or a subdivision there. You are talking about fairly major dollars here.
I suggest the way forward is further engagement with the Commonwealth. There is no doubt, through the first phase of the intervention, there has been a number of places that have not received housing or infrastructure. Bagot is certainly one of them. We had a bit of an incident here the other day - a bit of a show - in relation to Elliott. Elliott is a place that is badly in need of infrastructure and further development. Knuckey Lagoon – and the member for Nelson mentioned the 15 Mile as well. What we have to do is further advocate with the Commonwealth. I do not care who is in power - I have said this before - these projects will take decades. It will take decades to resolve these issues, and that is probably one of the issues that …
Mr Tollner: Where is your $6.7m?
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Tollner: Where is your $6.7m that you are going to plough into Bagot?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It did not include headworks. I do not think $6.7m would buy you too much in the way of headworks ...
Mr Tollner: Kerbing, lighting, fencing.
Dr BURNS: Let me have a go, member for Fong Lim.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: The way forward is to continue to advocate with whichever government is in power in the Commonwealth. I have been on public record saying I do not think - for the want of a better word - a public housing model in remote communities and in the town camps that has been rolled out through the first phase of the intervention - is sustainable or even desirable in the long term. Everyone agrees on that. We have to find models of a way forward on that. I know the Northern Land Council is looking at various ways for facilitating that. At the bottom of it is land tenure; that is the sticking point. I will come back to the town camps in Alice Springs and the enormous fuss - political, media, and legal fuss - that occurred over those tenure issues and the acquisition of those leases by the Commonwealth which, I thought, given the circumstances, was the right move by the Commonwealth, and I certainly support it.
Where I differed from minister Brough - I never doubted his resolve or commitment – is he had a view that he was going to achieve profound change, not in a generation - he was not interested in generational change, he told me - but in a matter of years. Noble, a great aspiration, but not really rooted in reality. I said to him at Mutitjulu: ‘Mal, you are like a tank. You are like a Sherman Tank but, one day, you are going to hit a wall’. He did hit a wall and that was the election of 2007. Like someone who is committed to politics, at his age, he is picking himself up again. I hear he is after the seat of Peter Slipper. He is manoeuvring and is still a player. There you go! He is never a bloke you would write off, but his career has hit a little pause over the last few years.
Anyway, with some of the commitments given by government, I believe we have delivered quite a deal there. Stage 1 …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If you just listen …
Mr Tollner: Sorry, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Please give me the courtesy, member for Fong Lim.
Out of the commitment, Stage 1 works valued at $856 000 were completed in May 2010, which included the fencing of 36 residential houses, installing water meters on 56 residential houses, numbering 56 residential houses, a map at the Bagot entrance, fencing and putting shade over the basketball court, upgrading the basketball court and ablution block, reroofing the community hall, and a new ablution block with disabled access for the community hall.
Stage 2 works valued at $2.1369m were completed in August 2001 - I am sure you are aware of all of this, member for Fong Lim - and included installation of new water services and meters to seven units, improved street lighting, installation of ceiling lights and fans in the community hall - as you can see, there has been much work done in the community hall; conversion of an existing general purpose building into a multipurpose building; renovation to the Bagot admin building; upgrading of the laundromat, including washing machines and clothes dryers; installation of concrete driveways and concrete pads to 54 houses; installation of letter boxes for houses; installation of speed bumps around the community; installation of a barrier around the park to limit vehicle access; removal of any potentially dangerous trees in the community - and we know that is not a cheap exercise; installation of concrete walk ways; pathways installed through the community; landscaping of 34 houses; repairs to the multipurpose building block walls from cracking damage; and installation of a three-bay toilet, including one disabled toilet, in the multipurpose building.
Stage 3 works valued at approximately $900 000 have been approved and include: draw up a town plan that shows current and possible future development, including a future precinct; remove rubbish, old cars, dumped items; landscaping along footpaths - something I know the community values; upgrading of the oval; landscaping for the last 20 houses; upgrade the current school care building and renovate to become a women’s resource centre; install a disabled toilet in the admin building; upgrade further street lights that are not working; and hook up mains plumbing of the multipurpose building.
Stage 4 works are expected to be completed by 2012.
You talk about the changes there. There are 56 houses and what you would be looking at in your plan, member for Fong Lim, would be displacing quite a number of the residents there. I am not sure how your plan would work. You talk about people getting loans, etcetera, for houses. You did not really mention the land tenure issue. You mentioned that dollars would be spent to upgrade the remaining houses. You did not really talk about an indicative budget for that - presumably through the member for Fong Lim method of accounting and development. What you are going to do is sell housing blocks on Bagot, make a private housing development - which presumably is not salt and peppered through the existing housing infrastructure, but probably quite a distinct area - and use the money for that, theoretically, to upgrade the houses in Bagot.
You have, obviously, been in some discussions with the Larrakia Development Corporation. It is an organisation that needs to be taken seriously. It has had some great developments in Palmerston. It is a great organisation under the stewardship of Greg Constantine and others. The Indigenous people who are on the board do a great job. If they are coming forward with a plan, it needs to be taken seriously.
I do have severe, grave reservations about the land tenure issues. I believe we need to be working with the Commonwealth government and looking to them. They have the resources I believe the Northern Territory government does not have to bring the substantial changes you are talking about.
Whilst we will not be supporting the motion at this stage, we will be taking the ideas and doing further work on them. If you or anyone has detailed proposals for Bagot in particular, we would welcome those - and we would welcome that discussion. However, I can tell you, even in discussions around 1 Mile Dam with Mr Timber, that becomes incredibly complicated because of the sense of ownership Mr Timber and his family have. You have the overlay of the Larrakia attitude, and the view of 1 Mile, and the people who are there who do not actually live there. They come from over the harbour, as I understand it. There is a complexity of politics here, then you have the overlay of the ADF lease on it. They are very complicated issues.
That should not stop us from trying to progress this and trying to make a real difference to people’s lives. People at 1 Mile have been offered accommodation elsewhere on a number of occasions and they have knocked that back; they want to stay at 1 Mile. That complicates things, then, with the Larrakia and the ADF and all the rest of it.
These are complex issues. I thank you for bringing this issue forward. I also say regarding the alcohol issues that you talked about, this is a government that has, obviously, taken steps with our Banned Drinker Register and our steps towards controlling alcohol and alcohol abuse. I believe that is having an effect all over Darwin, including Bagot. That is the sense that I am getting. Since the Banned Drinker Register and those regulations were brought in, it has made a difference. We will continue to take further steps. We will continue to work with the Bagot community. On the basis of what I have outlined to you, member for Fong Lim, we will not be supporting this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is good to see you back in that Chair. I thank the two speakers who spoke on this motion. I thank both of them very much for taking the motion so seriously. It would be quite easy to treat such a motion, on the face of it, with some scepticism as the minister outlined. There is certainly no jest in the motion. It was a serious motion and I appreciate the way they have both responded to it.
Of course, the member for Nelson is going to focus on Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile communities; they are both in his electorate. I tend to focus on places like Bagot and Minmarama for obvious reasons; they are in my electorate. I do not believe anyone in the community would expect anything less from their locally-elected members than to focus their comments on their communities. We see it so often in this place which, I believe, is a good thing.
The minister made some points which I should address before I allow the motion to be put. The minister asked questions about the prior consultation with people who lived in Bagot in relation to the announcements that Mal Brough made in the 2007 election. I can inform this place that I was heavily involved in that policy announcement, I suppose you would call it, in the lead-up to the 2007 election. Given the fact that there was a campaign coming up, I spent an extraordinary amount of time getting around that community. On two particular occasions, both Mal Brough and I spent more than half a day. As federal ministers, members in this place will be aware - particularly ministers on the other side - to allocate half a day to any community is difficult, particularly in a lead-up to an election campaign - probably all the more so as a federal minister. However, Mal Brough did get around and spoke to people in the community. We were given a very good reception - a fantastic reception.
When the election came round - and I do not want to be cynical here - one could easily think our opponents decided to make a political football of it and, somehow or other, twist our plans because there were very graphic scenes on the television news of Indigenous people crying loudly and saying, ‘Brough is stealing our land. They are trying to take this place off us’, which, of course, happens in election campaigns. From time to time, both sides have probably utilised people in ways that might not be deemed appropriate at other times. In this particular case, people were crying saying: ‘They are trying to steal our land’.
The minister referred, on a number of occasions, to the land tenure. The land tenure at Bagot is a special purpose lease. The people living there do not own the land; it is not their land. Similarly at 1 Mile Dam: irrespective of how long people live there, it is not their land. For someone to think, ‘I have lived here for 30 years, therefore, I own it’, is a wrong conception. It is a big misconception to think that just because you have lived on a piece of land for 30 years, you somehow or other have ownership of it. That is just not right. Clearly, it is not right. It was not right at the time of the election campaign.
In fact, what Mal Brough and I were proposing was we would give them their land – we would freehold title that land which, of course, the legislation of the intervention allowed the federal government to do.
The Territory government of the day did not really want to act on town camps; they had no interest. Part of the intervention was to allow the Commonwealth the ability to clean up those town camps, predominantly in Central Australia. When that announcement was made, I saw that there were opportunities to fix some things in Darwin, and Bagot at the time was a particular priority.
As the minister said, there are barriers to these things. People will always find reasons why you should not do something, and why these things are difficult. They will find legal issues and that type of thing. One of the defining features of the early CLP government was that feature of ‘where there is a will there is a way. Get in there and have a go and make things happen’. That was a real feature years ago ...
Dr Burns: The Darwin Hotel?
Mr TOLLNER: Well, people said they may have been pigheaded and arrogant but, in the days of Paul Everingham, he was a very get-up-and-go type of bloke, and there was not too much that stood in Paul Everingham’s way. Things have changed over the years; that style of government seems to have gone in many ways, sadly. We desperately need a can-do type government; a government that will not stop and will attack a problem and deal with it and have a complete belief in itself. That is lacking.
The other point the minister made was that so much of this is reliant on the federal government. Quite clearly, we do not have the resources to deal with these issues here. I have news for the minister: the federal government is in exactly the same situation as you mob. It is almost a similarity of Labor-style governments across the world; in that the bank account dries up pretty quickly. We have seen the reckless spending of Wayne Swan in Canberra over the last few years. It was as if, when the global financial crisis hit, Wayne Swan had a big sigh of relief. It seemed to be a perfect excuse to run around throwing money everywhere. Of course, now the country is broke and we are discussing new taxes to pay for the mad spending spree of the federal Treasurer.
Expecting that the federal government is going to step up here and bail us out is a pretty forlorn hope. The reality is we are going to have to do things ourselves. If the minister, for some reason or other, thinks the Banned Drinker Register has stopped people drinking in a prescribed area, he is a bit out of touch. I do not believe the minister is out of touch - in fact, I know he is a man who is very in touch with the grassroots and, deep down, he knows the Banned Drinker Register has not really impacted on problems in Bagot and in some of the other public housing estates, or other areas of Darwin. I know that for a fact because he introduced legislation, just today, where it gives him some more powers to deal with these people who just defy the law. In that regard, whilst he might want to get up and tout the Banned Drinker Register, the reality is, he knows it is not working.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is a worthwhile motion. We cannot allow things to continue the way they are in Bagot. Things need to change. I was very disappointed that when the minister stood up, he could not explain why there was no police post in the Bagot Community. It was promised in 2009-10. Here we are in 2011, and there is no police post. He is right! The Country Liberals do not support some of the outlandish Police Beat policies of this Labor government, but the reality is, we did not make that commitment - the government did. The government said it was going to put a police post in there, not us. If the government says it is going to do something, Territorians have a right to expect that it will do it. The fact is, it has not done it, and not explained any reason at all why it has not done it.
I will be interested to see whether it gets it done this term. They have a bit under 10 months to go now. For a $4.5m or $2.7m police post in Bagot, there is time - we will go through the Wet Season, we can whack up a set of plans pretty quickly. There is plenty of space at Bagot to put a police post …
Dr Burns: So, you are supporting it now?
Mr TOLLNER: I just like to hold the government to account. You make these outlandish commitments. You might as well try to honour them, or at least stand up and give us some reason why you are not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say any more. There are other members who have business they want to get through. I very much thank the member for Nelson for his participation and also the minister for Housing for his participation. I urge all members in this place to support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to get two bites of the cherry today, to highlight what a disastrous administration we have here in the Northern Territory. It does not happen often, and I am going to relish the opportunity all over again.
I move –
(a) treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spot; and
Never do we in Alice Springs ever want a repeat of the summer of 2010-11. It was an absolute disgrace. Despite where it has left the government - and the government’s reputation is in tatters as a result of Alice Springs’ tsunami of crime - it has devastated a community. Despite what the government would like to allege, Alice Springs is my home; it is the place my children and my wife call home. My children were born there, we have a house there, and we have a stake in the place. I do not know what more I need to do to justify Alice Springs being my home. I do not have to justify it to those on the other side who like to smear and make allegations that for some reason, as an Australian first and foremost, I cannot call the community I have chosen my home and some people over that side have more of a stake and more of a claim to a piece of Australia. It is absolute rubbish. Alice Springs is my home; it is the birthplace of my children, and it is their home, as it is the home of my colleagues here on this side of the House, no matter how long they have lived in the Northern Territory. I hold the town in enormously high regard and I am extremely grateful for the opportunities Alice Springs has presented to me and, no doubt, will present my children and, hopefully and potentially, their children as well.
I am worried, though, if this government is allowed to stay in power for one minute longer, one second longer than it absolutely has to, we may as well close down the place, pack it up in an orderly manner, leave it all behind, and sit back and bask in the memories of a great, iconic town.
That is why I got into this business of politics: to do everything possible to ensure Paul Henderson - Clare Martin it was in those days - and this bag of destructive politicians on the other side, totally obsessed with their own self-serving agenda, they have become a policy vacuum, they cannot debate the issues anymore, and they are now obsessed with this unhealthy appetite for the opposition. It was my goal and the reason I entered this parliament: to do everything I possibly could to see the back of this government because of what they have done to the place I call my home and, indeed, many of my friends and, as I have articulated, my family call our home.
It is an absolute shame the state the Northern Territory government, under Clare Martin and, now, Paul Henderson, have left Alice Springs …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you to refer to members by their title or their electorate, not personal names, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. … where the current Chief Minister Henderson and the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, have left Alice Springs; what they have done to Alice Springs over the last 10 years – or, in fact, what they have not done for Alice Springs over the last 10 years. It was my goal to ensure their destructive and disrespectful hands were nowhere near the future of such a wonderful, iconic place like Alice Springs, because we have seen what they have done over the past 10 years.
Contrary to the allegations in this place, I am not going anywhere. If I am lucky enough to be re-elected at the next election, I am staying right here. I am going to stay right here and get up your nose as much as possible and for as long as it takes. We have already worked our way into the vernacular; you are pretty easy to wind up. We have a Chief Minister who walks in here, and in his response to the alcohol statement this morning, his 20-minute reply, I actually featured in it for about 15 minutes - it was fantastic. I am very flattered that I, Matt Conlan, the member for Greatorex, have worked my way into the vernacular of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Thank you very much. It is some type of honour that the member for Greatorex featured for about 15 minutes of the Chief Minister’s 20-minute reply. In fact, if you have a look at all the replies or speeches that take place from the government, the CLP features front and centre. We have successfully worked our way into your language. You have taken your eye off the ball, your message is not getting out, and all you are concerned about is the Country Liberals and what we are up to.
I challenge whoever is going to reply to this to not mention the Country Liberals, the member for Greatorex, the member for Braitling, the member for Araluen, or any member on this side of the House. Do not mention the words ‘Country Liberals’ or ‘opposition’. How about you outline your plans for the Northern Territory and, indeed, your plans for Alice Springs? Now, that would be a novel approach.
As they say, the true mark of an artist is if you can draw a circle freehand. Any old monkey can draw one with a protractor or with a compass, but can you do it freehand? That is the challenge I put to you. Can you get up and outline your positions, your policy, what you are going to do about the future of Alice Springs, what you are going to do with regard to this motion? Can you speak to this motion, those two points (a) and (b) without mentioning the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan, anyone here, the Country Liberals, the opposition, or Terry Mills - or whatever? Can you do it?
I would like to see it because we have entrenched ourselves into your language, and have done for so long. As I say, we are looking at about eight months now since the Alice Springs sittings, when you mentioned us 301 times. We are very flattered, but it is pretty pathetic that all you are focused on and obsessed with is the opposition. People expect more from you. They want to know what you are going to do.
We have 35 days of sittings, we could spend two weeks talking about issues relating to Alice Springs - the whole fortnight, the whole six days of parliament we could spend talking about Alice Springs. Then we could come back the next sittings and spend the next two weeks talking about Tennant Creek and issues relating to Tennant. Then we could move on to Katherine, then on to Darwin, and then on to Gove - we can do it right across the Northern Territory.
Instead, at 10.25 am today, what do we see? We see the government moving on to puff pieces. I know you are getting sick of that word, member for Johnston, but it is so true ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I say to the member for Greatorex, Indigenous policy is not a puff piece; it is very important policy.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr CONLAN: There certainly is no point of order. Puff pieces galore, the government brings into this place.
The member for Braitling, our Indigenous affairs shadow minister, will have plenty to say on that statement and articulate and highlight just how much of a puff piece that particular ministerial statement was.
As I said, at 10.25 am, we have basically adjourned the business for the day. There is so much on the Notice Paper. Yesterday, I was accused of gagging debate, but all I was trying to do was move to something of substance that means something to Territorians.
As I said, I am not going anywhere. I am going to stay right here and I am going to do my best to get up your nose; and it seems to work. It does not take much to get up your nose. I tell you who bites like there is no tomorrow. The Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson. He probably has the weakest jaw, the biggest glass jaw, or whatever it is. He does not like it, and you can see his eyes rolling into the back of his head and his face going red - the whole bit. But you are all a bit the same; you are all tarred with the same brush. I am more than happy to get up your nose for as long as it takes, as long as we are highlighting issues facing the community I live in, my home, the home of my children and, potentially, my grandchildren - and however many generations of Conlans there are going to be in Central Australia. I hope there is going to be a whole stack. I will stay here and ensure I highlight the issues facing that community I so love. I am an Australian first and foremost, and this is an Australian community.
Let us have a look at some of the issues facing Central Australia. This motion relates to the summer of crime in 2011-12 - as I said, two bites of the cherry today. I will highlight some of these newspaper articles, the dates relating to these headlines in the newspaper over 2010-11, which again just reinforces the point of how disastrous 2010-11 was for the Alice Springs community.
On 7 January this year, ‘Bill ‘em and Sue ‘em’. A well-known businessman was getting sick and tired of people throwing rocks through his business. Friday 15 October - this was just when things started to happen, and this is about where we are now. People are getting very anxious as to what is going to happen. It is getting warm again in Alice Springs; is this going to start all over again? October is traditionally when things start to warm up and it all starts to happen. 15 October: ‘Thieves Keep Cops Busy’ - five houses were broken into, five cars were stolen.
This one is from 11 January 2011: ‘Alice Night Patrol Fiasco’ - only one vehicle on the road; staff numbers dangerously low. Despite all this, I was told by the police commander in Alice Springs that I should just wake up, I should just shut up and just let police get on with the job because it was all under control, and I was just insulting police on the streets. I cannot remember the police commander’s name, and I did not actually take it as an insult although, I guess, it was levelled as a bit of an insult towards me. But that was the allegation levelled at me.
Here we are back to October, another one in October; I do not have them quite in order. In December things started to really peak. ‘Run Over Like a Dog’ – a great grandfather had been run over by some drunk on the road. ‘Terror on Stott Terrace’: this was on 15 February - a group of tourists was terrorised in an unprovoked attack by at least five people. ‘Forced to Bed Down at Work’ is something, I guess, that relates right back to your grog laws. ‘Vandals Trash the Olive Pink Botanic Garden four times in the last week, causing $20 000 worth of damage’. My goodness me! Also, the Memo Club got a mention but, of course, the Memo was under siege over the course of the tsunami of crime in summer. ‘Death in the Front Yard’ was 10 December. On 31 December - I know you do not like to hear it. I do not particularly like reading them out, but I need to reinforce the point. This one on 31 December was: ‘Wanted’ - police were looking for three gang members responsible for a vicious Christmas Eve attack in the suburbs. Four men were attacked as they sat on their front verandah at a house in Mallam Crescent in Greatorex ...
Mr Tollner: How dare they sit in their own front yard.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. Who would have thought that you could sit in your own front yard? Goodness me! That is what is happening. That is about where we are up to. You cannot even sit in your own front yard.
‘West Side Story in Alice Springs: Two groups of Alice Springs teenagers are competing to see who can steal the most cars’. And it goes on and on. Of course, all that equates to the worst government in history, but we have made that point perfectly clear, abundantly clear, over and over again.
I have read this before, but the point needs to be made again:
What do we have? We just have broken promise, after broken promise by this government and, indeed, the current Chief Minister. I thought the previous Chief Minister was pretty bad at breaking promises, but this bloke absolutely takes the cake. However, let us have a look at some of the previous Chief Minister’s promises. I move to this, another chance to highlight this document, Moving Alice Ahead, which has vanished from the government’s website. This is about Alice Springs, a great place to live and work:
Well, what has happened to that? That fell off the radar pretty quickly, didn’t it?
I like this one:
Mrs Lambley: Certainly.
Mr CONLAN: That was an absolute beauty - another broken promise by the government:
We know that is a broken promise because it is not working. Despite all the rhetoric and all the bills and ministerial statements you bring into the House, we know it is not working. We know alcohol-related crime is still through the roof. In fact, because of your failures, it is costing the Territory taxpayers $642m a year - and that is on the increase; it has gone up by $50m or $60m since the last couple of years. Because of your failures in dealing with alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory, taxpayers are forced to fork out $642m each year. So, that is a broken promise.
Well, the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Central Australia has not really taken off. I would not say it is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. You are renowned for ripping funding out of that project.
We could probably suggest that it is a broken promise because people are leaving town in droves. It is almost impossible to retain and recruit skilled workers in Central Australia. Just ask anyone who runs a restaurant or apprenticeships - you name it. It is very difficult, essentially because of your failed land release and housing initiatives coupled with law and order. There was one here at the end:
Anyone who lives in Alice Springs knows that is an absolute crock:
Another broken promise by the Henderson Labor government.
If you thought the Chief Minister actually had a grip on what is happening in Central Australia, let us go back to 9 September 2010, and I quote from a media release I issued after the Chief Minister went on ABC radio regarding the alcohol reforms and tourism, and the like. It was about why you were not implementing the same tough alcohol regime in Darwin as you were in Central Australia. The Chief Minister said - and this is an absolute beauty:
Like Alice Springs? Darwin gets thousands of tourists a year, where poor old Alice is stuck with hundreds of tourists? It is the No 1 industry! I was gobsmacked when I heard him say that, and I thought: ‘Is this guy in touch with anything, does he have anyone on the ground there?’ What has happened to your lieutenants working out of the Office of the Chief Minister? Are they not feeding you any information? Are you not coming down enough? Are you still doing the fly-in/fly-out stuff?
Fact 1: 386 000 tourists visited Alice Springs in 2009. Fact 2: tourism is worth about $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year. Fact 3: in 2009, visitors in Alice Springs spent $1225 per person, per visit compared with just $1149 in Darwin. I say ‘just’ to highlight the fact that people are spending more in Alice Springs than they do in Darwin. Tourism is a very important industry to Central Australia; it is the No 1 industry with $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year, yet, here we have a Chief Minister who does not seem to understand that. He does not get it. He is peddling mistruths as usual, on the radio, in the public domain.
What we, essentially, have is a stack of failed policies and a pile of broken promises. Every time we saw another headline like that in the newspaper I just highlighted it as another broken promise. No one can believe you when you come down anymore, because we had the big protest - the member for Johnston was there, he was part of that - when those people protested outside the convention centre in 2007. The amount of effort made by the Northern Territory government to reassure the people of Central Australia that it is determined to get a grip on law and order has gone on far too long. That is the type of thing we used to hear: ‘It has gone on far too long; enough is enough and it will not be tolerated. I am sick of hearing it, and I am not going to put up with it anymore. I promise we are going to do something about this’. Yet, here we are five years on, and things are worse than ever; in fact, we have had the worst summer of crime in decades.
Anyone who has been in Central Australia for any amount of time will tell you that what we experienced last summer, 2010-11, was one of the worst on record. We have these failed and broken promises and policies, and all Chief Minister Henderson can do is feed his unhealthy appetite for the opposition - turn his attention to the opposition and highlight our misgivings, our failures, and 27 years of the CLP. Well, the CLP was dealt with, we paid for our mistakes; we were booted out of office. If that was not enough in 2001, we were dealt a severe blow in 2005. We paid for our mistakes - big time.
Here we are six years later, and we have learnt from those mistakes, and we are ready to do it again. We are ready to get back in the saddle and take on the Territory, and deliver for the Northern Territory and for those Territorians, particularly the most vulnerable of Territorians - those who need us most; those who desperately turn to the Northern Territory government, whoever the government is - in this case, this government - desperately begging for some help and assistance. But, it is just not there. You do not see it in the regions. You do not see it in Alice Springs, in Tennant Creek, or in Katherine. We have a government that has switched off governing for Centralians and, instead, is just obsessed with the Country Liberals.
The Country Liberals have committed to five key areas which we firmly believe will go a long way to prevent a repeat of last summer, hopefully, for a long time. First of all, it is our long-standing commitment to put an extra 20 police on the beat in Alice Springs. You know it, you have heard it, and we have said it a dozen times. It is a firm commitment that still stands by the Country Liberals - an extra 20 police on the beat; a dedicated group of able-bodied police to respond quickly to known and emerging hot spots.
This was a motion put forward by the Country Liberals - in fact, put forward by me in the Alice Springs sittings. The Chief Minister again feigned conciliation of: ‘I could almost support that if only this’. We moved an amendment and, again, he was caught out. He had no interest and no desire to support the motion, even when we tailor-made it to exactly the way he said he would support it. It was a motion for a dedicated group of able-bodied police to respond quickly to known and emerging hot spots, and restoring the telecommunications system back to Alice Springs. You have to have people on the ground who understand the local community. A situation happened a few times, but one I particularly remember was someone wanting police assistance in Hibiscus Street, and it was sent to Hibiscus Street in Nightcliff, instead of Hibiscus Street in Eastside.
Implementing our defeating drunks policy - we know the government has pretty much taken and adopted our policy they have put it forward as theirs. However, they have not gone as far as we would go. We would implement our defeating drunks policy and, of course, the punishment would fit the crime. The community has an expectation that the punishment will fit the crime and, at the moment, punishments are not meeting community expectations.
Our night time youth strategy bases an assistant commissioner in Alice Springs. We know if you have someone with clout who lives in a community, is part of and entrenched into that community, such as a very senior policeman, they are much better equipped to make the right decisions for that community. There used to be one in Alice Springs, and we will put one back again. I use the example of Andy McNeill, one of the great Mayors of Alice Springs. He really was one of the last of his kind. The reason he was so effective was because he was a very senior policeman in that community and he understood the intricacies, the nuances and the subtleties of the community from a policeman’s point of view, and then was able to act on much of that as mayor. There is no reason why we cannot go back to that type of thing, and we will base an Assistant Police Commissioner in Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we never want to see this type of situation again in Central Australia, but I do not have much faith this government is able to deliver on that. We have highlighted numerous broken promises. Every time we see another one of these headlines in Alice Springs, we are getting to that period of the year; it is October. You talk about the wonderful success you have had with the Banned Drinker Register and you say there has been a 19% reduction in the last three months. Well, it does really count. Again, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the community. We know that in winter - the mayor calls it the silent policeman - the cold winds and the cold chill in Central Australia keeps people off the streets but, once it starts to warm up, people feel more confident to walk and wander around and, of course, they get up to no good. I would not put too much weight on the fact that the last three months has seen a spike or a dip in alcohol-related harm of 19%. Let us see how it goes over the course of this summer and we can come back in 12 months time and then have a better idea of exactly how this Banned Drinker Register has rolled out.
Every time we see another headline like this, we are getting to that period, that time of the year when things are starting to warm up, people are anxious, desperate, and very concerned and worried we are going to see these types of headlines splashed across the front page of the Centralian Advocate all over again. Every time we see that, it is another example of the government’s failure, because the government have promised to fix it on numerous occasions.
How can we believe you? How can we believe what you say? You have let us down; you have let the people of Central Australia down time and time again. You have let the cost of living skyrocket. You have let alcohol abuse run out of control and it costs the taxpayer $642m each year. You have let down the great town of Alice Springs, as well as the great iconic towns of Katherine and Tennant Creek - you have let them down badly. You have let our roads deteriorate, our school results plummet, and law and order spiral out of control.
You do not have much to gloat about, and I will be very interested to see who is going to respond to this. Again, I challenge you; see if you cannot mention the CLP. See if you cannot mention the member for Greatorex. See if you can actually focus on the motion and convince us what you are going to do about it. I know you are obsessed with us and it is a hard challenge, but I put it to you, maybe the minister for Central Australia - or whoever it is - over to you.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to break that in my very first few words, member for Greatorex. I have mentioned it. It is very hard when it is your motion not to mention you, member for Greatorex - including the other Centralian colleagues; it is going to be very hard not to mention them. I do not want to get into the politics of this motion, it is too important to start throwing names and other things across the Chamber at each other. The important issue is working and moving forward and trying to find the solutions the people of Alice Springs are so desperately looking for.
The solutions are not all in what the government is going to do. As I said in my contribution in the alcohol policy debate, it requires leadership. Alice Springs is a resilient town and, in tough times, people do get together and work together as all communities do in Australia - it is the Australian way; it is the Territory way. At times like this it takes leadership. It does not take politics to get to a point where we can sit down together and work together in a cooperative way. I believe that has been the basis of this government’s approach to the issues in Alice Springs. There are many headlines we can grab and throw around, but these issues have been kicking around for many years and they will probably be there in 10 years time when we are no longer members of this Legislative Assembly.
For me, it is about trying to make a difference. I wear a great deal, being the only government minister in Alice Springs, but that is part of the job and I accept that. However, my aim is to try to make a difference. I do not have all the solutions; government does not have all the solutions, but what we do have is a genuine commitment to the Alice Springs community to work with them to try to find the solutions people are looking for. They are not easy solutions - there is no magic wand or silver bullet to these very complex social issues we have.
A former member for Stuart in 1991 talked about the very same issues we are talking about tonight. Brian Ede was the Opposition Leader at the time and he was based in Alice Springs. Brian was a good member for Stuart and a very good representative in Alice Springs. In a debate on Tuesday, 5 February 1991 - that is 20 years ago and I do not want to point the finger - back then break-ins were occurring in Alice Springs about every three-and-a-half hours. Every three-and-a-half hours in Alice Springs someone’s home was broken into during that summer. These are difficult issues that have been around for a long time and, I have no doubt, they will still be there in the next 10 years. However, it is incumbent on all of us to try to work together with the community to find solutions.
Government has a number of strategies in place which we believe are heading in the right direction regarding law and order and trying to build the social fabric of the Alice Springs community in Central Australia. It is not politics for us, we are never going to ever win a seat in Alice Springs - that is the reality that government faces, but it does not mean we give up hope, nor does it mean we shut the doors and forget about Alice Springs completely. I do not agree with those sentiments, and I have to say that on the public record. It is not the politics for us; all the seats are very strong conservative seats and it is going to take a great deal to get people to vote for Labor and for there to be Labor seats. Being honest, I do not think that will happen for a very long time. So, it is not about politics, it is about doing the right thing by the people of Alice Springs.
I say to people in Alice Springs who read the Parliamentary Record of this debate, or are listening to it, that government is genuine in its commitment to Alice Springs. It is genuine in its efforts to try to make a difference, and listen to the people of Alice Springs and find the solutions.
Regarding law and order, I gave an example in 1991 when there were very similar issues then, 20 years ago, to what we have today. Our response at the moment is a strong, comprehensive law and order strategy, working with police and resourcing police. Government is doing its best to do that. I meet with police on a regular basis and talk with many of the local police I know on the streets, or in formal meetings or briefings, to find out what the issues are and what type of operations they are undertaking. I mentioned Operation Thresher today or yesterday in the alcohol policy debate, which is an operation the police ran as a planning phase for the upcoming summer for what will be a major 60-day operation over the summer holidays. In the October phase of Operation Thresher we saw some results: 21 people were arrested, 200 taken into protective custody, and 18 banning notices were issued. Michael Murphy, the Superintendant, talked about the operation in the media.
Last summer was horrific - I have seen the statistics of those break-ins - probably not as bad as winding the clock back less than 20 years ago to 1991, but certainly horrific figures over last summer. There was much debate and concern in the Alice Springs community. But, it comes back to leadership. It was an issue which tested many people. I am sure Centralian colleagues on the other side were hearing many concerns from their constituents, and I understand that. However, it is how you respond to a tough time like Alice Springs was going through; they are the qualities of leadership. In my role, I organised numerous meetings with different stakeholder groups in Alice Springs, from the business community through to non-government organisations, and the Aboriginal sector which, at that point in time, was being left out of the debate. I thought it was really important to engage them, particularly traditional owners and many representatives of Aboriginal organisations regarding youth. They are a very important sector in the Alice Springs community, and it was important to bring them in to the debate regarding what the issues and solutions were. There was a great deal of work done, and many meetings held.
I acknowledge the member for Braitling, who was very active and attended many of the meetings and organised some of his own. It is important to get the community together to discuss it, to get their grievances off their chests, and let people know what they were going through, so, many meetings took place. The response from government - and I suppose the opposition will have their say about it – was to establish a Community Action Plan Committee to drive the community action plan forward. We engaged consultants to look at particular issues people had raised through those meetings earlier in the year, and to put together a report for government to tell us what people were saying, and to coordinate a response that government could look at and react to with a whole-of-government approach.
There was a great deal of work done by the Alice Springs community. Many people had their say and government’s response was to bring forward the community action plan after the report from the consultants and the many forums held. The community action plan saw the establishment of the Community Action Plan Committee, and I thank those people who put their hands up. Obviously, we looked for people we thought would be valuable and good contributors to that committee to drive the community action plan forward. I acknowledge those committee members: Catherine Liddle and Damien Ryan, the Mayor of Alice Springs, who are co-chairs; Brad Bellette; Neil Ross; Liz Martin; Harold Furber; Jenny Nixon; Eva Lawler, from the Territory government; and Mark Coffey, from the Australian government.
As I said during debate the other day, it is important to get all levels of government involved with the mayor and with Mark Coffey from the Australian government, because they are important stakeholders in those issues. I was pleased to be able to get those people together. I went to their first meeting and addressed the committee; they are very representative of the community of Alice Springs, and we need to get behind them and the work they are going to do.
There are some key planks of the community action plan which I inform members of: education and early childhood, youth services, business and economic development, and crime and alcohol. These key planks were brought together from all the meetings we had during the year with the groups, and they were the key issues people felt needed to be addressed to tackle the serious problems we had during summer. Again, those key planks for the community action plan are: education and early childhood, youth services, business and economic development, and crime and alcohol. Many of those key planks do not have immediate solutions, they are issues which have been around for a long time and they require medium- to long-term strategies to resolve. That is what it is about.
Sometimes, in difficult situations we make quick decisions, short-term fixes, and sometimes they work but, in the long run many of these complex social issues require medium- to long-term solutions. That was identified through those various meetings and the consultant’s report, and the work that will now be driven by the Community Action Plan Committee. It is a comprehensive plan to address the complex issues of Alice Springs and, as I said, it is not a simple bandaid solution. There are short- and long-term actions that will address what the Alice Springs community wants and needs to feel safe, and for our kids to have a future in our town.
Another strategy this government initiated some time ago is the Youth Action Plan, and a key plank of that is the Youth Hub, which is up and running at ANZAC Hill to support coordinated and integrated approaches to youth services and programs in Alice Springs. Again, youth services were identified by the community as a key plank to be addressed. I acknowledge some of the opposition members in Alice Springs have visited the Youth Hub and seen for themselves what it will be doing.
We have invested a great deal, as a government, in the Youth Hub, and it deserves it; and Alice Springs deserves that attention. It is a comprehensive youth plan, probably much more than other places in the Territory have at the moment. I am sure there are places in Darwin, Katherine, and Tennant Creek that would like a similar plan to address the youth issues that the Youth Action Plan is addressing. The Hub provides a youth-friendly centralised site for youth services and organisations; it is a venue or base for youth events and activities, and a space for case conferencing, coordination, planning alternative education programs, and works and skills programs.
The Alice Springs Family Support Centre is based at the Youth Hub as well as the Youth at Risk team, the Youth Services Coordinator, and the Youth Street Outreach team also operate from the Youth Hub. The Youth Street Outreach team is out on the streets seven nights a week engaging with young people and ensuring that at risk are taken to a safe place and get the support they need.
Also relocated to the Youth Hub is the InCite Youth Arts organisation, another non-government service provider, and there have been many very good events for young people to participate in, particularly during the Alice Springs Desert Festival. Youth were involved in the organisation of these events, and the Hub attracted around 1000 visitors and participants during two weeks of activities. Alternative education programs are also operating from the Youth Hub and, from July this year, the Edmund Rice program has operated there, focusing on young people disengaged from school.
I have said many times it is about engaging people, particularly people from the bush who have the right to move in if they want to make another life in Alice Springs away from their home community. It is about how we engage those families, those people from remote parts of Central Australia, and make them feel a part of the community, which is important.
The Youth Hub is a place where our youth providers can come together to share information and coordinate approaches in tackling the challenges they have in their particular organisations. Staff at the Youth Hub also coordinates a comprehensive youth activities calendar for the school holidays. Recently, I also announced an extra $60 000 will be provided to support a wider range of youth recreational activities this summer. As we know, keeping kids busy over the holiday period is really important in helping reduce crime and youth antisocial behaviour. The youth activities the government is supporting with the extra $60 000 were put forward by community and youth services themselves, and they are aimed at giving young people more activities and options over the holidays. We know many families in Alice Springs cannot afford to go away on a holiday, and this will help those families, the parents, keep the kids occupied in Alice Springs.
The need to ensure we support our youth and services is a message we heard loud and clear during the development of the community action plan, as I previously said. The additional funding complements other strategies in place to prepare for any spike in youth-related crime over summer. This funding will go to nine activities at the aquatic and leisure centre this government provided the funding for - in excess of $8m. Holiday programs at Centralian Middle School and extra transport for young people will be a very successful program, I have no doubt, and hope the convention centre can continue to host an ice rink but, again, this is a commercial decision.
NT police, government and non-government agencies should be applauded for the hard work and efforts they are putting in place to prepare for summer, and this government is serious about continuing to ensure Alice Springs is a safe community, particularly over this summer.
As well as the Banned Drinker Register police have said will make a big difference, we have a general purpose police dog in Alice Springs and better CCTV monitoring. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex – sorry, I mentioned your name - and the CLP’s five key areas and their commitment; it is good to see some policy put forward by them. With regard to the CCTV monitoring cameras, I am not sure if any of the members in Alice Springs have been to the Peter McAulay Centre to look at the operation? Yes, the member for Araluen has, that is good. I have been there also, and I have seen how the call centre and the CCTV cameras are working. I receive regular updates on particular incidents in Alice Springs now being picked up by police very quickly because of the CCTV cameras. I acknowledge what the CLP is saying about Alice Springs. However, to date, the current system at the Peter McAulay Centre is producing results; it is jumping on those wanting to commit crimes very quickly, which means it allows police in Alice Springs to be on the streets, not sitting behind a camera.
In Alice Springs in recent times we have seen more safe houses for youth established and, through the triage services provided at the Youth Hub, these youth safe houses are being well used at the moment. Unfortunately, we have also seen a new juvenile detention facility and lighting of hot spots in the CBD.
Programs operating from the Youth Hub are targeting kids and families who need support, and are helping to get kids at risk off the street. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson; I know he has been to the Youth Hub as well. I reiterate these are long-term social problems we have to deal with, and there is no simple solution. The Youth Hub and the Youth Action Plan is about addressing the medium- to long-term issues and helping families by getting kids off the streets and providing the support they need as a family to build better homes.
Accommodation is a significant issue and, as we said, this year around 500 beds have come online, or will be online, by the end of the year in Alice Springs. An extra 500 beds in Alice Springs is a huge investment by the Commonwealth government, but also the Northern Territory government, in funding extra accommodation that is needed. We do not want to see families visiting from bush who need accommodation living rough in the creek or the hills, so we have seen the opening of the Accommodation Park in Alice Springs during the year. Members opposite were at the opening of that, including the members for Araluen and Braitling.
We have also had The Lodge opening, which particularly focuses on patients from bush needing accommodation for renal treatment in Alice Springs. Percy Court, also, is much-needed transitional accommodation, helping young families adjust to a life of looking after a home and the many responsibilities which come with that. I have been there and met with Mission Australia staff and some of the residents. It is a very important part of preparing families who are entering into a public housing dwelling. These are great additions to accommodation in Alice Springs which is very important in trying to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets.
Regarding the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, I spoke about that the other day during the alcohol policy debate. There are many new homes coming on board in Alice Springs through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and also the social package element of the ASTP. Through that program alone, $150m has been injected into Alice Springs. That is an unprecedented amount of resourcing and funding to deal with issues of homelessness, accommodation, and supporting families in Alice Springs. I acknowledge the great contribution of minister Jenny Macklin, who has been a great advocate and supporter of the ASTP. She has been to the town camps many times, and talked to the residents as well as the services providers such as Congress and Mission Australia. She has seen the success the ASTP is having in Alice Springs.
Times are tough in Alice Springs, and I acknowledge the resilience, particularly of the business community. I will be heading back home to Alice Springs on Friday and will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, as well as tourism industry representatives. We will be working, sitting down, and talking. It is important to sit down with people and listen to their concerns. So, I will be working with the community towards solutions when I get home to Alice Springs on Friday.
Regarding the economy in Alice Springs, I have done some media on that issue this week. The member for Braitling raised it, and he has quoted some media on that. It is a serious issue in Alice Springs, as it is across Australia.
I recently attended the October Business Month breakfast. I do not remember seeing any of the opposition members there, but there were over 200 business people in Alice Springs at the convention centre for the breakfast, which speaks volumes for the business community in Alice Springs. While they are doing it tough, they want to learn and seek ideas about how they can diversify and get support for the challenges they are facing. It was a really good event, organised by the Minister for Business and Employment. I acknowledge the great work the Department of Business and Employment is doing with October Business Month. It is very timely that we have those types of events, services, and assistance available.
This government’s support for the business community has made some significant investments in Alice Springs such as the Building Education Revolution and upgrades to schools. I have been to many of those openings - the other week at Braitling Primary School, this week I will be at the Sadadeen Primary School, Yirara College is coming up, and I have been to Gillen Primary School. The school upgrades have provided a really big stimulus for the local building and construction industry in Alice Springs, providing jobs and some relief and work for people in tough times. I acknowledge the real success of the Building Education Revolution and those upgrades to our schools in Alice Springs, as well as those in my electorate, and in Macdonnell. Lajamanu was a fantastic event; they have a great facility there now. Yuendumu has a great facility, and also Kalkarindji. They are the ones in my electorate. It is really important we have good school facilities to keep kids at school, and also supporting businesses.
The Alice Springs Youth Hub was a $15m commitment by this government, and a very big part of that is the residential facility we announced during the budget as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. A great deal of work has gone into the Youth Hub with upgrades to the building to provide those really important programs for young people and their families.
The town centre revitalisation is a commitment by this government. We have given the money to the town council, and I hope that work gets under way very soon, because I have my electorate office in the mall. I talk with many traders there, and they are certainly doing it tough. I get around, I talk to businesses in the mall, and they are doing it tough. I am hoping the revitalisation project for the mall will bring it to life.
Regarding land release headworks in Kilgariff, my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Department of Construction and Infrastructure - a very good announcement today, minister, with the announcement of tenders going out for the interchange and the roadworks. A great deal of money has been put into the headworks, which are well and truly under way. It is a really important project for the future of Alice Springs and future land release.
The Alice Springs Hospital works are well under way. I drive past there all the time and it is very busy there at the moment. So, to the Minister for Health and his team, to the minister for planning, infrastructure, and construction, this is a great project for Alice Springs and for local builders and contractors.
The Larapinta Seniors Village is well under way, as well. I drive past there when I can to have a look at it coming together. It is going to be a fantastic asset for the community of Alice Springs.
The $100m in new and upgraded housing has been a considerable boost to the construction industry, as is the $24.7m upgrade and expansion to the hospital emergency department.
The Territory government has also made numerous grants and programs available to local businesses. In 2010-11, $79 000 in grants was provided to 20 business in Alice Springs to develop strategic plans to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels, and market penetration. In 2010-11, 21 business upskill workshops were held in Alice Springs, with 134 attendees. Twelve events have been held in Alice Springs as part of the October Business Month. As I said, I went to the breakfast where there were 200-plus people. So far, there were 468 attendees at those events for October Business Month in Alice Springs.
It is important to show confidence as well. Recently, David Forrest, Director of First National Real Estate Commercial Framptons has been involved in a major industrial sale that will see the arrival of Bunnings in Alice Springs. I am sure my colleagues from Darwin know about Bunnings, and it is going to be great to have them in Alice Springs. David Forrest from First National Real Estate Commercial Framptons said:
Another major retailer, Best & Less, has also announced it is opening a store in Alice Springs, and local businesses are showing their confidence in our town as well. The local Subway owners, Lee and Graeme Willis have invested $30 000 in upgrading their shop, and say it is paying off in sales already. A new flooring shop has just opened its doors. Chris Tangey from Alice Springs Film and Television said this year has been his busiest year. So, good news as well in Alice Springs; it is important to continue to talk about some of the good things that are happening.
In closing, I thank the member for Greatorex - I am sorry I mentioned you again - for the motion. The government is serious about tackling these issues in Alice Springs. I have been able to say a great deal about what government is doing with the Youth Action Plan, the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, police being prepared for this coming summer, and the many meetings I have been involved with. As I said, the member for Braitling has been involved with many meetings which have been driven by Mayor, Damien Ryan, to find community solutions, and with the formation of the Alice Springs Community Action Plan Committee. Much has been done. We know we have our issues down there …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON: I am very optimistic about it. Madam Speaker, government will always support Alice Springs.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, that the Northern Territory government recognise its failures to address law and order issues in Alice Springs during last summer and, therefore, treat this summer in Alice Springs as a known and emerging hot spot. Also, to put in place a comprehensive law and order strategy to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots.
I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the Minister for Central Australia. He says times are tough in Alice Springs; indeed they are - all thanks to your government. I found it quite brave of you to mention the experience of Brian Ede from 1991, 20 years ago, talking about the incidence of crime in Alice Springs. You have been in power for half the time since he made that speech and you are, basically, admitting that things have not improved in Alice Springs. To admit that publicly is a very sad indictment on your government, Minister for Central Australia.
You said it is not all about the politics, it is about leadership, it is not about political parties. I am sorry, Minister for Central Australia, but it is about politics. You are the Labor Party that is in government which is providing leadership - and is dismally failing the people of Alice Springs.
You pleaded that you were trying to make a difference; that you have made a genuine and real commitment to addressing the law and order issues in Alice Springs ‘to try and find the solutions people are looking for’. I listened to your speech with great interest, Minister for Central Australia, and you talked about many things, but I did not hear any clear law and order strategy for Alice Springs. What exactly is your law and order policy for Alice Springs, Minister for Central Australia? I fear that you do not have one. I know that you do not have one. You talked about housing, Percy Court, all the other new and very impressive accommodation facilities that have been placed in Alice Springs in recent times. You even talked about the revitalisation of the mall.
This project has been in the consultation phase for six years, minister. For six long years you have been consulting about how to beautify, upgrade and perform an amazing new facelift on the CBD of Alice Springs, and yet we are waiting patiently - impatiently, most of us, to be honest, minister - for this revitalisation project to commence. It still has not commenced, and I doubt we will see it commence before the next election in August next year. I really do not know why you even mentioned it; it is such a sad indictment of this government.
What is the law and order strategy for Alice Springs? You mentioned the Banned Drinker Register. For all the pomp and ceremony that you carry on about how good and how successful it is, tell me, give me some proof that those people on the Banned Drinker Register are, in fact, not drinking. There is no proof at all that this government has provided to this parliament to say the people on the Banned Drinker Register are not drinking. We know for a fact they are continuing to drink, because they are getting alcohol from their relatives and friends who are simply walking in and buying it for them.
You talked about police dogs. During the Araluen by-election - and this probably sounds incredibly arrogant - I put this issue on the table, I lobbied hard and, thanks to me, you were put in a corner where you felt almost obliged to put some general purpose police dogs on the beat in Alice Springs. So, do not take any credit for that at all, apart from the fact that you succumbed to extraordinary pressure from me.
CCTV monitoring - well, it has all been centralised, has it not? We have had every conceivable service that can be centralised in Darwin - it has, indeed, been centralised. Yes, you have some incredibly wonderful screens to monitor the CCTV cameras throughout the CBD of Alice Springs, and perhaps they are being monitored slightly more effectively than they were in Alice Springs, but the fact they are placed 1500 km away from Alice Springs really makes me wonder whether that is, in fact, so.
Regarding police communications moved from Alice Springs to Darwin, we are still getting a constant flow of complaints from our constituents in Alice Springs saying they are ringing up and not getting an answer, getting hung up on, or getting a very confused and bewildered response from the people answering these calls. I will never be convinced it is in the best interests of the people of Alice Springs, or in the best interests of addressing law and order issues in Alice Springs, that police communications be based in Darwin for Alice Springs.
Police media liaison was centralised from Alice Springs to Darwin - where it all happens, where it all should be centralised. A good Labor government loves to centralise, take it away from the regions, and put it into one centralised position. Yes, the decision to centralise police media liaison was made earlier this year. We got a lovely e-mail recently, on 14 October, from the lovely woman - I am sure she is gorgeous, I will not mention her name - saying: ‘Hi media and others, just to let you know I am on leave for the next four weeks, so all things media pertaining to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, please contact the Darwin Media Unit’. So, for four weeks in Alice Springs, presumably, we do not get any media stories. Presumably, there was no provision made for some sort of backup or relief arrangement. It is just, no, in Alice Springs you do not get any police media for a whole month - another very sad indictment on the commitment of this government to address law and order issues in Alice Springs. However, the government is genuine in its efforts to address law and order - that is what we heard from the Minister for Central Australia. He told us they have a strong, comprehensive law and order strategy. What is it? Please, put us out of our misery and tell us what it is.
For 12 months in parliament, and I have heard about the Youth Hub, the Youth Action Plan, time and time again. The Youth Hub is an old school that was emptied by this government. The kids were thrown out, the teachers were dispersed, the parents were left disillusioned and sad, and the government was left with a big, empty building. The government scratched its head and said: ‘What are we going to do with it? We had better do something with it very quickly, otherwise we will have egg all over our faces. Let us create a Youth Hub’. The Youth Hub was created, and then they had to go about enticing services to come and join them at this fantastic new Youth Hub, which will be an amazing Mecca for youth services. ‘Oh God, we had better organise some kids to come’. When we were there, there was not a child or youth to be seen; they were all hiding under the desks, or hidden under the floorboards. Who knows? But we saw this fabulous building, the Youth Hub. It is indeed, minister, a fabulous building, a testimony to your great commitment to youth services - throw out the school and create something that probably is not really required. Nevertheless, keep banging on about it, minister, because you know what? There is a thing called classical conditioning, and if you keep banging away long enough, people will believe it is such a wonderful thing. Yes, as long as you believe it is a wonderful thing, then that is all that really counts with this government.
With regard to a law and order strategy, I refer to an article in The West Australian newspaper, on 17 October of this year. In this article they describe what I would call a real law and order strategy. In the middle of Perth they have a very bad problem with law and order - juveniles commit about half the property crimes - and the police have been endeavouring to try to stop them from committing these crimes and roaming the streets during the day and night. The Western Australian Police Force intend to implement a law and order strategy starting from December of this year. It will apply 24 hours a day and, throughout the metropolitan area, it will be identifying children and youth who are unaccompanied and have no business whatsoever on the streets of the CBD of Perth and the metropolitan area. They will be taking them to a place where they can ascertain where they are from, where they should be, and connect them back with family. That is what I call a law and order strategy.
This is an example of where this government should be heading; an example of a proactive, very creative, courageous idea which really looks at how we can extend ourselves beyond the norm - and we are talking about a very normal, average, too average, too normal government here that cannot think outside the square. They are not willing to take too many risks, because you know what is important? It is all about extensive consultation that goes on year after year. Just keep consulting because, if you keep consulting, eventually they will all leave town because the shops are closing and the businesses are going. Things are crumbling around you, Minister for Central Australia. Things are not as rosy as you are telling us, and people will leave town if you persevere and hammer them down long enough.
Yes, there are law and order strategies that this government could be employing, considering and, perhaps, be putting them forward to have consultation processes about. But they are not. This Labor government is stuck, and that is the problem when it comes to law and order in Alice Springs. They have had 10 years to try to make an impact, to try to make a difference, and they are stuck. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again and it does not work, it is almost too embarrassing to try something different because it will mean you admit liability that you have failed, that you just do not have a clue what to do next.
This is the terrible situation we find this government in; they just do not know what to do next. They are in the biggest pickle of all time. It is like their failure in the child protection system; they have put themselves in a hole and cannot get out of it, and they are grasping at straws. They are consulting, and doing some more consulting, and telling us more about the Youth Hub and how wonderful it is. They are telling us about all these peripheral things that do not relate to a law and order strategy because they do not have one. They never have had one, they do not know how to implement one, and they would not know one if they fell over it - they do not have a law and order strategy.
Then, other members across the Chamber say: ‘You are talking the town down’. You know what? I do not want to talk the town down; I do not think I have ever talked the town down. I see things the way they are and, from my perspective, as someone who has been in the business community in Alice Springs for many years now, things are looking grim. Things are looking as grim as they ever have been since I have been in Alice Springs, which is almost 18 years. For the last 10 years, there has been a growing lack of confidence in the town. People are very fearful of what is around the corner, what is down their street, and of the future.
I have done extensive consultations with people living in the Gillen area, and the stories fed back to me by e-mails, telephone calls, written letters - from old people and from young people - are quite horrifying. People are living in fear, and it is because this government has not been able to provide a law and order strategy for Alice Springs. We have heard the comments again from the Minister for Central Australia that he is a lone soldier of the government in Central Australia, that there are no votes in it for him, that Central Australia will never be a Labor town. Well, for goodness sake! I have only been a politician for 12 months, but if you started doing the right thing and really listened to and consulted with the people who mattered, you would not be in this pickle you are in now.
Consultation, consultation! If you keep talking to the same people, you are going to get the same answers! I have been around long enough to know that if you keep speaking to all your Labor Party mates, or the people who are telling you what you want to hear, then you will keep hearing what you want to hear and the system and the cycle goes round and round - and that is what we have had for 10 years. People are fed up with this government, this lack of confidence and the misery the Henderson Labor government has created in Alice Springs. It will take a new government that does not have this reputation, that has not fallen into this pit of misery, degradation, negativity, and ineptitude, for Alice Springs to see the light of day. The next election cannot come around soon enough for the people of Alice Springs - they have had enough. They have had enough of the false stories we hearing about how fantastic the alcohol reforms are, and the spin and the lies we hear from various ministers across the Chamber.
I have had e-mails in the last week saying: ‘Please, invite the Labor politicians to Alice Springs and we will show them what it is like to live in Gillen. We will show them what it is like to put up with the misery of lawlessness and crime in Alice Springs’.
When we are talking about law and order, we are not on the same page as the government. We are talking about the need for a very concise and clear strategy forward. People want to know exactly what is going to happen. They do not want to hear about housing developments, Kilgariff, land releases, and other peripheral issues which are very important social issues. However, when we are talking about a law and order strategy, once again, we hear nothing that will give us confidence from the other side of the room.
Madam Speaker, I stand before parliament today feeling desperate, unhappy, and almost to the point of traumatised, thinking about what this summer offers in Alice Springs ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is now 9 pm. Pursuant to standing orders, it is adjournment time. You have 2 minutes and 48 seconds on the clock to go. Do you wish to have that moment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I will conclude, Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I am going to wrap up.
Madam Speaker, I endorse and support the motion put forward by the member for Greatorex about the need for the Northern Territory government to recognise its failures to address law and order issues in Alice Springs. Once again, I fear this government is incapable of truly recognising the damage it has done to Alice Springs by ignoring or being unable to address these problems in Alice Springs.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, today, now that the dust has settled around the allegations raised by the Treasurer and Attorney-General in this House during Question Time, I wish to place on the record some matters the House needs to be aware of.
Over recent days, we have seen what will be the tactic of the Northern Territory government in relation to the next Territory election and how it will position itself. Yesterday, we heard the Leader of Government Business engage in mischievous answers to a dorothy dixer alleging some form of skulduggery, which was not supportable on any level. Even assertions that normal practice was not being followed by the CLP in making adjustments to the administrative orders can be easily evidenced in the sense that I, as the leader of opposition business, have on two other occasions made amendments to the administrative arrangements, other than the one he was referring to yesterday.
Today, in the House, the Minister for Central Australia alleged that we were not responding in sufficient numbers to a ministerial debate; and that was also untrue. The Chief Minister talked about allegations that he had heard rumours and talk about the so-called ‘leaks’ he was receiving about the member for Greatorex’s preselection, which I also demonstrated to be untrue subject, of course, to the final ratification by the Country Liberals Central Council.
We then were presented, during Question Time, with the rather surprising dorothy dixer asked of the Attorney-General. In the past, the government, in its last tawdry little exercise to try to besmirch the good name of the Leader of the Opposition, referred a matter to the Electoral Commission – that was the federal Electoral Commission - as a complaint of a criminal nature which was given short shrift as a political stunt by the federal Electoral Commissioner at the time, and the matter was adequately disposed of as being nothing more than a cheap stunt.
One may have been convinced by the arguments put by the Attorney-General today, to a degree, but for a simple mistake she made - a tactical mistake; namely, the Leader of the Opposition, by entering into some form of negotiation with the member for Macdonnell about her membership of the CLP, had engaged in some form of bribery. Even a cursory read of the legislation could not lead you to that conclusion based on the so-called evidence the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory - she who alleges criminality at the drop of a hat in a most irresponsible fashion - could not make out, or even come close to making out, any form of offence alleged by herself.
Referring to a letter she has in her possession, she went on to say:
Not true. That is actually not in the document. I draw honourable members’ attention to the second paragraph in that document, which says:
Well, hang on; is the Attorney-General not referring to the recent decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals but a month ago? No, she is not, and she knows she is not. Any reading of this letter she tabled today would quickly make the reader realise the letter is a document which arose out of an arrangement which was sought to be made between the Country Liberals and the then Independent member for Macdonnell, Alison Anderson. It is deceptive in the extreme to suggest the letter that was tabled today has anything to do with the decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals last month. It is clearly an attempt to come to an arrangement with the member for Macdonnell in relation to the government’s crisis of two years ago.
How secret was this particular offer? I draw members’ attention to an article that appeared in the Northern Territory News under the title of ‘No Strings CLP Offer’ about two years ago. I quote:
To the two politicians:
The secret offer, the secret deal was published two years ago. If we want to talk about inducements, whilst I cannot lay my hands on the agreement at the moment, there is an agreement before this House in which the government promised material goods to the member for Nelson - pools, bike paths, any number of extra things. How long is that document - 13, 14 pages? So, if a suggestion by the government is the Leader of the Opposition had done something untoward, surely their offer, which was accepted …
A member: And signed.
Mr ELFERINK: And signed, thank you. … would constitute a far more complete offence than the one described by the Attorney-General today.
But no, I will not make that allegation because that is the normal process of minority governments trying to form government. It happened in the federal arena. It has happened in any number of jurisdictions. Hell, the Prime Minister of England at the moment has an arrangement with the Liberal Democrats there. These deals are done all the time. They are part of the normal processes of government. The government itself engaged in these things, so the only thing the minister could have been attempting to do is, essentially, deceive Territorians in making them think that letter, which she must have known was a letter from 2009 - she must have known that, because any reading of the letter could only draw you to that conclusion. However, she deviously attempted to leave Territorians with the impression that it had some reference to the recent decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals.
I have spoken to the member for Macdonnell and to the Leader of the Opposition, and there is no deal. Both of them have told me that. The reason the member for Macdonnell abandoned the Australian Labor Party and, ultimately, joined the Country Liberals is she believed the ALP no longer worked as a functioning and competent government in the Northern Territory.
She, like us, wants to get on with the issues that affect Territorians. We talk about them all the time: the cost of living, the price of housing, and the crime rates in our communities. She felt the Labor government has so badly failed, and CLP policies are so promising, that she would join us on those grounds.
I reject and condemn the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, in engaging in muckraking based on a deliberately false misinterpretation of the contents of the letter that she tabled. It is part of the politics that we are going to have to get used to. As I pointed out at the outset of this debate, they will go to any length to muckrake. I only wish one thing: I hope they will put as much effort into the governing of the Northern Territory for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory as they do into muckraking because, if they did, I suspect they would be a much better government.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I too want to speak about the document that was tabled in this House today. It might do members on the opposition side well to listen to what I have to say. Before I turn to that particular document and what I have to say, I just pick up on a few things the member for Port Darwin said in relation to the question I answered yesterday.
If you look at the Daily Hansard - I do not have it in front of me, but I know I said it at the time. I said to the member for Port Darwin when he accosted me after Question Time about it - I think my exact words were it is usual practice for the Leader of the Opposition to make the announcement about any changes to administrative orders on the opposition side. I stand by that. However, the member for Port Darwin said: ‘I have changed them twice. I stood up here twice and changed them. No, three times.’ Three out of how many? There have been many changes in administrative arrangements in the opposition in the past, since 2008 – a great deal more than three. I stand by what I said before; that it is usual and expected practice for the Leader of the Opposition to make and announce any changes to his shadow makeup on the floor of this parliament.
What was even more extraordinary is he did not make any media announcement about it. It was all going to just slip through under the radar. This is all after many assurances by the member for Macdonnell and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition in the media since she joined the Country Liberals that no deal had been done; there would be no offer of a shadow Cabinet portfolio responsibility; she would have to work her way up the ladder, so to speak, and prove herself - work her way into the shadow Cabinet.
It has only been a couple of weeks and, already, the member is a parliamentary secretary, not just for one area, but for three. She is shadowing three on the other side. She is shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous Policy, for Arts and Museum, and Parks and Wildlife. As I said yesterday, those shadow ministers need to look over their shoulders. We know the MO of the member of Macdonnell, so just be very careful. I gave you a few tips about what to listen and watch for, but there is much more to it than that. That is just a word of warning you can take on board if you want from someone who has a ‘no surprises’ policy regarding the member for Macdonnell – that is me. Let me tell you, that ‘no surprises’ policy is that nothing the member for Macdonnell will ever say and do will ever surprise me ever again. They say in politics ‘never say never’, so I might stand corrected on that. But that is my policy: no surprises ...
Mr Elferink: Are you still here? I thought you had announced your retirement.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, I am coming to the document that was tabled here today. Just as I mentioned maths to the member for Port Darwin before, I will mention maths here along with what I have to say – a couple of extraordinary bits about this letter. I take what the member for Port Darwin said about this being a minority government and all that stuff. The one that really caught my eye and ear when the Treasurer read it out:
I turned to the Chief Minister and said: ‘I would not have minded that when I came into parliament in 2001; that would have been great to have an arrangement like that where not only are you guaranteed a Cabinet position, but you can actually choose it.’
On our side of the House, usually it is the Deputy Leader who gets a very strong say about what their portfolios are. That is how we work, and I suspect, historically, it has probably been fairly similar on your side. I might stand corrected. Whilst on the Labor side of the equation, in our Caucus, we actually pick our Cabinet by a voting process - a secret ballot, I might say. We choose people to nominate, or who are nominated, or nominate themselves; there is a voting process, we go down the list until all the agreed Cabinet positions and other remunerated positions are chosen. That is how positions on our side are chosen.
I understand - I might stand corrected here; I would be very interested to know from members opposite - what you do on your side is the leader actually has the right to choose the Cabinet. The leader actually chooses the Cabinet; there is not a voting process on your side for Cabinet positions. I may stand corrected, and I will be very interested to know if I am incorrect.
The main thing I want to talk to opposition members about here tonight is, first, the policy of the CLP - the policy platform in 2008 where the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘The ministry will be reduced to eight ministers’ ...
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Is it seven now? Okay, so you have eight. You have your Chief Minister, who, if you were to be elected, would be the member for Blain. That leaves seven. I reckon there is still a deal on with the member for Macdonnell in your party room, and you need to say if there is a deal because he would not confirm it or deny it today about her having a Cabinet position. I reckon what has happened is she has been promised a Cabinet position. So, there is the member for Blain, and you can definitely count on the member for Macdonnell. That leaves six. Given the situation between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Leader, I am not sure whether she is guaranteed a guernsey.
If you take two away from 12, you have 10 - this is the numbers side of politics, fellows, you better learn it. Two from 12 leaves 10, and there are six positions for you. Six positions left. Who is going to miss out? There will be four who are going to miss out. If I was someone like the member for Sanderson who had been a loyal CLP member for many years - and I admire commitment to a political party, someone who is true blue, rusted on, committed to their own political party - is to be admired. The member for Sanderson and I might not agree on a great deal, but he is a committed member of the CLP.
How galling would it be for a committed member - someone who tried on a number of occasions to get into parliament, ultimately successful - to be left behind by a blow-in who started off on the Labor side of the equation, became an Independent, then decided to be in the CLP? Would you be unhappy? I would be pretty unhappy about that – and with a guarantee from your leader. Moreover, the other extraordinary thing about this document is he said he is making the offer without any discussion with the party room. Making an offer of a guarantee of a Cabinet post without even talking to his party room indicates to me there is probably still a deal on right now. The only reason this deal surfaced is because of the document that was tabled today.
There is probably another document or a verbal agreement I do not think you know about. This is a bloke who is not embracing your party group. Did he tell you he was going to make her a parliamentary secretary last week? I do not think so. You blokes are on the outer and you are being treated like mugs. You have to stand up to him and say: ‘What is going on? I am a loyal member of the CLP. I adhere to CLP policy. I adhere to the CLP ideals. I am dyed in the wool CLP. How come you are making these agreements with someone like that?’ That is the question you have to ask. It all comes down to very simple mathematics. I will let you go away and think about what I have said.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say this with a straight face if I can, but the great Dr Seuss has just spoken as if he was the one with an organ grinder, being ground from behind and spun into a frenzy. That was just fantastic to hear him go. The great Dr Seuss, the member for Johnston. Thank you very much for your enlightening mathematical equations. I am honestly glad the member did not have to take his shoes off to count to 12, but he managed to achieve it very well.
I point out that an agreement of any minority government is no different anywhere else in Australia at the moment. We can look to our fearless Prime Minister and her non-Cabinet post deal with Senator Bob Brown who, for all intents and purposes, calls the shots in every policy that happens in the federal Labor Party, but he does not have a ministry either.
I am sure there is a myriad of organ grinders in Canberra at the moment pushing the Prime Minister’s barrow, telling her which direction to turn at which time; so there is no great difference. But Dr Seuss has come forward tonight and he has actually shown us the great way of the future. He has just demonstrated his counting skills again - he got to five. I believe that might be the final result on that side.
I will get on with what is really important to me, and that is the constituents of Drysdale. It was very good to see in today’s Palmerston Sun another article. The sad part is it is based on negative outcomes, but with a positive future. The article is titled ‘No Walk in the Park’, where an overwhelming majority of neighbours want action on Reg Hillier Park, a small, hardly seen park in Palmerston on Chung Wah Terrace, leading through to Lorna Lim Terrace, beautifully set and directly opposite the police station in Palmerston. The problem is, due to habitual drunks and antisocial behaviour, over a decade that park has become a park that residents do not want to go through and live next to but, unfortunately, they have to.
We have senior residents on one side in Territory Housing, and private residents to the other side. The number of complaints is, without doubt, massive. Two weeks ago, I believe it was, I did an interview there with the Palmerston Sun and, as I was talking to the reporter, drinkers came into the park. It certainly caused unease for me and the reporter because, although it is a beautiful tropical park, it cannot be seen so easily from the road. Of course, due diligence, being an ex-police officer, at the earliest opportunity, we went into the police station across the road and reported the illegal drinkers in the park.
They walked in, had their supply of alcohol for the day, and sat down and started consuming it whilst we were there. This is taken to a point where, after doorknocking the area, I felt we needed to do a direct line telephone survey. As a result of that survey, it can be seen in the paper’s comments here, that 94% of the residents want a change to this park. They want the park to be their park, and they want to be able to take their grandchildren to that park.
So, not wanting to make this an entirely negative speech tonight, we are working with the Palmerston City Council. These parks are very prohibitive to upkeep at times because, unlike Central Australia where we have limited rain and limited growth, in the beautiful tropics and the Tiwi Islands and the like, we have beautiful growth. However, that means there is higher cost to maintain and control those parks.
This morning at the Palmerston Regional Safe Communities Committee, it was raised and discussed, and all working groups agreed there must be something more done. Collaboratively, all the working groups involved in the Palmerston Safer Communities Committee are going to help and chip in as a real community and work towards fixing this problem; working with the itinerants and habitual drunks, finding ways of getting Mission Australia and YMCA working with them, getting them out and finding out why they are there. The police will increase patrols, and the council is looking at options and other considerations.
It is cost-prohibitive to remodel the park, but I believe there could be a way forward. In consultation with the community, the Palmerston City Council, and all the other service providers, I believe our community will achieve a fantastic outcome so we can have people using the park who are not practising illegal behaviours or fornicating in the parks, but are there with their kids playing ball or just having a simple picnic. Perhaps some of the office workers at Highway House would like to start using the park in a different way once it is cleaned up. There are some beautiful rainforest trees there and it would always be good to try to keep them. However, under some of the other trees the undergrowth has got out of control, as you can see in the photograph in the Palmerston Sun today. You can see it is quite dense and you cannot even see Chung Wah Terrace. With real community spirit and involvement in assisting the council, perhaps working with some other collaborative partners, this could be cleaned up.
No matter where you are, as a member of parliament, you really value that community spirit and cherish it and try to foster it to the best of your ability, because it is the community that helps us to move forward in our jobs and retain them. It is our role to help the community move forward. Let us hope we see some great outcomes there. I thought I would just quickly talk on it to let you know that, as a community, we are working on this.
I am pleased to hear constituents report to me that some of the Chief Minister’s staff - whether it is here or in his electorate office - have started ringing around the same neighbours I have just telephoned and asked the same question. Copycat is great flattery, but is sometimes too late. The challenge goes out to the Chief Minister: put your money where your mouth is. If you want to help my community, let us throw some money into it and, together, we will continue to make Palmerston the best place in the Territory to live.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled tonight to be able to talk about Muriel Jaragba from the Angurugu Health Centre. Muriel won the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker of the Year Award at the very prestigious Deadly Awards ceremony broadcast on national television in September. Muriel is supported by Angurugu Health Manager, Jenni Langrell, who has been at the forefront of Aboriginal mental health for well over a decade.
Working in collaboration with Dr Kylie Lee of Sydney University, Muriel has been instrumental in producing nine short films about a range of health issues including cannabis and mental health, tobacco sickness, nicotine replacement therapy and how to cope with stress and grief. The films are spoken in Anindilyakwa with English subtitles and are based on local ideas developed by Muriel with help from other health workers.
Anija was their most recent film and tells the story of one family’s struggle to deal with problems with alcohol. Fluent in three languages and English, Muriel has managed to deliver complex health education in a format that people can easily understand. Muriel is able to do this because of her great knowledge in both traditional Aboriginal healing and western approaches to health.
Last year, Muriel was recognised with a finalist nomination in the research category of the National Drug and Alcohol Awards for her groundbreaking mental health and substance misuse research efforts. Her work in this difficult area has contributed greatly to enhancing the health and wellbeing of people across Groote Eylandt and the East Arnhem region. This is some of what she said in her acceptance speech:
Muriel, it makes us very happy, too. I was so incredibly proud to see you at the Opera House to receive your award. You just made so many of us in northeast Arnhem and across the Northern Territory incredibly proud. Well done!
While I am speaking about Groote Eylandt, there are also two men who have been the driving force within the Anindilyakwa Land Council who funded Muriel’s films. Tony Wurramarrba and Walter Amagula have been the inspirational leaders at the land council through a period that has seen the establishment of Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises (GEBIE), which has a particularly commercial focus on local employment, the construction of the Dugong Beach Resort - a beautiful place to stay as many members, I am sure, would testify - and the negotiating and signing of the Stages 1 and 2 regional partnership agreements that have bought so many benefits, including amalgamating the four schools into a single college to bring a more concentrated focus to education.
The regional partnership agreement has also brought a $20m investment in sealing the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba, of which $10m was provided by the land council. When I went over to watch the grand final at Angurugu it was good to be able to travel the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba to see the work that is being done on sealing.
Unfortunately, Walter suffered a serious health issue some months ago and had to stand down from the ALC board. While he is recuperating at home in Angurugu, I am sure all members will join me in wishing Walter a speedy recovery.
Tony has recently received notification that he is one of four finalists in the running for the Local Hero Award 2012 in the Territory. He will attend a presentation for the finalists next month with the winner going on to be a finalist in the Australian Local Hero Awards to be announced on Australia Day. I certainly wish you well, Tony.
Still on Groote Eylandt, I mention a wonderful woman, Danjibana Noelene Lalara, who is in the final stages of completing her primary school teaching degree through the department of Education’s Growing Our Own project. I know she has found it hard going, but when completed, she will be qualified to teach anywhere in Australia or overseas. But, guess what? She only wants to teach on Groote Eylandt.
Last, I would like to mention Milingimbi’s Gattjirrk Festival and the hard work put in by all those involved in this amazing event that I never want to miss. In all the years I have been the local member, it is beautiful to be able to attend this festival. I thank the East Arnhem Shire staff, John Horgan and Aroha Jennings but, most importantly, I thank the festival’s chairman, Keith Lapulung. Keith, you do a tremendous job in northeast Arnhem and for the people of Milingimbi. It is always a pleasure to be able to support you at any time, especially around the festival time, in the way you try to bring all the Yolngu groups together, especially amidst much sadness that has taken place on Milingimbi this year.
That weekend was a pretty special time. The festival started around 1986 as a way to establish local musicians, and it slowly grew into a festival over the years, attracting more and more performers. Initially the Milingimbi Music Sound and Light Competition, in 1990 it evolved into the Gattjirrk Festival. Keith has been at the forefront of this festival from the very start - and that is going back to 1986. This year was certainly no different; Keith was there out in front bringing everyone together. He is a wonderful musician and performer, and a tireless worker.
I had a great time when I attended the Milingimbi festival, and I certainly look forward to next year’s. I say to Keith and all the mob on Milingimbi: well done for making everyone feel so welcome.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was going to give you the call, member for Sanderson, but you nearly fell off your chair; I will call you next. So, member for Barkly.
Mr Styles: I did not expect the member for Arnhem to sit down so quickly, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, being the Minister for Arts and Museums is a fantastic job. The sector widely referred to as the creative industries plays a vital and important role across the Northern Territory in job creation, income development, and the cultural wellbeing of Territorians.
To quote the researcher, Richard Florida:
As Minister for Arts and Museums, I recognise the need to ensure, as the Territory enters its next phase of growth and development, the creative industry sector builds in line with that growth to ensure employment opportunities are maximised and the quality of life for all Territorians is maintained and enhanced. Building our creative industry sector and local capacity creates job opportunities for Territorians in art, music, crafts, design, film, performing arts, publishing, fashion, software development, the media, cultural institutions, advertising, architecture - and the list goes on.
Recently, I have been privileged to be invited to visit and launch a number of activities in the sector including the Alice Springs Festival in September, with memorable performances by the Desert Divas and the remarkable Darwin Symphony Orchestra collaboration with two of the divas, Catherine Satour and Jacinta Price. It was great also to be able to acknowledge a fantastic new arts business partnership, with the sponsorship of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra tour to Alice Springs by Territory business, Sitzler Bros.
Launching the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory’s National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards iPhone App, which is allowing people all around Australia and internationally to access the remarkable work in this most important national art award, now in its 28th year, was fantastic. Even more fantastic was meeting the winner, Dickie Minyintiri - 96 years old.
This week, at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, I announced the winner of the People’s Choice Awards, Alison Riley, from South Australia for her painting Seven Sisters, a delightfully cheeky work that is immediately eye catching.
I encourage anyone who has not yet done so to visit MAGNT and see the NATSIAA exhibition before it closes this Sunday, 30 October, or download the App and view it online.
I was also pleased to recently open Activate Cultivate, a survey exhibition of red hand print posters. This exhibition from MAGNT’s collection gives a fascinating snapshot of activity in Darwin at the turn of the century. The posters were created to promote events, defend the environment, advertise films, announce protests, express social opinions and political views, giving a voice to those who wanted to advertise their event or voice their concerns at that time – again, another great reason to visit our museum at Bullocky Point.
Recently, I met with the Board of Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Ltd, and visited the advanced construction site of the Godinymayin Yijard Rivers Arts and Cultural Centre. This exciting project currently being built on the Stuart Highway 2 km south of Katherine, will commence a lively program of public activities from April 2012; developed with Katherine Regional Arts Inc, which has the local expertise in planning and presenting arts events, performances, and displays.
Last weekend, I opened the unique Fridge Festival, another landmark, ‘only in the Northern Territory’ event, which is a celebration of Darwin, its people, and the humble fridge.
Last Sunday, I opened the $1.2m upgrade to the Australian Aviation Heritage Centre, which includes the construction of a new entry foyer, a new toilet block, a new engine bay, and the installation of three radar dishes. This work delivers on our government’s election commitment to commemorate the historic significance of Darwin’s bombing during World War II. This major upgrade is part of our five-year, $11.5m plan for Darwin World War II commemorative sites to ensure this history is preserved. Anyone visiting East Point Reserve recently will have noticed the advanced construction of the Defence of Darwin Experience that is on track for the official opening next year, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin.
I also acknowledge and welcome some new appointments to the sector. The first being Pierre Arpin, the new Director at MAGNT, who brings a wealth of museum experience with him. I also welcome the new director at Browns Mart, Jansis O’Hanlon, and the new general manager of the Darwin Entertainment Centre, Richard Fitzgerald. Finally, I welcome Edwina Lunn, the former General Manager of the Darwin Festival to her new role as Artistic Director. The Darwin Festival continues to grow and delight Darwin audiences, and the government has made an ongoing commitment of $1m to ensure the festival is able to continue to develop on a strong and stable platform well into the future. I look forward to hearing news of the 2012 program.
Last night in this House, the member for Brennan adjourned on reports he has received about the impact of the government’s record land release program in Palmerston East. Specifically, he raised the issues of vegetation clearing, dust, noise and, perhaps most surprisingly, ticks. The works being delivered along Roystonea Avenue extension Stage 1 includes the extension of Roystonea Avenue through to our new Palmerston East subdivisions of Johnston and Zuccoli. Major components to this very important project include the installation of the water main, which is complete, and will be tested in the coming weeks.
This is a major milestone in the delivery of this project. It is a project that will support the construction of new homes for thousands of Territorians. I acknowledge that some vacant blocks and homes may have experienced dust and noise along sections of Roystonea Avenue toward Elrundie Avenue. As you will be aware, the majority of large-scale construction works is undertaken in the Dry Season in the Northern Territory. As this type of large-scale project, supporting jobs for Territorians, does create dust, the contractor has put measures in place to reduce that impact. In particular, the contractor regularly waters the surrounding areas to assist in relieving the dust issues for residents. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has also required the contractor to install dust suppression material to those blocks directly affected, and I am advised this has been extremely effective to date.
Speed limits have also been reduced to assist in further reducing dust and noise for residents, and boosting road safety. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has also been in constant communication with residents in these suburbs. A letterbox drop has been distributed to residents in Gunn, Bakewell, and Rosebery and, importantly, a department representative has personally contacted residents and is working with those who have individual issues to rectify them.
The member for Brennan also raised a tick infestation issue. From my personal experience living in the Territory, I have observed that ticks are on the move generally in the build-up period and towards the Wet Season. These issues seem to be experienced across the Territory. I took interest in the issue and questioned a number of Darwin locals and a couple of Palmerston locals to ask them about tick infestations. They are the same trends we see in Tennant Creek and in the Barkly. I swapped a few yarns too, about remedies for that. It is hard to determine that the Roystonea extension project supporting the development of Zuccoli and Johnston has caused this year’s seasonal advent of ticks. However, residents need to talk to their vets about possible solutions to any infestation of ticks.
In closing, I encourage the member for Brennan and his CLP colleagues to take a drive, cycle, or walk through Palmerston East to personally witness the exciting development of new homes for Territorians, the result of a land release program that is five times faster than anything ever seen before in the Territory and, as a result, a major construction project of new homes for Territorians. To sum it up, it is an area that is now considered in a national context the fastest growing city in Australia. That is something our government is very proud of. Deep down under all that cynicism, sarcasm, and venom from the other side, it is something they are very proud of as well, but just cannot gather the courage to say it.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to an organisation called Friends of the North Australian Railway. In the month of August, I had great pleasure in joining the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, more commonly known as the Nashos, and seniors who did a bus trip organised as part of Seniors Month. We took off from Darwin and headed down the track, through Charles Darwin National Park, where we examined some of the bunkers there where the World War II ammunition was kept and, more recently, RAAF armaments up until the 1960s.
As members will know, the organisation known as Friends of the North Australian Railway turns 10 years of age this year. They have painstakingly restored the Adelaide River Railway Heritage Precinct and, I must say, it is a great credit to them.
In particular, I pay tribute to the Friends of the North Australian Railway’s Vice President, Mr Mick Kent. He is a quiet, laconic bloke who gets about his business with a no-nonsense approach, and is more at home with a meat pie in his hand than anything more fancy - although I am told he will eat a smoked salmon canap under duress.
Mick Kent is responsible for the majority of restoration and interpretation in the precinct, including the two Sydney William’s huts, which have been respectfully dedicated to the precinct’s Overland Telegraph and World War II history. Mick Kent was born in Tantanoola in the Coonawarra region of South Australia in 1953. Mick took an interest in engineering heritage following a trip to Tasmania in 2000, which included heritage railways. It was then he realised that the remaining artifacts of the North Australia Railway, which had closed some 24 years earlier, would quickly disappear as the new standard gauge railway was built, much of it in the North Australia rail corridor.
Mick went on numerous field trips between Darwin and Birdum, interviewed former North Australia Railway employees, and visited other states to track down rolling stock which had been used in the railway. He researched various archival sources and read existing publications on the history of the North Australian Railway. A fact many people do not realise is that Mick walked - and I repeat, he walked - that railway section, which is over 500 km, three times. That is 1500 km he has walked. Not many people know exactly how many kilometres either side of the railway he has walked to gather up what is a magnificent display of railway memorabilia in Australia, let alone the North Australian Railway. The display is a truly a remarkable achievement of his. When I had a look at it and walked through the museum, I could not believe the material that is in there and has been recovered simply by walking the length and breadth of that railway three times. He is to be commended, and it will be his legacy to leave those types of artifacts in one of the greatest railway museums in Australia.
The Overland Telegraph became part of the project because the railway line, essentially, followed the corridor of the Overland Telegraph Line. The Adelaide River guest book includes a comment that the precinct contains ‘the best Overland Telegraph display in Australia’. I can attest to that, having been there and wandered through and seen not only the quality of the artifacts, but the number.
Mick has completed a detailed documentation of the Overland Telegraph Line and is working on an account of the first two years of operation of that particular railway. His contribution to the preservation of engineering heritage was acknowledged in 2007 when Engineers Australia recognised Mick as a person who had made a significant contribution to the recording and preservation of engineering heritage in the Northern Territory.
There was only one other Northern Territory recipient of this award; that is Leo Izod, a person who is known to many Territorians. I was hoping that Mick could be here as my guest this evening, but sadly, he is unwell at home. So, we send Mick our very best wishes for a speedy recovery and, again, congratulate him on the fabulous job he has done and the legacies he has left for future Territorians to see just what the North Australian railway was all about in those early years.
As I said, the Friends celebrate their 10th birthday this year, and they have achieved incredible progress at the heritage precinct. Not only is the precinct a testament to the hard work and thousands of hours put in by volunteers, but it is a tourism hub and serves as a visitor information centre for the township of Adelaide River, which presently has a population of about 200 but, in the past, had a thriving railway, and was a telegraph centre and major strategic military camp.
The Friends thrive on the smell of an oily rag, and reckon they could spend the entire NT government heritage grants allocation of $200 000 per year simply on their own display at Adelaide River. They go to extraordinary lengths to raise funds. I had the pleasure of taking part in the National Servicemen’s seniors day out in August and we had lunch at the railway heritage precinct. Lunch was prepared by volunteers from Darwin who trek down there regularly to put on a good show. They did it again in September when they served morning tea to an extremely large group of ex-United Nations peacekeeping police who were here for their national conference.
The Friends hold heritage open days on May Day and Picnic Day each year. After all, the original reason for picnic day holiday was for railway workers and their families. They have restored an impressive selection of rolling stock, steam locomotives and wagons, and they have more works in progress at a secret site in the greater Darwin area.
On display at the precinct is a 1985 Smith & Coventry wheel lathe which was located at the Parap workshops from 1888 originally for the Palmerston to Pine Creek Railway. Restoration works have included the installation of steam pumping devices next to the hand-dug reservoir at the back of the station which was used to fill the overhead water tank which, in turn, supplied the trains as they passed through - the only refreshment room on the railway between Palmerston and Birdum.
The World War II history is equally fascinating with a lurching cattle car known as Leaping Lena servicing the line for both troops and fresh produce. Unfortunately, the trip from Darwin to Adelaide River took 14 hours and fresh meat from the Vestey’s Meatworks in an open cattle car did not travel at all well. The troops in Adelaide River routinely unloaded the carriage and immediately buried the putrid meat in massive pits.
There is also a significant ambulance siding which the Friends have marked and cleared; it does not fall within their boundary, but stands as a tribute to the nurses of World War II who accompanied and cared for wounded servicemen.
Some hilarious stories have emerged from diggers who served in Adelaide River at the time. One such story is from Max Cathro, who was in the Army Logistics Operations Centre in Adelaide River and was ordered to clear some bush to make way for construction. Max knew a bloke who knew a bloke who had some gelignite. Those of us who know anything about explosives know it is extremely volatile in humid conditions. But, Max and his mate, being young and adventurous - and probably stupid and bullet proof - took some gelignite to get the job done without too much in the way of manual labour. They blew a huge crater in the hill adjacent to the railway precinct, which is now a great touring point on open days and for specialised group tours.
Adelaide River regularly copped a caning during the Japanese air raids, which usually coincided with a full moon for better visibility. During the reunion of ex-servicewomen in 1995, a woman who served as a nurse in Adelaide River recounted those hours everyone spent clearing the bush to create an oval for sporting endeavours. During the air raid, following all the hard work, Japanese pilots mistook the oval for an airstrip and bombed it. No Aussie Rules was ever played on that patch.
Of the 64 air raids over the Top End during World War II, Adelaide River was front and centre as Australia’s front line. It is no wonder then that the last bombing raid, on 11 November 1943, included Adelaide River.
Looking to the future, the Friends are preparing for a big year in 2012: 24 July marks the 150th anniversary of John McDouall Stuart’s epic crossing of the continent from south to north, and August marks the 140th anniversary of completion of the massive engineering fete that was the Overland Telegraph Line, which had its terminus on the side of a magnificent building.
I wish the Friends of the North Australia Railway a happy 10th anniversary, and urge them to keep up their exceedingly good work.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I honour a great, hard-working Northern Territory Public Service person, a member of the Department of Children and Families. On 1 September 2011, Ms Sally Bevis commenced her long service leave and will officially retire from the Northern Territory government when this leave expires on 29 June 2012. Sally has given 24 years of service to the Northern Territory government, 10 of which were dedicated to the Seniors Card scheme.
Sally commenced employment with the Department of Education in 1987 as a teacher’s aide at the Leanyer Primary School. In 2002, Sally became the Administrative Support Officer for the Northern Territory Seniors Card scheme. In 2003, Sally was promoted to the role of Manager, and played a significant role in developing the scheme. In 2008, Sally joined the Policy Unit to focus her attention on business recruitment, the production of the Seniors Card Directory, and also the very successful Seniors Month.
Sally is well-known and loved amongst the seniors community - and I can certainly attest to that – in the Northern Territory because she reaches out to them from such a long distance, and over such a long period of time. Her cheerful nature and energy will sadly be missed. She has truly dedicated herself to improving the Seniors Card and has signed up more businesses per capita than any other state or territory in Australia.
Sally is now planning a sailing adventure trip to Bali, and a holiday to France, and I wish her all the best in her retirement.
I met Sally on a number of occasions and I find her an extremely passionate and dedicated person to seniors in the Northern Territory. I know she will be fondly remembered in the future. She has a very full retirement and a wonderful life ahead of her. We thank her for her years of dedication to this very vital part of the Northern Territory society.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! … the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 3/4 of St Francis of Assisi School students accompanied by Mrs Margie Talbot, Miss Nabila Nadeem, and Miss Veronica Niland. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
HOUSING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 177)
(Serial 177)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Housing Act to enable the establishment of public housing safety officers. It describes the circumstances when they may act and their powers in relation to dealing with antisocial behaviour in public housing.
Establishing public housing safety officers is part of a broader public housing safety strategy that will support the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services to deliver safe, secure, and healthy public housing in urban and remote communities, and sets a framework for effective management of antisocial behaviour in public housing properties by tenants and visitors, whether invited or not. I will talk more about the broader strategy at a later time.
Most incidents of antisocial behaviour associated with public housing premises involve alcohol. There are two aspects to antisocial behaviour occurring in Territory Housing properties: antisocial behaviour involving tenants and their invited guests; and antisocial behaviour from itinerants using common areas in public housing complexes and vacant properties. These two types of antisocial behaviour require different responses.
Given the wider government commitment to a safer Territory, the government …
Madam SPEAKER: Take that phone outside, member for Brennan, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Given the wider government commitment to a safer Territory, the government has approved implementation of a public housing safety strategy aimed at improving the department’s operational effectiveness within a framework that provides an enhanced response to antisocial behaviour associated with public housing dwellings and complexes, and contributes to safety across the Territory.
The amendments will provide public housing safety officers with powers to address antisocial behaviour occurring in public housing properties, regardless of who the perpetrators might be. Antisocial behaviour arising from tenants and their visitors is already within the ambit of the public housing provider and the Residential Tenancies Act. However, to date, dealing with antisocial behaviour from people who are not tenants or legitimate visitors has been more difficult. It is recognised that the behaviour of these people does have a significant impact on the ability of other tenants and neighbours to have quiet enjoyment of their property and community.
By far the most common incidents attended to by Territory Housing security patrols involve itinerants in common areas engaged in activities such as drinking, fighting, and sleeping off the effects of alcohol, to name just a few. The behaviour of itinerants in public housing remains a problem for Territory Housing. It is, therefore, important that Territory Housing develops a response to antisocial behaviour that encompasses management of tenants and their visitors, as well as this group of people. This is why I asked for the Housing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill to be drafted, and why I asked Cabinet to support me in establishing public housing safety officers.
You will recall that I released an exposure draft of the bill in May this year seeking comments and feedback on the proposed powers of public housing safety officers. We received nine formal submissions in response to the exposure draft, as well as other less formal feedback. After carefully considering all the feedback provided, I decided to remove provisions that provided public housing safety officers with the powers to arrest, detain, and frisk individuals and to, instead, leave it to Northern Territory police officers to determine if these actions are required.
Implementation of this bill and public housing safety officers will be supported by a memorandum of understanding between Territory Housing and Northern Territory police that will describe the respective roles and responsibility of each party in minimising antisocial behaviour, and maintaining safety associated with public housing sites. This draft bill provides the legislative framework to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of public housing safety officers, or PHSOs, and, along with targeted training, will ensure these officers are well equipped to carry out and exercise the powers they are provided with.
The community expects the government housing providers to actively manage disruptive and antisocial behaviour. In fact, it is fair to say that communities place higher expectations on public and social housing agencies to address these issues than they do on private landlords or, indeed, private owners. I do not shy away from taking hard action when tenants and individuals do not cease inappropriate behaviour that causes concerns for their neighbours and the community more generally.
Territory Housing has used the services of private security contractors in some locations to monitor and respond to incidents. However, the limits of power currently placed on Territory Housing’s private security contractors are having little long-term effect in changing the behaviours of some tenants, itinerants and others, and unwanted visitors to public housing sites who engage in antisocial behaviour. The latter groups usually move on when they are requested to do so by security guards; however, they often return well within 24 hours, or simply move to a different public housing complex.
The major provisions of the draft bill include:
appointment and procedures for public housing safety officers;
powers to be conferred on the public housing safety officers which include: powers to direct individuals to stop antisocial behaviour conduct or direct them to leave public housing premises; powers to instruct individuals to leave for up to 12 months in certain circumstances; powers to seize dangerous articles and liquor; and powers to issue trespass notices where required; and
Public housing safety officers will be recruited for their engagement and communication skills. They will have significant interaction with those people who have, or are perpetrating, criminal or antisocial behaviour in public housing properties. Although public housing safety officers will not be arresting or searching individuals, I believe they are well equipped to do their job.
We are working with the Northern Territory police and other experienced training providers to develop and deliver extensive training packages to these new officers. Training in resolving conflict, risk analysis, and how to identify if a person has mental health issues will be integral. Ongoing refresher training will also be a high priority. Training and procedures will be a developed to ensure the public housing safety officers are very clear about when to call for assistance from the Northern Territory police. We will also provide training and guidance on alternative situation management, and equip public housing safety officers with the skills to diffuse potentially difficult situations.
Along with powers, obligations and responsibilities conferred on public housing safety officers through the Housing Act, public housing safety officers will also be required to comply with a strict code of conduct. The code of conduct will provide an ethical framework for decisions and actions of a public housing safety officer, and explicitly state certain behaviours that are unacceptable for public housing safety officers. Alleged breaches of the code of conduct will be investigated by the Chief Executive of the department, and provisions of the code will allow the Chief Executive to suspend an officer or revoke their appointment as a public housing safety officer until the matter has been dealt with.
To go hand in hand with the new public housing safety officers, the department will also introduce a new three strikes policy. This policy will implement a new structured process for the department, as landlord, to deal with problem tenancies. Territory Housing will have a new set of procedures to be followed to rectify antisocial behaviour. This will enhance the department’s capacity as landlord to make applications to terminate tenancies. The department will be able to present more structured cases of reasons to evict when they take cases before the Commissioner of Tenancies. For tenants, it will also provide them with a clear, structured understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and, most importantly, what the ramifications are for disregarding behavioural expectations. We need to take strong action to manage the small number of tenants and visitors to public housing residences who do not want to comply with the rules and obligations associated with renting or visiting a public housing property.
This amendment bill supports the Territory government’s A Safe Territory initiative to develop safer and more harmonious neighbourhoods and communities, and reinforces crime and antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 172)
(Serial 172)
Continued from 16 August 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in consideration of walking into this House and discussing this bill today, I turn my attention to what this bill attends to achieve, what the bill is, and the explanation provided to this House by the Attorney-General.
One of the great delights I had dealing with this legislative instrument before the House today is the second reading speech was one of the best and most carefully written second reading speeches I have ever read. That, then, leaves me with a choice, and I congratulate whoever wrote the second reading speech. In fact, I know who wrote it and I place on the record my congratulations. This second reading speech should become the benchmark for what second reading speeches look like.
I say that because not only did it discuss the legislation before the House, it carefully explained the changes between what was and what is to be. It then leaves me with the choice, as I said at the outset, to deal with this response in two ways. I could spend the next 45 minutes going through the second reading speech and agreeing with the points in it or, if anyone wants to know what the Country Liberals’ opinion is on this legislative instrument, I could refer those people to the second reading speech – and that is what I will do.
The fact is uniform evidence legislation has now been around for quite some time. When I studied for my law degree, it was actually the legislation I studied. I have to confess to a certain conflict of interest here; it is the one I am more familiar with than the Territory legislation. In fact, I am on the record in this House, about two years ago, suggesting uniform evidence legislation be introduced. I could stand corrected on that, but I remember talking about it in the past. In any instance, the judicial profession - whether they be sitting on the bench but, more to the point, those people who approach the bar table - have to deal with the laws of evidence of different jurisdictions, and that profession has now become quite mobile in this country. As a consequence, having similar legislative instruments operating across jurisdictions makes sense.
We, obviously, are indicating our support for this legislative instrument. I believe if we were to stand in the way of this legislative instrument we would be rightly criticised by the profession, and we will not pull that particular roof down on our own heads.
I note there are some variant constructs in this legislative instrument different to the actual concept of uniformity. However, they are matters pertaining to vulnerable witnesses, from memory, and children giving evidence. I do not have a major problem with that; I understand why that is being done. I also have some questions. I might briefly take this into the committee stages simply to get some time lines. In fact, I will give you the heads up on what those questions are. Those questions will deal with the roll-out of this particular bill. I note there are still transitional arrangements which have to be made in relation to this. What I am seeking some advice on is how quickly government is going to introduce those legislative instruments, or the further bill which will be introduced at a later date, to repeal relevant parts of the Evidence Act as it currently operates in the Northern Territory.
I imagine for government, of course, there would be some impetus and pressure being placed upon it because, now it has commenced this process with the bill which is before us now, the legal profession in the Northern Territory would be seeking the transition as a matter of some priority. In fact, if the minister could – no, I will go into the committee stages; it will be easier that way.
Beyond that, I take some heart in the retention - and the deliberate retention - of the Anunga Rules which, curiously, I believe are meant to be the Anangu Rules, but they have become known as the Anunga Rules - Anangu being, of course, the traditional people of the Pitjantjatjara lands in Central Australia. However, they have become known as the Anunga Rules. From memory, Judge Foster’s guidelines in relation to the interviewing of witnesses in those sets of rules have become the benchmark of interviewing, particularly, but not exclusively, Aboriginal people by police in the Northern Territory. It created a series of expectations of fairness to be dealt with in obtaining confessional evidence from perpetrators who were less advantaged - for lack of better words - than the average citizen, particularly in areas of communication.
The term which is used by police is ‘first clip’ or ‘clip first’, depending on how it was done. I could be challenged by trying to remember what it all is, but it was the vehicle by which confessionary evidence was benchmarked by the Northern Territory Supreme Court and has been applied ever since. It is proper that that particular instrument remain within the ambit of evidence. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General has mentioned that particular case, particularly in the clear intent, I suspect, to guide the courts should they ever turn their attention to the second reading speech, if there is an issue of doubt in the legislation itself.
As I said at the outset, my concerns are not of major substance. I just want to get a sense of the time lines the government will be bringing to the passage of this legislation. All I can say in relation to the second reading speech is, essentially, ditto, and the Country Liberals will not be standing in the way of what I consider to be good and sensible legislation.
In fact, this legislative instrument gives greater liberty to the courts to determine what is acceptable and useful evidence in those courts, and that is, necessarily, a good thing. It should be up to a court to determine to, as great a degree as possible, what happens internally. I make this observation but I am sometimes surprised the legal profession comes to the parliament as often as it does seeking legislative instruments to be passed in support of the industry. I would have thought the industry, with its critique of the parliamentary process, would have, from time to time, sought reasons to avoid parliamentary involvement in their job. However, that is for them to decide, and I am sure they, collectively, have a much better legal mind than I. So, if that is what they want, that is what they get.
However, Madam Speaker, this does create greater liberty for a court to operate. It does become part of a national framework. It makes sense for a whole bunch of good reasons. Without further ado, the Country Liberals indicate their support for the passage of this legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the support of the opposition. I also acknowledge and thank the recognition that has gone into the accuracy and explanations within the second reading speech. I am sure Martin will be delighted and conversations will abound through the Department of Justice’s Legal Policy Unit. It is, obviously, an intent of government to ensure as much information as possible is provided within second reading speeches. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the work that has been brought forward in the second reading speech, accompanying the uniform evidence law we have before us.
We have been able to draw upon the experience of the other jurisdictions. I acknowledge the recognition of the opposition about this being a law that has been operating in other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, and Tasmania. I am advised we have had the benefit of a large and valuable body of jurisprudence built up over the past 16 years that the act has been in operation in other jurisdictions. The bill is not just a restatement of the common law but, we believe, an improvement in many areas of substantive evidence law. I can indicate that once this bill has passed, the Department of Justice will consult with key stakeholders to finalise the regulations.
In early 2012, I will introduce a bill that will deal with consequential matters and provide for the repeal of the Evidence (Business Records) Interim Arrangements Act and the Evidence Act. A new act called the Evidence Miscellaneous Provisions Act will include matters currently in the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act and the vulnerable witness provisions currently in the Evidence Act, along with various procedural provisions providing for communication links in court, confidential communications, and evidence on commission.
The Department of Justice will be working with key stakeholders to develop education and information packages, and will conduct seminars or workshops throughout the Territory in coming months. The courts, the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the various legal aid organisations will be fully consulted. Seminars will be run in conjunction with these stakeholders. Information about the new evidence law will also be made available on the Department of Justice’s website. With all these consultations and the introduction of the consequential bill into parliament early next year, we expect to commence this legislation in June 2012. We have created that extended time to allow for the passing of this bill, the commencement of the act in order that the practitioners and the judiciary become familiar with the new provisions, and to avoid any confusion when the act supersedes the existing evidence law.
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support. I am unsure if you still want to go into committee, given that I have answered those queries.
Mr Elferink: No.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (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.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms - Report on the First Three Months
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms - Report on the First Three Months
Continued from 20 October 2011.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, it is a great statement the Minister for Alcohol Policy brought forward. This is an extremely significant issue for the Northern Territory. It has been a blight on every facet of the community over quite a long period of time. We enjoy the great Territory lifestyle, and part of that is the consumption of alcohol at various social functions or informal events. However, what we are talking about here is alcohol in excess, alcohol for vulnerable people, and alcohol, once used, attributes to antisocial or criminal behaviour.
The Northern Territory Labor government is very serious about this; that is why we came up with the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms. It is a very significant step in tackling alcohol and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. These reforms are quite significant and far-reaching and, once implemented, will benefit the wider community. From my portfolio responsibilities, I believe it will benefit the business community as well, because business suffers from a small group of people who misuse alcohol and cause much grief in our community, and for the business community.
The changes that businesses are required to undertake to comply with reforms are now largely complete. I look forward to the further roll-out of the scanners into parts of my electorate outside the Darwin area, to have a complete system where people with alcohol problems who have been cut off cannot access alcohol. I congratulate businesses on working through the initial transitional issues. Requirements will be quickly and effectively resolved.
Changes have now been incorporated into the ‘business as usual’ operating arrangements. When you look at the ID systems, it is a very small inconvenience. We are seeing the results now, and we look forward to further results coming forward about reducing the level of antisocial behaviour, and also the criminal activity.
I look at it from the police’s point of view, where the previous arrangements were just locking people up and putting people away; it was really not doing anything. It was, basically, the spin dry - which is what has been talked about. Putting people back out into the community after having a night’s sleep in the cells and a meal in the morning was not achieving anything long-term for these people. Putting people on the Banned Drinker Register, gives them a bit of breathing space to reduce their alcohol consumption and try to think about how they can resolve issues in their own life.
I congratulate the industry associations of businesses which have contributed to this reform. From their point of view, it is about the long term; it is about having an industry that is not susceptible to major policy changes. If the issues were allowed to continue, it would have resulted in a major policy change which would have affected businesses and the industry quite significantly. By industry coming on board with these reforms, they can see the longer-term view of cutting out these problem drinkers and allowing the responsible drinkers to continue enjoying and using alcohol.
I congratulate the liquor industry on their alcohol accords. These are voluntary accords and, from what I have seen in Katherine, they have been very successful in addressing some of the alcohol behaviour issues there.
I recognise some in the community might find the reform arrangements may require additional adjustment. In particular, tourists and visitors to the Northern Territory may not be aware and be surprised about these arrangements. I came from Katherine and go back there from time to time and, before the ID system was rolled out, I was caught a couple of times. Surprisingly, you will get people grumbling about it; however, the vast majority of visitors who see the system understand it and can see the benefit. When I was living in Katherine I spoke to the developers of the intellectual property for these devices and spoke about where they are used elsewhere in Australia. These systems are also used in nightclub strips. They have trialled them on the Gold Coast where people were scanned as they went in. Women were complimentary of the system because it protected them from being assaulted in various manners by idiots who go into these places.
Using ID to protect people’s interest is not isolated to the Northern Territory. Other governments will look to the Northern Territory to see how, for particular communities within their area, they can use this system to relatively cheaply target a group of people. The blunt instrument of alcohol restrictions does not work for the community because drinkers are keen to get around the system and, for the average person, it presents many problems.
These significant reforms will take some time to have full effect and for all the benefits to business and the wider community to be fully realised. The Northern Territory government will continue to work with business, the community, and community organisations - especially the non-government organisations - to achieve those benefits because there has to be a holistic approach. Once you get people off the grog, you have a window of opportunity to get them to access rehabilitation or work with a non-government organisation about housing and work issues to get them back on the right track. Alcohol is about self-medication and underlies what truly are some issues for people - whether it be mental health or homelessness issues, or whatever it might be. Non-government organisations do that much better than government ever does, and that is clearly recognised. We have some great non-government organisations in the Northern Territory and they go a long way to resolving problems that underlie the issues problem drinkers have.
I look forward to this system really kicking in and the police having a very valuable tool they can utilise and feel more confident that, by picking someone up, that person is on a pathway back to a better life not dominated by alcohol, violence and risky behaviour whilst intoxicated.
It is truly sad when many people come to town to chase unlimited alcohol availability. Families out bush worry. In my time as a local member, I know of particular people, one being a significant old man who would come to town - he was in his 70s or 80s - and it was a great worry for not only his family, but also for me. I have known him for quite some time. I would see him in town wandering across Cavenagh Street and it was very scary. It is about saying that excessive alcohol consumption or antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated, and we have a mechanism now to target individuals who have that problem, and offer those wraparound services for them to actually get support and get their lives back on track.
The government will be working with industry to ensure we continue on this pathway of reducing the alcohol consumption of those individuals, trying to also protect the Territory lifestyle. We have a great lifestyle here; we have to protect that for responsible drinkers as well. Hardened drinkers are very cunning. For all their faults, they are very cunning to chase alcohol. It is incumbent on us to provide some tough love in trying to protect them through these restrictions and trying to get them back on track. I know businesses are prepared to step up to the plate because, ultimately, it will be a small group of people who bring the whole system down if they do not really step up to the plate. I know they will; they have been working with the minister’s office and the department to try to come up with solutions. It will be an active and ongoing process, I am sure.
I congratulate the minister for her drive in this area, and also all the government departmental officials who have been working very strongly with this. Through my Business department, we are providing the feedback of information through our client managers who are engaging with business on a daily basis about this. There is, obviously, the odd grumble and niggle but, by and large, for what this reform has actually done, it is only very small complaints that have been coming through. We have had a 13% reduction in alcohol-related crime; we look forward to, in the future, seeing greater reductions than that. Obviously, we have seasonal volatility with people coming to town and the use of alcohol, so I guess we will see some fluctuation. However, we have a general annual decline in antisocial behaviour. What that means is it is better for our community, for those individuals concerned, and for the future of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on her statement and look forward to updates about the progress of these reforms.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thought I would get up and have a go. I like nothing better than being able to highlight the government’s failures; it is one of the highlights of being an opposition MLA. It makes leaving home and travelling up here and listening to your puff piece after puff piece just a little worthwhile; to get up for 20 minutes and actually articulate what a disaster the Northern Territory Labor Party is and, indeed, what it has become.
This is another joke. It is 10.25 am and we are turning to the statements. I see we have another statement coming on today so, again, taxpayers of the Northern Territory are not getting value for money. It is just another piece put together by some whiz kid on the fifth floor to peddle the government’s message. You would think that is probably one of the most sought-after, creative writing jobs in history. Look at the in-house writer at Warner Bros or Universal writing scripts for Seinfeld, Three Men and a Baby, Two and a half Men, Friends, or Frasier - and then there is a job on the fifth floor, creative writing on the fifth floor. It would be one of the most highly sought-after creative writing gigs going around, I am sure ...
Mr Elferink: Warner Bros would be a documentary producer.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, exactly. Compared to this sort of stuff you are dead right. That is right, Warner Bros specialise in documentaries compared to the stuff that is peddled by this government and put together by the whiz kids on the fifth floor.
There are not too many who agree with your assertion that these policies have made a dramatic effect on alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory - very little indeed. Anecdotal evidence speaks volumes. I do not speak to or hear of too many people who agree that government has a grip on alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory. In fact, it is quite the opposite: you are weak, you have a soft touch when it comes to law and order, and your policies are nothing short of a disgrace. Ten years you have had; your lasting legacy will not be much to hang your hat on. You have pushed communities and businesses to the wall as a result of your failed law and order policies.
You crow that alcohol costs the Territory $642m each year and that is only because you have lost the battle. That is nothing to be proud of. It is nothing to crow about saying, all of a sudden: ‘Oh look, alcohol costs the Territory community $642m a year; it is a real problem and we need to get a grip on it’. No kidding! Hello! Yes, it is costing that much money because you have lost the battle; it is increasing. It was $590m in 2007-08 or thereabouts. Here we are in 2011-12, and we are looking at $642m. Your inaction and inability to get a grip on alcohol-related problems across the Northern Territory is costing the Territory taxpayer more and more. That enormous amount of money we are spending on alcohol-related issues is a result of the failed law and order policies of the Northern Territory government.
If this parliament gives the right for members to spew out falsehoods, it certainly gives me the right to ram them back down their throats. They come in here and peddle mischief and mistruths. They are part of a government that is obsessed with the Country Liberals. It is really quite extraordinary how your focus has gone off the Territory community, the people you are there to govern for. It really is quite extraordinary. I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like it before; someone taking their eye off the main game so dramatically. However, all the Northern Territory government members want to do is walk in here and make slurring allegations and accusations against individual members. They cannot play the issues anymore, they cannot play the policies, so they turn to playing the man; that is part of their DNA.
Nothing is too low. You can never scrape too far off the bottom of the barrel for the Northern Territory Labor Party, particularly this outfit over here. All they can do is try to line up a few members each day. They must sit up there in their office and say: ‘Okay, we will pick on Chandler. We might pick on Conlan today, or Lambley, we have not picked on her for a while. Let us make some smearing allegations against her; hopefully that might get up in the news. That will be a little story, a bit of a diversion. Phew! And we managed to survive another couple of days of parliamentary sittings. We have not done much, but the focus has not quite been on us; we put the focus squarely back on the Country Liberal opposition all over again’.
As I said in parliament in Alice Springs, you guys mentioned the opposition 301 times. You could not help yourselves. Forget about Alice Springs. You had a group of people out the front screaming for the Chief Minister’s attention. All they wanted was his ear for a couple of minutes to voice their concerns. They closed their businesses down, they turned up out the front of parliament at 9 am - or 10 am it was; they were waiting once parliament’s session began. Of course, no show, Hendo – as the Chief Minister was branded on the day by the protesters. They were not even really protesting; they just wanted to have a quiet word with the Chief Minister, the leader of the government - the leader of what they thought was their government which actually cared about Alice Springs - to voice their concerns. They branded him ‘no show Hendo’ because he did not have the intestinal fortitude to front up. That was a shameful display of this government, once again.
The Chief Minister was in here the other day going on about the Palmerston Super Clinic, pontificating and beating his chest, feigning such indignation, ‘I honour a commitment, and I believe if someone makes a commitment then it should be honoured; so I am very disappointed in Nicola Roxon and Julia Gillard for breaking that promise of the $5m towards the Palmerston Super Clinic’, as if to say he honours every commitment he makes. He was so disappointed and distressed that one of his own federal colleagues would break a promise which goes so against the grain of everything he stands for.
I would like to articulate that, not just the Chief Minister, but a large number of members opposite - including previous members such as the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin - have broken promise after promise when they promised to fix the issues relating to law and order across the Northern Territory and, in particular, Alice Springs.
If we have a look at these reports - a whole stack of more reports, once again. This was the absolute corker - and this was after the 500 to 600 protesters assembled out the front - and they were genuine protesters - in 2007 when parliament met in Alice Springs. This was the absolute corker put together by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin. She said: ‘
- Alice Springs is a great place to live, work and raise a family …
Lovely Hawker Britton phrase there:
- … as the town develops and grows, we will continue to work closely with the people of the region and ensure that Alice Springs retains its unique character and iconic status among Australians.
Well, hello! There is a broken promise if I have ever heard one. The very first paragraph of this Moving Alice Ahead document which was put together after a series of forums - more talkfests, more gabfests, more of the same. We see it time and time again. Every time they talk about Alice Springs in here - how they really believe in Alice Springs, care about Alice Springs, and are interested in getting on top of the law and order issues in Alice Springs, because it is unacceptable; and just watch them take action - there is another broken promise. They cannot be trusted. You cannot trust this government.
The Moving Alice Ahead document is one that talked about alcohol and how they are going to take alcohol pretty seriously. Have a look at the time lines of government initiatives and interventions regarding alcohol. In 2002, we had takeaway hours reduced to 2 pm to 9 pm. We are now approaching nearly 10 years since you started introducing these types of regimes - 10 years on we have not seen much. In 2004, we had the removal of container size restrictions, the NT Alcohol Framework, and the final report – yes, another report - of the Alcohol Framework was presented. In 2005, we had Operation Sharp Edge. The Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, the then member for Nhulunbuy, introduced a ministerial statement to the Legislative Assembly which outlined the government’s approach to addressing alcohol issues in the community. That was 2005, that was six years ago when we had another ministerial statement.
Then, in 2006, the Alcohol Reference Panel met for the first time. A broader alcohol management plan was introduced, announced by the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, on 7 September 2006. There was a moratorium on new takeaway licences for 12 months. In 2007, income quarantining by the federal government commenced; town camps were declared dry; public restricted areas commenced on 1 August; beer in longnecks was banned; dry town decision, 9 May; and the Moving Alice Ahead project, as I alluded to before – the absolute corker – was announced on 18 April. In 2008, identification cards were introduced and CCTV surveillance. In 2009, the raid, NT Police – it goes on.
You have been at this for a long time now, about 10 years, and now we have introduced into the Northern Territory parliament the toughest alcohol measures in the history of the world, supposedly. Here we go, the Enough is Enough alcohol program, and that follows the Closing the Gap disadvantage; that follows the Alcohol Court reforms. I allude to the minister also – goodness me, where is he? – who talked about how successful the Alcohol Courts have been. The Alcohol Courts, minister, were disbanded and replaced with a SMART Court. Perhaps you should get a briefing from your own department.
Nevertheless, we have the Alcohol Court Discussion Paper and then we have this ministerial statement introduced on 26 October 2010. So, a whole stack of stuff trying to tackle alcohol reform. We not only have a whole stack of stuff introduced, but we have a stack of failures, and the evidence is there right before your eyes. I can show you a little more evidence. Here we go: ‘Thieves Keep Cops Busy’; ’West Side Story in Alice Springs’; ‘Slash, Dash and Bash - Unhappy Ending After a Night at the Movies’ – alcohol-related. ‘Death in Front Yard’; goodness me. ‘Run Over Like a Dog’, another wonderful headline. This is an example of the government’s toughest alcohol measures in the history of the world. ‘Forced To Bed Down at Work’ - people keep breaking in to steal grog at night; ‘$10 A Beer - Bootleg Grog Sold in Suburban Houses’; holy cow. ‘Terror on Stott Terrace’; Alice Night Patrol Fiasco’; ‘Bill Them and We Will Sue Them’; ‘Off the Hook’. This stuff is all over the place. Enough is Enough. ‘Nightmare in the Park’; ‘Sorry Business’ - it does not stop. Where does it end? When will it end?
It might end with the departure of the Northern Territory Labor government. Perhaps we can get a government that is interested in the people of the Northern Territory, not blowing its own trumpet, not picking fights and running smear campaigns about individual members because it has lost the battle. You can no longer take on the policy issues, so you have to start playing the man. ‘Let us play the man. Let us pick on so-and-so and run some sort of smear campaign across the parliament to see if we can get a news story to detract from our inaction because we can only work for about 25 minutes’.
We come here at 10 am; after prayers it is 10.05 am; at 10.25 am, all of a sudden, that is it - all legislation gone. If we look at the Notice Paper there is plenty here we could be doing. Yesterday I tried to talk about something serious and of great interest to me and the Alice Springs members: item No 3 on the Notice Paper dealing with the impending summer of crime in the wake of the government’s failure. To its credit, the government admitted it failed and dropped the ball last year and was, no doubt, dragged kicking and screaming by the police who said: ‘Well, hang on, we have to admit there were some gaps in our policies’.
There is a real fear that 2011-12 will also see another serious crime wave in Alice Springs. We have seen five businesses close in the last six or seven months. We heard the Chamber of Commerce yesterday and some local business people commenting on the news - unsolicited by us; they freely volunteered their comments - squarely targeting the government’s failed law and order policies. Confidence in places like Alice Springs and Katherine is ever diminishing because the government has dropped the ball when it comes to protecting one of the great iconic towns of Australia, Alice Springs. It is ridiculous.
This is another report. We have this one too, Harms and Costs of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory. We can have a look at – this is a beauty – all those other headlines added up to this, too. All those equal that - the worst government in the nation.
Look at sobering-up shelter admissions. Not much has changed there either. So much for getting a grip on rehabilitation and sobering up! Alice Springs has stayed about the same from 2000 to 2008 – in eight years, not much has changed. In Darwin, it has significantly dropped, and I daresay that has a fair bit to do with the lack of restrictions in the Top End. In Katherine it has increased a little, and in Tennant Creek it has pretty much stayed about the same as well. We have not seen a marked increase in sobering-up shelter admissions or closed episodes either. We are not seeing much in the rehab side of things. This government is not putting the amount of money or resourcing into rehabilitation to the extent it should be.
The Country Liberals, in 2008, introduced this policy which I know you love to bring up every now and again because it is a policy you have, essentially, adopted. However, you will not take it far enough. You really are not mandating rehabilitation and that is the key difference between us and you - we will actually mandate rehabilitation. People will be issued with a custodial sentence if they do not partake in rehabilitation. It is very simple - quite simple. Anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months will be declared an habitual drunk. An habitual drunk will be issued with a control order that keeps them off the streets and require they undergo alcohol rehabilitation treatments - simple as that, step two. Step three, breaching a control order would trigger an automatic prison sentence. So, there is a bit of a carrot and a bit of a stick.
There is nothing wrong with mandatory rehabilitation. Anything that takes people away from that situation, gets them off the grog for whatever it is - if it is a month, two months, three months, 12 months – it is a good thing. That person then has the ability to sober up for starters, and start making some conscious decisions about their life. If they lapse back into it, they lapse back into it. However, to actually arrest that problem for a short period of time has to be a good thing for anyone.
Our policy is pretty clear. I know you like to say we do not have any policies, and the member for Bungles, the member for Johnston, loves to pick a fight. However, he has a little ground to make up too, because I have his measure. I have had his measure since my first radio interview in 2001 over Virgin Airlines coming to Alice Springs. That was a wonderful little era, so I know he wants to try to exact some kind of revenge on me personally. It has been a long time coming. There is nothing he can say that really is going to offend me. In fact, I actually have made a conscious decision now to not really even bother listening to anything he has to say. I would rather go up and watch reruns of The Bold and the Beautiful in my office than actually listen to anything that comes out of his mouth.
We know he has dropped the ball, and completely lost the battle when it comes to law and order. Your alcohol policy is a joke, and you have pushed great communities and great iconic towns like Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek to the wall. They are on the ropes; they are in serious trouble. It is not just lighting fires or fanning flames up here to try to make a political point. I could not care less if I score a political point or I get my name in the newspaper - I could not care less.
The fact is people of Alice Springs are speaking loud …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: It is okay, member for Drysdale, I am happy to wrap up. People in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Darwin know all too well your law and order policies and, indeed, your alcohol policy, are failing. They go hand in hand. You cannot get a grip on law and order in the Territory unless you get a grip on alcohol consumption, and that is something we both agree on. We both agree on that, but it is how you go about it.
Madam Speaker, I highlight again this is the worst government in the nation and, potentially, the worst government in history - certainly of the Northern Territory.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, first, I commend you on such beautiful flowers that are here in the parliament this week. They are a very real reminder of the beauty that is in the Northern Territory, especially when you hear some of the debates that go on in this House. They are a real reminder that we all have to have hope about building a future that is one; that is better for all people across the Northern Territory.
The reason our government brings in policies and statements for discussion like alcohol is for one reason alone – it is the absolute scourge that impacts on our families and children across the Northern Territory. We bring it into this parliament so we, all 25 members in this Assembly, can have a mature debate and discussion about a scourge that deeply affects and troubles so many families across the Northern Territory. That is why we bring it into this Assembly. That is why we put it on the table, time and time again because, as legislators, as members for our constituencies across the Northern Territory, we are here to bring to the attention of one another policies made by government, policies supposedly made by the opposition, about how we can improve the lives for the people we are here to work for and represent in the parliament. It is an absolute shame we cannot have a mature debate about such important matters that hit at the heart of many of our issues - domestic violence, assaults, the impact on our children going to school, and the impact on people working in jobs.
To bring in constant despair on an issue that we know causes great distress is a sad indictment on this parliament and, in particular, the opposition. We, on this side of the House, are very genuine, sincere, and firm about wanting to build a future that provides opportunities for every single person in the Northern Territory. We know we have a hell of a way to go, and we have never said we are going to create a perfect system overnight - we have never said that. We, on this side of the House, recognise we have to bring it in here. We bring it into this Assembly so we can have that mature debate, discussion, and feedback, and have some constructive criticism from your side of the House. Your criticism is so destructive, so despairing, and so trashy that it is no wonder the people of the Northern Territory must be wondering: ‘What is going on with these guys?’ There is no mature debate, there is no sensitivity, sensibility, and responsibility coming from what should be a parliament that discusses things in a very mature way. If anything, all we hear is constant criticism …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … destructive criticism that compounds the absolute despair that affects our families and our children across the Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Ms McCARTHY: In fact, right across the regions; in particular, in the bush …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Ms McCARTHY: We are the ones who are tackling the very real issues such as domestic violence. We have seen enormous impacts of domestic violence in the Northern Territory where, not once, did members opposite raise that as part of any of their discussions. We know, on this side of the House, that unless we tackle these hard issues, unless we have the courage to look long-term about building a foundation that is firm and prosperous for all people, we are kidding ourselves. We know that by bringing in the mandatory reporting of domestic violence, we have said certain behaviour is intolerable. Every person deserves to feel safe. No matter where they live - in the cities, towns, remote communities, and outstations - they deserve to feel safe. Not one of you on that side of the House ever discussed or talked about that; all you wish to do is trash the Territory. All you wish to do is to destroy, destruct, and never bring in any constructive criticism - no policy whatsoever.
In Alice Springs, we have worked as a government with our Minister for Central Australia to work with the people of Central Australia in every capacity possible. In the first couple of months of this reform alone, we have seen a 19% reduction in assaults in Alice Springs. If we were to have a mature debate about this, you would think the members opposite and, in particular, the members for Central Australia, would at least say: ‘Hey guys, there is something pretty good about what you have done here’. But, no, no, it is all constant criticism. In fact, if anything they want to see more grog out on the streets. They want to sell more grog …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen!
Ms McCARTHY: … because they know it works for them. They want people to fall down before sunset by drinking more grog. That is their response. They cannot even give constructive support for something that is very real statistically. You cannot even see that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Have a mature debate, member for Araluen, have a mature debate.
Mrs Lambley interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Your debates are trashy; they bring down Central Australia. They bring down the people of Alice Springs. Not once have you come in here with very constructive commentary …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen! Member for Drysdale! Member for Arafura!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, conquering substance abuse and alcoholism was a priority identified in the 2007 inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, Little Children are Sacred report; and the subsequent Northern Territory Emergency Response. The Little Children are Sacred report made it absolutely clear that we, as Territorians, with government leadership, must take on and overcome the problem of excessive alcohol consumption and the harm it causes to our communities. The report also emphasised the importance of building local leadership and maximising opportunities for Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities.
These key priorities of supporting local leadership and working in partnership are also a key feature of the submission by the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council to the Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory discussion paper. IAAC’s submission takes the form of a charter of principles, each of which should be adopted by the Australian government as it moves forward from the Northern Territory Emergency Response. The principles within IAAC’s charter link closely with the recommendations from the Little Children are Sacred report. Importantly, the charter calls for a genuine partnership approach by all levels of government with Aboriginal people that involves Aboriginal people in the design, management and decision-making; respect for local decision-making structures, tailored and appropriate responses to issues rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach; and long-term strategies for services delivery and building stronger families.
These principles, which are based on strong community engagement, also align with a report prepared for the Department of Justice by Menzies School of Health Research in June last year in relation to the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. I referred to this report last year when I spoke about our alcohol reform package. This report explains the view of Peter d’Abbs and others. I quote:
- Local community efforts to reduce alcohol problems require genuine community engagement if they are to have any chance of sustained impact.
We know local community engagement is absolutely pivotal for all areas in wanting to assist people to determine the way they wish to see their areas grow. Alcohol has been a consistent scourge across the Northern Territory, in particular our remote communities dealing with the results and the outcome of that on their families.
I am pleased that alcohol management plans have been introduced into every regional centre outside of the Darwin region and, importantly, alcohol management plans are negotiated between local communities, community organisations, local governments, government agencies, licensees, and other key stakeholders. Rather than being a set of rules imposed upon a community, our alcohol management plans are tailored to be locally appropriate. In this way, the AMPs are delivering local responses to address alcohol issues specific to that community or region. We certainly have a way to go, but it is clear on this side of the House, by bringing this constantly before the House, we bring it because we are vigilant about the fact we have to continue working in this space. We are vigilant about the fact that we do not have it perfect. We are vigilant about the fact that we must keep working on this together. To not talk about it or bring it into this House would say otherwise.
As AMSANT highlighted in a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009, and related bills in February last year, the ability to tailor local alcohol solutions is important. AMSANT identified that successful alcohol management plans are ones that are driven by locals.
As the Minister for Alcohol Policy described to this House, the process of developing the Enough is Enough reform package involved important community consultation. Prior to the commencement of the reform, we undertook an extensive public consultation process with stakeholders such as AMSANT, the legal profession, police and other non-government alcohol and other drug treatment agencies, as well as the general community. Since then, AMSANT has confirmed that the new package of reforms is a good way forward. It is not the perfect solution, but it is a hell of a lot of a good way forward. That is why we bring it into this House; because we need to have it at the forefront of government policy, agencies, and all employees who travel across our regions that this is a top priority to the Northern Territory Labor government. It is certainly not a top priority to the CLP; it is a top priority to the Northern Territory Labor government.
Last year when I spoke about these reforms, I reminded members on the opposite side of the House that when we talk about problem drinkers we must be careful not to revert to the flawed stereotype that all problem drinkers are Indigenous. I highlighted then that the 2005 ABS National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey found the proportion of Indigenous adults who reported drinking at high levels, 15%, were similar to that of non-Indigenous adults, at 14%. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s national health and welfare statistics and information agency, reported in 2009 that Indigenous Australians were also more likely to abstain from alcohol compared with non-Indigenous Australians. That is 23% compared with 17%.
I refer to these statistics again to point out that, in addition to turning off the tap for problem drinkers, we also need to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. I will repeat that. The Northern Territory Labor government wants to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. We are about the holistic approach of everyone in that family. We are not about trashing the Territory and rubbishing the reforms we are trying to introduce. We know we have to keep consistently working on it. That is why I am pleased, from 1 January 2012, the Enough is Enough reform package will provide for the referral for assessment of people misusing alcohol and other drugs by family members. This is about Territorians being supported and assisted to take responsibility for the scourge of alcoholism and to participate in planning the future of their families.
We are committed to effectively dealing with alcohol abuse. We are not ashamed to bring it forward in this House, time and time again, to ensure it is a vigilant part of government policy across the Northern Territory.
Importantly, we are delivering $700 000 for community-based outreach services in major centres and our growth towns. I am also pleased there will be an Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT specialist recruited to work across the Territory to identify gaps in services in remote regions and identify where new resources for treatment will be allocated.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I highlight the important linkages in the work we are doing with the community to reduce the level of alcohol harm in the Northern Territory and the priorities identified in the national plan to reduce violence against women and children. The national plan has been developed to support all women and children experiencing violence. Important priorities under the national plan are to foster community initiatives, to reduce alcohol and substance abuse, and support community-led solutions for addressing alcohol and substance abuse.
Our government is about wanting every person in the Northern Territory to feel and be safe. We have much work to do every single day; we are not ashamed or afraid to tackle the hard issues in the Northern Territory.
As Minister for Tourism, I update the House about the work done to get the message out to visitors and tourists since the alcohol reform package commenced on 1 July this year. A total of 194 hire vehicles, caravan parks, and hostels have each received brochures which provide information about the requirement to show ID to purchase takeaway alcohol, and lists the type of ID accepted. Tourism NT and the Department of Justice are also sending out similar information to hotels, motels, and self-contained accommodation. The new package of alcohol reforms, including the introduction of a Territory-wide Banned Drinker Register and electronic ID systems, has had little impact on visitors being able to access alcohol to enjoy a drink at the end of the day.
I believe it is also important to note we have a serious problem in the Northern Territory with alcohol, and we should not be afraid to be talking about that very publicly with those people who wish to come to the Northern Territory to visit. We have a way to go, and we are working our way through that. We want a future for the Northern Territory where people can have a choice where they live free of the violence that comes from alcohol and any assaults related to alcohol.
I have been encouraged in my time as the member for Arnhem to see the good work that has been done, particularly on Groote Eylandt – the good work those communities can do when they come together to determine the way they wish to handle alcohol in their regions to decrease the violence and the social impact on their families. Our government is precisely about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know it is not about perfection, but we certainly know it is not about sitting there and doing nothing, either - which is the alternative when you listen to the CLP. The alternative for them is about trashing the Territory, rubbishing any courage to try to take a step, not even taking mature debate into the parliament to give constructive criticism - all they give is destructive criticism without any option for the future of the people of the Northern Territory. That is the alternative government over there, and they cannot come in here and have a debate about something which affects every single person across the Northern Territory. That is an absolute shame, and it is absolutely disappointing we cannot have a serious and mature debate about this issue.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy for bringing forward this important statement. I join with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, in adding my disappointment. Obviously, they are going to have one speaker from the opposition. I reiterate this is a great opportunity for all of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly representing our constituencies, to talk about the experiences in our electorates, in our shadow portfolios, our parties - what our position is, what our ideas are, what our concerns and issues are regarding alcohol policy in the Northern Territory. It is a major issue for Territorians; we hear it all the time in the media and when we are out and about in the streets talking to people, and we get plenty of e-mails and inquiries from people about the issue of alcohol.
To have one person from the opposition speak on such an important issue is a real indictment on the opposition - a real indictment on them. It is obvious they have no vision or policy when it comes to these very important matters which concern Territorians, their own constituents. This is a trend we see from the opposition. It is, obviously, a bit of a political strategy for them: ‘All right, important issues facing Territorians. We will get in and get out. We will have a go at the government, blame the government for this, blame the government for that, but we will not actually have any real ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I understand the minister is involved in misleading Territorians. We have had numerous speakers on this statement, and it is up to him to tell the truth ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, he should tell the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order ...
Mr ELFERINK: You guys have a problem with the truth …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: .. and your problem with the truth is you cannot handle the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! Resume your seat!
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister was referring to the one speaker this morning.
Mr Elferink: Oh, no he was not! Oh, rubbish! You are just making this up …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat! You do not have the call, and there is no point of order. Minister, you do have the call.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Port Darwin gets very touchy and feely about it, then he walks out because he knows there is no - they know there is no policy on this ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You cannot make a reference to the presence or otherwise of members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr HAMPTON: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Turning the focus to this government’s proactive reforms in alcohol policy, I again congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Policy on the huge amount of work she has done. It is a tough issue. We are not always going to get it right. As a Cabinet and Caucus, it is an issue we always talk about. On our side of the House we share ideas, the issues, and concerns, and we have our own debates and our own ideas to put in to policy. That is what a really good government is all about; sharing those experiences amongst the Caucus members. We represent a diverse range of constituents in the Territory - from the bush, from regional areas, right through to Alice Springs and Darwin, across the Territory.
This policy does not just happen by mistake or by coincidence; much work has gone into this policy. I thank the minister, her office, and my Caucus colleagues, for the huge amount of work we have put into this. As I said, we do not always get it right, but we are in there, we are having a go, and we did much work in getting this policy ready and getting it out there. Much work has gone on. I congratulate many people in the departments across all those areas of government. It is a whole-of-government approach to tackling the problem of alcohol issues in the Territory. I thank those public servants, people from the non-government organisations, and community-based organisations who are the frontline soldiers, in many regards, in dealing with the issues we see on the streets with those people who have a problem and a sickness with alcohol. Those people deserve a pat on the back; much work goes into it. I really am proud to be part of a team that does much work on important issues for Territorians.
Central Australia is an issue that is on the opposition’s business day and I welcome it. It is motion No 3 on their notices, so again I welcome the opportunity to debate with the opposition about these issues. As I said, we do not have all the answers, or solutions. As my colleague, the member for Arnhem said, it is about a mature debate in this Chamber. It is what our constituents expect of us; not to come in here, beat our chest, walk out, and get a few slaps on the back. It is about a mature debate; about presenting ideas, issues, and challenges on the floor of parliament. If the opposition has some good ideas, no doubt, government will listen. Government will try to capture some of those ideas the opposition might have. Mature debate in this Chamber is what we are elected to do.
I welcome any debate on Central Australia and what I am trying to do as the minister, as someone who is passionate about Alice Springs, who was born there, has grown up there, and who will live there long after my political career is finished. I have a real interest in what goes on in Alice Springs. I say to people listening to the broadcast that this government does take the issues in Alice Springs very seriously. We hear from the opposition about the spin, that government does not care; the Berrimah line. I can say to people listening to this broadcast that Central Australia is an issue that always comes up in Cabinet and Caucus. My colleagues on this side of the House visit Alice Springs regularly. Both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister visit and the minister for Business gets down there and talks to local businesses, so we are aware of the challenges. We genuinely care and want to assist the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia. For the opposition to say we do not care is just not true - just not true - and the people of Alice Springs can see that.
I welcome any debate on Alice Springs. Alcohol policy is a significant issue for us in Alice Springs. This government’s Enough is Enough strategy and the Banned Drinker Register are the things that are making a difference concerning working with local police and the issues we faced over the last summer. It was a difficult time for people in Alice Springs; there is no doubt about it. We have not walked away and denied it was not a challenging time. It, is times like that you need leadership. This government has been able to show some leadership, working with the community, community groups, the police, and non-government organisations.
There were a number of meetings we held earlier in the year and the Chief Minister came to some of those meetings. I do not want to go back on to issues about Action for Alice, and some of the campaigns that went on. As I said, I sympathise with businesses that did it hard. At times like that, how do you respond to those issues? What is real leadership? Real leadership was about getting amongst the community, the business community, and the Aboriginal community in Alice Springs. Credit to our Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan, who showed real leadership as well in tackling these issues. That is real leadership. That is why people vote for you to be a member of parliament. When times get tough, I believe people look at what you do and how you react. People can read your genuineness in how you are trying to tackle some of these difficult issues such as alcohol policy and alcohol, particularly in Alice Springs. It was a tough time. Government showed leadership; we worked with the community and our mayor in Alice Springs to tackle the huge problems we had. A very important part of this statement focused on leadership.
In Alice Springs, it was a matter of having to meet with many of these different stakeholder groups. We had various meetings. We engaged some people to put together a report for government and, more importantly, for the community of Alice Springs. There were a number of forums held in particular areas the community identified through these meetings. The result was the Community Action Plan Committee, co-chaired by Catherine Liddle and Damien Ryan. It has to be a community response, as well as a government response, to issues such as antisocial behaviour, which is, most of the time, fuelled by alcohol. I am very confident in that community action group and the leadership of Damien Ryan and Catherine Liddle. They are outstanding Central Australians. We in government, on this side of the House, will certainly work with those people and leaders to find solutions.
Regarding the police, I meet with police on a regular basis, and I thank the minister for Police for that. I work very closely with local police. I inform the House and those people listening to the parliamentary debate this morning that we have already seen encouraging results from Operation Thresher, which police ran as a planning phase for what will be a major 60-day operation over the summer holidays. We know what we went through last summer, and the police are on top of it this time round. I inform the House that in the first two weeks of Operation Thresher, police took more than 200 people into protective custody, tipped out 591 L of alcohol, and issued 18 banning notices.
I will quote directly from Superintendent Michael Murphy from Alice Springs:
- These actions are particularly targeting antisocial behaviour which, here in Alice Springs, is almost always associated with the abuse of alcohol.
We know what the opposition spokesman for Alcohol Policy said: there are no links between community violence and alcohol consumption; they are negligible. Here we have Superintendent Michael Murphy directly linking alcohol to antisocial behaviour. I go on with the quote from Superintendent Michael Murphy:
- The tools available to us target the problem drinker. If people are apprehended three times in three months they hit the trigger for an addition to the banned drinker register. The removal of the availability of alcohol immediately removes the catalyst for their behaviour, reduces associated harm and allows the opportunity for treatment to occur through the health system.
We say it often on this side of the House about the opposition: they are not serious about tackling crime because they refuse to tackle alcohol. It is as simple as that.
I certainly have faith in our police force - particularly those hard-working officers in Alice Springs - and the support services and programs we have put in place to ensure we have a pleasant summer in Alice Springs. We cannot do anything about the weather; it is going to be hot. However, to say Alice Springs is going to be a crime hot spot is just the opposition again trying to use our town for political gain. I am the only government member in Alice Springs and there are four opposition members who live in Alice Springs. I urge those members opposite who live in Alice Springs to be very careful about how they deal with the issues, to show leadership, and not get caught up in the politics of it. I am happy to work with those members; we all live in the town and I am sure we are all passionate about Alice. I would welcome the opportunity to work with opposition members who live in Alice Springs and who have a very strong constituency. Let us work together; let us not go through this again. The reputation of Alice Springs has suffered - there is no doubt about it. Let us not go through it again; let us work together. I am happy to work with you in a bipartisan way for the sake of, and a better future for, Alice Springs.
Regarding the community action plan, I welcome and thank Damien Ryan, our mayor, and Catherine Liddle. We have confidence in their leadership and ability to drive and develop the implementation of the plan. They have had a series of consultations - people have shared information about what is going on - and they have developed potential action for the short, medium and long term.
I thank other members including: Brad Bellette, Neil Ross, Liz Martin, Harold Furber, Jenny Nixon, Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government, and Mark Coffey from the Australian government. That group of people is very representative of Alice Springs. I urge people on both sides, particularly the opposition, to respect and work with those people on the committee, and let us focus on better outcomes for Alice Springs in general.
In relation to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, it is a really good example of governments working together at all levels, working with communities and people from the town camps, as well as organisations. I thank many of those organisations involved: people who are part of the joint steering committee; Lhere Artepe, the native title organisation in Alice Springs; Tangentyere Council; the Alice Springs Town Council; and both levels of government, particularly Mark Coffey from the Australian government.
Things such as the Alice Springs Transformation Plan are making a difference. We have seen huge investment by the Commonwealth government into Alice Springs of $150m. I know it is not always about money, but if you look at what that money can do - $50m into social support services for town campers and for Alice Springs people in general. One of those support services is the Safe and Sober program, which has more than 370 people currently receiving intensive support. That is 370 people receiving support that otherwise may not be receiving that support if it was not for the Australian government’s huge investment into town camp people. We cannot underestimate those types of programs.
We should acknowledge the good work being done. Many of the local leaders who are part of those programs from the non-government organisations such as Congress do a fantastic job. They are the frontline soldiers who have to deal with these issues every day.
I also thank the licensees who are playing a strong leadership role by promoting the responsible service of alcohol and high standards of behaviour in and around licensed premises. In 2009, several licensees formed the Alice Springs Licensees Alcohol Accord which now has more than 20 members. A similar organisation has been formed in Tennant Creek, of which I am sure my colleague, the member for Barkly, is aware. The alcohol accords are enforcing common barring, so if you are barred from one of the accord’s members’ premises you are banned from them all. The licensees call them the seven sins and offences that could incur a barring and they include: drinking underage on a licensed premise, assault, and drink spiking. I commend the members of the Alice Springs alcohol license accord who have recognised the harm excessive consumption of alcohol can have in a community and are taking a strong proactive step in tackling it.
I turn to one of my favourite portfolios, Sport and Recreation. It is great being known as the minister for fun with that portfolio. However, it is really important in relation to the statement we have before us. Getting our kids active, getting adults active and participating in sport at the grassroots level is important to deal with the issue of alcohol abuse. Through my involvement in football for a long time in Alice Springs and Central Australia, having played for the Pioneer Footy Club and the Yuendumu Footy Club, my experience is - and I have read about this - when you see young fellows who seem to drop off, not turn up to training - or sometimes they turn up to training and they do not turn up for a game which is something I would never dream of doing - once they stop participating in footy, there are a few issues. Once they stop turning up for a game then sometimes it is the worst thing you think of. Those guys have drifted off and maybe they are involved in excessive drinking.
We need to continue to promote healthy life through sport. Promoting healthy life through sport, through things such as football, can be part of the solution to the issues and the scourge of alcohol abuse in the Territory. I really value sport and recreation; I find it important we get more sport active recreation happening in our remote communities. As I said, it is part of the solution.
We need to also commend many organisations and sporting groups which do a fantastic job. There were issues last year with the AFLNT and the sale of alcohol at their games. They responded strongly with their own alcohol policy for AFLNT games, and I think they are reaping the rewards of a tough decision they had to make. From what I have seen, crowd numbers have increased and the sales through the cafeteria at AFLNT games has increased. They link that, to a large part, of their strong stance on alcohol sales at AFLNT games. I commend the AFLNT, Tony Frawley and the crew there, who have done a fantastic job …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and my colleagues for the extension.
I congratulate AFLNT, Tony Frawley, and the crew at TIO - well done on a hard decision; you are reaping the rewards. As I said, the AFLNT has reported that revenue from alcohol sales has reduced by about 25% since the introduction of the plan. However, to counter that reduction, attendance figures are up, kiosk sales are up, which the AFLNT believes is a direct result of their alcohol management plan.
I also acknowledge the AFLNT in Katherine. Denis Coburn has been a great worker there for many years. They rely heavily on volunteers. They now have a team in the NTFL Under 18 competition, the Hawks - I think they are in their second year. I am certainly proud to be a sponsor of the Katherine Hawks or the Big River Hawks. They also took that stand quite some time ago - a strong stance on alcohol sales at their AFLNT games in Katherine. Talking to those people in Katherine, it has been the right move for them. Junior numbers are just going through the roof. They incorporate many of the remote communities around there: Barunga, Beswick, right down to Ngukurr, Kalkarindji and Lajamanu. It is really important when those people are coming into Katherine there is a real culture of behaviour, of going to the footy, and responsible drinking.
Also in Alice Springs, the AFL Central Australia took a stand on this many years ago as well. They are reaping the rewards in crowd numbers and sales. I congratulate those people in those organisations who made a strong stand some time ago.
The Arafura Games is an alcohol-free event. We know how popular the Arafura Games events are. In sport and recreation, it is vitally important as part of the solution in prevention and getting people busy, active, and involved in sport. It is one I will continue on, and I know I have the support of my colleagues on this side of the House. This government has done an enormous amount of work in sport and recreation in its budget, and in getting participation levels up at the grassroots level across the Territory. Getting really good facilities out in the bush is important to engage those young people, and that is something this government can be very proud of concerning sport and recreation and getting young people involved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to this alcohol policy statement, and I again congratulate the minister on the great work she is doing.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the Alcohol Policy Minister’s statement today. I do so primarily as Police minister because we all know alcohol is the Territory’s biggest social problem. I am acutely aware that with policing in the Northern Territory, it is the single biggest issue that affects our police day in, day out, across the Northern Territory with picking up the pieces of people’s lives, the assaults, the abuse, and the antisocial behaviour that is caused by alcohol. I pay tribute to every single officer in our police force who works so diligently, day after day after day, dealing with the consequences of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory; they do an amazing job. As well as impacting on police, the impact of alcohol abuse destroys families, and significantly affects communities and the Territory in general. It has been fuelling antisocial behaviour and crime for decades.
What we have with the alcohol policy, the Enough is Enough reforms we are implementing as a government, is the most strategic, comprehensive assault on alcohol abuse the Territory has ever seen. The reforms are unique to the Northern Territory. This is not policy that has been copied from somewhere else; we took a bold leap into unknown waters with the policy course we are charting to deal with the tragedy of alcohol abuse here in the Northern Territory. Slowly, we can see that already we are reaping some rewards.
This is an important policy debate in this parliament because, as we have said, we all know that so much of the crime and antisocial behaviour is alcohol-related, and it is important we debate this topic and the various approaches to dealing with it.
Apart from a couple of minor contributions, there has been very little contribution from members opposite in this debate, which is somewhat surprising. Maybe it is not a surprise, given the member for Sanderson, a former police officer, is on the record as saying there is no link between alcohol and crime. I do not know what his current thoughts are on that, but all thinking Territorians know that is a laughable proposition. More than 70% of the Territory’s prison population offended whilst under the influence of alcohol.
Unless we deal with alcohol, we are going to be dealing with a significant incarceration problem in the Territory. We also know alcohol causes 60% of all violent crime. Those are ABS statistics. When 70% of the prison population is in prison because of offences committed whilst under the influence of alcohol and 60% of all violent crime is alcohol-related, how the member for Sanderson, a former police officer, can deride the link between alcohol and crime and say there is a negligible link is just patently ridiculous.
It is also costing us in dollar terms - some $670m a year - cleaning up the problem. This policy debate is an opportunity to debate policy in the Northern Territory. In this policy debate, we have no alternate policy from what the opposition put forward. What we did have - I heard a couple of minutes of it before I turned it off upstairs - was a rant from the member for Greatorex about this issue - nothing but a rant, no solutions, just a series of outrageous statements that bear no relevance to the debate and certainly no solutions going forward. The member for Greatorex has said this in the House a number of times now. He has come here and, basically, said he does not want to be here and he would rather be back home watching The Bold and the Beautiful. He has said on a number of occasions that he wonders why he bothers attending parliament at all. Well, I say to the member for Greatorex: save the CLP Central Australia pre-selection panel the problem. Save them from the problem of disendorsing you, because you are such a hopeless local member; you are invisible in Alice Springs in serving the needs of your electorate ...
Mr Styles: Not true, and you know it.
Mr HENDERSON: Because the opposition leak so assiduously and continuously to us on this side, given the divisions on policy and leadership they have, we know the member for Greatorex is unlikely to be pre-selected for the CLP at the next election. Therefore, save them the problem. You do not like coming here, you hate parliament, you hate debating in parliament. Well, save them the problem – resign and go back to watching The Bold and the Beautiful, or whatever it is you would rather be doing ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Before the Chief Minister continues to be dishonest, the member for Greatorex has been pre-selected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, thank you. Chief Minister …
Mr Elferink: He is just not an honest person. Every time your lips move and anybody else’s lips move …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr Elferink: You are not telling the truth! That is twice today.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning! You are on a warning, member for Port Darwin.
Mr HENDERSON: Dear, oh dear, they wind up pretty easily, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going off the comments that he hates coming to Darwin. He hates Darwin - hates Darwin with a passion, hates coming to Darwin, hates coming into parliament, would rather be back home watching The Bold and the Beautiful.
Well, if the CLP Central Council has reindorsed him, I have to ask why, given his appalling level of contribution to this parliament, his appalling attitude and the contempt he has for parliament and debate in parliament, and for the Speaker of this parliament. Given his record of being thrown out of this parliament for outrageous behaviour, I would have thought the CLP Central Council could have found someone better to represent the good people of Greatorex than the person who masquerades as a member of parliament in this place. He hates being here, he hates Darwin, he hates debate in this House; he has nothing to offer apart from insults and invective, his head has never been violated by an original thought, and he would rather be home watching The Bold and the Beautiful. Well, if that is the type of person the CLP wants to pre-select, I suppose that is an issue for them.
As a government we acknowledge, on behalf of the people of the Territory, that this is a very significant problem which needs a very significant policy response, and that is what we are implementing across the Territory ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, could I just interrupt you momentarily to welcome our visitors?
____________________
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 2/3 Holy Family Catholic Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Rachael Joyce, Mrs Bernie Kenwrick, Mr Andrew Shaw, and Mrs Liz Kruger. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr HENDERSON: Hear, hear! It is great to see students in the parliament.
The truth is, if you are not tackling alcohol, you are not tackling crime, and that is what we are doing.
The Banned Drinker Register came into effect in July this year. It certainly has exceeded my expectations in the number of people, in three short months, who are on the Banned Drinker Register across the Northern Territory. Cutting people who abuse alcohol off from alcohol is part of dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory. We have had senior police - two Assistant Commissioners - make very public comments over the past couple of weeks saying these new laws are the best tools they have to combat crime. They have also said for the sake of the Northern Territory these laws must be retained. That is from police. We have four serving ex-police officers on opposition benches; I hope they are listening to their former colleagues regarding the police support for these laws.
In the three months since the register began, more than 1500 people have been banned from drinking - 1500 people who committed alcohol-related offences or who were picked up and taken into protective custody three times in three months. That is an extraordinary number. Once again, I commend our police across the Northern Territory for embracing this new tool - this best tool they have - the way they have to get problem drinkers off tap.
Already, about 170 people are on the Banned Drinker Register for assault, and another 290 for high-range or repeat DUI offences. There were 1075 BAT notices issued to the end of September, and these notices have meant 760 people are on three-month bans for a first notice, 150 people are on six-month bans for a second notice, and 165 people are on 12-month bans for a third notice. This final group of 165 are largely people taken into protective custody three times since 1 July.
That outcome is very significant: 170 people who have been charged with assault are on the Banned Drinker Register. They, obviously, cannot control their alcohol intake, and they become violent when affected by alcohol. That is 170 people who are on the register pending their court appearance and not able to access alcohol.
There is another 290 for high-range or repeat DUI offences. We all know one of the great killers on our roads is people who drink and drive. That is 290 people who now are banned from accessing alcohol as a result of high-range or repeat DUI offences. Over time, this has to reduce our road toll because all of the evidence shows people who repeatedly drink-drive do so over and over and over again. Banning them from accessing alcohol has to mean those people are not on the roads severely affected by alcohol, potentially being a lethal force to kill themselves and other people.
In relation to people being taken into protective custody, I have said time and again if it was somebody in my family who was so destitute they were being taken into protective custody repeatedly - these are people with a chronic problem with alcohol or are choosing a lifestyle that is going to lead them to a chronic problem with alcohol. We now have a significant number - 760 people on a three-month ban for a first notice, 150 people on a six-month ban for a second notice, and 165 on a 12-month ban for a third notice – who are banned from accessing grog. They have an opportunity to wake up sober and look at themselves, figuratively, in the mirror and make the decision that they need to change their lifestyle rather than going through a revolving cycle of grog and protective custody.
It is early days, but there are promising signs. Preliminary data shows alcohol-related assaults have dropped 15% across the Territory in the first quarter. In Darwin and Palmerston, the effect has been even greater with alcohol-related assaults down 20% in Darwin and 23% in Palmerston. If you are looking at evidence-based policy it is early days; however, given these results are consistent across the Territory over that quarter it does not seem to indicate these are aberrant statistics. The only thing that has changed in that quarter is the Banned Drinker Register and the new reforms.
The fact that we have around a consistent 20% decrease in alcohol-related assaults across the Territory means they are starting to bite. In the stark light of 1500 people banned or on the register, senior police officers making public comments these are the best tools they have and they do not want the laws to be scrapped, and the statistics to show there is a 20% reduction in alcohol-related assaults across the Northern Territory, what do we have as opposition policy? Scrap the laws.
For the life of me I cannot contemplate why the opposition would want to scrap these laws in light of the figures I have spoke about if we are serious in this parliament in reducing alcohol-related harm. So much of the debate in this parliament revolves around alcohol-related harm. Whether it is kids not attending school, crime, needing to build a new prison, the impacts on our health system, or the impacts on our Corrections system, everything we debate in here regarding the problems of the Northern Territory has its roots in the problems with alcohol. Yet, the opposition is saying: ‘No, no, we would scrap these laws. We would do away with the Banned Drinker Register. We would ignore advice and recommendations from police’. What would they put in its place? Well, we have not seen anything.
The ludicrous proposition that you would, somehow, lock up 1500 people and put them in to some therapeutic program to get them off the grog is (1) insane, (2) unaffordable, and (3) would probably see us in the High Court with legal challenges of recriminalising drunkenness. The proposals, as scant, unfunded and unformed as they are, just do not fly. The opposition wants to cling on: ‘We are going to scrap this register’. Well, they need to do better than that if they are going to be taken seriously.
As the Police minister, I am not going to strip police of the best tool they have to combat crime - I am just not going to do it. We have strong support from our police. I can honestly say I have a pretty good relationship with police officers across the Northern Territory. It is a relationship that has been born of me being a minister for many years, my family connections with police, and the fact that I have visited virtually most of the police stations throughout the Territory during my time in parliament. I speak to police on a daily basis when I am out and about. Even as Joe Citizen, if I see police officers on duty I always go up and say g’day to them and ask how they are doing and have a bit of a chat. Every police officer I have spoken to since 1 July says these tools are fantastic and are making a difference. That is the response or comments from senior police officers …
Mr Mills: And they are not working.
Mr HENDERSON: The rabble that masquerade as an opposition have no policies - they are divided on the leadership, they are divided on policies, they have no coherent policies, they have decided as a political strategy they are not going to contribute to debate in this House on policy because they have nothing to offer because they cannot get agreement amongst themselves.
We will continue to do the hard yards in taking the tough decisions that, hopefully, are making a difference across the Territory, leading to women being safer from perpetrators of alcohol-induced domestic violence, making our roads safer from the terrors of repeat and high-range drink-drivers, and making our streets and communities safer as a result of dealing with the tragedy of people who get caught in a cycle of never-ending alcohol abuse and protective custody. That is what I am interested in doing as the Chief Minister: making this Territory a better place for Territorians, a safer places for Territorians, a safer place for women, a better place for kids, a safer place on our roads, and better communities in reducing antisocial behaviour. That is why I put up my hand for public life. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the opposition will not give this thing a go and say it is a good thing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Stuart and Brennan
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Stuart and Brennan
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call for questions, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the members for Stuart and Brennan for the period 6 pm to 7 pm tonight.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough Alcohol Reforms – Report on the First Three Months
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there has been an agreement with the opposition that we would adjourn the statement and move to the Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you just adjourn it then, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Agreement? I copped an e-mail on the e-mail system a couple of seconds ago; that is hardly an agreement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call. Minister, are you wishing to adjourn the debate?
Dr BURNS: That is what I was advised …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, are you going to adjourn the debate?
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation – Animal Welfare Governance
Subcommittee – Final Report
Council of Territory Cooperation – Animal Welfare Governance
Subcommittee – Final Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the final report of the Council of Territory Cooperation’s Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee dated 26 October 2011.
The Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee’s final report details the subcommittee’s findings on the Territory’s animal welfare governance, associated processes and systems, including investigations into animal welfare concerns at Mataranka Station. The subcommittee’s terms of reference were specific to understanding how the Territory’s animal welfare governance framework works, and if the associated processes and systems are effective. The context for the inquiry was the Ombudsman’s investigation and report following the raising of animal welfare concerns at Charles Darwin University’s livestock training facility, Mataranka Station. The subcommittee included inquiring into what unfolded at Mataranka Station, and the university and government’s management of it, as an example of processes and systems in action.
The subcommittee determined to seek answers to three key questions through its inquiry. The first was to ask: is the legislation for animal welfare relevant, contemporary, and best practice? Seeking answers to this question helped the subcommittee to understand what was good and working about existing legislation, but also about what needed to be improved.
The second question asked if the Territory has the right framework for animal welfare legislative governance. In answering this question, the subcommittee heard from witnesses about current governance processes in government and the Territory’s only Animal Ethics Committee, and about associated monitoring systems.
The third question was to understand the failures in government, Charles Darwin University and its Animal Ethics Committee, and in systems and processes associated with animal welfare concerns at Mataranka Station in 2009.
In its report, the subcommittee detailed its findings and made 21 recommendations. All members of the subcommittee wanted to ensure that lessons were learnt from what went wrong at Mataranka Station so we would, hopefully, never see a recurrence of an event like this. The subcommittee found that systems and processes failed at all levels at Mataranka Station, the university, and within government agencies.
Recommendations have been made to address each of the identified failures and to improve the Territory’s animal welfare legislative framework and the systems in place to give the legislation effect. Four recommendations have been made to address the lack of governance surrounding companion and animal management and control, particularly in our remote communities.
I do not intend to go into too much detail about the report. It is there for people to read and for government to respond to. However, I draw attention to one particular recommendation at this point. The subcommittee wants to ensure animal welfare legislation and processes are improved and recommended the subcommittee reconvene in six months time to scrutinise progress in addressing the recommendations of this report. I want to spend a little time now to discuss three issues raised during the inquiry which form the overarching reasons for dissatisfaction with existing animal welfare governance identified during the inquiry.
The subcommittee found the existing animal welfare legislation inadequate for the purposes it was created. The objectives of the Animal Welfare Act are to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to prevent cruelty. Expert opinion from earlier reviews and to the subcommittee indicates that it currently does neither very well. The expert legal opinion sought by the subcommittee, and included as an attachment to the report, makes a number of important points about existing legislation. Two of these are to discuss the impact of the legislation remaining largely unamended since being commenced in the year 2000.
While the legislation may have been adequate by standards some 10 years, the legislation is dated and has not been regularly amended, which is one way legislation can reflect change in community priorities and expectations and, therefore, keep it contemporary. To put it simply, the Territory’s legislation has not kept up to date with changing community standards which now demand a higher standard of animal care, increased public interest in monitoring, and widespread expectation of enforcement of legislated requirements.
The subcommittee heard of two reviews of the Animal Welfare Act: one by an external consultancy in 2007, and one by government late in 2009. The subcommittee understands the department with responsibility for animal welfare, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, is waiting for the subcommittee’s report before making recommendations on changes to the act. The subcommittee has made 10 recommendations to improve the act, as well as endorsing the recommendations and findings of earlier reviews and expert opinion.
The second issue I want to talk about is the need for companion animal management and control to become an integral part of animal welfare governance in the Territory, particularly covering the issues in remote communities and towns. This issue was something else the subcommittee sought independent advice on. While the Territory’s former Coordinator-General highlighted the issue of dog control in his last report, the issue has not been recently examined in any detail.
One of the submissions to the subcommittee makes the point that unacceptable standards of animal welfare directly affects community members, with many community dogs carrying diseases that are passed on to people. The submission further described the impact of dog diseases on humans, and how poorly nourished hungry dogs can and do affect community safety.
Because the Territory does not have centralised regulation of animal management, the administration and enforcement of animal management is dependent on local government bodies and their capacity to introduce, administer, and enforce by-laws. I acknowledge the municipal councils with by-laws in place and the work the shires are undertaking to introduce some level of companion animal management and control.
One of the problems of not having an effective animal management and control legislative framework is that animal management issues all too often become animal welfare concerns. The subcommittee was told complaints from remote communities about animal welfare cannot be expected while there is limited education and, therefore, knowledge of requirements of responsible animal ownership. The subcommittee believes there is a need for the government to take the lead on this and address the significant issues surrounding animal welfare, management and control, particularly in the Territory’s remote Indigenous communities.
The subcommittee has made four recommendations to assist in this, two of which seek to address the legislative gaps. The subcommittee has recommended the government addresses the linkages between the Animal Welfare Act and local government’s responsibilities for companion animal management and control. In addition, the subcommittee recommends the Territory and local governments look at the desirability of introducing separate legislation for companion animal management and control.
I turn to the third issue I wanted to draw to members’ attention. One of the consistent themes throughout the inquiry was the undeniable need for better resourcing of animal welfare. Submissions, witnesses and expert opinion all said it. Legislation cannot be fully effective without sufficient resources, clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and a culture of responsible enforcement. The subcommittee heard of the considerable additional resourcing provided to the Animal Welfare Branch since the Ombudsman’s investigation and report last year. Although this level of resourcing needs to continue, it is only part of the solution to raising the standard of animal welfare, not just in towns but across the Territory.
I quote from one of the submissions to the subcommittee which expresses the point well:
- A governance framework for animal welfare is more than just the Act itself. It includes the resources, processes and procedures that have been put in place to support the enforcement of the Act, as well as the culture of the jurisdiction responsible for implementing the Act.
The Animal Welfare Branch described the improvements made with additional resourcing. The subcommittee calls for improvement in all facets of animal welfare governance which includes companion animal management and control.
I thank my fellow subcommittee members, the members for Arafura, Nelson, Goyder and Port Darwin for their time which, between public hearings and deliberative meetings, was considerable. I also acknowledge the members’ enthusiasm and considerable effort throughout this inquiry. All members contributed to preparing and supporting the report, and all commend the report’s recommendations.
I also place on the record my appreciation for all the work of our secretariat staff who have worked with the subcommittee since May. I thank Ms Helen Campbell, our secretary; Ms Jan Whitehead, our principal research officer; Ms Alison Stirrup, research officer; and her predecessor, Mr Simon Flavell; administrative assistant, Ms Amanda O’Donnell; and her predecessor, Ms Robyn Appleby.
Secretariat staff carried a considerable workload in sourcing, collating, sequencing and cross-referencing a small mountain of documents, as well as background researching and the constant logistical challenge of scheduling meetings and public hearings, synchronising the schedules of members and witnesses who were providing evidence. Most of the secretariat did all of this while continuing to work on other CTC matters in addition to the subcommittee’s inquiry. For this, and on behalf of the subcommittee, we are most grateful to have had the support of such diligent and dedicated staff.
Madam Speaker, I thank the many witnesses who appeared at hearings, provided submissions, or in other ways provided information to the subcommittee. The comprehensiveness of the final report could not have been achieved without your valuable input.
MOTION
Print Paper - Council of Territory
Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Print Paper - Council of Territory
Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the member for Nhulunbuy and thank her for the role as the chair. I acknowledge the meetings got a little difficult from time to time, but the issues were, nevertheless, resolved. As a consequence, I am pleased to report the Country Liberals will not be submitting a dissenting report in relation to this matter because the report itself contains the criticisms I would have expected a report of this nature to contain.
However, I remind honourable members, in the briefest possible terms, the history of this particular series of events. We had all tracked, through the newspapers and the reports by the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, the awful events which led to the death of an unknown number of cattle on the Mataranka Station. I do not want to get into the numbers debate necessarily. Some people have suggested - such as Toby Gorringe, who was part of the cattle station staff - in evidence that the number of dead cattle as a result of neglect was well over 1000. I note the Auditor-General rated the number substantially lower, in the order of about 125, and the Ombudsman used a figure, on page 69 of her report from memory, of about 800. Much of that matter of the actual numbers of cattle relate to the birth rates of cows, and presumptions built into that. Because the record keeping of the cattle station was so poor, the best I suspect we will ever get is educated guesses, rather than an actual number.
I cannot, with any confidence, assert how many cattle died. What I do know is if the cattle were not dying in such large numbers, it is because the condition of the heifers was so poor they were not capable of throwing out or giving birth to as many calves as they normally would. So, in any instance, the cows were either calving and in poor condition, and many died, or the circumstances were so poor they were not calving, which leads to a lower death rate but, then, reflects just as badly on the animal management that was offered to them.
The cattle station itself was, in truth, in a state of crisis in the relationships between staff. Those poor relationships led to breakdowns in communication between numerous staff, for better or for worse. Some culpability must, ultimately, lie on the cattle station’s manager’s shoulders. However, having said that, that culpability is not his and his alone. It is clear this cattle station was the property - and the cattle on it - of Charles Darwin University through the Katherine Rural College Campus. There was an up-line at the Katherine Rural College. That up-line, as I understand it, has now moved on. It was clear that up-line was either ignorant, chose to be ignorant, or chose to ignore the issues that were occurring on the cattle station itself. The management practices of Charles Darwin University and, to a lesser degree, the Animal Ethics Committee of the university, meant the systems were simply not in place to look after the asset and to ensure the asset was being properly looked after - a sad reflection on the university.
Having made that observation, the university has acknowledged its shortcomings as a manager of the cattle station and has implemented substantial change both in its management practices, as well as poured a substantial amount of money into the cattle station, bringing the cattle station back up to an acceptable and operational standard.
I do not want to make my observations in relation to CDU a rehash of well-established shortcomings; I also acknowledge they have made those efforts. Government, too, has responded as a result of the offence to enhance their systems which were in place. Those systems, at the time, were nothing shy of poverty stricken in two different ways. In the first way, the single Animal Welfare Officer was a part-time job to an AO5 somewhere in the department, and that was an unacceptable support for a legislative instrument passed by this House. Government’s duty is to ensure the regulatory instruments that it covers and maintains are properly policed. A policing and investigative role which lay on the shoulders of that person in no way reflects on that person; that person should never have been placed in that position in the first instance.
Also, the relationship between departments in the Northern Territory government has been resolved, in part, by the creation of the memorandum of understanding. I confess I find it somewhat surprising that such a document which was sitting on a shelf for as long as three years is actually necessary. Surely, government departments are capable of talking to each other without having to have contracts of communication between them? However, that was held up by the departments as a vehicle to resolve some of the issues these events highlighted.
Officers of the Department of Resources arrived at the cattle station in 2009, and one of those officers was sufficiently well offended by what he saw that he determined to caution the manager of the cattle station, which is a precursor to the process of collecting forms of evidence, including confessionary and admission evidence. The DoR officer, on all evidence I have seen, was well justified in making that determination. It is not the first time the Mataranka Station has come to attention. Indeed, evidence was received by the committee that, in 2008, a year prior to this matter coming to a head, there were already problems with animal husbandry and animal welfare concerns. Those matters were reported at the time, but I have seen no evidence of that being followed up in any substantial way.
As a result of that set of circumstances in 2009, the DoR officer made a report to their up-line, and the response from the up-line was one of the points where the wheels started to fall off the whole circumstance. I am not being exceedingly critical of that DoR officer up-line, other than to say that up-line merely erred in an attempt to deal with the issue. Evidence was received from the senior person at DoR in Katherine, and I am satisfied that person was acting in good faith and carries no culpability of any form of fundamental negligence. However, it was clear from the evidence that person did not have a clear understanding of their function as a regulatory authority, and defaulted to trying to assist the cattle station with its current issues, rather than concentrating on the potential for a prosecution.
Delays were then incurred, and DHLGRS, which is the department that has carriage of animal welfare issues, finally got wind of the matter, and there was some toing and froing in DHLGRS. Once again, a prosecution was not pursued by DHLGRS as a result of the information they eventually received.
All of this is, essentially, by the by in some respects, because there was then a third party that come into this whole series of events, and that was the Ombudsman herself. The Ombudsman became aware of some of the fundamental issues that were occurring on the cattle station, and was starting to collect a substantial amount of evidence which would have supported a prosecution, but for the truism that any evidence collected by the Ombudsman was not capable of being used directly in a prosecution, and any prosecutorial authority would have had to have relaunched the investigation.
The Ombudsman’s Office did have a meeting with the minister and the CEO of DHLGRS, and this is one of the areas where I become very critical. I believe it was Julie Carlsen from the Ombudsman’s Office who did the briefings – she is a former police officer and understands prosecutorial norms – and advised the CEO of DHLGRS and the minister that a prosecution, or at least an investigation, would be warranted. The determination to choose to do otherwise was a critical failing.
The determination to do otherwise was examined, oddly enough, not by the committee. The evidence in relation to the determination to do otherwise came up in the Estimates Committee process when questions were asked of the minister and the minister’s CEO. In the instance of the CEO answering questions, basically, he advised that, in the absence of an evidence profile there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution. That assertion was based on a presumption that the evidence should be examined as it was. That, to put a kind word on it, was nave. An investigatory process means an active thing is done. Looking at some photographs and determining that, because there is an absence of dates on those photographs it forms insufficient evidence, is to take a passive role, whereas an active investigation would have, in my opinion, created sufficient evidence for a prosecution to proceed. By this stage it appears – and this is my opinion – the CEO of DHLGRS and the minister had decided not to pursue a prosecution in deference to trying to assist Mataranka to deal with the management issues. Under the circumstances, that was a wrong decision.
The reason I am critical is, rather than investigating the matter further, a passive defence was taken and no further action was advanced upon. It was clear during the estimates process when I put a simple suggestion to the minister and her CEO that it was something they certainly had not thought about. The suggestion was simply: why did the minister or the CEO not call the police to ask for assistance with establishing an investigation? If you take, for example, comments by the CEO in the estimates process that a photograph could not be authenticated, that is actually correct. However, no photograph has ever found its way into a courtroom, that I am aware of, unless there was a person giving testimony relating to the authenticity of the photograph.
It is fairly clear to me the person who had taken the photographs which were in the possession of the CEO and the minister, should have been afforded an opportunity to give a statutory declaration and give evidence in a court of law averring to the circumstances, times and dates those photographs were taken. It is also my understanding there were some seven other people present when the photographs were taken – namely, students - anyone of which, or all of which, could have provided sufficient corroborating evidence to assert beyond reasonable doubt those photographs were, in fact, taken at the time, date, and place which would have satisfied a court.
However, it was not done and that is simply the most calamitous failure in this whole process because the minister, unfortunately, was unaware, I suspect, of how an investigation was run, as equally was her CEO. I find that disappointing. A simple telephone call could have ensured the arrival of maybe one or two police officers from Katherine to do a couple of days overtime, take the appropriate statutory declarations, and sufficient evidence would, I imagine, have then been forwarded on to the Department of Public Prosecutions to determine whether or not to proceed by way of summons.
The vicarious liability which was carried by CDU would have, in every likelihood – by the way, that vicarious liability is part of the Animal Welfare Act – seen CDU as the defendant in a case of a criminal matter in the lower courts, along with the manager of the cattle station. It would then have been up to the court to determine the quality of the evidence and the guilt or otherwise of CDU or the manager of the cattle station. No such opportunity was afforded to a court, and it is on that issue that so much public concern has been expressed. This was a substantial failing. However, I acknowledge the minister understands that failing and has laid, to her credit, an apology before the committee. However, it will lead me to some comments I will make in relation to recommendations.
In regard to what happened previously, I raise the issue of the member for Daly’s role as the previous minister to the existing minister. Elliot McAdam, the original minister with carriage of this portfolio, issued media releases saying there was going to be a review of the Animal Welfare Act. Those media releases were followed up with a real review which was handed in, in 2007, to the then minister Knight. Minister Knight goes down on record as the minister for walking between the raindrops because he has been in charge of SIHIP, the Territory Power and Water authority and several other functions, including the local government reform process - and the hospital pass has been passed to the current minister in many respects.
I remain seriously critical of minister Knight’s failure to respond to the 2007 report. Had minister Knight acted upon that report, which was the review of the Animal Welfare Act, and adopted two of its recommendations, then minister Knight would have set in train a series of events which would have saved his successor a great deal of public embarrassment. Minister Knight had the option to have the act reviewed, which was done, and bring a new act into this House.
The 2007 review outlined two particular issues: (1) there was an unclear line of responsibility between the two departments involved - a self-fulfilling prophesy as it turned out; and (2) the statute of limitations be extended to 18 months. Had that statute of limitations been extended to 18 months in the year 2008 through legislative amendments recommended by the 2007 review, minister McCarthy, the current minister, would have had sufficient time to seek advice beyond the boundaries of her own department and, as a consequence, would have been able to save the day – putting it bluntly - regarding the embarrassment which flowed for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory as a whole.
That is ancient history, which just goes to demonstrate that when you spend $30 000 or $40 000 on a review, it is worth reading it. I urge the member for Daly to think about that in his current roles.
As I said, I do not want to turn this into a government bashing exercise; I want to make it an attempt at reasoned criticism. Following on from that, I want to talk about what we should learn from this process, which is, we as an institution, as a parliament, have created, I imagine, 100 regulatory instruments all of which are dotted throughout our government departments: health inspectors, child welfare inspectors, police officers, port inspectors, parks and wildlife inspectorial roles – there at least 100 of them; I have to guess. All of those people with regulatory roles are in exactly the same position - or most of them I should say - as was the AO5 in the animal welfare department. They have no training and, in most circumstances, they would not even recognise an offence if they saw one and, even if they did, they would not know what to do about it.
It is tempting then, at this stage, to say: ‘I recommend lots and lots of training for the hundreds of people with these regulatory roles across government’. I actually think that would be counterproductive because something like that would be hideously expensive. To train a police officer to simply do their basic training for the first year of them being a police officer, is – what? - a $150 000 to $200 000 exercise per officer.
To ask government to do that would be excessive, considering all of the regulatory roles government has; moreover, when you consider a prosecution outside of the police department is quite a rare thing, because most government departments actually try to assist. That is what happened in this instance. The Department of Resources tried to assist Mataranka Station, overlooking their regulatory role and the expectation the public has of that regulatory role. As a consequence, I make a different recommendation and that forms one of the recommendations in the report. I truly and genuinely draw government’s attention to this suggestion because it may well serve as a very functional and inexpensive way to deal with that problem.
When I suggested to the minister and the CEO during the estimates process, saying, ‘Why do you not call the police?’, it clearly was not on their radar to do so. However, what I would like to see is the creation of a single person – or maybe two people – in a public service role who is, essentially, a former investigator - somebody who has spent their whole life, or a large part of their working career, doing criminal investigations, who can then be the go-to person for any person across government who thinks they may have stumbled across an offence or a breach of the law relating to the areas they have responsibility for. I will even put a name to a suggestion in this case, and it would be perfect for the role.
There is, at the moment in the Northern Territory Police Force, a police officer who is approaching the age of 65. He has been a police officer for as long as I can remember; he was in the police force when I joined in 1983 - and he was around a lot longer before that. Unfortunately, he will be, because of the Police Administration Act, unavailable to serve the Northern Territory any more despite the fact he wants to, because the Police Administration Act says when you turn 65 you are retired.
I have spoken to this police officer on numerous occasions - and I will name him shortly. I believe he would be perfect for a role like this. It could either be done by way of consultancy, or you keep him on staff. You advise all departments with a regulatory role that former Senior Sergeant Gert Johansson will assist with any investigation for any department with a regulatory function, so that when – let us say - a stock inspector or a Parks and Wildlife inspector stumbles across something that may or may not be an offence - they do not know - they can ring up Gert and say: ‘I have these set of circumstances that have occurred; I am not sure if it is an offence. I am not sure what to do. How do I do an investigation?’ Then, that person in the department actually goes to that inspector and says: ‘This is how you run an investigation. These are the elements of an offence if you are seeking to prove something. I will help you’. I am not suggesting for one second that the investigation is taken over by this person but, rather, that they assist the regulatory officer to do their job.
It would be surprisingly inexpensive; we are talking about a single position. They would no longer, essentially, be a police officer. There might have to be some administrative changes in relation to the exercise of powers. However, a person of that nature would be perfect. By not having to train every regulatory officer in the Northern Territory but leave one person in a position like that, you would have a simple, cheap, and effective solution. I can tell you now, had any police officer, but somebody like Gert Johansson, been available to the Northern Territory government in 2009, and they had gone to him and said, ‘Can you help us with an investigation’, this would have never occurred. It is a recommendation I make in all seriousness because it would be an appropriate and effective way of dealing with this problem into the future.
Government has admitted and accepted its culpabilities for its failings. The circumstances which occurred were, in many respects, the perfect alignment of the dominoes. If any of the players involved had made an alternative decision, it is likely it would have acted as a circuit breaker at any point along the chain of events and this outcome may never have occurred. However, that is what happened, and what we realise from this process is the government continues to carry a substantial exposure to a similar series of events occurring in the future. I urge government to look at a way to deal with those circumstances where a circuit breaker can break the chain of events.
What I and the committee has recommended, is exactly that: a simple circuit breaker so even when a departmental CEO is not sure, they simply ring up this person and say: ‘We need a hand’. I put a name to it because I know Gert does not want to retire; he wants to keep being an active servant of the people of the Northern Territory. I could not think of a person more perfect for the job; I think he joined the police force when Jesus was playing fullback for the Jerusalem first 15. He would bring the right temperament and personality to the position. Of course, you would have to advertise such a position, but he would be a great example of the person I would put in there. It would be somebody CEOs, Department Secretaries, whatever, could go to just so they could get an idea of what their position is in relation to an effective investigation, and whether or not, in the first instance, there is a prima facie case to be made in any department.
The most useful thing this committee can offer to government is a solution, and to ring an alarm bell for government saying this problem, which was manifest in DHLGRS, could have occurred anywhere in government for want of a clear understanding of how these processes work in departments outside the police force. This is bread and butter stuff for police; they do it every day. Yet, other government departments are, essentially, ignorant of the prosecutorial process. It would not take a great deal of effort to cover the ground. On the back of that, that is the recommendation I make to government. I ask it to cast a benevolent eye upon that recommendation, because I genuinely believe it would substantially change or lessen the risk of similar circumstances occurring again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Port Darwin for their comments. I will try not to repeat much of what they said because I agree with it all. I will put some things in context from my own point of view.
I very much agree, when it comes to the 21 recommendations of this Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee, the key is not only that we ask the government to agree, but they also have to act upon the recommendations. They also have to supply sufficient funds to ensure these recommendations actually happen, otherwise we will be back here again in a few years time with a similar problem.
Recommendation 14 actually says that:
- The resourcing of the administration of the animal welfare function be re-examined as part of any review of the legislation to ensure that the function is funded so that the statutory responsibilities can be fulfilled.
I believe we, as a committee, would say that was one of the major problems. The department, or the Animal Welfare Branch, was not able to fulfil its responsibilities because it really did not have the resourcing which was required. Of course, there were other reasons, but I believe that was one of the key reasons.
It should also be noted this is not an Ombudsman’s report. This is not dealing with the same issues the Ombudsman raised. This is dealing with the matters which are required to fix the problems the Ombudsman has highlighted. The subcommittee was working on a reference from the Legislative Assembly. It then based its work program on that reference. It had three questions that it used to find answers in relation to its inquiry. They were: (1) is the legislation for animal welfare relevant in contemporary and best practice; (2) does the NT have the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance; and (3) what were the failures in animal welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University?
In summary, if I was asked what was the answer is to question (1) - is the legislation for animal welfare relevant in contemporary and best practice? - I would have to say presently it is no. To the second question of whether the NT has the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance, I would say no. To the third question of what the failures in any welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University were, I would say there were many.
From that bottom of the line report, I believe the committee has put together, based on the findings of the report, a good set of recommendations which will turn those questions into positives. What we really want to do is have legislation for animal welfare which is relevant, contemporary, and best practice. We want to have the right legislative framework for animal welfare governance, and we want to stop the failures in animal welfare governance systems and processes within and across government and Charles Darwin University. That is why the government, if it does not want to have a repeat of what happened at Mataranka, needs to act, and act quickly, concisely, and with sufficient funds to ensure this does not happen again.
People who pick up this report will be able to understand where our recommendations have come from. The report is broken up into chapters, and the answers to the questions I just asked are laid out in a much more detailed form. That way, you can see why things were not good within the department and within Charles Darwin University. From that, the subcommittee has brought forward recommendations based on those findings.
Ensuring the time limit on the commencement of proceedings against an offence be extended to at least two years might be a small recommendation, but it is an extremely important one. It is very similar to other states which have extended the period to two years. If we had that in place at the time, it would have at least enabled the government to act on the issues that have caused so many problems. I refer to the member for Port Darwin’s comment on the report the member for Daly received, the Cairns and Partners report. If it had been acted on perhaps some of these issues we face today would not have occurred.
One of the excuses for not bringing the Cairns report forward in the form of changes was they were waiting for national legislation. However, there was also a case for saying: ‘While that is happening, we could amend the existing act with some of the important recommendations Cairns and Partners had put in as part of their recommendations for change’. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Perhaps you could say it was a case of people sitting on their hands hoping something else might happen. In the meantime, the Mataranka matter highlighted the fact that nothing was being done to change the existing act and, when we had a problem, the existing act really could not work to cope with what was happening.
I agree with the member for Port Darwin about developing and implementing a protocol for the whole of government for investigating offences under Territory legislation by using appropriately trained people as expert investigators. I was talking yesterday on another bill where I was asking whether the people involved – the Heritage Bill - had investigative qualifications and were appropriately trained. The member for Port Darwin was saying by the government having someone who specialises in this area it may be able to cover not only the animal welfare area, but also other areas within government where an investigative facility is required.
We discussed the Animal Ethics Committee. It was obvious, from the mountains of files and paperwork we had to go through - not only did we go through a fair amount of material, the executive had to go through nearly every piece of paper delivered to NT House to find out what had happened. When they did they found people working for the Animal Ethics Committee were overworked, and it was not operating in the way it should have been. One of the recommendations is to change some of the guidelines in relation to the Animal Ethics Committee. I will get back to that a little later.
Another important issue was for the government to advise its workers that they have responsibilities as well when they see any instances of a potential breach of the act. It is important people realise if they are in a position where they see cruelty, it is expected they report that cruelty. That could be reflected in the case of a person who was being interviewed at the Mataranka hearings, where the lady said she went to the police to report animal cruelty and the police did not know whether they had the power to do anything. Everyone needs to be aware - not just Territory government employees, but people in general - if they see cruelty to animals they need to report it. In the case of the police the question is: do police know they have the same powers as animal welfare inspectors under the animal welfare legislation?
The issues about the failures of systems and processes within government and CDU are laid out quite clearly within this document.
The area I comment on this evening is the section about the Animal Ethics Committee. One of the areas that has been highlighted, from some of the legal advice we have been given, is there needs to be a clarification of what the role of the Animal Ethics Committee is because, in the Territory, it talks about science and teaching. One of the issues we have in the Northern Territory is, technically, that means pony club teachers would have to have a permit, and the pony club would have to have a licence under an Animal Ethics Committee because they are teaching and they are using animals. Whereas, in some other Animal Ethics Committees, they only deal with the scientific use of the animal. That is an area that needs to be looked at from a point of view of common sense. The whole idea of teaching is not about science; it is simply to see whether you can jump over a hurdle or you can do equestrian. That is an area that needs changing.
It should be highlighted there were major issues with Charles Darwin University’s running of Mataranka Station. They admit that. However, it goes further than that. I believe the poor management - which is not just about the manager, but the whole management of what was happening there - was responsible for what happened.
The good thing out of that is Charles Darwin University, for whatever reason - whether it was because they were worried about bad publicity or they had a genuine desire to ensure this did not happen again - has spent a considerable amount of money in bringing Mataranka Station up to a high standard. The council has visited the station and seen cattle there that are healthy, well fed, and have adequate supplies for the rest of the Dry Season. So, there has been great improvement. It should be recognised that, out of this debacle, has come some good things. At least from that point of view, the university needs to be congratulated for putting the station back on an even keel.
The issue for the station - which was one of the problems that is highlighted in this report - is it was operating both as a commercial cattle station and as a teaching facility. To some extent, those two ideas clash. One of the considerations the university is looking at right now is whether it retains the cattle station or allows it to be developed as a commercial cattle station and simply leases the station back, or has an agreement to use the station whenever needed for teaching purposes, so it does not have the responsibility of running the commercial side of the cattle station.
I am still one of those who has my doubts that universities should run agricultural colleges. Universities have a great role to play. Mataranka Station is a long way from Charles Darwin University. I wonder sometimes why it could not have stayed as Katherine Rural College or part of the Katherine Rural College campus? It provides a specialist area for the pastoral industry. My daughter went there in the mid-1990s. She became a jillaroo and worked on cattle stations because they wanted people trained in stockmanship. That is exactly what they were doing.
If you want a more scientific approach – and I am not saying they do not do science at the Katherine Rural College; they certainly do – and move into Agricultural Science, maybe that is something the university would do. However, if you want to develop a facility which, basically, deals with the day-to-day management of cattle, then Katherine Pastoral College should be investigated as to whether it should be run as part of the department of Education or whether it should come under the university. That is only my opinion, not the subcommittee’s opinion. It is something I know was the trend some years ago throughout Australia where universities took over agricultural and horticultural colleges. I am not sure that was of great benefit, but it is just a point of view.
The last area we covered was the companion animal welfare and control section. This is to do mainly with dogs - not only dogs, but cats and other feral animals that hang around the Northern Territory. It highlighted more about the problems with dogs in communities. We know dogs can lead to health problems and safety issues in communities. We also know the new shires have had to take up the responsibility for dog management. If anyone has any knowledge of the cost of dog management in places such as Darwin and Palmerston, you would realise it is a very expensive operation. For councils that have a fairly low rate base, this is not an easy task for them. If the government accepts the recommendations of this report and believes it is time we acted on how many dogs are in our communities; if they believe they are a health and safety issue, they have to step in and help councils fund the recommendations that have been put forward.
The recommendations in relation to dog control are:
- 18. Introduce a coordinated, uncompromising dog control program with the goal of decreasing the number of unhealthy dogs in the Territory.
19. The government immediately address the linkages between the Animal Welfare Act and local governments’ responsibilities for companion animal welfare and control as part of reviewing the Act, including adequately resourcing any changes. The Territory and local government bodies consult with the community about the feasibility and desirability of separate legislation for companion animal management control and the Australian and Territory governments address, as a priority, the inadequate resourcing of animal welfare measures in Indigenous communities.
It highlights that we have set up councils which have these core functions. However, I do not think anyone assessed the high cost of controlling animals in these shires. I note we received some correspondence late from a veterinarian who works for the East Arnhem Shire. I would imagine that is a fairly expensive cost to the shire, plus a vehicle, plus the cost of going out to all those communities. So, it is not cheap and, if the government really believes, and puts its heart and soul behind these recommendations, particularly No 18 - that they introduce a coordinated, uncompromising dog control program with a goal of decreasing the number of unhealthy dogs in the Territory - it has to give adequate ongoing funding, not for one or two years, but continuous funding specifically for this purpose to local government, because it is a huge problem.
Of course, you have to take the community along with you. People love their dogs and, before you act in this area, you have to consult with people, the shires - and the shires do work in this area and consult. If we are to make a big and a fairly sudden change to reduce the number of dogs, you have to work together with all those people involved, and you have to be determined ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and minister.
We really need to have adequate funding if we want to make this work. Councils do not have the money and, as I found out when I was at the Roper Gulf Shire meeting at Borroloola recently, they receive $500 000 in rates. They will get some money from the Commonwealth and Territory governments but, by the time they pay wages, I am not sure they have much money for animal control. They are looking at the AMRRIC program which is being funded by Aboriginal Benefits Trust to help run dog control programs in three of the shires in the Northern Territory, but when that funding runs out, someone has to pick up the tab. Again, it is a real issue, but it needs to be taken seriously by government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you as the chair of the committee; the members for Arafura; Port Darwin and Goyder, for being part of what I thought was a really good committee that worked well together. We had our moments but, in general, by the time we had been out to Mataranka and Katherine and met those people who were involved; I believe we realised this was a bipartisan task, because we were trying to do something beneficial for the whole of the Territory, especially the animals of the Territory, and we were trying to ensure that what had happened at Mataranka did not happen again.
It was a good committee and it worked hard together. It could not have got anywhere near today’s report if it had not employed Ms Jan Whitehead. She is a member of the secretariat and has done an absolutely enormous amount of work. I probably should say she deserves a holiday, but we have some other committee work to happen. I believe she does deserve a break, as she has done an excellent job. She has put up with some strange people called politicians who have been working through this with her. I thank her for her patience and her professionalism, and just because she is a great person for the work she has done.
In no way do I take away from any of the work done by Ms Helen Campbell, our secretary/research officer and other staff: Simon Flavell was with us for quite a while, going through piles of documents. Alison Stirrup, who has the job as a research officer, was also administrative assistant. Ms Robyn Appleby also helped out, and Ms Amanda O’Donnell, is still helping out. Without these people, we could not have got to where we have today. I thank them all very much because this is an important document.
It is one I believe that can make a difference, and will make a difference if the government gets behind every one of these recommendations and continues to do that, not just for one year, not just for two years, but ongoing, and ensure there is adequate funding, otherwise we will be back to where we were with Mataranka. I do not think any of us want to ever see that again. We can do better than that. The Territory does not need to be scarred by those sorts of stories, because most people in the Northern Territory love their animals, they care for their animals, and do not want to be seen as people who do the opposite.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, when the motion to establish either a select committee or another form of committee was first raised some time back to address the serious issues that occurred at Charles Darwin University’s owned and managed Mataranka Station, I spoke of my keen interest in the subject material and concerns over what occurred at the station, and within the university and government. I also wanted to get to the bottom of what occurred, or did not occur, that ultimately led to the death of livestock and the detrimental impact on many people associated with either the university, government, or the station.
From the outset, as I did previously, I have had more than a passing interest in the subject matter and declare now that I have a family member who works at the university, and also works very closely, or has done, with the Animal Ethics Committee, and I place that on the public record.
In my view, there were four key areas that needed to be addressed by the committee. Firstly, the Animal Welfare Branch, its resourcing, the legislation associated with animal welfare, and the decisions made regarding this incident.
The second is the Department of Resources, notably the primary industries people, the stock inspectors and the government vets – how they went about their work and their relationship with the Animal Welfare Branch.
Third, the Animal Ethics Committee itself; its governance arrangements; how the university managed the committee and its work.
The fourth component in this matter was the role and management - or lack of good management as the case may be - of Charles Darwin University as the lessee of the pastoral property at Mataranka Station.
There is no doubt this incident where stock perished at Mataranka Station and people’s lives were detrimentally impacted upon, was a combination of serious mistakes, flaws, weaknesses, poor management and, in some instances, possibly cover-ups and hiding of information. There was no act of God, but years of accumulation of errors and questionable decisions by government, and Charles Darwin University and its sub-agencies, being the rural college campus and even the station. Most of them were rooted in organisational failures, structures, procedures, policy and culture. When systems, procedures and poor management combine together and impact on each other, everything will come together in the worst possible way. In this instance, it did come together in the worst possible way, culminating in the death of livestock at Mataranka Station, workplace bullying, misuse of university property, workers compensation claims, reputation damage, possible cover-ups and devastation to people, families, community and industry.
The committee looked at and reviewed which human decisions and actions influenced the occurrence of the basic events and, then, tried to identify the organisation roots of these decisions and actions. As the previous speakers have said, an enormous amount of material was provided, evidence was given, submissions received, which clearly showed pretty much everything had broken or was about to break. Lack of leadership, lack of sound management - both within government agencies and the university and its sub-agencies - contributed to the problems. There was miscommunication within government agencies and across agencies; the minister possibly was not getting the correct or enough advice; the Animal Ethics Committee was being misused by CDU and, perhaps, not supported as well as it should have been; and staff were not being supported at the station. Indeed, it is my firm view - and I have put this before the committee – CDU failed in its duty of care to provide a safe working environment for station staff, including the station manager.
Since this incident has come to light and has been addressed, and there have been many reports and reviews, there have been great improvements made at the station by the university. However, more needs to be done. The university has done much to address its past failures, but more needs to be done. People want an apology. A stiff apology is a second insult. People who have been wronged by the university’s actions do not want compensation, figuratively speaking. Because they may have been wronged, they want healing as they have been hurt. The same applies for staff within some of the government agencies. In my view, Charles Darwin University is yet to do this and needs to do it, otherwise it cannot move on properly from this incident.
I urge the minister and the government to take this report seriously, as I am sure it will, and implement all the recommendations and carefully review the advice from Mark Hayes from Maddocks legal firm. In particular, I ask the minister to look at the findings and comments as they relate to the Animal Ethics Committee. I quote from some of the advice on page 64 of the report:
- Indeed, the approach of the AWA falls well short of ‘best practice’ legislation. Legislation in other jurisdictions makes greater provision for accountability and scrutiny.
This is in regard to animal ethics committees:
- Specifically:
in South Australia, the relevant minister is empowered to establish AECs and choose their members.
- Further, such an AEC must furnish an annual report to the minister;
- …
- …
- The Queensland act also makes provisions for authorised officers to devise and implement programs to monitor compliance with the Code of Practice.
National code:
- These legislative initiatives are often accompanied by administrative arrangements that seek to remind AEC members of their responsibilities. In Victoria for instance, the Department of Primary Industries conduct regular audits of AEC and facilitaties meetings of AEC Chairs.
- It can be seen, therefore, that the AWA (and the Regulations) stop well short of what is best practice …
We have mentioned that before. Some of the previous speakers said we need to do better:
- Alignment with the current version of the Code of Practice would be a start. Beyond this, however, best practice dictates that legislation provide for a government structure in which there is appropriate oversight of licensees and AECs. In particular, given the approval and monitoring roles of AECs, there has been an understandable move in other jurisdictions to ensure that AECs are accountable for what they do.
Minister, you have, from your comments before the committee, had an active interest in the work of the Animal Ethics Committee, so I urge you to look at the advice of Mr Hayes, and also further review the report to see how we can make large improvements. I am concerned there may be activities and people out there undertaking work in regard to teaching or research who are unaware they need to have licences or permits pertaining to the legislation. I am not saying they are doing anything wrong necessarily, or mistreating animals in any way; they may be just unaware. Perhaps government, through its agencies, needs to undertake a review and audit of some kind to find out exactly what is out there - or not out there.
I also still have concerns that, through the department of Education and all the schools in the Northern Territory which use animals for scientific purpose and training, some people believe they do not need licences or permits. I believe that needs to be investigated fully to work out whether they do to ensure good procedures and systems are in place for the protection and management of animals if they are used by the department of Education.
I place on the record my thanks to my fellow members of the committee, and also to the staff in the secretariat who supported us in this work over the past five months - I believe it is. I also thank you, minister, for your openness when you went before the media saying mistakes had been made, and you wanted to learn from the mistakes. I believe that is the first step in trying to get a better system in place. Clearly, we need a better system in place with regard to the management of a property such as Mataranka Station, and to have better procedures, systems, and legislation in place with regard to Animal Ethics Committees and their work.
I believe we still have a great deal of work to do - whether it is this subcommittee or some other committee - in regard to animal management and dogs in Aboriginal communities. I do not think it is good enough to say the dogs are special to people, therefore, they can be poxy, flea ridden, and all pink. That is not good enough and is a cop-out. We have much more work to do in that regard, and I am happy to help if it is a situation where I could help.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that. I thank all my committee members, and I commend the report to the parliament. I look forward, in six months time as it says in the report, when we have to revisit what is happening at Mataranka Station within Charles Darwin University’s management. I want to see more improvements because more improvements need to be made. I also want to see the university step up and be more accountable and apologetic for what has happened before, so they can move forward to a better place in the community.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not speak long because most members have talked ad nauseum about this report.
Like all members, I acknowledge the work of the secretariat, particularly Jan Whitehead, who has done a fantastic job pulling together this report for tabling in parliament today. I particularly want to single out the member for Nhulunbuy. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; there were tense moments. I missed one or two meetings because of ill health; nevertheless, I did have some tense moments with the member for Port Darwin, as we often do. I acknowledge the member for Goyder who, with the member for Nhulunbuy, kept things in check, and also the member for Nelson who reminded both the member for Port Darwin and me what we were there for.
I acknowledge the work of all the committee members to produce and table an important report in parliament today; a road map going forward for government. We could go over and over who is to blame and point the finger. The member for Goyder is right; whilst a number of people within those structures were to blame, those areas within Charles Darwin University and also in government, have been addressed.
It was interesting going through the information, that people felt this type of issue did not and should not occur. That is what all the members of the committee had focused on; that we have to come together to look across the board to ensure this issue does not occur anytime now or in the future.
When I was going through much of the information to do with Mataranka Station, it clearly showed a similar issue happened in 1991. I have tried to go right back into the records to see whether a review or an audit had been done to try to ascertain what had gone wrong back in 1991. That included Parliamentary Records to see if the government of the day, the CLP, had acted to address this issue and stop it then. It did not happen. Fast forward to now, an issue happened; it has been addressed. We have had this inquiry - and quite an effective one.
I agree with the member for Goyder, and I am sure the Chair of the Animal Welfare Subcommittee, the member for Nhulunbuy, would join with us regarding the issue of dogs in our remote communities and the focus on animal companion legislation. The work we have to do in our remote communities needs to happen, and we need to ensure we are vigilant and there is commitment from government to resource local government to be able to deal with this issue.
I note that AMRRIC, the national body looking at animal welfare issues, was given substantial funding from the Aboriginal Benefits Account to target specific communities to deal with animal welfare issues. One of the recommendations in this report - and it may seem contentious to some - is the committee calls for a dog eradication program. Any of us who have visited many communities acknowledge we have some major issues in our communities, and an eradication program needs to happen. We had one when it came to cattle, it was called BTEC – I should not mention that word. It was a similar eradication program. When it comes to some of the unhealthy situations with dogs in our remote communities in the Northern Territory, it certainly needs to be addressed.
I hope government looks at this quite seriously because we have some critical issues on the ground in the communities. The buck-passing that often happens between agencies because it is an animal control versus animal management issue has to stop because that is where we constantly run into problems. When you have buck-passing, these issues fall through the gaps. I hope the government and the minister pick up particularly those recommendations that will look at closing that gap in the welfare of many of those animals in our remote communities.
I acknowledge and commend all the members. Under the member for Nhulunbuy’s effective and efficient control, all hearings went well. The evidence was frank and fearless and the subcommittee created an environment and gave a great deal of support, particularly to vulnerable witnesses to ensure they were not only protected, but were able to come forward with their evidence and tell their story, because that was important. That was something those vulnerable witnesses wanted to do; to tell their story. Giving them that reassurance and creating that environment so they were able to do it without fear was an important step forward in a healing process for those witnesses who had gone through horrific experiences. I just hope we can see a better system and a structure put in place than what we saw with Charles Darwin University, Mataranka Station, and the two agencies that were involved here.
I commend the minister. I was not at that meeting, but I certainly read all the minutes and received feedback. It is a brave and courageous minister to come forward and acknowledge there were issues, and to say: ‘Okay, there are the issues. Do not focus on those issues but let us look at the solutions going forward’. I commend you, minister. Not many have the intestinal fortitude to come before the committee when, clearly, this issue was a political hot potato. It would have been easy not to do anything. I believe you should be commended and recognised for your courage in coming forward, giving evidence to the committee, not glossing over the issues but putting the facts on the table, and allowing committee members to have access to all the information, both in your department and the minister for Resources’ department.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the report clearly reflects some very strong recommendations on how we can close that loophole and the gap that often falls between these agencies as to who is, ultimately, responsible for animal welfare in the Northern Territory - whether it is animal welfare management or control. The report clearly defines control versus management and where that should sit. Like all members who have contributed to the debate, I commend the report to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this, but I am compelled to do so for a number of reasons. One is, whilst we should never live in regret, I will always regret not putting myself forward to be on this committee in the first place. My understanding was it was going to be tackling the horrible things that went on at Mataranka Station. The scope was then broadened to include animal management on rural and remote communities, and that is something I have some appreciation of, and some knowledge and experience. I now regret I did not bring some of that knowledge and information forward.
I will talk today about some of the recommendations, and perhaps add a little sense of how, not just the Northern Territory government, but many governments around this country, have treated animal management in general, in its ranking of importance, I suppose. No one wants to fund anything they do not think is necessary, but once someone is either bitten savagely, or been killed by, in particular, a dog, then all of a sudden it becomes a political hot potato and people ask questions on how something was not done, or why something was not done, or how we could do something better.
In a nutshell, it comes down to resourcing. What I often put forward to people is why is there an expectation in the general community that an animal management officer, for instance, may be required to attend court and provide the same level of evidence, of professionalism, as a police officer does, yet, we do not ever resource animal management officers or officers of the department of Animal Welfare to the same level as we do police officers? A magistrate sitting on the bench does not care one iota about the person on the other side. What they care about is the evidence that has been put forward. Police officers and animal welfare officers, for instance, need to have a level of professionalism and knowledge behind them before they can do their job. To put this into context, I recall a few years ago people were often calling the Palmerston council about animal welfare matters, and we were referring them to the department of animal welfare.
We need to put this into context; the department of animal welfare is a misnomer because the department is a few people, not a department. It is a unit that sits somewhere with the department of Water Safety or something like that. It is not a department; it is a group of people - and no disrespect to these people, they are doing the job funded by this government.
There are models around this country of animal welfare managed to a very high standard. There are different countries that manage animal welfare, animal cruelty and animal control - which I will term as animal management - around the world. It can be done better, it should be done better, but it requires resources.
I recall being in the United States in 2007; I wanted to know how they had been able to, over the years, raise the standard of animal management officers in respecting the community, and also in the level of professionalism. It was interesting to find out they legislated many years ago, starting in the state of Arizona, where 10% of every - over there they are called citations, we call them infringement notices here - infringement notice issued to a person who had broken the law when it came to managing their own animal went into a training budget.
Straightaway governments of the day, whether they were state or local governments, had access to training resources. That is what this comes down to - resources. By placing that 10% levy on each of the infringement notices or citations issued, they quickly found the people who were breaking the law when it came to animal management were the ones paying to increase the resources for the local jurisdiction or state.
The same thing can be done in the Northern Territory. We have many local governments with their own animal management by-laws. It could be legislated that 10% of every fine issued could be mandated to go into a training fund. There are programs out there, Certificate IVs and diplomas, people can do in animal management and animal welfare.
I want to know why in Australia, we still have many councils that will throw a dog lead and a set of keys to a person and say: ‘Now, catch dogs’. How is it in a jurisdiction like Australia we still have this mentality in many areas where no training is required, none or little training is provided, and we say we adequately resource animal management and animal welfare? The problem in the community, particularly with local government, is often the animal control officer becomes the enemy of the community because they are the old catch phrase ‘dog catcher’, and nobody likes going around the streets picking up the average dog wandering around not doing much harm. It is only when that dog bites somebody or causes a nuisance that it becomes problem.
However, in the United States, all animal management officers not only manage control, but they manage cruelty. The resources obtained provided the governments, the states, the jurisdictions with the ability to train their officers to manage both cruelty and control. This changed the dynamics in the community of what people saw as the average ranger on the street to someone who can help with cruelty issues as well as control. The same thing is replicated in the United Kingdom with the RSPCA, the body councils all over the United Kingdom call on whenever there is an animal welfare issue, whether it be cruelty or control.
How silly it is in this country! We have legislation such as local by-laws in councils which, basically, limit the officers’ ability to act when they find cruelty. I will give you one particular case. If an animal management officer was to be at a property outside a fence line, and they noted a dog had tied itself round and round the clothesline to the point where it was being choked, under the local by-laws in most jurisdictions, an officer cannot enter that yard to undo or help that dog. In my experience, most officers would jump the fence, go in there and, at the same time, put their jobs at risk and potentially face litigation because their interest is in saving the dog.
However, the laws are not that specific. What they do is give the right for an animal control officer to enter that property, if the dog has been at large, if it attacked someone or, in fact, was an unregistered dog. An officer can enter a property if they suspect the dog is unregistered, but they cannot if the poor dog is choking itself. In the United States, in the United Kingdom - whether it be the SPCA in the United States, or the RSPCA in the United Kingdom - those same officers, through their legislation, have the ability to go in there because they are dealing with an animal welfare issue.
The Local Government Act actually provides the vehicle for animal welfare to be handled by local government. It is already in the act but it is not resourced - the training is not provided, there is certainly not the resources, the staff, nor the skill base there, at the moment, to do it. This would have to change. I have already given you a mechanism of being able to raise money through infringement notices, to train people, to change the dynamics in this country where local government officers could deal with both animal management control - and that is your dog at large, dogs attacking people, dogs that are unregistered; all the common things - and second, they could handle cruelty cases or animal welfare issues. Welfare and cruelty sometime overlap.
There are models in this country. South Australia is a good model; it has the Dog and Cat Management Board which provides oversight. It has someone on the board appointed by the minister. They have representatives from different local governments around South Australia on the board. The board provides direct advice to the minister and to local government and, at the same time, provides an auditing process to ensure local government is meeting its commitment. These models already exist.
In the Northern Territory, we could have the Northern Territory version of the Dog and Cat Management Board, for instance, to be that body in the middle, offering advice to the minister and to local government. There are mechanisms around the world, and even in this country, that could help with animal management. However, until we resource it and actually provide the training and the staff, and build the skill level required, we are not going to go anywhere - and we will have another Mataranka and a continued dog problem, in particular, in rural and remote areas. It all comes back to resourcing.
Only two weeks ago in Townsville at the AMRRIC Conference, it was good to see a member from the department of animal welfare in Darwin present, at least at the Urban Animal Management Conference. As a member of parliament at the AMRRIC Conference, with no representative from this government there, it was painful to sit through presentation after presentation from professors and veterinarians from a number of different bodies where they used case examples from the Northern Territory - PowerPoint presentations and videos of the atrocious conditions of dogs; the old leatherbacks, there in full, for everyone to see. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament, I was feeling very ashamed of how we deal with, particularly, dogs in rural and remote areas.
Zoonotic diseases are true and present. The Minister for Health talked to me one day in the Chamber here off to the side, saying there was no link between animals being sick and passing any of those sicknesses on to children. At the time, I was suggesting that the Department of Health provide some level of funding for animal management in rural and remote communities, and he did not think it necessary. He did not think there was a link. Zoonotic diseases do exist and there is much we can learn about healthy dogs, healthy children, in our communities. AMRRIC is an organisation that needs to be further funded, and it needs to be ongoing funding. It will not survive if it is not provided ongoing funding. Unfortunately, in this country that is the way animal management is usually handled by any number of jurisdictions where it is always ad hoc funding.
Look at the PAWS scenario in Palmerston. PAWS provided a wonderful service to the community. Whilst I acknowledge there was some really bad financial management going on at that shelter, the service they were providing was A1. It has sunk for many reasons, and one is that it was never adequately resourced in the first place. Yes, the government provided funding from time to time. I know minister Knight stepped in at one stage with a $50 000 grant which went towards resourcing the centre. However, it is always this ad hoc approach. We do not fund the police department in an ad hoc manner; every year, funding is provided. It is guaranteed funding because we need to have our police. When it comes to animal management issues, it is always an ad hoc basis.
AMRRIC has recently been given some funding, but it is for a specific amount of time. There is no ongoing program. How in the world are you going to recruit the best people if they are not sure that funding for their particular program is ongoing? Is there a problem? You are damned right we have a problem! Go and visit some of the rural and remote communities. For any Indigenous member in this Chamber to say they have not seen some horrific conditions on some of these communities would be very misleading. There are some horrible conditions that dogs, in particular, are left in, on our remote communities. It is not an easy job to fix. I am not suggesting this is all going to be done easily, but it needs resourcing, and it needs ongoing commitment from a government to get it right.
I go back to what I said before. In the United States they had linked a couple of things. They had changed the dynamics of how animal management officers were seen in the communities - the same thing happens in the UK where the RSPC officers are held in high regard in the community because they are not the people who are the traditional dog catchers, but they deal with cruelty, welfare, and control. They are the people the professionals turn to when they have a problem.
To do this. we need resources, and a board similar to what we have in South Australia. There will come a day when officers from right around the country will all go to one academy, for instance, where we have introduced a model set of rules, a bit like the Australian road rules. It does not have to cover everything. The bottom line is we have different rules for animal management wherever you go in this country. You can go from one community to the next and, in one community you need to register your dog, in another one you do not. That is one of the problems we have; there is no consistency across the country. You need to educate people, and you cannot educate people unless you have a consistent approach.
If a model set of laws were introduced across the country, other local government jurisdictions and shires could adopt them but they could develop them to make them specific to their own area. Until we resource it, until we have consistency, until we lift the standards and the laws, we are not going to make a huge impact. If this government is serious - if you are seriously looking at all 21 recommendations - I suggest you look at how you are going to resource those recommendations, and what action plan you are going implement.
Do not make this like so many reports we have where we come in here, we see the reports, we see the horrific outcomes, we have a review which ends up in a report, and you have a government that accepts recommendations and, then, what happens? Nothing, this sits on the shelf and we will be talking about it in 12 months, two years, or three years from now - unless we fix it and provide the resources.
Minister, it must have been a hard job to have to deal with some of these issues, but that is the job of a minister. To the people who were on the committee, well done for having the courage and taking the time to investigate this matter. As I said before, my only regret is that, knowing the scope had been included, I did not put myself forward. I have a background in this field. I have a huge network of very professional people who know a great deal about urban, rural, and remote animal management. I believe, with that network and with that availability of information, we could have provided much more information to this report. I am not saying we would have provided any better recommendations than those which have been made. I am saying you now have to have the courage not just to be a minister who stands in front of the actual review board, but the real courage will be in the actions the minister takes on the recommendations now, and backs up with real resourcing to actually make a difference.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future
Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make a ministerial statement, Building Strong Families and Strong Communities Through A Working Future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as an aside, I thank the Council of Territory Cooperation for tabling that the report. I will be reading the report and will give due response to the parliament with the recommendations and a response to them. So, thank you to all members.
I wish to update the House on the progress of the government’s A Working Future policy and our steadfast, long-term commitment to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people living in remote areas of the Northern Territory.
The most recent ministerial statement on A Working Future occurred in late 2010, and I believe it is worthwhile to reflect on the contribution made by the Chief Minister in that debate. The Chief Minister, along with my colleagues in the government, has a deep and abiding conviction to put in place the structures, systems and partnerships required to assure the future of our remote towns, communities and homelands. This conviction was encapsulated by the Chief Minister when he said last November:
- I believe our A Working Future policy that has been introduced in this term of parliament is probably the most progressive, important, and substantial policy reform seen in the Northern Territory since self-government. For once and forever, it stops seeing remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as being out of sight, out of mind. It forever puts a lie to the fact that people living in remote communities are people who are not entitled to a level of services and infrastructure that other Australians living in similar size communities elsewhere in regional Australia would expect.
It is transparent and accountable - accountable to all Territorians and to the Commonwealth government.
He said previously in his speech:
… this framework is now in place and I believe it will never be undone. Politically, any government that attempts to undo this in the future will be castigated and pilloried in the community because it will be an attempt to withdraw from the accountability we are putting in place.
Unlike the failed approaches of the past, which were ad hoc, reactive and disconnected, the A Working Future policy provides the strategic framework to move from decades of neglect to decades of prosperity. It involves a hub-and spoke service delivery model which enables rational decisions to be made about how to deliver services and where to deploy appropriate types of infrastructure. It involves local implementation plans - agreements between the three levels of government and local people - about service delivery and infrastructure priorities.
It involves putting in place the fundamentals for the development of our regions which have been in the too-hard basket for so many years - town plans, lot boundaries, zoning maps, urban design plans, street names, infrastructure plans, secure land tenure - the foundations other towns in Australia take for granted which we are forming for the future decades of prosperity for all people of the Northern Territory.
It involves a commitment to delivering, over time, the same services and infrastructure non-Indigenous towns of a similar size and location would expect anywhere in the country, including good local government, education, health, essential services, community safety, early childhood and housing. It is about creating jobs in the bush providing Territorians, wherever they live, with the opportunity to embrace the pride and dignity which comes with real and meaningful employment.
For the first time in the Territory’s history, a comprehensive approach to remote service delivery has been developed and implemented. It is a huge undertaking and will take time to yield lasting results. We need the Commonwealth government to continue its investment in our policy framework. We will need to win back and maintain the trust of many Aboriginal people feeling branded and trampled on by the 2007 intervention. We need to continue to support the shire reforms to create a stable and reliable system of local government. We need to maintain the focus of our agencies on improving our services in remote areas.
While there are many views about remote service delivery, a majority of people agree on one thing - the need for certainty and stability. We are determined to deliver this. Of course, this government’s strong commitment to Indigenous Territorians was evident long before the A Working Future policy was announced. In March 2002, then Minister for Local Government, John Ah Kit, gave a defining speech in this Chamber where he spoke about acknowledging government failures, recasting the reform and development agenda, finding ways funding from all sources could be pooled and applied on a basis of need, working in partnership with Aboriginal people, moving away from headline seeking, and applying the needs and ideas of social justice.
In August 2007, we released a package of measures called Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage, the precursor of the national Closing the Gap reform agenda. The ongoing commitment by our government and departments in the bush has started to produce long-term measurable results. For example, the recent Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2011 report found increased life expectancy for Indigenous Territorians, with a mortality rate declining by 27% between 1991 and 2009; significantly reduced young child mortality for Indigenous infants and young children under four-years of age since the early 1990s; improvements in literacy rates for children in Year 3 and 7; and an increase in Indigenous employment between 2002 and 2008.
Our shared challenge is to turn these small waves of success into a tide of permanent improvements in all areas of Indigenous wellbeing. To achieve this we need to work closely with local people at the community level. One of our prime vehicles for achieving this is local implementation plans, or LIPs. The LIPs set out the priorities for a community and includes targets, actions, success measures, and time lines for achieving them. Local people are heavily engaged in shaping their future, determining their places through LIPs. LIPs for the 15 growth towns identified as priority locations in the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement have been formally agreed by the Northern Territory government, and all but two of these LIPs have been signed by all stakeholders at signing ceremonies.
Development of the LIPs for the six non-RSDNPA growth towns is progressing, and I look forward to government endorsement of the remaining LIPs before the end of the year. Through the LIP process, we have significantly boosted the calibre and range of remote services. They are not just wish lists that have characterised community plans in the past; these are real agreements of structural reform and community development.
Through LIPs, we are developing transport options for those living in the bush. As a result, bus services are now operating to Ali Curung, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Yuendumu, Lajamanu, Dagaragu, Kalkarindji, Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Yirrkala making it easier for residents to access workplaces and services. Through the LIP process we have worked with the East Arnhem Shire and the Commonwealth government to reseal all of Milingimbi’s internal roads, as well as widening and resealing Milingimbi’s major link road, making it safer to travel on the island.
The LIPs have helped guide the way we deploy our remote Police, Fire and Emergency Services. In addition to funding for more police in our remote towns and communities, we have seen the establishment of a new cooling-off shelter in Angurugu, new safe houses in Gunbalanya and Wadeye, and a new Emergency Services facility in Hermannsburg. Local safety and security is also being strengthened in remote communities by the deployment of eight additional community engagement police officers. These officers are working closely with local communities to develop local community safety plans.
Each LIP contains commitments to improve the capacity and capability of Northern Territory Emergency Services’ volunteer units. We now have volunteers to support Police and Emergency Services personnel in Borroloola, Dagaragu, Kalkarindji, Elliott, Hermannsburg, Galiwinku, Lajamanu, Maningrida, and Yuendumu.
In the field of education, the LIPs for each Territory growth town set out our combined efforts to deliver remote schooling and student engagement programs, including growing our own teachers through the Remote Indigenous Teachers Education Program. At Galiwinku alone, we have five Indigenous teachers in training. The LIPs also includes enrolment and attendance initiatives under the Every Child, Every Day strategy. For example, the LIPs have commitments to establish school attendance working groups in Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Gapuwiyak, Hermannsburg, Lajamanu, Milingimbi, Numbulwar, and Yuendumu. They set out our commitments under the Strong Start, Bright Future initiative which is establishing a regional college model of education in locations such as Jabiru, Gunbalanya in West Arnhem, Angurugu, Alyangula, Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt, and the Warlpiri triangle of schools in Central Australia.
The LIPs also establish our agreements with the local people on early childhood services. For example, through the Mobile Preschool program, we are providing new access to preschool for children living in Gapuwiyak and Ramingining. Every LIP contains a commitment to implement the Families as First Teachers program, an early learning and family support program for remote Indigenous families with preschool age children. The program provides playgroups, parent workshops, home visiting, books on home services, and assists with children’s transition to preschool. Through the program, local Indigenous family liaison officers have the opportunity to complete a Certificate III in Community Services in the workplace.
Our government is focused on making a real difference to the wellbeing of our children, no matter where they live. Through the LIPs at Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Hermannsburg, Ngukurr, Wadeye, and Yuendumu we are partnering with the community to deploy Aboriginal family care workers who are working to improve the lives of vulnerable children.
The commitments are also improving Indigenous health outcomes. For example, the local reference group at Ngukurr stressed in their LIP the need for a new clinic. As a result, it was prioritised in the Northern Territory’s application to the Commonwealth Health and Hospital Fund, and I am delighted to see funding allocated for a new Ngukurr clinic in May this year. In addition, new clinics will be built to address LIP priorities at Numbulwar, Elliott, Galiwinku, and Ntaria, and upgrades will occur at Papunya and Maningrida.
Each LIP also contains actions to implement the Health eTowns IT infrastructure program through which we are upgrading telecommunication services, health education, and police business systems in 17 of the growth towns. This is enabling expanded clinical consulting and diagnostic services in the bush. The LIPs also contain commitments that link to this government’s record $1.12bn health investment, including ongoing support for the operation of remote health centres and the ongoing implementation of coordinated care for Indigenous patients with chronic conditions.
I stress, however, that investment is not confined to our growth towns. Our approach is true hub-and-spoke model, and our smaller remote communities are benefiting from a range of ongoing infrastructure and service improvements. To name just a few examples, we have established a new police station at Yarralin, Ampilatwatja has a new power supply, Emu Point has a new school, and a solar power station is being established at Lake Nash. We have also committed $9.4m for the new Arlparra Police Station. Primary school upgrades are planned for Lake Nash and Nganmarriyanga. New primary healthcare clinics are proposed for Robinson River and Canteen Creek, and clinics in Titjikala and Docker River will benefit from upgrades. We have also committed to upgrading a range of homeland learning centres.
Bush bus services are operating to and from Mutitjulu, Yulara, Wallace Rock Hole, Ipolera, Areyonga, Mt Liebig, Kintore, Yuelamu, Ti Tree, Wilora, Barrow Creek, and Jilkminggan to assist people to access hub towns and their regional centres.
We have also seen over the past five years a range of outcomes that benefit Indigenous people across the Northern Territory, including: an increased number of Indigenous employees in the Northern Territory public sector as a whole; 118 new businesses funded by the Indigenous Business Development program; 137 Indigenous essential services workers on homelands transitioned from Community Development Employment Projects to regular employment; over 1100 Indigenous employees employed across the Territory under SIHIP; 324 new houses, 1272 refurbishments, and 320 rebuilds under SIHIP as at 30 June; a 590% increase in Aboriginal Interpreter Service delivery since 2001; hundreds of new non-CDEP Indigenous jobs delivered through local government reforms; and the establishment of 22 safe houses in 17 Northern Territory communities.
I take a moment to specifically address the provision of services to homelands. Homelands and outstations are incredibly important to the social and cultural fabric of the Northern Territory. While the challenges of service delivery to some of the most isolated locations in the world cannot be underestimated, and the amount of public funding is never enough, this is not a challenge we shy away from. In fact, our government’s determination to rise to this challenge is precisely why we are putting in place a comprehensive hub-and-spoke service delivery model to ensure systems and structures are in place to support homelands over the long term, to continue and provide and expand a range of services including policing, schooling, health services, ranger programs, employment support, economic development programs, housing management and maintenance, and municipal and essential services.
Services to homelands are not diminished by our commitment to growth towns; they are enhanced by it. Let us not forget that important Indigenous organisations such as Bawinanga, Mabunji, Marthakal, and Tjwampa have been providing homeland services from growth towns for decades. Maningrida is a great example in the hub-and-spoke model, a growth town where over 30 homelands are serviced from a large service centre.
The services provided by this approach are not only those delivered by the resource centre, but also by the Territory government. For example, there are seven homeland learning centres supported from the hub school in Maningrida. Of course, not all homelands are serviced from growth towns and, where this is the case, we have established different hub-and-spoke approaches. For example, in the Utopia region, Arlparra has been established as a shire service centre. In 2009, their high school was completed and is now the hub school for five homeland learning centres, providing education services for the people of the Utopia region. The Utopia homelands are now also serviced by a permanent police presence in Arlparra with a new police station set to be constructed in the future. The Utopia homelands are also serviced by the Utopia clinic which provides a range of outreach health services to regional homelands.
We know the state of the housing stock in homelands continues to be a major concern. As my colleague, the Housing minister, continually states, we are dealing with an enormous housing and infrastructure backlog, and our emphasis has to be on ensuring we support the greatest possible number of people with the limited public funds available. The challenge of homelands housing is one where the support of the Australian government is crucial. Most homeland dwellings were constructed with grants from the Commonwealth, and I believe the Australian government has an ongoing obligation to assist homeland residents in the maintenance of these assets.
In the meantime, the Northern Territory government continues to support water supply and power generation to over 400 homelands across the Northern Territory through grants to over 30 service providers.
Our government is committed to working with Indigenous people and Indigenous organisations to implement the A Working Future policy. I take a moment to provide some examples of our efforts in the area of engagement and consultation. I am pleased to inform the House I continue to receive valuable and expert advice from the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. The council was established in September 2008 to provide high-level input to government to ensure policy and programs are as effective as possible at a local level. Consisting of 12 high-profile Aboriginal members from across the Territory, together with the chairs of the four Northern Territory land councils, IAAC is currently providing advice to me on a range of policy areas, including services to homelands. IAAC also recently delivered a charter of principles to minister Macklin outlining a better way of doing business which all levels of government should apply in developing and implementing programs to build on and progress the work that was started under the NTER.
However, IAAC is not our only source of policy and service delivery advice. For example, across 82 remote communities and town camps, housing reference groups are providing cultural and local advice on issues relating to housing design, living arrangements, housing allocations, tenancy support services, employment initiatives, and workforce development.
Our government is working with leaders in each of our Territory growth towns through the local implementation planning process. Each growth town has a group of senior people who are developing and implementing the plan for the future of their town, and surrounding homelands and the smaller communities - all together, in partnership with both government and shires. There are more than 200 leaders, including men, women and youth, involved in this shared effort. These local leaders are stepping up to set the future direction for their communities, assessing progress against key performance indicators, and holding governments to account for the commitments that each - the Northern Territory and the federal government, and local government - have made in the LIPs.
I was very pleased to announce just last week the appointment of Ms Olga Havnen as our new Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services. Olga is a highly experienced and knowledgeable Territorian who will build on the work of former Coordinator-General, Bob Beadman. Ms Havnen will independently oversee, monitor, assess and report on the delivery of remote Indigenous services, a crucial commitment by this government to see the reform for all people, no matter where they live, in every area of the Northern Territory.
Our government has worked to build and maintain an open, honest and respectful relationship with the administrative and elected leaders within the four land councils. This is demonstrated through our ongoing regional partnership agreement with the leaders of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, and our joint efforts with the Central Land Council and Northern Land Council to secure leases for remote public housing and government infrastructure across the 50% of the Northern Territory that is Aboriginal land. We are also working closely with our local government leaders, remembering that the vast majority of our elected members in shires are Indigenous people.
My department’s Chief Executive chairs a quarterly regional shire forum with shire council CEOs, mayors, and presidents to discuss relevant issues affecting local government - forums I regularly interact with in each of these shires. They are attended by senior officers from the Australian government, and they provide an opportunity for all three levels of government to work together on issues affecting our regions.
It is timely to reflect on the progress of local government reform, which has seen the legislative and administrative framework put in place for the long and difficult journey towards a professional system of local government across the bush. Councils are now required to operate in an open and transparent manner, and conduct service delivery planning in a way that has never been seen before in the remote regions of the Northern Territory. There is now a code of conduct for all elected members, and strict legislation concerning procurement and financial reporting. These changes are essential for a strong local government, and ensuring that communities have confidence in the integrity of their councils. Although only three years old, shire councils have already made significant achievements for their communities in the areas of Indigenous employment, planning, governance, and leadership development, to name but a few areas. We know we still have a fair way to go.
Since the local government reform, total employment positions in the shire councils have increased by 40%. This excludes CDEP positions. The eight large shire councils employ 2508 staff in total, of whom 1852 are Indigenous. The average percentage of Indigenous workforce in the large shire councils is 72%. This percentage is far and above the average level of Indigenous employment in other local governments across Australia.
Our government is contributing $8.4m per year to assist shire councils offset the cost of entry level and near-entry level Indigenous positions delivering core local government services. Councils are able to claim up to half of the cost of supported positions. This program was not possible to fully implement prior to the formation of shire councils, and has contributed significantly to the increased total of non-CDEP Indigenous employment in the bush. It is currently supporting approximately 460 full-time and part-time positions.
The Australian government has committed $1.6m per year for the three years ending June 2014 to employ workplace mentors in shire councils. Shire human resource departments provide a professional level of staff development, including personal development plans that did not exist with the majority of the former councils.
Shire councils have been able to access funding through the Australian government to undertake an assessment of their current assets and infrastructure, and to develop consistent asset and infrastructure plans, management registers, and policies. This is something the former community government councils were never able to undertake.
Shire councils have been able to provide consistent governance training to elected members. My department has been able to provide direct support to council members where additional training or development is required or requested on particular subjects such as budget processes. This was simply not possible pre-reform.
The department has also been able to provide scholarships to a number of elected members to attend the inaugural ANZSOG Excellence in Local Government Leadership course run by ANU and attended by over 40 elected members from across Australia and New Zealand. Further, the department has also provided assistance to council staff and elected members to undertake the inaugural Graduate Certificate in Local Government Leadership.
This government has listened to local people about their feelings of disconnect, much of which, I believe, has been caused by the intervention. I know the work we have to do in regard to the shires. Nonetheless, we will be redoubling our efforts to ensure that local boards have an increased and meaningful say in the operations of shire councils, and that shire councils improve their capacity to meet core service delivery standards.
In closing, I briefly turn to the future of the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Emergency Response. There has been much attention over the past few months on the future of the NTER, not least because the Commonwealth has been conducting consultation sessions on its Stronger Futures discussion paper across the Territory, some of which I have attended. I have been on the record many times about the way the intervention was introduced. As Minister for Statehood, I have expressed both publicly and in this House legislatively our constitutional vulnerability as Australians in the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth act.
It is the case, however, that the NTER has delivered nearly $285m this financial year alone in much-needed additional services for Aboriginal people across the Territory. That funding, along with many of the legislative provisions that define the NTER, is scheduled to come to an end in August 2012. Some elements of it will come to an end a few months earlier.
The Northern Territory government is working closely with the Commonwealth to chart a course for the future. Underpinning our approach to these negotiations is a clear message to the Commonwealth: work with us; a strong working partnership is what is required, not intervention over the top of us.
The Territory government has provided the Commonwealth with an overarching policy framework for its investment in the remote areas of the Territory, and we are now working with the Commonwealth government to negotiate what this investment will look like over the next 10 years to maintain reform momentum and support the Territory government to implement the A Working Future agenda.
It would be most fitting if a decade on from John Ah Kit’s defining speech on Indigenous affairs, the Commonwealth and Territory governments were to reach agreement on a package to continue fundamental reform and necessary investment in partnership and, with the voices of the Territory’s Aboriginal people, contribute to each step we take.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously, the other side does not care, does not have any policy directions, or they are not interested. It is disappointing. I speak in support of the Minister for Indigenous Development about the important progress we are making to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
Our government believes all Territorians deserve quality healthcare, regardless of their income or location. An important area of health and wellbeing, nearly 6% of the Northern Territory health budget is dedicated to healthy life for Aboriginal people. This includes funding for hostels, community health initiatives, and support services. Since 2001, there have been significant improvements to Indigenous health delivered by the Henderson government, including new remote health centres. They have been established in Milikapiti, Daly River, Yuendumu, Nguiu, Jilkminggan, Kalkarindji, Maningrida, and Wadeye. We have introduced a child health initiative with $2.2m recurrent funding for the largest expansion ever of child health services across the Territory. This program has seen more child health nurses, Aboriginal Health Workers and nutritionists engaged to improve the health of our children.
A boost of $50m per year through the enhanced Health Service Delivery Initiative has been provided for improved primary healthcare and community control in remote areas. This is the largest expansion of primary healthcare for remote areas with more doctors, nurses and health workers in chronic disease, child and maternal health, health promotion, and eye and ear health.
We have awarded the new Top End Medical Retrieval contract to CareFlight of $256m over 10 years, for a fully integrated service - new planes, extra specialist medical and nursing staff, and maintenance system.
We have opened new renal dialysis units in Alice Springs, Gap Road, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Palmerston. We have opened renal rooms in Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Barunga, Kalkarindji, Yirrkala, and Umbakumba, with an extra $24m from the 2007 budget. There are also relocatable renal units in Galiwinku, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Ngukurr, Angurugu, Borroloola, Ti Tree, Amoonguna, Ali Curung and Lake Nash. There is expansion for Tennant Creek dialysis unit this year. There are 29 renal patients now self-managing their haemodialysis treatments in their home communities. We have opened the Alyerre Hostel in Alice Springs for safe, culturally appropriate accommodation for 24 renal patients to focus on peritoneal dialysis.
We have also rolled out e-Health which means important health information is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when consumers present for care at any of the 110 participating health clinics, GPs, or hostels spread out across the Territory and the APY Lands. There are 45 000 people now registered with the shared electronic health record service. We are moving the shared electronic health record service to go with the national personally controlled electronic health record with our partners, AMSANT, General Practice Network NT, WA Country Health Service, and the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia. This will bring the electronic health record into urban GP practices, nursing homes, as well as the regional and remote areas including the Kimberley and tri-state areas in Central Australia.
In relation to health planning for the future, Health of Territorians, new funding of $50m has been committed through the Commonwealth Health and Hospital Fund, with a focus on Indigenous health. There will be new clinics in Robertson River, Ngukurr, Canteen Creek, Numbulwar, Elliott, Galiwinku and Ntaria, and four upgrades for remote health centres in Titjikala, Papunya, Maningrida and Docker River. There will also be improvements to all regional hospitals: a new emergency department at Gove Hospital with $30m provided by the Commonwealth; an upgrade of the emergency department at Tennant Creek, $3.7m; an expanded emergency department at Katherine opened this year; fly in surgical teams for Katherine, Gove and Tennant Creek; and extra surgical specialist equipment for ear, nose and throat, eye surgery, and general surgery.
We have also increased access to patient accommodation. For Gove Hospital, short stay accommodation has been allocated $5.8m. For Katherine short stay accommodation, the Commonwealth has provided $7.7m. Renal patient accommodation at Alice Springs and Tennant Creek has been increased by $30m.
In addition to the improvements in the wellbeing of Territorians, I draw your attention to some significant health outcome improvements. The member for Greatorex always says we spend too much money, but asks what the outcomes are. I will read them for him because they are significant outcomes. The outcomes are: a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women; Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%; anaemia rates for Aboriginal children have fallen by 20%; cervical cancer rates have fallen by 61%; the mortality has fallen 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women in the last decade; and patients with renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia - an improvement of seven years in their life expectancy.
These are all decisions and actions by the Henderson Labor government in the past 10 years. We have a clear policy that every Territorian, wherever they live, deserves the same health service. The health service will be equivalent to the one you can receive if you live in Perth, Adelaide, or Sydney. I do not think we will be hearing much from the member of Greatorex because, as we saw yesterday, he tried to gag the debate after three minutes because he either did not have anything to say or he did not like what he heard. Obviously, the opposition is bereft of policies on many aspects - not only in health but, as we have seen, on business and other areas of government. They are here to criticise. It is easy to criticise, but it is very difficult to come up with a constructive argument. That constructive argument is nowhere to be seen.
I turn to another area of my portfolio that is committed to Indigenous development, which is the area of fisheries within the Department of Resources.
We believe that working with Indigenous communities is the best way forward. The Department of Resources is working to create opportunities for real and sustainable Indigenous employment. The Department of Resources currently provides annual grants of $60 000 for fisheries monitoring services to eight ranger groups: Anindilyakwa, Djelk Sea Rangers in Maningrida, Gumurr Marthakal Rangers in Galiwinku, li-Anthawirriyarra in Borroloola, and rangers in Warrawi, Numbulwar, Wadeye, and Tiwi Islands. The Department of Resources has also facilitated the development and delivery of tailored formal and on-the-job training for rangers, including Certificate II Fisheries Compliance course that is nationally accredited, biosecurity monitoring, fisheries research sampling techniques, fisheries surveillance, safety at sea, and vessel operations.
This year, the department commenced consultations regarding the establishment of the East Arnhem fisheries network. This network will coordinate the development of prospective fishing and agricultural business in the region and will compliment Blue Mud Bay negotiations. The consultation phase is due to conclude early in the new year, with the development phase to commence shortly afterwards. Feedback to date indicates support for this concept.
In the pastoral area of my portfolio, the Indigenous Pastoral Program is under way. The Indigenous Pastoral Program is a multi-agency partnership including the Northern and Central Land Councils, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and my department. The aim of the program is to increase cattle numbers and land in production on Aboriginal land, and to increase Indigenous participation in the Northern Territory pastoral industry.
Under an MOU, external core funding is received from the Indigenous Land Corporation for positions within the program, including development of some positions, one in Katherine and Alice Springs, and a program manager position with pastoral production, were funded. The funded positions provide program coordination, extension services support, and enterprise development support for established and emerging Indigenous pastoral enterprises.
Since 2003, some Indigenous pastoral program achievements include: an increase in cattle numbers on Indigenous land of 86 000 head; an additional area of 20 000 km land fenced, watered, and in pastoral production; in excess of 55 jobs; and improved land management in fire management, weed control, feral animal management, and access to country. The Indigenous Pastoral Program partner agencies have agreed to a further five-year term for the program. The program is to build on current achievements and continue to enhance Indigenous pastoral participation.
The Gunbalanya Meatworks is owned by the Indigenous Land Corporation, employs local Indigenous staff, and is licensed by the Department of Resources. The department is working with the Gumatj Association to support their plans to build up the head of their cattle property some 100 km from Nhulunbuy. Their aim is to improve the supply of fresh meat into the local community.
In addition to pastoral activities that aim to increase Indigenous development, there are a number of agricultural initiatives that have contributed to the development of jobs in remote areas. In fact, the objectives of the Northern Territory Agribusiness Industry Strategy 2011 to 2015 identifies the importance of increasing Indigenous participation in agribusiness.
The Growing our Country initiative was launched this financial year with a budget allocation of $300 000 per annum. The initiative is aimed at supporting willing Indigenous community members, stakeholders, and corporations to build a foundation for sustainable commercial and non-commercial farms and garden enterprises. It also facilitates new agribusiness opportunities that employ Indigenous people to develop horticultural skills in Indigenous communities through capacity-building activities.
We are also working with the Western Australia government to maximise opportunities for development of the Ord Irrigation Scheme, with potential for Indigenous economic benefit to flow to the region and, with the Gumatj Association, support their forestry aspirations. The Gumatj Association currently has a range of mills in the East Arnhem area, and they are harvesting trees on their traditional land. The wood is then transformed to furniture in the workshop and sold to the local community and beyond. We are also working with the McArthur River Mine Community Benefits Trust project officer to support development of more food production business in the region. This is early days, but there is interest from local people.
Across all my portfolios and, in fact, across all agencies of government, there is considerable energy and effort being channelled into Indigenous development. Even within the minerals and energy portfolio we find examples of how our commitment to develop and secure the wellbeing and development of Indigenous Territorians.
Under the Mining Management Amendment Bill 2011, our government is seeking to amend the Mining Management Act to now include the provision of economic and social benefits to communities affected by mining activities, in addition to environmental regulation. This is a consequence of the government’s belief that large mines have a long-term impact on the communities where they operate and that miners need to demonstrate how they will address this. This provision would only come into effect at the point where actual mining commences; that is, after the exploration has proved up a minable deposit, a mineral lease is applied for, and authorisation for mining has been sought. The government’s view is that mining companies need to be involved in a conversation with the community over a period of time. In the lead-up to a decision on whether to proceed with developing a mine, the proponents should be identifying opportunities to support local communities and planning how this will occur.
The government does not seek to be prescriptive about community benefits. There are many ways in which mining operators might deliver benefits to the local community, ranging from increased employment and the supply of goods, to the establishment of community benefit trusts. Some of these will occur as a matter of course, and I see that companies are generally placing a much higher focus on local employment and training, especially Indigenous employment. The government’s view is that community benefits should become part of a development planning process.
The mining company spends an amount of money on jobs, services and businesses as a matter of course and, through these amendments, government is endeavouring to improve the channelling of other expenditure into local communities. In due course, guidelines will be issued in the amended act to assist operators to further scope the nature of their community benefit.
Within the Department of Resources itself, there are 24 Indigenous employees as of 24 October 2011, which means 5% of total employees. To increase the percentage of Indigenous employees, the Department of Resources has an Indigenous Employment Strategy, which includes entry level programs, cross-cultural awareness training, and mentoring.
In 2011, the department supported the following entry level programs: Indigenous Cadet Support; two Indigenous students received agency support for their degree-level studies through the Indigenous Cadetship Support Program - one is studying at Charles Darwin University, and one is undertaking study at James Cook University. The department has three apprenticeships, all of whom are due to complete their qualification in February 2012.
Regarding apprenticeship outcomes, we saw one mature-age apprentice leave his apprenticeship with the department on very good terms. He successfully completed a Certificate III in Business and other study and decided to return to his community to participate in and support the development of a local business initiative. The department permanently placed an apprentice with Minerals and Energy following the completion of his apprenticeship. The department’s regional apprentice was awarded Apprentice of the Year by Group Training for the Katherine region.
The department also conducts cross-cultural awareness and mentoring training. Seven cross-cultural sessions have been held this year, with 116 employees attending training in 2011. The department’s Indigenous Mentoring Training Program was conducted in August 2011, titled Indigenous Australians in the Workplace. As part of the department’s Senior Leadership Program, the Managing and Diversity Indigenous Workforce Workshop was successfully developed in September 2011.
We know that Indigenous children and families represent a high proportion of those who interact with the child protection system. This fact needs to change. It is why we have committed over $130m to address child protection issues through the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry. It is why it is important we have Indigenous people working within the Department of Children and Families, and why the department is committed to reform.
The Department of Children and Families is committed to meeting the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy which outlines Indigenous employment direction for the Northern Territory Public Service. The department is working towards the four key areas of the workplace: environment; attraction, retention; and communication. Workplace reform in the Department of Children and Families and across the child protection and family wellbeing sector in the Northern Territory is a key recommendation of the board of inquiry. We are investing in a number of innovative studies to help attract, retain, train, and grow a skilled workforce. As recommended by the board of inquiry, the department is developing strategic workforce plans to support the future development of the child and families sector workforce, both within government and across the community sector.
This year, it has recently tendered for the development of a specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce plan that aims to attract, increase, support, develop, and retain an Aboriginal workforce. Wherever possible, the department actively participates in initiatives aimed at increasing the participation of Aboriginal people in the workplace. Recently, the department employed four Indigenous employment program graduates on a permanent basis. We also participate in entry level programs such as the National Indigenous Cadetship program and other traineeship programs.
The department recognises its commitment to increasing the proportion of Aboriginal staff in leadership and professional stream positions. Core training in Aboriginal cultural practice in care and protection is provided by an Aboriginal professional development coordinator. The delivery of other core training is co-facilitated by an Aboriginal development facilitator. Key developmental training is brokered in consultation with Aboriginal staff to ensure all training is cultural appropriate …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, if I could interrupt you, given that it is 5.30 pm in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence until 9 pm. You will have an opportunity to resume your comments tomorrow.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have one page left.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 5.30 pm, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: Okay.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Live Cattle Export Trade and Call for Sacking of Senator Joe Ludwig
Live Cattle Export Trade and Call for Sacking of Senator Joe Ludwig
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move-
That, this Assembly –
(a) calls upon the Gillard government to remove Senator Joe Ludwig from the Agricultural portfolio for his incompetent handling of issues pertaining to the live cattle export trade; and
I urge members of this Assembly to support this motion. The fact is, the actions of the federal government in the lead-up to, and following, the ban on the live cattle export trade were abhorrent to all Territorians and all people who understand even the smallest part of that industry. The fact is, it was a knee-jerk reaction in relation to a Four Corners report that aired on the television. There were some shocking scenes in that Four Corners report, but the fact was, the steps the industry have made over the years have not been taken into account and were never given any sufficient airing.
Of course, the Northern Territory live cattle trade industry has been with us for many decades. The improvements to animal welfare in that industry have been absolutely enormous; not only here in the Northern Territory, but also in the transportation of those cattle overseas and, indeed, in Indonesia where the cattle were destined for slaughter. The industry has put in enormous efforts over the years to ensure they have an industry that is very much sustainable.
I believe the cattle industry in the Northern Territory was done a large disservice by the Australian government and by the Northern Territory government, bearing in mind that when the ban was announced, the Chief Minister actually welcomed it. He said: ‘This is a good circuit breaker’. Many on this side of the Chamber were shocked and horrified by that announcement of the Chief Minister.
Fortunately, he did not stick with that point of view for too long. He realised the ramifications on the Northern Territory economy and social fabric, and he quickly recanted from those comments, and went into bat, to some extent, for the industry. Some of us believe he could have done more. Some of us believe the minister in the Northern Territory could have done more. The fact is, they eventually saw the errors of their ways, and supported the trade.
The worst part of it all is that the Northern Territory government never actually condemned the Gillard government. That is something this motion calls for. We need to send a very strong message to Canberra in this case, and tell them not to meddle in our affairs until they have at least consulted with Territorians on these issues.
We saw widespread hurt to many families across the Territory, not only those involved in the raising of cattle, but also those who support that industry - the trucking companies, the people who run feedlots, the people who provide hay, the people who provide other types of fodder and the like across the board. That decision was felt almost immediately in the Northern Territory.
It seemed to me, at the time, the minister in Canberra, Joe Ludwig, had very little regard for the welfare of Territorians, or any idea of the impact it would have on Territorians to go ahead and ban the live cattle trade - not to mention the very clear message it sent to our overseas trading partners. Jakarta is not that far from Darwin - Bali is sometimes a $100 airfare away; certainly a lot closer than Canberra. Territorians have always had a very special relationship with our near neighbours overseas. It was appalling, at the time, to see the way the minister and the Gillard government ignored those relationships, the impact it would have on our trade, and the damage it would do to relationships between the Northern Territory and Indonesia, in particular.
The message the Australian government sent to Indonesia was along the lines of: ‘You are a cruel little bunch of monkeys and we do not trust you with our cattle’. That was the clear message Australia sent to Indonesia. That is an appalling message - an absolutely disgraceful message we can send to our near neighbour. It is completely the wrong message.
It is interesting to note the footage that was aired on the Four Corners report that showed those dreadful acts of cruelty were actually illegal in Indonesia. Legally, you could not do that. The Indonesian authorities have been working for some time to crack down on that sort of vile behaviour. Instead of the Australian government working with the Indonesians, helping them stamp out those problems, we sent a nasty message and turned our backs on them. That was the wrong thing to do.
By way of history, I will explain a little about this trade. This trade was started many decades ago. When it was started, life for cattle was very harsh. The boat to Indonesia was very difficult; it was hard on animals and the people doing it. When the cattle got to Indonesia, life was just as hard. Quite often, our cattle would be in rice paddies, up to their guts in water, slopping around in mud, with inadequate feed. There was no real regulation and no real infrastructure in place to ensure cattle were looked after and maintained in a way Australians would expect they should be.
Over the decades, the cattle industry and previous Northern Territory governments worked very hard and diligently to improve standards of the trade, to the point now where a trip from Darwin to Indonesia is a very safe trip. I made a point the other night on the Q&A show that there is a lower mortality rate on these cattle ships than there is on a P&O cruise - and that is simply a fact. The cattle put on weight. The way cattle cope on that trip has been as a result of years of research and effort to ensure nutrition is right, they are getting the right feed, and they are not put under any undue stress. I have had people say: ‘They are being fed grain, that is why they get fat on these trips’. The fact is that no animal puts on weight if it is sitting around fretting, and these animals are not fretting. They are on a ship travelling to Indonesia in a very safe and healthy way.
Once in Indonesia, these days they are unloaded and transported to feedlots. These feedlots are also world’s best practice in feedlots. It has not happened by accident or by some quirk of fate. The fact is, North Australian cattlemen have been in Indonesia over the decades working very closely with the Indonesians to ensure everything is done to ensure cattle thrive. Australian nutritionists have been into communities in Indonesia. They have checked the crops, the feedlots, and the food basics around those towns, and they have developed diets for cattle. The feedlots have been constructed and much effort has gone into making sure cattle thrive whilst they are in Indonesia in those feedlots.
What is more, I know from my experience in the federal parliament and having a lot to do with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association over those years, that much effort has been put in to putting in place knocking boxes. The way Four Corners ran the show, it would make you believe that the knocking box is the worst thing in the world. However, the reality is that prior to the knocking box, there was no way of restraining cattle before they were slaughtered - and that is a fact. It has been a great step forward.
Of course, all Australians were horrified when we saw that footage. The fact is we should have been over there working with the Indonesians. Rather than banning trade, we should have been working with Indonesians to support good animal welfare practices. That is what the Australian government should have been doing. That is what the minister, Joe Ludwig, should have been doing, and that is the advice the minister received from his own department. His department advised him to get in there and work with the industry, to lift standards, prior to that Four Corners report going to air.
I draw the Chamber’s attention to an article in the Weekend Australian on 15 October, only a couple of weekends ago. The article was headlined: ‘Joe Ludwig ignored live cattle ban advice’. I will read the entire story on to the record so people can be under no doubt of the contents of that story:
- Agriculture minister Joe Ludwig was advised to work with the live cattle export industry to improve animal welfare standards to deal with the looming Four Corners expose, and to only consider harsher measures, including bans, if these efforts failed.
Ministerial briefings obtained by the opposition under freedom of information reveal Senator Ludwig received advice from his department and industry weeks before television footage depicting inhumane treatment of Australian cattle shocked the nation.
The documents show the Senator was being lobbied by industry to fast-track its animal welfare plan so it could be released before the Four Corners program aired.
The briefing documents, many of which are heavily censored, also advise the minister of the economic consequences of banning the trade and the significant problems that would be faced by affected farmers in the Northern Territory.
- The senator banned the trade for a month in June after initially only stopping live exports to a handful of abattoirs and launching an investigation into the industry.
The ban, which devastated the industry and led to the government spending millions of dollars in compensation for stricken farmers, followed intense pressure from the public and Labor Caucus.
- ‘On balance, the department considers that the best approach is for government at this stage to continue to work collaboratively with industry to encourage them to voluntarily improve their efforts to improve animal welfare’, a briefing note, dated 30 May and titled ‘Live trade: Options for Regulating Export’, reads: ‘The issue of regulatory action would be revisited if/when the industry’s voluntary efforts failed to deliver animal welfare improvements’.
The briefing, which describes the topic as ‘highly sensitive’ due to the coming Four Corners report, says there ‘is scope for industry to voluntarily improve accountability in its plan’.
The documents also reveal Senator Ludwig was given departmental advice, including a media strategy about the program on 13 May, more than two weeks before it aired. ‘ABC Four Corners is likely to air a program on live exports in mid to late May’, it reads.
- ‘You need to decide whether any actions are necessary to amend the government’s role in live exports in sufficient time to consult with your colleagues, including possibly with Cabinet, in a time frame that allows you to respond to the program’.
- Another note, dated the same day, says the industry was seeking support to fast-track an existing plan, which included developing ‘industry supply standards’ by December, a ‘stunning plan ready for broad expansion’ by January 2012 and having a closed supply system in place by 2015.
- The documents also reveal the list of Indonesian abattoirs initially banned by Senator Joe Ludwig included some premises that did not even import Australian cattle.
Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck said the documents showed the government’s response to the crisis was chaotic.
‘It looks as though the government was presented by a plan from the department, and they meddled along until they got spooked by the backbench and then they departed from that advice’, he said.
‘And now they are stumbling along trying to clean the mess up’.
That is the story that appeared in The Weekend Australian of 15 October. That story almost tells it all. That tells the story of a minister who was advised by his department to work collaboratively with the industry. It tells the story of a department that told the minister of the outcomes a ban would have on the economy and the social fabric of the Northern Territory. It tells the story of a minister who ignored that advice - he ignored that advice.
Given that, and the impact that has on the Northern Territory, and the reliance we, as Northern Territorians, have on that industry, it is time this minister got out of the way. It is time he resigned from that position. It is time the Prime Minister sacked him. It is the time this government here in the Northern Territory finally stood up to the Gillard administration and told them we are not happy. We need to send a clear message to the federal parliament and, in particular, to Senator Joe Ludwig, the minister for Agriculture who banned our industries and almost sent hundreds, and possibly thousands, of farmers to the wall.
That is the nature of this motion. It is a rather testing motion for this government because, to date, this government has never ever stood up for Territorians when it comes to either the Rudd or Gillard governments. They have been mere apologists for those governments. In the matter of live exports, this government was very quick to belt up the Independents in Canberra for their calls for a ban. However, they did not raise their voices as far as the Prime Minister or the minister for Agriculture were concerned.
Around the time of the ban, the Prime Minister was in the Northern Territory. The whole time we saw that footage and the pictures of the Prime Minister getting around the Northern Territory, who was there at her side smiling and nodding? It was our very own Chief Minister. Not once, in that entire time was the Chief Minister seen to be castigating the Prime Minister and saying: ‘Hang on, Prime Minister, what is going on is wrong’ - not once. Not at any single time did the Chief Minister stand up and castigate the minister, Joe Ludwig, in Canberra for his actions and his decision.
Whilst I am on my feet, we on this side of the House are very thankful for the support we and the cattle industry received from our little mate behind me, the member for Nelson. He was a person who stood up and decried the decision, and said it was wrong. I am very interested to see what the member for Nelson has to say about this ban, now that the dust has somewhat settled.
Madam Deputy Speaker, fundamentally, this motion is aimed at the federal parliament, the federal government, in particular, and at Senator Joe Ludwig particularly. Senator Ludwig should resign from this; he should be bought to heel. He needs to be punished for this unconscionable decision he has made. I would love to see, for a change, the government here getting on board, supporting this motion, and clearly sending a message to Canberra.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard the member opposite, with amazement, because what he is trying to do is politicise the whole issue - the current crisis we are facing with the cattle industry and the live cattle export - exactly the very outcome the industry has asked both the government and opposition not to do. Both parties of parliament have been asked not to politicise the current crisis.
Even as recently as last week on the ABC’s Q&A, when the member for Fong Lim was invited on the program as the public face of the CLP, Mr Ian McBean, whom everyone knows and who has been in the Territory for a long time, asked why politicians were not working together on that issue. He did not ask us make to political grandstanding. He asked: ‘Why can you not work together on that issue?’
What I find most surprising is the member for Fong Lim was making a fiery speech against Senator Ludwig, who happens to be in the Labor Party government. But, not once did he mention there were two private member bills seeking to ban live cattle export. He did not even mention that once …
Mr Tollner: Neither of them got up.
Mr VATSKALIS: What message is sent to our international trade partners, when you do not even consider those bills? They might not have got up; the reality is they were introduced to parliament, and that was a strong message. Quite a few people mentioned that to me during my recent trip to Indonesia.
The last thing that puzzles me at the moment is political grandstanding. For what benefit, member for Fong Lim? What has really led to this motion is the tension between the current Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim and his aspirations. Industry is looking for leadership, not a fight over leadership. The community will see this for what it is: the member for Fong Lim’s return to the front bench and out of the window goes the bipartisan approach in the situation with the live cattle export. I recognise the current Leader of the Opposition supported the unanimous motion of this parliament. The member for Fong Lim returns, and it is simply cast aside.
This side of the House refuses to use our pastoral industry as a political football. Industry has asked us to work together. We are prepared to do that, and we want to do that. Obviously, the opposition does not; they send in the member for Fong Lim. This parliament passed a unanimous motion to support our live cattle export industry and ensure the welfare of cattle, and to do everything possible to recommence the trade. I remind the member for Fong Lim, when we all saw this particular footage on Four Corners not only were we astounded, we were horrified. Yes, it was illegal to do it under the Indonesian law, but the reality is the Indonesians themselves acknowledge it was impossible to police the legislation in the 140 different abattoirs they have spread out through the archipelago of Indonesia. Even the Indonesian Embassy issued a media release condemning the practice. Any civilised person would condemn that practice.
The reality is, even the pastoralists in Australia, in the Northern Territory, have said they were so horrified at what they saw on Four Corners that they would rather keep their animals here than export them to the abattoirs to be treated like that. It was not the reaction by political leadership in Australia, it was the reaction by the people who breed, feed, and export these cattle to Indonesia. They were horrified by what they saw; they were very upset. Yes, it was a reaction to close down the industry for four weeks, but it was justified because it gave the Australian industry the opportunity to have a good look at itself, and the Indonesian industry to have a look at the practices that were happening in their own country.
I have worked in abattoirs; they are not a nice place to be. It is a place where you kill animals. The difference is that animals in Australia are killed humanely and, in Indonesia, what we saw in that particular abattoir was not humane killing. Not that there are not abattoirs that kill animals humanely, but there is no way we could actually trace animals leaving Darwin and arriving in Indonesia, and going to an abattoir, to ensure they went to the right abattoir that kills animals humanely. That was impossible.
Minister Ludwig reacted quickly and closed the trade for four weeks. That gave us the break we needed to have a look at the industry. Let us not kid ourselves; there are some faults by industry, especially Meat and Livestock Australia. MLA, quite rightly, expanded trade but, unfortunately, did not take into account the expanded trade meant more abattoirs would use Australian animals for processing. They did not have either the manpower on the ground or the expertise to have a look at those abattoirs and the way the animals were killed.
On Thursday, 9 June, at the opening of CDU pharmacy building, the Chief Minister and I briefed the Prime Minister of Australia. Yes, we briefed, but certainly not in front of the cameras. We spent 20 minutes with Julia Gillard to brief her about the consequence of the closing of the trade. We all acknowledge there was a situation that could not be avoided at the time following what happened on Four Corners. Julia Gillard committed herself to the reopening of the trade subject that they have found new conditions to ensure animals from Australia, when exported to Indonesia, will be treated and slaughtered humanely.
This political grandstanding by the member for Fong Lim - I have an excellent working relationship with Terry Redman, the minister for Agriculture of the Liberal government in Western Australia, and Tim Mulherin, the minister for Agriculture in the Labor government in Queensland. We three made a joint approach to Senator Ludwig to convene a national teleconference with the minister’s office. That happened on 10 June 2011.
An industry and government working group was appointed to jointly develop the protocols to ensure traceability of all Australian livestock exported to Indonesia. I personally lobbied to have the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association part of the working group rather than simply be represented by its national body - and they did; they became part of that group. The group now is working to ensure animal welfare and recommencement of the trade, the management of the domestic implications of the trade suspension and, of course, a course of action for managing Australian relationships with other international markets. The working group has formulated the supply chain protocols which have to be rolled out to other export markets.
At the request of the federal government, and a personal request by the minister for Agriculture, Senator Ludwig, I travelled to Indonesia with Mr Rohan Sullivan, the President of NTCA and Mr Adam Hill, the Chief Executive Officer of the exporters, to meet with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture; Mr Mahendra Siregar, the Vice Minister of Trade; and Mr Toni Wibowo, the Director of Lembu Jantan Perkasa, which operates a cattle breeding feedlot and trading company, about operations in Indonesia.
I had a personal view. I visited Indonesia with the industry, I met with a Vice Minister for Trade and officials from the Ministry of Agriculture. I visited feedlots to have a look at the impact in Australia, because I was well aware of what was happening in Australia, but also in Indonesia. All this information was fed through the Ambassador of Australia in Jakarta, Mr Moriarty, to minister Ludwig’s office. I gave a frank and open description of what was happening in the Territory, in north Australia and in Indonesia and, to his credit, I received a telephone call from the minister’s office when I was at the airport in Jakarta to fly back to Australia, to advise me the ban had been lifted.
In Indonesia, I met with Dr Ackerman, who now works for MLA. I understand he has taken great strides in developing a protocol, inspecting abattoirs, and recommending upgrades to abattoirs in Indonesia. Dr Ackerman is familiar with the situation in Indonesia because he worked previously with the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.
Senator Ludwig had also appointed a former Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Bill Farmer, to lead the review across the live animal export industry; not only in Indonesia, but in other countries in the region where we are exporting cattle.
The problem we have is, in Australia, we trade animals from gate to plate through the national livestock identification system. However, there were exemptions. Animals that were bred to be exported to Indonesia did not have to be registered in NLIS, and did not have to have a tag in their ear so it could be traced. So, an animal could actually go from Australia to Indonesia and no one would know where it finished up.
The other thing that was pointed out to me is Indonesians have used many animals from Australia to improve their breed. Many animals in Indonesia look exactly the same as the Brahmin cattle from Australia, so anyone can take footage from an abattoir where they can slaughter Indonesian animals and highlight that these animals are Australian.
The other problem we have is there is always slippage in Indonesia. It is not a watertight trade. Animals that come from Australia to the feedlot, yes, the majority of them will find their way to an accredited abattoir. However, some of them might slip and find their way somewhere else. So, we have to be able to trace the Australian animals from the port to the abattoir in Indonesia, and that is now happening.
The live cattle trade in the Territory is significant. We are talking about $166m to $200m annually. The same animals, when they arrive in Indonesia, will be worth between $A250m and $A280m. It is a significant industry that employs hundreds of people, not only in Australia, but also hundreds of people in Indonesia.
The other thing which is important for Indonesia is, when I was there, I found that the price of beef had significantly increased, and the Indonesian government was expecting to increase it even further during the Ramadan holidays. We were fortunate there was no politicians who made mileage out of it, blaming Australia, because it was not blaming Australia; it was a situation that developed and involved Indonesia.
Despite coming here and grandstanding and talking about Senator Ludwig being sacked because he did not do his job properly, instead of making a lot of noise, I decided I should go where our trade takes place, or there is potential to have a trade in the future. From the very beginning, when I became minister for Primary Industry, I was horrified that all our eggs were in one basket in Indonesia. I pointed it out repeatedly to the industry. I advocated opening new markets. I went to Sabah, Sarawak, and to Vietnam a few years back. This time, I did the same again. Together with Luke Bowen and the industry’s Mr Adam Hill, we went to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
In Indonesia, I met with the Deputy Trade Minister, Mahendra Siregar; Indonesian government officials; Dr John Ackerman; and the Australian Ambassador. I also had a meeting with the cattle importers, and I had dinner with them.
Indonesia has a keen interest in capacity building when it comes to abattoir workers. They know they have shortcomings, and they are looking to us to train the people who work not only in the feedlots and the farms, but also in the abattoirs handling and slaughtering animals and food processing.
They are also aware that Indonesia is looking for self-sufficiency, especially in meat. However, even though they talk about self-sufficiency, they admitted to me the number that will be imported from overseas was still 10% of the national herd. There is no way they will ever meet total self-sufficiency because in Indonesia there is an emerging middle class to which new numbers are added every year. They have a better income and they want better quality meat and protein.
I visited Malaysia on 20 September 2011. I met with the Acting High Commissioner, Ms Jane Duke; the Minister for Agriculture Micro-based Industry, Datuk Noh Omar, whom I had the opportunity to meet a year ago in Darwin; and industry representatives. The meeting with the minister went very well. The Malaysian minister told me about the government’s plans to increase meat production. He was aware of the good relationship we had with Sabah and Sarawak, and the good work we did there. He also advised me the delegation from the Australian government went to Malaysia to look at their procedures and they were quite pleased with what they saw.
There was discussion around the national feedlot program for feeders, and Malaysia’s goal of having 71 satellite feedlots running by the end of the year, with 1000 animals per feedlot, and also running animals on oil palm plantations. The Malaysian minister suggested he would be very keen to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Northern Territory. I am currently examining this situation for the national feedlot program. We are looking forward to further cooperation with Malaysia which intends to import a significant number of animals in the next few years.
On 21 September, I went to the Philippines and met with Ambassador, Mr Rod Smith; the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines, Mr Segfredo Serran; government officials; and local industry representatives. The Philippine market remains extremely price sensitive. An agricultural forum was recently held with the Australian government. The Philippine government is well aware of the standards of the OIE with regard to handling and slaughtering of animals and the livestock tracking system. They have to admit the live cattle export to the Philippines depends on the strong Australian dollar. However, there is much interest in the Philippines from the importers and processors about importing Australian meat, feedlotting it, and then processing it for export as boxed meat to China. Last year, the Philippines imported 6481 cattle. This year, the Philippines imported 10 750 cattle - nearly double the number.
On 22 and 23 September, I visited Vietnam. In Vietnam, I met with the Ambassador, Mr Allaster Cox; the Vice Minister of the Vietnamese government for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Bong Ba Bui; the General Director of Red Star International, Mr Dang Thai Nhi; the Vice Chairman of the People’s Committee of Hai Phong, Mr Do Trung Thoai; and the General Director of Hai Phong Investment and Animal and Poultry Import, Mr Hoang Dzung. The Ambassador offered to assist the promotion of Vietnamese slaughter of Australian beef. I travelled to Hai Phong and visited the feedlot where the animals that had recently been imported from Australia were held. I also visited the abattoir and the slaughter facilities. I was very pleased to see the abattoir was very similar to an Australian abattoir, and also that the animals were stunned before they were slaughtered.
They were very appreciative of the assistance they received from the Department of Resources during the transport of the animals to Vietnam. My department people are currently in Vietnam further assisting the importers with animal handling, welfare, and meat processing.
Rather than grandstanding or jostling for the leader’s position opposite, I am getting on with the job the pastoral industry expects. The message from the industry was clear: they do not want the issue to be politicised; they want both political parties in this plan to work together. As I said before, I am prepared to work with the opposition. I work very close with the Liberal Agriculture minister of Western Australia, and the Labor Agriculture minister in Queensland with no problems at all, because we have a common interest. So it can be done; it was done.
The industry in the Territory seeks leaders, not a fight over leadership. I would welcome debate about an alternative approach, or even policy positions by members opposite. We have not seen any policy positions, or any alternate ideas. We have not seen any ideas at all about live cattle export. The only thing we hear is the live cattle export was closed down, now it has reopened. Where are the ideas about what are we going to do with our industry? Do we have to diversify? Do we have to find different markets? Are we going to actually convert our live cattle export industry to other industries, like boxed meat?
We have to remember the live cattle export to Indonesia is so attractive for the Indonesians because many of the animals they get from Australia are not only used for feedlotting and added value, but also for religious ceremonies. Some of their customs are different than ours; their religion is different than ours. But we can appreciate the difference in religion and we learn from other experiences.
I was very disillusioned the other day when someone stopped me on the road and told me we had to ban live cattle export. When I asked why he said: ‘Because the way they handle it is barbaric’. I said: ‘That is true, but we are trying to educate them and we have to train them’. I said: ‘You have to remember they do not buy their meat in the supermarket there. Some of the villagers buy their meat in the local markets. Also, they are used for religious ceremonies’. Of course, I was absolutely dumbfounded when the person said to me: ‘Well, in that case, they had better change their religion’. Obviously, that person was living on another planet. He needs to realise that on this planet there are many people - different colours, different nationality, different language, and different religions.
Madam Speaker, our government is working with the live cattle industry. We want to expand the market. We want to ensure what happened before will not happen again. I have made clear to my counterparts in Indonesia that my government, our government, is prepared to work with them. We are happy to have people in the Northern Territory to train them in farm management, animal management, animal handling, and even meat processing and how to slaughter animals in the way we do it in Australia.
I passed the same message to the other countries in Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. I will continue to say, if we are going to work together with industry, if we are going to save our industry, the best thing we can do is work together rather than against each other.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, one of the problems with general business is that by the time you get to a particular topic, it can be somewhat outdated and, to some extent, this is. I have given some thought as to whether I would support this motion because I have been very strong in my views that the government did the wrong thing for the Northern Territory cattle industry. It was one of the worst decisions I have seen by a government for a very long time; it has practically destroyed one of the most important industries in the Northern Territory. It is just only getting back on its feet. I believe the jury is out as to whether it will have permanently damaged some of the smaller stations in the Northern Territory. Whether they are able to get themselves out of debt, I do not know.
When I looked at this statement, I thought there is much discussion about ministerial responsibility. Sometimes, it goes overboard because the minister has been given advice, and perhaps he or she has been given bad advice, or simply did not know what was going on. My understanding, in this case, is the Senator, the minister for Agriculture, did know what was going on and approved an action which was disastrous for primary producers in the Northern Territory …
Mr Tollner: Contrary to the advice he received.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is what has been in The Australian in recent times; that he had advice and if he had taken that, we may not have ended up in the disastrous position we found ourselves.
I had not so much personal knowledge of the previous minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, but I was sad when he went because he was respected across the board by people in agriculture throughout Australia, and especially the Northern Territory. I had heard him speak at a number of Cattlemen’s Association dinners and thought he was someone who had a good knowledge of the industry. I could not believe that, if he had been the minister for Agriculture, this necessarily would have happened.
In the case of Senator Ludwig, I do not believe he had the capabilities Tony Burke had, because Tony Burke had been in the business for quite some time and had good knowledge. I wonder why governments shift their ministers around. They might want to give them an opportunity to learn more from different portfolios but, I believe, where they have good ministers, they should leave them there, especially in the agricultural sector. The industry sees it as beneficial that the ministers are there for a long time. They can get to know them, and the minister can get to know and understand the problems the farming sector has. It is an area that needs stability. When there is a new minister - because the minister was relatively new - to make a decision about the banning of cattle trade to Indonesia, was partly the case of someone who was new in the job and, perhaps, did not understand fully the ramifications of what the decision he made would have on the live cattle producers. I believe the minister should resign, because the buck stops with him, and this was one of the worst decisions the government could have taken. He was the lead in this, and that is why I support this.
Normally, I would probably not support such a motion because, sometimes, it could be seen as just having a political pot shot at someone in a parliament a long way from here. However, I support this, just to emphasise, once again, that, to me, this was the worst decision a government could make. People’s livelihoods were just not thought about. Relationships with Indonesia were not thought about. The effects on all those people who are dependent on providing services for the live cattle industry were affected. It had huge ramifications for families, and stress on people who were involved in the industry. There was even documentation, through the MLA about four years ago, which showed the effect of banning the live cattle trade to Indonesia would have on Northern Territory cattle producers. It clearly showed in that report this would be devastating. It was not as if the information about what this particular action would result in, was not known - it was known. As I said, the MLA did a report about four years ago which clearly showed all the ramifications of a live cattle ban. I would have thought the minister’s advisors, at least, would have known of that document, and shown the minister what was going to happen if he decided to close down the cattle trade. What was in that report is exactly what happened.
For me, it was disappointing, especially when the Territory is a relatively small economy, of which there is a relatively small private sector economy - mining, tourism, primary production. They are industries we really want to develop, as I have said time and time again, so we are not relying on the Commonwealth for all our funds; we are developing a diverse economy. Then, to get part of that diverse economy, the cattle industry, hit for six by an ill-thought-out decision by the minister for Agriculture really showed quite a bit of incompetence and a lack of understanding of the ramifications his decision would have on the Northern Territory. I do not have anything personal against the minister, by the way. I probably relate more to the position. However, the minister for Agriculture made the decision and it caused huge ramifications for us in the Northern Territory.
It also sends a signal out that the Northern Territory is an important part of Australia, regardless of whether it is a territory or state, and we should be treated just like someone in other parts of Australia should be treated. I sometimes think we were brushed off, simply because of the political backlash from people down south. Sometimes, when you look at the little text messages that go across during Q&A, you realise people from down south who make comments, really have no idea about the truth of the matter when it comes to how the Northern Territory operates. Again, if the minister had all the knowledge about what was going to happen if he closed off the live cattle, you would have thought he could have explained that to people in the southern areas. He could have looked at giving the industry some time to try to develop those protocols without shutting off the live cattle trade. However, he did not. He made this decision which, basically, said that is it, and overnight, people were just absolutely devastated.
I was sitting in the lounge room of Mt Riddock Station on the Plenty Highway watching Four Corners with the family of that cattle station, and those people were just devastated. I was also visiting - I am just trying to think of the name of the station now, on the Sandover Highway - Elkedra, when it was announced on the radio that Four Corners were going to show this program the next Monday. I just happened to be visiting cattle stations at the same time as this announcement was being made, and the people in those stations were absolutely devastated about what was going on. At that time, they did not know exactly what was going to happen, but they knew the report from Four Corners was going to have major ramifications for their industry and, of course, within about a week, it certainly did have.
In fact, I was driving along the Plenty Highway from the Queensland border, and there were two large road trains heading east towards Queensland, obviously going to pick up some cattle. It was only the next day that the announcement was made and I thought to myself: ‘What is going to happen to those cattle? Those trucks have gone out there to pick up cattle, the drivers have been paid to go out there and pick them up. I wonder whether they know that is going to be a waste of time?’ Perhaps they had to turn around when the decision was made and take those cattle back; I do not know. That was how sudden the decision was made.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this motion is a little dated, but that is the process we have in parliament. Normally, I would probably not make a fuss about a motion like this, but I am in this case because it was a serious error by the government, especially the minister, and it affected the Northern Territory no end. It sends out a message to the Gillard government that we believe they have made a dreadful error and, if they had any feelings for the Northern Territory, one way to say they are sorry for what they have done would be to replace the minister with a new minister. From my personal point of view, Tony Burke would do a great job in that same portfolio.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I first thank the two other speakers, the members for Casuarina and Nelson for their contributions to this motion. I agree with the member for Nelson in relation to his comments regarding the former minister, Tony Burke. I know Tony Burke reasonably well, had a bit to do with him over the years. Not that that matters so much, but I know people in the cattle industry across the Northern Territory who also know Tony Burke very well and believe he has a great deal of empathy for the industry - something I feel is sadly lacking in the current minister, Joe Ludwig.
I have an issue with a number of the comments made by the minister, the member for Casuarina. First, he said we did not jump up and down about the two bills that were put to the federal parliament by the two Independents. The fact is, as much as they might like to think so - even in this place, the member of Nelson might like to think they run government; the fact is they do not. They do not run government and, in that regard, the two Independents had very little likelihood of getting their bills up without the support of the government or the opposition. To suggest we should have been screaming more about those two Independents, in this case, on their completely unjustified and crazy journey with those two bills, is ludicrous.
The other thing the minister, the member for Casuarina said was that the decision was justified. I cannot believe a minister in the Northern Territory would suggest that banning the live cattle trade to Indonesia is a decision justified. He said it was a decision that could not be avoided. Goodness me! I do not know whether our minister was listening to this debate, but the federal minister’s own department advised him everything had to be avoided; that he should work collaboratively with the industry to improve animal welfare standards, and the worst-case scenario was a regulatory response; that is, a ban in trade. They said that the worst possible scenario, and then they went on to outline what a ban in the trade would mean to north Australia. Indeed, he spent tens of millions of dollars in compensation packages right across the top of the Northern Territory.
We have the member for Casuarina here acknowledging those practices that were seen on the Four Corners report were illegal in Indonesia. He acknowledged that. Goodness me! Then he went on to say even the Indonesians did not have the resources to police all of those slaughterhouses. Can I suggest, for the price of the compensation package which the minister made available to farmers, we could have easily sent those tens of millions of dollars to Indonesia to assist in providing extra police to ensure cattle were being slaughtered properly. That would be the neighbourly thing to do. This is one of our nearest neighbours. These people are a trading partner, particularly of the Northern Territory.
We have Northern Territory governments going back decades that stood proudly for the Territory and for Indonesia, saying how closely they worked together. This government here seems to have completely dropped the ball on that relationship. It is quite bizarre that we have a minister here saying there is nothing we can do about helping the Indonesians police abattoirs. Goodness me! The price of labour in Indonesia is a skerrick compared to what it is here. Getting people to police abattoirs I would not have thought would be very difficult in a country where you have high unemployment and very low wages. Surely, something more could have been done to ensure animal welfare standards were being improved in Indonesia, rather than banning the trade here and seeing a whole heap of Territory farmers and other people put on the brink of complete disaster?
The minister also said he is very disappointed that we are not acting in a bipartisan way. The fact is, when the ban was called for, the opposition was very quick to get in there and say we will act in a bipartisan way because, at that particular time, there was a great need to work together with the government to send a single message from the Northern Territory to get that ban dropped. That was the priority, and for that reason, both sides put politics to one side. We said: ‘All right, there is greater goal in place at the moment. We need to get down to Canberra. We need to get over to Indonesia. We need to get this problem fixed straightaway’. The opposition was very happy to work with the government on that. I believe that, in some ways, we did a reasonably good job together.
At the end of that process, just as importantly, we need to do a postmortem. We actually need to pick over some of the decisions that were made to ensure this sort of thing never ever happens again. Quite frankly, this government is not interested in doing that. They are not interested in looking at things retrospectively and doing a postmortem on the events and the decisions that led to a ban of our trade with Indonesia. The reason they are not prepared to do that is because they will not cross Julia Gillard, the Gillard government, or anyone in that government. They will never ever stand up to those people down there.
That is what is so disheartening, because we need to have a look at all those things that went into making that decision to find out what went wrong. Now things are starting to come into greater light - that is, the fact that the minister’s own department advised him that a ban was the last option - we should be looking at those things objectively. When these things come to light, we should be saying to the federal government: ‘You got it wrong, and that minister you have is a dud. He needs to be removed’. That is what we should be doing.
I know the member for Nelson does not like supporting these types of motions but, for that reason, as the member for Nelson said in his own words, he is prepared to look objectively at this, take the politics out of it, and do what needs to be done; that is, send a clear message about ministerial and government responsibility to Canberra because, of all places, they need it most - possibly even more than this joint.
The fact is the Gillard government is the worst government in the history of Australia in so many areas. We are feeling it on so many fronts. However, this decision, out of all the decisions, affected us worse in the Northern Territory than any other of their bungled decisions. I suppose we did not have people die in house fires as a result of pink batts. I believe this is much worse than the pink batts decision; but that is a matter for argument. I do not think there is any argument, except coming from the other side, that this was a bad decision. I am still absolutely amazed that our minister for Primary Industry can stand up and say this decision was justified; that the decision could not be avoided. What a load of nonsense!
Madam Speaker, I ask that every member in this Chamber support this motion because we need to send a clear message to the Gillard government, and we do need to see Senator Joe Ludwig sacked as the agriculture minister.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Development of the Bagot Community
Development of the Bagot Community
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Northern Territory government immediately action its plan to develop the land known as the ‘Bagot Community’ and create a beautiful new suburb to house some of the existing residents of the Bagot Community, first homeowners, and other homebuyers.
Bagot Community has, in years gone by, been a wonderful, vibrant community - absolutely no doubt about it. It has played an integral role in the development and social fabric of Darwin over a long period of time. However, over recent years, things have spiralled downwards at the Bagot Community. Their community government council is practically non-functioning. There is very little effort being made to keep the community clean. There is very little effort made to keep the blow-ins, I suppose - people from other parts of the Territory - in order.
I have to say, without a word of a lie, with my hand on my heart, almost every single day I have been in this job and have been the member for Fong Lim, I have received complaints about the Bagot Community. That is a sad thing to have to report to this Chamber. People from the streets and houses right around that community are often ringing up, complaining about noise, violence that is going on, and rubbish that emanates from that community.
The previous member for Millner, Matthew Bonson, organised to put a fence up around that community. It is quite a nice fence, and I congratulate the government for putting the fence up …
Mr Wood: And a garden.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, and a nice garden at the front. If you drive down Bagot Road these days, you do not have to look into Bagot and see what is behind that fence. That was a response by the government at the time to some of the complaints from people who were driving in from the northern suburbs to work, who would look across Bagot Road and into Bagot Community, and wonder why there was so much degradation and filth. At that time, the community was certainly on a downward spiral as well.
The downside, of course, of putting up the fence is what happens behind it. Now, it is out of sight, out of mind. It seems to me that the government is completely ignoring the residents of Bagot and their welfare, the antisocial problems that emanate from Bagot, and the housing and living standards of people who live in Bagot. I have to say I have had a great deal to do with the Bagot Community over a long period of time, and there are some really wonderful people who live there - really lovely people. Some, I believe, are some of the best citizens we have in Darwin. I think of people like Helen Fejo - she is in everything. She is involved in programs all over Darwin; she works very hard and is very passionate about her people. She is a wonderful person.
At the same time, it seems to me the problems inside Bagot are caused by people, more often than not, who are visiting from other communities around the Territory. Bagot Community, of course, is a prescribed area. Alcohol has been banned there. You cannot have alcohol there. However, I guarantee you there is not a day that you cannot walk around the grounds inside behind the fence and see people, somewhere, drinking.
It seems to me police have given up on the Bagot Community. I have almost given up calling police. If I called police every time I got a call, police would never be out of the place.
It is very sad the Northern Territory government has made commitments to the people of Bagot about fixing up their law and order problems. I note at the last election, August 2008, government made a whole swag of commitments to the people of Bagot, and said they would do all sorts of things to improve the situation in Bagot. I have a document here entitled Paul Henderson’s Labor team – Strong leadership, secure future, media release 2008, dated 7 August 2008, the headline being ‘Greening the Territory – Improving our lifestyle’. On the second page of that media release it said:
- Mr Henderson said his government will continue its commitment to improving the Territory’s urban centres.
This is in inverted commas, comments from the Chief Minister:
- ‘We will invest $6.7m to improve facilities at Bagot community, including fencing, kerbing, guttering, and street lights’, he said. ‘$2.7m of the funding will see the establishment of a permanent police post, from 2009-10 ...
This is a government that runs around talking about how they are meeting all their election commitments, and they have not missed one. I do not know how they missed Bagot, but that police post was promised, according to the Chief Minister. According to this media release, in August 2008, it was going to be established in 2009-10. I will read that bit again, Madam Speaker:
- ‘$2.7m of the funding will see the establishment of a permanent police post from 2009-10 in the community with four additional officers and two auxiliaries to be recruited for the positions. The post will be staffed around hot spot times as determined by police.
Bagot Community is in the heart of our city. We must continue to improve its services and infrastructure so that Bagot residents and its neighbours enjoy a better quality of life’.
Well, big words - big words; something you run to an election with: ‘This is what we are going to do’. Interestingly enough, in that media release, the Chief Minister committed to $6.7m to improve Bagot by 2009-10, and $2.7m of that being for the police post. On 7 August, the same day they issued the media release, on the ABC news, Matthew Bonson, said:
- Labor’s candidate for the seat …
of Fong Lim:
- … Matthew Bonson, says his party would build a $4.5m police shop front in the Bagot community, as well as improve drug and rehabilitation services, if it retains office.
And Chief Minister Paul Henderson has promised new fencing, curbing (sic) and guttering for the community as part of a four-year, $10.7m urban regeneration program for Darwin announced today.
We had the Chief Minister announcing a $2.7m police post, and the then candidate, Matthew Bonson, announcing it would be $4.5m. Bit hard to decide what the post is going to cost. It is either $2.7m or $4.5m, or somewhere in between. You know how these things work: whatever they announce, the price by the time they build it will surely be double that. The point is that was promised for 2009-10. Here we are in 2011, and still no police post. Residents around Bagot and in Bagot are being driven mad by antisocial and law and order problems, and this government does not seem to care. It is a hollow joke. The Chief Minister’s last line on that media release:
- Bagot community is in the heart of our city. We must continue to improve its services and infrastructure so Bagot residents and neighbours enjoy a better quality of life.
Well, ask them at Bagot whether they are enjoying a better quality of life since this government has been re-elected. I tell you what; I do not think you will find any of them enjoying a better way of life.
The motion is that the government immediately actions its plan to develop the land known as the Bagot Community and create a beautiful new suburb. That is what the motion is about; creating a beautiful new suburb. It looks like the member for Johnston is about to speak on this, but I know he will stand up and say: ‘No, no, no, no. We never promised to turn it into a suburb’. I bring the attention of the member for Johnston to an article that appeared in the NT News on 8 July 2009, written by the government’s then favourite journalist, Nick Calacouras. Nick Calacouras wrote an article headed ‘Government pressures Bagot’:
- Bagot Community could become a suburb of Darwin in a renewed push to ‘normalise’ the town camp.
Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, said he discussed the future of the inner-city community with the Prime Minister last week.
Further on in the article, there is a little about me which I will omit, saying I came up with the idea, but further down, the article says:
- Mr Henderson said it was his dream that ‘one day places like Bagot are part of the suburbs’.
‘At the end of the day, why shouldn’t Bagot be like Ludmilla or any other part of Darwin? That’s where we have to aspire to. Not having people essentially in compounds isolated from the rest of Darwin’.
That is the Chief Minister’s words on 8 July 2009, a bit over two years ago.
On the ABC the day before, there was an article titled ‘Henderson ‘dreams’ of Bagot suburb’:
- The Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, says he has initiated talks with the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, about extending efforts to turn town camps into normal suburbs.
The Federal and Territory governments are moving towards taking over Alice Springs town camps to improve services to residents.
The move comes after efforts to sign leases over the town camps fell through.
Mr Henderson says he also wants to turn Darwin’s Bagot Aboriginal community into a suburb.
‘It’s my dream that one day places like Bagot are part of the suburbs’, he said.
That is what this motion is based on; the fact that we have a Chief Minister - who says what he says gets done - dreams of one day seeing Bagot turned into a suburb. I have to tell you, this motion is about getting the Chief Minister off his butt and actually doing something about his dreams, and turning Bagot into a suburb because, quite frankly, we are not serving anyone well by allowing the current situation to continue. It is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We cannot allow Bagot to continue on the downward spiral it is currently heading, and has been heading for the last few years. It is not right by the residents of Bagot. It is not right by the people surrounding Bagot. It is certainly not right for all those people who live and work in Darwin. People living in Bagot should now have the rights of other citizens of Darwin. They should be able to expect their rubbish will be collected. They should expect their house will be at a good standard, they will have a fence around their house, and they will be protected from blow-ins who turn up at times of football matches or other cultural events and decide to sit here and get blind rotten drunk in their community and stay up until all hours of the night, screaming and fighting. That is what they should be able to expect: they will be protected and looked after by government.
The Country Liberals have a plan for Bagot, and have had a plan for quite some time. It comes after considerable consultation with a number of the residents - most of the residents in Bagot. I have to say there is a fair whack of them who support the plan. That plan is very simple: the residents who have been there for a long period of time will be, in many ways, gifted the houses they live in, on condition they are brought up to an acceptable community standard, which means they will have to go out and more than likely apply for a mortgage or get some financial support. The Country Liberals, if in government, would, in some way, try to provide that support through organisations like the TIO or Indigenous Banking Australia, or some other such organisation. In any case, those people would be assisted into private home ownership. They would then become responsible for mortgages, the same as every other person who owns a house.
On the other hand, if people do not want to take up that option, they can continue to live in those houses, but those houses would be brought up to a community standard, renovated and fixed up, and be provided to Territory Housing as Territory Housing stock.
The community would be subdivided, and more houses made available for first homeowners and other people in the marketplace trying to find a house. There would be provision made for community facilities. The health centre would be expanded to provide more health services in the Darwin area. The school would be improved to accept the additional people a new suburb would bring to the area and, fundamentally, the whole look of the place would be massively improved.
I have to say we have been shopping this idea around for quite some time and it has broad community support. The other thing I can say - and I hope they do not get too upset - is we have been talking to the Larrakia Development Corporation which has prepared plans and draft ideas of what may be possible in that community. I do not want to pre-empt the due diligence that would be required in government to deliver such a plan but, all in all, the view that has been pushed by our side of parliament is that the Bagot Community needs to be improved. People should have the ability to own their own houses. There is such demand for housing in Darwin we would have no problems at all creating a new suburb.
I do not want to pre-empt or guess at what the government’s ideas are for a new suburb. Clearly, the Chief Minister must have some ideas on how he would see this new suburb eventuating, considering he dreams of the day when Bagot is like any other suburb like, I believe he said, Ludmilla, or any other part of Darwin. ‘That is what we have to aspire to, not having people essentially in compounds isolated from the rest of Darwin’. They are the Chief Minister’s words. I applaud him for those words. Good on him! He is saying what everyone else thinks. All I want to know now is when the government is preparing to action those words.
The other thing I would like to know is, if they are not going to turn Bagot into a suburb, when are they going to honour their election commitment for a $2.7m or $4.5m police post? When are they going to build that? When are they going to build the street lighting, the concrete kerbing, and all the other things they committed to in the 2008 election campaign? Quite frankly, they certainly have not spent $6.7m in Bagot as they said they were going to do and that, in itself, is quite shameful.
You would think, in times when you are seeing all these terrible reports coming out about how we treat Indigenous people in the Northern Territory - the poor housing standards, the poor educational outcomes, the poor health outcomes, the poor job outcomes - there would be some focus on what we can do right here in Darwin. I find it appallingly embarrassing. I am very embarrassed about the things that go on in remote communities, and I have said that to this place time and time again. I am very embarrassed about that. What happens in Darwin and our urban centres is only that much worse because there is no great excuse about why we are not fixing those problems. For people living out in the middle of Woop Woop, a thousand miles from anywhere, you can blame the tyranny of distance and the difficulty to get services and products to those places. However, right here in the centre of a capital city in Australia - get real! There is no excuse for the government not spending this money and improving that community.
Madam Speaker, I ask the Assembly and members here to consider this motion that the government acts on the Chief Minister’s dreams, acts on their plans to develop the new suburb of Bagot - or whatever they want to call it - outline some plans, give us some time frames. These things are hollow words for government. It seems very easy to promise things but not so easy to deliver. Or, at the very least, tell us when they are going to put the police post in or when they are going to do some of the kerbing, fencing, or street lighting they committed to in 2008.
I will be very interested to listen to members of the government and any other speakers who want to talk on this, because it is right in the heart of my electorate. It causes me considerable anguish, and I would like to know what action is happening in Bagot.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this motion - not so much because I know about Bagot, although I do go past every now and then and wonder what goes on behind those walls. I hear from people occasionally who work with the little church there that, at times, Bagot certainly has its fair share of social problems. Obviously, there are some good people there who are working hard to try to turn things around.
I am speaking also because there are two communities in my electorate, the Knuckey Lagoon community and the 15 Mile community or the Palmerston Indigenous Village – although, thankfully, it got rid of that name. I just cannot think of the new name. It was in my electorate; it has been taken out of my electorate and has come back into my electorate. I will include that in my discussions today.
I fully support what the member for Fong Lim has said; that Bagot, like Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile community – and I should include the 1 Mile community – are right in or very close to a major urban centre in Darwin and Palmerston. Yet, I can stand in some of those communities and think I was way out bush somewhere, in a far-flung community where it is much harder to get services.
The government has to come up with a plan. The member for Fong Lim has come up with a plan. It is funny that he spoke about the ownership of houses. I was visiting the 15 Mile community and was speaking to a woman there. I just put to her: ‘Would you like to own this house? Why could you not buy this house out of your rent?’ She said she was interested. Of course, under the present leasing arrangement for that community, which is through the Aboriginal Development Foundation, that is probably not possible. However, there have been, over the last few years, a number of good, solid block houses built in both communities. They will suffer the tyranny of poor management because they will be someone else’s houses. In fact, they are not NT Housing houses, they are Yilli Rreung houses. To complicate matters, at Knuckey Lagoon there are two Larrakia harmony houses.
It is something that should be done in consultation with the community. People like Ronny Agnew at Knuckey Lagoon would be one of the people you would be wanting to talk to. It is time that option was given to people on those communities. Also, at the same time, sit down with those people and ask where these communities are going. Are we just going to have these little enclaves just where Aboriginal people live that have very little room to expand? What is the future of those places?
The 15 Mile community is a classic. It is actually in Palmerston. I was talking to one of the people from Palmerston. I do not know whether it was a councillor or one of our local members who did not believe that the 15 Mile community was in Palmerston. It is served by an easement - a Power and Water easement which used to be graded by the Litchfield Council. It is a community that is not in the Litchfield Shire, but is actually in Palmerston. I have always wondered where it fits into the great Palmerston plans. We build these beautiful new suburbs, you step across the road because, when Johnston comes right up to the highway, within 100 m you actually step back into a community which you could picture anywhere else in a remote Northern Territory.
There needs to be some plans set out for how these communities - Bagot is one of them, the 1 Mile, the Knuckey Lagoon community, and the 15 Mile community – will go in the future. What is their future? Can people in those communities purchase their own houses? What will happen to the leasehold the Aboriginal Development Foundation has?
To some extent, we have put them in the too-hard basket, probably like Bagot. Yet, I believe it is time there was a plan done, in consultation with the residents of those communities, which identified where those communities will be - could I put it in government’s terms? - as part of the 2030 plan. Do they fit into the 2030 plan? Do we always talk about Indigenous communities out there, or do we realise we have Indigenous communities right on our doorstep, and our plan needs to be put in place to say what is going to happen there. We need to be realistic and say there are some major social problems in those communities.
I recently issued a media release in relation to one of those communities where it was obvious the intervention was not really relevant, because the number of VB cans that were stacked up in a 44-gallon drum and piled up in plastic bags was quite enormous. You really wonder about the relevance of the intervention.
I am not saying the government or the police, from time to time, do not go into those communities. However, if there is not a constant surveillance of those communities, then the idea of no liquor in them is just writing on a sign, and it is not taking place in reality.
I was there and kids were jumping on the trampoline at 9 am on a Monday morning. I said to them: ‘Where do you go to school?’ I think they went to Driver, but it does not matter which school. I said: ‘Why are you not going?’ There was some excuse about mum, or something or other, but they were not at school. So, I rang up the department and the department, thankfully, got – I call them a truancy officer still - someone out there to see them, and I gather the parents were signed up for a responsibility agreement. I am not sure what happened after that.
Again, there needs to be a plan of what those communities are about. It would not be simple. The member for Fong Lim mentioned in Bagot you get people who come in and take over people’s houses. That is exactly what happens at Knuckey Lagoon; that is where some of your extra trouble comes from. However, you also have to realise the history of the 15 Mile, the 1 Mile, and the Knuckeys Lagoon communities; they were really a haven for drunks. When they came to town, the government set up places where - they knew these people were going to get drunk - at least they could come back to a safe area. You have Maningrida people at 15 Mile; Port Keats, Daly River, and Adelaide River people at the Knuckey Lagoon area; and at the 1 Mile you have people from Belyuen as well.
Times have moved on; the government said there was no more grog in those communities. The houses have been built, especially at Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile - good houses, families are in those houses. However, where is their control? I will give you a classic example. At the 15 Mile, for instance, the house is owned by Yilli Rreung. I do not know whether the occupier of the house has to ring up Yilli Rreung to kick someone out of that house, because they do not own the house and, then, when you get them out of the house and on to the ground outside, that land is owned by Aboriginal Development Foundation. So, do you have to ring up Bernie Valadian and say: ‘Bernie, I need these people out of the community’.
There needs to be some rationalisation of what will happen to those communities. Does, for instance, Palmerston go to the 15 Mile community and carry out dog control? I am not sure what they do there. Who looks after the roads? There is a road there that is attached to an easement. It is a funny situation; it actually does not go out on to a road. Does the Litchfield Council’s dog people go to Knuckey Lagoon and say to the people: ‘You have to have your dogs registered’. Are the dogs managed? I have been there delivering newsletters and I can tell you, just occasionally, my heart has been in my mouth, because some dogs do not like people like me. I thought: ‘Hang on, you are in the Litchfield Shire, we have dog by-laws; that will save me, won’t it?’ No, it does not save me there. When Rottweilers are as high as me, they can put the fear of God in you.
Where are we going with those communities? What is the plan? The member for Fong Lim has said he has a plan. I also believe the ownership of houses might be part of the plan for those other communities. Knuckey Lagoon would need kerbing and guttering. You have some bitumen there, but you have places there where you disappear through a big hole of water in the Wet Season. There is very little beautification of Knuckey Lagoon. At least Bagot has a nice front fence and a bit of beautification, but Knuckey Lagoon does not have that, and the 15 Mile does not have it either.
I take up what the member for Fong Lim is saying because I support what he is saying. I could move a motion to amend this motion, but I do not need to do that. The message I want to get back to government is: what are your plans for those communities? Are you working with those communities under a set of plans?
I have been to meetings. Ronny Agnew is a great bloke. He tries his best to run that community at Knuckey Lagoon. I have been to these community days he has occasionally. He invites all these people - I do not know where they all come from. There are banking people, people about alcohol; there is just a stack of people from all these agencies. I do not know where they come from, but they will come on that day and they end up at that community. That is great, but why do we need that many agencies to run a community of 15 houses? What is going on here? Yet, the place does not have much organisation. It is not part of our community, it is separate, and it is treated as separate. It is time we made up our mind whether you are in or out. It does not mean Aboriginal people cannot use that as their community, but are we turning places into future ghettos when they do not need to be that?
Darwin is a multicultural place. I do not expect us to stick Chinese in one place or Vietnamese in another place. We have these little groups that, historically, have been round for a long time that we need to identify and ask: ‘What is the future for these places? How can we help the people, give them a certain future?’ One of the ways to give people a certain future is to offer them the chance to buy their house. Even though we talk about it, and you hear other people talk about the importance of owning your own home, here we have an opportunity on a micro scale to do it close to the Darwin community, close to Palmerston, where people might be able to have an opportunity to own their own house. It would be a good experiment, to some extent. People will say that if you own your own house, there is a better chance you will look after it than if it is just someone else’s house and you do not care.
That is an area the government should seriously look at. Get out and talk to those communities. I am certainly happy, if the government wanted to look at this as a possible plan for the future, to go with government people and talk to the community and see if we could set up something that, in reality, might turn the lives of those people. I will be honest with you, there are people in some of those communities who find it, I suppose, scary to live in those communities because of some of the problems they have with alcohol, people who come into that community, and some of the people who live in that community. The good people feel threatened at times. I believe the government has to work with the community to overcome some of those problems but, at the same time, give them a good sense of security by offering for them the opportunity to buy their own houses.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Fong Lim’s motion. It has opened up discussion about this whole area. It is something we should not just leave for this particular General Business day. I would like to see some of these issues come back to parliament, and some plans from government, so we just do not forget it after it has been passed; that we do actually take it seriously and come back with some fair dinkum responses from the government.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion bought forward by the member for Fong Lim. As the member for Nelson said, these are very important issues. I believe it is timely and important that we are speaking about these issues here tonight, the basis of which is the motion by the member for Fong Lim. The member for Fong Lim moved:
- That the Northern Territory government immediately action its plan to develop the land known as the ‘Bagot Community’ and create a beautiful new suburb to house some of the existing residents of Bagot Community, first homeowners and other homebuyers.
From the history, as read out by the member for Fong Lim here this evening, the pledge that was made some years ago did not really extend to the extent of your motion, member for Fong Lim. That is the first thing to acknowledge.
I could be cynical; I am not cynical. If I was cynical and did not know the member for Fong Lim better, you could say this whole thing is just a political ploy. If you were a real political cynic, you could say the member for Fong Lim wants this development within his electorate so he could get the first homebuyers there; he could alleviate the problems of the Bagot Community that are confronting him at present as a local member and shore up his support even more regarding different types of people in his electorate to make his vote go up. However, that would be cynical of me to suggest that. Of course, I would never suggest that.
I could be cynical and say there have probably been developers knocking on his door and saying: ‘That is a pretty good piece of land at Bagot, member for Fong Lim’. Sometimes, as developers do, they say: ‘It is not about me. It is not about me making money, it is about the Territory’. I have been Planning minister and I have had a few of those conversations: ‘It is not about me or making money; it is for the good of the Territory’. There are many developers out there who have those motives. Usually, the alarm bells start ringing with me when that is the first thing someone says, particularly if I do not know them. When someone comes up to me and says: ‘I have been a Labor Party voter all my life and if you do not do what I ask, I am going to change my vote’. Of course, they might say, ‘I have been a CLP voter all my life’, and the same stuff. Or they could even say: ‘I have been an Independent voter all my life and I am going to really change and vote for a political party next time’. I am sure the member for Nelson gets that.
There is no doubt there has been some politics around this. The member for Fong Lim mentioned the 2008 election, the former member, and the Chief Minister and some of the undertakings that were given there. I will turn to some of those undertakings in my speech. Also, you focused on, essentially, what is a Police Beat. I remind the member for Fong Lim that the official position of your party is you oppose Police Beats.
I just love this photograph from the 2007 federal election. I will table it. The caption reads: ‘Divine Intervention’. There is the former minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mr Mal Brough and, right beside him, is the member for Fong Lim. Over the top is our good Lord, almost an apparition looking over minister Brough as if he has a divine imprimatur for what he is announcing for Bagot. It says: ‘Brough to make Bagot a suburb’. God bless him, Mal Brough, he was a can-do sort of a bloke. He got in his tank and he made announcements such as he was going to make Bagot a suburb. I really wonder how much prior consultation with the whole Bagot community went into that particular announcement.
I take on board what the member for Fong Lim has said; that there has been a great deal of consultation. No doubt, he has spoken to members of the Bagot Community about making Bagot a suburb. However, I have been around a fair while as well, member for Fong Lim, and I have had a bit to do with Bagot - probably over three decades and long before I ever got into politics. I know a little about the politics of Bagot and it is very complex. It is much more complex than the politics of this place and both sides interacting, and even the politics within one side here. They are Indigenous politics. They are about families, connections - a whole range of things. The politics of Bagot is very complicated.
We saw a simple announcement - Mal Brough making the announcement. We know the resistance there was in some quarters in Alice Springs, in getting lease arrangements over the town camps. We saw our old friend - is it Mr George Newhouse? - the lawyer coming in representing some sections of that community, talking about human rights and all the rest of it and, I believe, really obstructing the process of the federal government. We could get into the politics of it, but the federal government needed to have leases over that land so they could build assets there and have some control and management of those assets. That makes sense; I do not care whether it is the Coalition or the Labor Party in power.
We saw incredible resistance that even goes on to this day. You see it in the media; you hear people talking about their rights being taken away. However, I applaud what has happened in those town camps in Alice Springs. I applaud the Alice Springs Town Council for the way they have taken responsibility for the services in those town camps, in rubbish collection and other elements. That is a very positive model. This underlines not only regarding the assets that have been built there such as the houses - and even the member for Braitling has acknowledged those new houses which have been built on those town camps in Alice Springs are beautiful houses. I think he called them show houses. They are great assets and it is a very positive thing that has happened there.
From what the member for Fong Lim just said about the Chief Minister’s comments, that is the sort of thing he probably had in mind when he was talking about Bagot. I do not think he had in mind the subdivision you are talking about. I am not ruling that out. I am not saying it is a silly …
Mr Tollner: You mean like Ludmilla or any other part of Darwin?
Dr BURNS: Well, it is the same. The aspirations for those town camps is to make them part of the wider Alice Springs community. That is what I am talking about. I suppose we can play pedantic little games and semantics about what has been said, but I believe that is the intention there …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: I am trying to be fair here, member for Fong Lim. I am not ruling out your idea. I am saying it would take a great deal of negotiation. It would get pretty evil, medieval, and legal.
The member for Nelson mentioned 1 Mile camp, and I know there has been much investigation and examination of the leases there, and where the ADF stands. We are talking about very complex legal issues. What I am flagging here - I am not saying it is not a reason to do it - is I can see all sorts of barriers being put in the way of these ideas progressing. However, that is no reason not to do it. I can tell you there has been examination, a focus, and an assessment of some of the things that have been proposed here tonight, including what the member for Nelson has spoken about with Knuckey Lagoon, etcetera.
I do not think we should also underestimate the value or the cost of the headworks that would be required in a place like Bagot. In Knuckey Lagoon, because I have been out there - I am not an engineer but I know enough about it - we are talking about tens and tens of millions of dollars just to upgrade what is already there, let alone having a completely new suburb or a subdivision there. You are talking about fairly major dollars here.
I suggest the way forward is further engagement with the Commonwealth. There is no doubt, through the first phase of the intervention, there has been a number of places that have not received housing or infrastructure. Bagot is certainly one of them. We had a bit of an incident here the other day - a bit of a show - in relation to Elliott. Elliott is a place that is badly in need of infrastructure and further development. Knuckey Lagoon – and the member for Nelson mentioned the 15 Mile as well. What we have to do is further advocate with the Commonwealth. I do not care who is in power - I have said this before - these projects will take decades. It will take decades to resolve these issues, and that is probably one of the issues that …
Mr Tollner: Where is your $6.7m?
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Tollner: Where is your $6.7m that you are going to plough into Bagot?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It did not include headworks. I do not think $6.7m would buy you too much in the way of headworks ...
Mr Tollner: Kerbing, lighting, fencing.
Dr BURNS: Let me have a go, member for Fong Lim.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: The way forward is to continue to advocate with whichever government is in power in the Commonwealth. I have been on public record saying I do not think - for the want of a better word - a public housing model in remote communities and in the town camps that has been rolled out through the first phase of the intervention - is sustainable or even desirable in the long term. Everyone agrees on that. We have to find models of a way forward on that. I know the Northern Land Council is looking at various ways for facilitating that. At the bottom of it is land tenure; that is the sticking point. I will come back to the town camps in Alice Springs and the enormous fuss - political, media, and legal fuss - that occurred over those tenure issues and the acquisition of those leases by the Commonwealth which, I thought, given the circumstances, was the right move by the Commonwealth, and I certainly support it.
Where I differed from minister Brough - I never doubted his resolve or commitment – is he had a view that he was going to achieve profound change, not in a generation - he was not interested in generational change, he told me - but in a matter of years. Noble, a great aspiration, but not really rooted in reality. I said to him at Mutitjulu: ‘Mal, you are like a tank. You are like a Sherman Tank but, one day, you are going to hit a wall’. He did hit a wall and that was the election of 2007. Like someone who is committed to politics, at his age, he is picking himself up again. I hear he is after the seat of Peter Slipper. He is manoeuvring and is still a player. There you go! He is never a bloke you would write off, but his career has hit a little pause over the last few years.
Anyway, with some of the commitments given by government, I believe we have delivered quite a deal there. Stage 1 …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If you just listen …
Mr Tollner: Sorry, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Please give me the courtesy, member for Fong Lim.
Out of the commitment, Stage 1 works valued at $856 000 were completed in May 2010, which included the fencing of 36 residential houses, installing water meters on 56 residential houses, numbering 56 residential houses, a map at the Bagot entrance, fencing and putting shade over the basketball court, upgrading the basketball court and ablution block, reroofing the community hall, and a new ablution block with disabled access for the community hall.
Stage 2 works valued at $2.1369m were completed in August 2001 - I am sure you are aware of all of this, member for Fong Lim - and included installation of new water services and meters to seven units, improved street lighting, installation of ceiling lights and fans in the community hall - as you can see, there has been much work done in the community hall; conversion of an existing general purpose building into a multipurpose building; renovation to the Bagot admin building; upgrading of the laundromat, including washing machines and clothes dryers; installation of concrete driveways and concrete pads to 54 houses; installation of letter boxes for houses; installation of speed bumps around the community; installation of a barrier around the park to limit vehicle access; removal of any potentially dangerous trees in the community - and we know that is not a cheap exercise; installation of concrete walk ways; pathways installed through the community; landscaping of 34 houses; repairs to the multipurpose building block walls from cracking damage; and installation of a three-bay toilet, including one disabled toilet, in the multipurpose building.
Stage 3 works valued at approximately $900 000 have been approved and include: draw up a town plan that shows current and possible future development, including a future precinct; remove rubbish, old cars, dumped items; landscaping along footpaths - something I know the community values; upgrading of the oval; landscaping for the last 20 houses; upgrade the current school care building and renovate to become a women’s resource centre; install a disabled toilet in the admin building; upgrade further street lights that are not working; and hook up mains plumbing of the multipurpose building.
Stage 4 works are expected to be completed by 2012.
You talk about the changes there. There are 56 houses and what you would be looking at in your plan, member for Fong Lim, would be displacing quite a number of the residents there. I am not sure how your plan would work. You talk about people getting loans, etcetera, for houses. You did not really mention the land tenure issue. You mentioned that dollars would be spent to upgrade the remaining houses. You did not really talk about an indicative budget for that - presumably through the member for Fong Lim method of accounting and development. What you are going to do is sell housing blocks on Bagot, make a private housing development - which presumably is not salt and peppered through the existing housing infrastructure, but probably quite a distinct area - and use the money for that, theoretically, to upgrade the houses in Bagot.
You have, obviously, been in some discussions with the Larrakia Development Corporation. It is an organisation that needs to be taken seriously. It has had some great developments in Palmerston. It is a great organisation under the stewardship of Greg Constantine and others. The Indigenous people who are on the board do a great job. If they are coming forward with a plan, it needs to be taken seriously.
I do have severe, grave reservations about the land tenure issues. I believe we need to be working with the Commonwealth government and looking to them. They have the resources I believe the Northern Territory government does not have to bring the substantial changes you are talking about.
Whilst we will not be supporting the motion at this stage, we will be taking the ideas and doing further work on them. If you or anyone has detailed proposals for Bagot in particular, we would welcome those - and we would welcome that discussion. However, I can tell you, even in discussions around 1 Mile Dam with Mr Timber, that becomes incredibly complicated because of the sense of ownership Mr Timber and his family have. You have the overlay of the Larrakia attitude, and the view of 1 Mile, and the people who are there who do not actually live there. They come from over the harbour, as I understand it. There is a complexity of politics here, then you have the overlay of the ADF lease on it. They are very complicated issues.
That should not stop us from trying to progress this and trying to make a real difference to people’s lives. People at 1 Mile have been offered accommodation elsewhere on a number of occasions and they have knocked that back; they want to stay at 1 Mile. That complicates things, then, with the Larrakia and the ADF and all the rest of it.
These are complex issues. I thank you for bringing this issue forward. I also say regarding the alcohol issues that you talked about, this is a government that has, obviously, taken steps with our Banned Drinker Register and our steps towards controlling alcohol and alcohol abuse. I believe that is having an effect all over Darwin, including Bagot. That is the sense that I am getting. Since the Banned Drinker Register and those regulations were brought in, it has made a difference. We will continue to take further steps. We will continue to work with the Bagot community. On the basis of what I have outlined to you, member for Fong Lim, we will not be supporting this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is good to see you back in that Chair. I thank the two speakers who spoke on this motion. I thank both of them very much for taking the motion so seriously. It would be quite easy to treat such a motion, on the face of it, with some scepticism as the minister outlined. There is certainly no jest in the motion. It was a serious motion and I appreciate the way they have both responded to it.
Of course, the member for Nelson is going to focus on Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile communities; they are both in his electorate. I tend to focus on places like Bagot and Minmarama for obvious reasons; they are in my electorate. I do not believe anyone in the community would expect anything less from their locally-elected members than to focus their comments on their communities. We see it so often in this place which, I believe, is a good thing.
The minister made some points which I should address before I allow the motion to be put. The minister asked questions about the prior consultation with people who lived in Bagot in relation to the announcements that Mal Brough made in the 2007 election. I can inform this place that I was heavily involved in that policy announcement, I suppose you would call it, in the lead-up to the 2007 election. Given the fact that there was a campaign coming up, I spent an extraordinary amount of time getting around that community. On two particular occasions, both Mal Brough and I spent more than half a day. As federal ministers, members in this place will be aware - particularly ministers on the other side - to allocate half a day to any community is difficult, particularly in a lead-up to an election campaign - probably all the more so as a federal minister. However, Mal Brough did get around and spoke to people in the community. We were given a very good reception - a fantastic reception.
When the election came round - and I do not want to be cynical here - one could easily think our opponents decided to make a political football of it and, somehow or other, twist our plans because there were very graphic scenes on the television news of Indigenous people crying loudly and saying, ‘Brough is stealing our land. They are trying to take this place off us’, which, of course, happens in election campaigns. From time to time, both sides have probably utilised people in ways that might not be deemed appropriate at other times. In this particular case, people were crying saying: ‘They are trying to steal our land’.
The minister referred, on a number of occasions, to the land tenure. The land tenure at Bagot is a special purpose lease. The people living there do not own the land; it is not their land. Similarly at 1 Mile Dam: irrespective of how long people live there, it is not their land. For someone to think, ‘I have lived here for 30 years, therefore, I own it’, is a wrong conception. It is a big misconception to think that just because you have lived on a piece of land for 30 years, you somehow or other have ownership of it. That is just not right. Clearly, it is not right. It was not right at the time of the election campaign.
In fact, what Mal Brough and I were proposing was we would give them their land – we would freehold title that land which, of course, the legislation of the intervention allowed the federal government to do.
The Territory government of the day did not really want to act on town camps; they had no interest. Part of the intervention was to allow the Commonwealth the ability to clean up those town camps, predominantly in Central Australia. When that announcement was made, I saw that there were opportunities to fix some things in Darwin, and Bagot at the time was a particular priority.
As the minister said, there are barriers to these things. People will always find reasons why you should not do something, and why these things are difficult. They will find legal issues and that type of thing. One of the defining features of the early CLP government was that feature of ‘where there is a will there is a way. Get in there and have a go and make things happen’. That was a real feature years ago ...
Dr Burns: The Darwin Hotel?
Mr TOLLNER: Well, people said they may have been pigheaded and arrogant but, in the days of Paul Everingham, he was a very get-up-and-go type of bloke, and there was not too much that stood in Paul Everingham’s way. Things have changed over the years; that style of government seems to have gone in many ways, sadly. We desperately need a can-do type government; a government that will not stop and will attack a problem and deal with it and have a complete belief in itself. That is lacking.
The other point the minister made was that so much of this is reliant on the federal government. Quite clearly, we do not have the resources to deal with these issues here. I have news for the minister: the federal government is in exactly the same situation as you mob. It is almost a similarity of Labor-style governments across the world; in that the bank account dries up pretty quickly. We have seen the reckless spending of Wayne Swan in Canberra over the last few years. It was as if, when the global financial crisis hit, Wayne Swan had a big sigh of relief. It seemed to be a perfect excuse to run around throwing money everywhere. Of course, now the country is broke and we are discussing new taxes to pay for the mad spending spree of the federal Treasurer.
Expecting that the federal government is going to step up here and bail us out is a pretty forlorn hope. The reality is we are going to have to do things ourselves. If the minister, for some reason or other, thinks the Banned Drinker Register has stopped people drinking in a prescribed area, he is a bit out of touch. I do not believe the minister is out of touch - in fact, I know he is a man who is very in touch with the grassroots and, deep down, he knows the Banned Drinker Register has not really impacted on problems in Bagot and in some of the other public housing estates, or other areas of Darwin. I know that for a fact because he introduced legislation, just today, where it gives him some more powers to deal with these people who just defy the law. In that regard, whilst he might want to get up and tout the Banned Drinker Register, the reality is, he knows it is not working.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this motion is a worthwhile motion. We cannot allow things to continue the way they are in Bagot. Things need to change. I was very disappointed that when the minister stood up, he could not explain why there was no police post in the Bagot Community. It was promised in 2009-10. Here we are in 2011, and there is no police post. He is right! The Country Liberals do not support some of the outlandish Police Beat policies of this Labor government, but the reality is, we did not make that commitment - the government did. The government said it was going to put a police post in there, not us. If the government says it is going to do something, Territorians have a right to expect that it will do it. The fact is, it has not done it, and not explained any reason at all why it has not done it.
I will be interested to see whether it gets it done this term. They have a bit under 10 months to go now. For a $4.5m or $2.7m police post in Bagot, there is time - we will go through the Wet Season, we can whack up a set of plans pretty quickly. There is plenty of space at Bagot to put a police post …
Dr Burns: So, you are supporting it now?
Mr TOLLNER: I just like to hold the government to account. You make these outlandish commitments. You might as well try to honour them, or at least stand up and give us some reason why you are not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say any more. There are other members who have business they want to get through. I very much thank the member for Nelson for his participation and also the minister for Housing for his participation. I urge all members in this place to support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Law and Order Issues in Alice Springs
Law and Order Issues in Alice Springs
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to get two bites of the cherry today, to highlight what a disastrous administration we have here in the Northern Territory. It does not happen often, and I am going to relish the opportunity all over again.
I move –
- That the Northern Territory government recognise its failure to address law and order issues in Alice Springs during the summer of 2010-11, and therefore:
(a) treat the summer of 2011-12 in Alice Springs as a known and emerging crime hot spot; and
Never do we in Alice Springs ever want a repeat of the summer of 2010-11. It was an absolute disgrace. Despite where it has left the government - and the government’s reputation is in tatters as a result of Alice Springs’ tsunami of crime - it has devastated a community. Despite what the government would like to allege, Alice Springs is my home; it is the place my children and my wife call home. My children were born there, we have a house there, and we have a stake in the place. I do not know what more I need to do to justify Alice Springs being my home. I do not have to justify it to those on the other side who like to smear and make allegations that for some reason, as an Australian first and foremost, I cannot call the community I have chosen my home and some people over that side have more of a stake and more of a claim to a piece of Australia. It is absolute rubbish. Alice Springs is my home; it is the birthplace of my children, and it is their home, as it is the home of my colleagues here on this side of the House, no matter how long they have lived in the Northern Territory. I hold the town in enormously high regard and I am extremely grateful for the opportunities Alice Springs has presented to me and, no doubt, will present my children and, hopefully and potentially, their children as well.
I am worried, though, if this government is allowed to stay in power for one minute longer, one second longer than it absolutely has to, we may as well close down the place, pack it up in an orderly manner, leave it all behind, and sit back and bask in the memories of a great, iconic town.
That is why I got into this business of politics: to do everything possible to ensure Paul Henderson - Clare Martin it was in those days - and this bag of destructive politicians on the other side, totally obsessed with their own self-serving agenda, they have become a policy vacuum, they cannot debate the issues anymore, and they are now obsessed with this unhealthy appetite for the opposition. It was my goal and the reason I entered this parliament: to do everything I possibly could to see the back of this government because of what they have done to the place I call my home and, indeed, many of my friends and, as I have articulated, my family call our home.
It is an absolute shame the state the Northern Territory government, under Clare Martin and, now, Paul Henderson, have left Alice Springs …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you to refer to members by their title or their electorate, not personal names, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. … where the current Chief Minister Henderson and the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, have left Alice Springs; what they have done to Alice Springs over the last 10 years – or, in fact, what they have not done for Alice Springs over the last 10 years. It was my goal to ensure their destructive and disrespectful hands were nowhere near the future of such a wonderful, iconic place like Alice Springs, because we have seen what they have done over the past 10 years.
Contrary to the allegations in this place, I am not going anywhere. If I am lucky enough to be re-elected at the next election, I am staying right here. I am going to stay right here and get up your nose as much as possible and for as long as it takes. We have already worked our way into the vernacular; you are pretty easy to wind up. We have a Chief Minister who walks in here, and in his response to the alcohol statement this morning, his 20-minute reply, I actually featured in it for about 15 minutes - it was fantastic. I am very flattered that I, Matt Conlan, the member for Greatorex, have worked my way into the vernacular of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Thank you very much. It is some type of honour that the member for Greatorex featured for about 15 minutes of the Chief Minister’s 20-minute reply. In fact, if you have a look at all the replies or speeches that take place from the government, the CLP features front and centre. We have successfully worked our way into your language. You have taken your eye off the ball, your message is not getting out, and all you are concerned about is the Country Liberals and what we are up to.
I challenge whoever is going to reply to this to not mention the Country Liberals, the member for Greatorex, the member for Braitling, the member for Araluen, or any member on this side of the House. Do not mention the words ‘Country Liberals’ or ‘opposition’. How about you outline your plans for the Northern Territory and, indeed, your plans for Alice Springs? Now, that would be a novel approach.
As they say, the true mark of an artist is if you can draw a circle freehand. Any old monkey can draw one with a protractor or with a compass, but can you do it freehand? That is the challenge I put to you. Can you get up and outline your positions, your policy, what you are going to do about the future of Alice Springs, what you are going to do with regard to this motion? Can you speak to this motion, those two points (a) and (b) without mentioning the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan, anyone here, the Country Liberals, the opposition, or Terry Mills - or whatever? Can you do it?
I would like to see it because we have entrenched ourselves into your language, and have done for so long. As I say, we are looking at about eight months now since the Alice Springs sittings, when you mentioned us 301 times. We are very flattered, but it is pretty pathetic that all you are focused on and obsessed with is the opposition. People expect more from you. They want to know what you are going to do.
We have 35 days of sittings, we could spend two weeks talking about issues relating to Alice Springs - the whole fortnight, the whole six days of parliament we could spend talking about Alice Springs. Then we could come back the next sittings and spend the next two weeks talking about Tennant Creek and issues relating to Tennant. Then we could move on to Katherine, then on to Darwin, and then on to Gove - we can do it right across the Northern Territory.
Instead, at 10.25 am today, what do we see? We see the government moving on to puff pieces. I know you are getting sick of that word, member for Johnston, but it is so true ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I say to the member for Greatorex, Indigenous policy is not a puff piece; it is very important policy.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr CONLAN: There certainly is no point of order. Puff pieces galore, the government brings into this place.
The member for Braitling, our Indigenous affairs shadow minister, will have plenty to say on that statement and articulate and highlight just how much of a puff piece that particular ministerial statement was.
As I said, at 10.25 am, we have basically adjourned the business for the day. There is so much on the Notice Paper. Yesterday, I was accused of gagging debate, but all I was trying to do was move to something of substance that means something to Territorians.
As I said, I am not going anywhere. I am going to stay right here and I am going to do my best to get up your nose; and it seems to work. It does not take much to get up your nose. I tell you who bites like there is no tomorrow. The Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson. He probably has the weakest jaw, the biggest glass jaw, or whatever it is. He does not like it, and you can see his eyes rolling into the back of his head and his face going red - the whole bit. But you are all a bit the same; you are all tarred with the same brush. I am more than happy to get up your nose for as long as it takes, as long as we are highlighting issues facing the community I live in, my home, the home of my children and, potentially, my grandchildren - and however many generations of Conlans there are going to be in Central Australia. I hope there is going to be a whole stack. I will stay here and ensure I highlight the issues facing that community I so love. I am an Australian first and foremost, and this is an Australian community.
Let us have a look at some of the issues facing Central Australia. This motion relates to the summer of crime in 2011-12 - as I said, two bites of the cherry today. I will highlight some of these newspaper articles, the dates relating to these headlines in the newspaper over 2010-11, which again just reinforces the point of how disastrous 2010-11 was for the Alice Springs community.
On 7 January this year, ‘Bill ‘em and Sue ‘em’. A well-known businessman was getting sick and tired of people throwing rocks through his business. Friday 15 October - this was just when things started to happen, and this is about where we are now. People are getting very anxious as to what is going to happen. It is getting warm again in Alice Springs; is this going to start all over again? October is traditionally when things start to warm up and it all starts to happen. 15 October: ‘Thieves Keep Cops Busy’ - five houses were broken into, five cars were stolen.
This one is from 11 January 2011: ‘Alice Night Patrol Fiasco’ - only one vehicle on the road; staff numbers dangerously low. Despite all this, I was told by the police commander in Alice Springs that I should just wake up, I should just shut up and just let police get on with the job because it was all under control, and I was just insulting police on the streets. I cannot remember the police commander’s name, and I did not actually take it as an insult although, I guess, it was levelled as a bit of an insult towards me. But that was the allegation levelled at me.
Here we are back to October, another one in October; I do not have them quite in order. In December things started to really peak. ‘Run Over Like a Dog’ – a great grandfather had been run over by some drunk on the road. ‘Terror on Stott Terrace’: this was on 15 February - a group of tourists was terrorised in an unprovoked attack by at least five people. ‘Forced to Bed Down at Work’ is something, I guess, that relates right back to your grog laws. ‘Vandals Trash the Olive Pink Botanic Garden four times in the last week, causing $20 000 worth of damage’. My goodness me! Also, the Memo Club got a mention but, of course, the Memo was under siege over the course of the tsunami of crime in summer. ‘Death in the Front Yard’ was 10 December. On 31 December - I know you do not like to hear it. I do not particularly like reading them out, but I need to reinforce the point. This one on 31 December was: ‘Wanted’ - police were looking for three gang members responsible for a vicious Christmas Eve attack in the suburbs. Four men were attacked as they sat on their front verandah at a house in Mallam Crescent in Greatorex ...
Mr Tollner: How dare they sit in their own front yard.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. Who would have thought that you could sit in your own front yard? Goodness me! That is what is happening. That is about where we are up to. You cannot even sit in your own front yard.
‘West Side Story in Alice Springs: Two groups of Alice Springs teenagers are competing to see who can steal the most cars’. And it goes on and on. Of course, all that equates to the worst government in history, but we have made that point perfectly clear, abundantly clear, over and over again.
- Crime rates in the Northern Territory are twice as high as the Australian average and, in most cases, they are significantly higher. Alice Springs has felt the brunt of Labor’s failed law and order policies …
I have read this before, but the point needs to be made again:
- Since 2004–05 robbery has increased by 450%, assaults by 87%, sexual assault by 97%, house break-ins by 64%, commercial break-ins are up by 185%, motor vehicle theft by 97%, and property damage up by 71%.
What do we have? We just have broken promise, after broken promise by this government and, indeed, the current Chief Minister. I thought the previous Chief Minister was pretty bad at breaking promises, but this bloke absolutely takes the cake. However, let us have a look at some of the previous Chief Minister’s promises. I move to this, another chance to highlight this document, Moving Alice Ahead, which has vanished from the government’s website. This is about Alice Springs, a great place to live and work:
- We are going to improve capacity at the Alice Springs airport to attract and retain more international air carriers …
Well, what has happened to that? That fell off the radar pretty quickly, didn’t it?
- … developing opportunities of economic growth and development along Central Australia’s Red Centre Way ….
I like this one:
- How it will happen. This is completing and sealing the Mereenie Loop Road to make the area accessible to all motorists.
Mrs Lambley: Certainly.
Mr CONLAN: That was an absolute beauty - another broken promise by the government:
- … developing Alice Springs as a preferred centre for sourcing and supplying goods and services to industries …
- … developing strategies and partnerships to ensure the continued development of the Tanami Road …
- … developing strategies to the reduce the incidence of alcohol-related hard in Alice Springs.
We know that is a broken promise because it is not working. Despite all the rhetoric and all the bills and ministerial statements you bring into the House, we know it is not working. We know alcohol-related crime is still through the roof. In fact, because of your failures, it is costing the Territory taxpayers $642m a year - and that is on the increase; it has gone up by $50m or $60m since the last couple of years. Because of your failures in dealing with alcohol-related harm across the Northern Territory, taxpayers are forced to fork out $642m each year. So, that is a broken promise.
- … developing and supporting strategies and projects that position Alice Springs as a centre for smart and sustainable desert living.
Well, the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Central Australia has not really taken off. I would not say it is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. You are renowned for ripping funding out of that project.
- … development and implementation of support strategies that will lead to a skilled local workforce.
We could probably suggest that it is a broken promise because people are leaving town in droves. It is almost impossible to retain and recruit skilled workers in Central Australia. Just ask anyone who runs a restaurant or apprenticeships - you name it. It is very difficult, essentially because of your failed land release and housing initiatives coupled with law and order. There was one here at the end:
- … ensure land is available to meet the future needs for the residential, commercial and industrial development in Alice Springs.
Anyone who lives in Alice Springs knows that is an absolute crock:
- … ensure land is available to meet the future needs for the residential, commercial and industrial development in Alice Springs.
Another broken promise by the Henderson Labor government.
If you thought the Chief Minister actually had a grip on what is happening in Central Australia, let us go back to 9 September 2010, and I quote from a media release I issued after the Chief Minister went on ABC radio regarding the alcohol reforms and tourism, and the like. It was about why you were not implementing the same tough alcohol regime in Darwin as you were in Central Australia. The Chief Minister said - and this is an absolute beauty:
- I think Darwin is a bit different in as much as we are a capital city, and a capital city that caters for thousands of tourists here, not hundreds of tourists …
Like Alice Springs? Darwin gets thousands of tourists a year, where poor old Alice is stuck with hundreds of tourists? It is the No 1 industry! I was gobsmacked when I heard him say that, and I thought: ‘Is this guy in touch with anything, does he have anyone on the ground there?’ What has happened to your lieutenants working out of the Office of the Chief Minister? Are they not feeding you any information? Are you not coming down enough? Are you still doing the fly-in/fly-out stuff?
Fact 1: 386 000 tourists visited Alice Springs in 2009. Fact 2: tourism is worth about $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year. Fact 3: in 2009, visitors in Alice Springs spent $1225 per person, per visit compared with just $1149 in Darwin. I say ‘just’ to highlight the fact that people are spending more in Alice Springs than they do in Darwin. Tourism is a very important industry to Central Australia; it is the No 1 industry with $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year, yet, here we have a Chief Minister who does not seem to understand that. He does not get it. He is peddling mistruths as usual, on the radio, in the public domain.
What we, essentially, have is a stack of failed policies and a pile of broken promises. Every time we saw another headline like that in the newspaper I just highlighted it as another broken promise. No one can believe you when you come down anymore, because we had the big protest - the member for Johnston was there, he was part of that - when those people protested outside the convention centre in 2007. The amount of effort made by the Northern Territory government to reassure the people of Central Australia that it is determined to get a grip on law and order has gone on far too long. That is the type of thing we used to hear: ‘It has gone on far too long; enough is enough and it will not be tolerated. I am sick of hearing it, and I am not going to put up with it anymore. I promise we are going to do something about this’. Yet, here we are five years on, and things are worse than ever; in fact, we have had the worst summer of crime in decades.
Anyone who has been in Central Australia for any amount of time will tell you that what we experienced last summer, 2010-11, was one of the worst on record. We have these failed and broken promises and policies, and all Chief Minister Henderson can do is feed his unhealthy appetite for the opposition - turn his attention to the opposition and highlight our misgivings, our failures, and 27 years of the CLP. Well, the CLP was dealt with, we paid for our mistakes; we were booted out of office. If that was not enough in 2001, we were dealt a severe blow in 2005. We paid for our mistakes - big time.
Here we are six years later, and we have learnt from those mistakes, and we are ready to do it again. We are ready to get back in the saddle and take on the Territory, and deliver for the Northern Territory and for those Territorians, particularly the most vulnerable of Territorians - those who need us most; those who desperately turn to the Northern Territory government, whoever the government is - in this case, this government - desperately begging for some help and assistance. But, it is just not there. You do not see it in the regions. You do not see it in Alice Springs, in Tennant Creek, or in Katherine. We have a government that has switched off governing for Centralians and, instead, is just obsessed with the Country Liberals.
The Country Liberals have committed to five key areas which we firmly believe will go a long way to prevent a repeat of last summer, hopefully, for a long time. First of all, it is our long-standing commitment to put an extra 20 police on the beat in Alice Springs. You know it, you have heard it, and we have said it a dozen times. It is a firm commitment that still stands by the Country Liberals - an extra 20 police on the beat; a dedicated group of able-bodied police to respond quickly to known and emerging hot spots.
This was a motion put forward by the Country Liberals - in fact, put forward by me in the Alice Springs sittings. The Chief Minister again feigned conciliation of: ‘I could almost support that if only this’. We moved an amendment and, again, he was caught out. He had no interest and no desire to support the motion, even when we tailor-made it to exactly the way he said he would support it. It was a motion for a dedicated group of able-bodied police to respond quickly to known and emerging hot spots, and restoring the telecommunications system back to Alice Springs. You have to have people on the ground who understand the local community. A situation happened a few times, but one I particularly remember was someone wanting police assistance in Hibiscus Street, and it was sent to Hibiscus Street in Nightcliff, instead of Hibiscus Street in Eastside.
Implementing our defeating drunks policy - we know the government has pretty much taken and adopted our policy they have put it forward as theirs. However, they have not gone as far as we would go. We would implement our defeating drunks policy and, of course, the punishment would fit the crime. The community has an expectation that the punishment will fit the crime and, at the moment, punishments are not meeting community expectations.
Our night time youth strategy bases an assistant commissioner in Alice Springs. We know if you have someone with clout who lives in a community, is part of and entrenched into that community, such as a very senior policeman, they are much better equipped to make the right decisions for that community. There used to be one in Alice Springs, and we will put one back again. I use the example of Andy McNeill, one of the great Mayors of Alice Springs. He really was one of the last of his kind. The reason he was so effective was because he was a very senior policeman in that community and he understood the intricacies, the nuances and the subtleties of the community from a policeman’s point of view, and then was able to act on much of that as mayor. There is no reason why we cannot go back to that type of thing, and we will base an Assistant Police Commissioner in Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we never want to see this type of situation again in Central Australia, but I do not have much faith this government is able to deliver on that. We have highlighted numerous broken promises. Every time we see another one of these headlines in Alice Springs, we are getting to that period of the year; it is October. You talk about the wonderful success you have had with the Banned Drinker Register and you say there has been a 19% reduction in the last three months. Well, it does really count. Again, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the community. We know that in winter - the mayor calls it the silent policeman - the cold winds and the cold chill in Central Australia keeps people off the streets but, once it starts to warm up, people feel more confident to walk and wander around and, of course, they get up to no good. I would not put too much weight on the fact that the last three months has seen a spike or a dip in alcohol-related harm of 19%. Let us see how it goes over the course of this summer and we can come back in 12 months time and then have a better idea of exactly how this Banned Drinker Register has rolled out.
Every time we see another headline like this, we are getting to that period, that time of the year when things are starting to warm up, people are anxious, desperate, and very concerned and worried we are going to see these types of headlines splashed across the front page of the Centralian Advocate all over again. Every time we see that, it is another example of the government’s failure, because the government have promised to fix it on numerous occasions.
How can we believe you? How can we believe what you say? You have let us down; you have let the people of Central Australia down time and time again. You have let the cost of living skyrocket. You have let alcohol abuse run out of control and it costs the taxpayer $642m each year. You have let down the great town of Alice Springs, as well as the great iconic towns of Katherine and Tennant Creek - you have let them down badly. You have let our roads deteriorate, our school results plummet, and law and order spiral out of control.
You do not have much to gloat about, and I will be very interested to see who is going to respond to this. Again, I challenge you; see if you cannot mention the CLP. See if you cannot mention the member for Greatorex. See if you can actually focus on the motion and convince us what you are going to do about it. I know you are obsessed with us and it is a hard challenge, but I put it to you, maybe the minister for Central Australia - or whoever it is - over to you.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to break that in my very first few words, member for Greatorex. I have mentioned it. It is very hard when it is your motion not to mention you, member for Greatorex - including the other Centralian colleagues; it is going to be very hard not to mention them. I do not want to get into the politics of this motion, it is too important to start throwing names and other things across the Chamber at each other. The important issue is working and moving forward and trying to find the solutions the people of Alice Springs are so desperately looking for.
The solutions are not all in what the government is going to do. As I said in my contribution in the alcohol policy debate, it requires leadership. Alice Springs is a resilient town and, in tough times, people do get together and work together as all communities do in Australia - it is the Australian way; it is the Territory way. At times like this it takes leadership. It does not take politics to get to a point where we can sit down together and work together in a cooperative way. I believe that has been the basis of this government’s approach to the issues in Alice Springs. There are many headlines we can grab and throw around, but these issues have been kicking around for many years and they will probably be there in 10 years time when we are no longer members of this Legislative Assembly.
For me, it is about trying to make a difference. I wear a great deal, being the only government minister in Alice Springs, but that is part of the job and I accept that. However, my aim is to try to make a difference. I do not have all the solutions; government does not have all the solutions, but what we do have is a genuine commitment to the Alice Springs community to work with them to try to find the solutions people are looking for. They are not easy solutions - there is no magic wand or silver bullet to these very complex social issues we have.
A former member for Stuart in 1991 talked about the very same issues we are talking about tonight. Brian Ede was the Opposition Leader at the time and he was based in Alice Springs. Brian was a good member for Stuart and a very good representative in Alice Springs. In a debate on Tuesday, 5 February 1991 - that is 20 years ago and I do not want to point the finger - back then break-ins were occurring in Alice Springs about every three-and-a-half hours. Every three-and-a-half hours in Alice Springs someone’s home was broken into during that summer. These are difficult issues that have been around for a long time and, I have no doubt, they will still be there in the next 10 years. However, it is incumbent on all of us to try to work together with the community to find solutions.
Government has a number of strategies in place which we believe are heading in the right direction regarding law and order and trying to build the social fabric of the Alice Springs community in Central Australia. It is not politics for us, we are never going to ever win a seat in Alice Springs - that is the reality that government faces, but it does not mean we give up hope, nor does it mean we shut the doors and forget about Alice Springs completely. I do not agree with those sentiments, and I have to say that on the public record. It is not the politics for us; all the seats are very strong conservative seats and it is going to take a great deal to get people to vote for Labor and for there to be Labor seats. Being honest, I do not think that will happen for a very long time. So, it is not about politics, it is about doing the right thing by the people of Alice Springs.
I say to people in Alice Springs who read the Parliamentary Record of this debate, or are listening to it, that government is genuine in its commitment to Alice Springs. It is genuine in its efforts to try to make a difference, and listen to the people of Alice Springs and find the solutions.
Regarding law and order, I gave an example in 1991 when there were very similar issues then, 20 years ago, to what we have today. Our response at the moment is a strong, comprehensive law and order strategy, working with police and resourcing police. Government is doing its best to do that. I meet with police on a regular basis and talk with many of the local police I know on the streets, or in formal meetings or briefings, to find out what the issues are and what type of operations they are undertaking. I mentioned Operation Thresher today or yesterday in the alcohol policy debate, which is an operation the police ran as a planning phase for the upcoming summer for what will be a major 60-day operation over the summer holidays. In the October phase of Operation Thresher we saw some results: 21 people were arrested, 200 taken into protective custody, and 18 banning notices were issued. Michael Murphy, the Superintendant, talked about the operation in the media.
Last summer was horrific - I have seen the statistics of those break-ins - probably not as bad as winding the clock back less than 20 years ago to 1991, but certainly horrific figures over last summer. There was much debate and concern in the Alice Springs community. But, it comes back to leadership. It was an issue which tested many people. I am sure Centralian colleagues on the other side were hearing many concerns from their constituents, and I understand that. However, it is how you respond to a tough time like Alice Springs was going through; they are the qualities of leadership. In my role, I organised numerous meetings with different stakeholder groups in Alice Springs, from the business community through to non-government organisations, and the Aboriginal sector which, at that point in time, was being left out of the debate. I thought it was really important to engage them, particularly traditional owners and many representatives of Aboriginal organisations regarding youth. They are a very important sector in the Alice Springs community, and it was important to bring them in to the debate regarding what the issues and solutions were. There was a great deal of work done, and many meetings held.
I acknowledge the member for Braitling, who was very active and attended many of the meetings and organised some of his own. It is important to get the community together to discuss it, to get their grievances off their chests, and let people know what they were going through, so, many meetings took place. The response from government - and I suppose the opposition will have their say about it – was to establish a Community Action Plan Committee to drive the community action plan forward. We engaged consultants to look at particular issues people had raised through those meetings earlier in the year, and to put together a report for government to tell us what people were saying, and to coordinate a response that government could look at and react to with a whole-of-government approach.
There was a great deal of work done by the Alice Springs community. Many people had their say and government’s response was to bring forward the community action plan after the report from the consultants and the many forums held. The community action plan saw the establishment of the Community Action Plan Committee, and I thank those people who put their hands up. Obviously, we looked for people we thought would be valuable and good contributors to that committee to drive the community action plan forward. I acknowledge those committee members: Catherine Liddle and Damien Ryan, the Mayor of Alice Springs, who are co-chairs; Brad Bellette; Neil Ross; Liz Martin; Harold Furber; Jenny Nixon; Eva Lawler, from the Territory government; and Mark Coffey, from the Australian government.
As I said during debate the other day, it is important to get all levels of government involved with the mayor and with Mark Coffey from the Australian government, because they are important stakeholders in those issues. I was pleased to be able to get those people together. I went to their first meeting and addressed the committee; they are very representative of the community of Alice Springs, and we need to get behind them and the work they are going to do.
There are some key planks of the community action plan which I inform members of: education and early childhood, youth services, business and economic development, and crime and alcohol. These key planks were brought together from all the meetings we had during the year with the groups, and they were the key issues people felt needed to be addressed to tackle the serious problems we had during summer. Again, those key planks for the community action plan are: education and early childhood, youth services, business and economic development, and crime and alcohol. Many of those key planks do not have immediate solutions, they are issues which have been around for a long time and they require medium- to long-term strategies to resolve. That is what it is about.
Sometimes, in difficult situations we make quick decisions, short-term fixes, and sometimes they work but, in the long run many of these complex social issues require medium- to long-term solutions. That was identified through those various meetings and the consultant’s report, and the work that will now be driven by the Community Action Plan Committee. It is a comprehensive plan to address the complex issues of Alice Springs and, as I said, it is not a simple bandaid solution. There are short- and long-term actions that will address what the Alice Springs community wants and needs to feel safe, and for our kids to have a future in our town.
Another strategy this government initiated some time ago is the Youth Action Plan, and a key plank of that is the Youth Hub, which is up and running at ANZAC Hill to support coordinated and integrated approaches to youth services and programs in Alice Springs. Again, youth services were identified by the community as a key plank to be addressed. I acknowledge some of the opposition members in Alice Springs have visited the Youth Hub and seen for themselves what it will be doing.
We have invested a great deal, as a government, in the Youth Hub, and it deserves it; and Alice Springs deserves that attention. It is a comprehensive youth plan, probably much more than other places in the Territory have at the moment. I am sure there are places in Darwin, Katherine, and Tennant Creek that would like a similar plan to address the youth issues that the Youth Action Plan is addressing. The Hub provides a youth-friendly centralised site for youth services and organisations; it is a venue or base for youth events and activities, and a space for case conferencing, coordination, planning alternative education programs, and works and skills programs.
The Alice Springs Family Support Centre is based at the Youth Hub as well as the Youth at Risk team, the Youth Services Coordinator, and the Youth Street Outreach team also operate from the Youth Hub. The Youth Street Outreach team is out on the streets seven nights a week engaging with young people and ensuring that at risk are taken to a safe place and get the support they need.
Also relocated to the Youth Hub is the InCite Youth Arts organisation, another non-government service provider, and there have been many very good events for young people to participate in, particularly during the Alice Springs Desert Festival. Youth were involved in the organisation of these events, and the Hub attracted around 1000 visitors and participants during two weeks of activities. Alternative education programs are also operating from the Youth Hub and, from July this year, the Edmund Rice program has operated there, focusing on young people disengaged from school.
I have said many times it is about engaging people, particularly people from the bush who have the right to move in if they want to make another life in Alice Springs away from their home community. It is about how we engage those families, those people from remote parts of Central Australia, and make them feel a part of the community, which is important.
The Youth Hub is a place where our youth providers can come together to share information and coordinate approaches in tackling the challenges they have in their particular organisations. Staff at the Youth Hub also coordinates a comprehensive youth activities calendar for the school holidays. Recently, I also announced an extra $60 000 will be provided to support a wider range of youth recreational activities this summer. As we know, keeping kids busy over the holiday period is really important in helping reduce crime and youth antisocial behaviour. The youth activities the government is supporting with the extra $60 000 were put forward by community and youth services themselves, and they are aimed at giving young people more activities and options over the holidays. We know many families in Alice Springs cannot afford to go away on a holiday, and this will help those families, the parents, keep the kids occupied in Alice Springs.
The need to ensure we support our youth and services is a message we heard loud and clear during the development of the community action plan, as I previously said. The additional funding complements other strategies in place to prepare for any spike in youth-related crime over summer. This funding will go to nine activities at the aquatic and leisure centre this government provided the funding for - in excess of $8m. Holiday programs at Centralian Middle School and extra transport for young people will be a very successful program, I have no doubt, and hope the convention centre can continue to host an ice rink but, again, this is a commercial decision.
NT police, government and non-government agencies should be applauded for the hard work and efforts they are putting in place to prepare for summer, and this government is serious about continuing to ensure Alice Springs is a safe community, particularly over this summer.
As well as the Banned Drinker Register police have said will make a big difference, we have a general purpose police dog in Alice Springs and better CCTV monitoring. I acknowledge the member for Greatorex – sorry, I mentioned your name - and the CLP’s five key areas and their commitment; it is good to see some policy put forward by them. With regard to the CCTV monitoring cameras, I am not sure if any of the members in Alice Springs have been to the Peter McAulay Centre to look at the operation? Yes, the member for Araluen has, that is good. I have been there also, and I have seen how the call centre and the CCTV cameras are working. I receive regular updates on particular incidents in Alice Springs now being picked up by police very quickly because of the CCTV cameras. I acknowledge what the CLP is saying about Alice Springs. However, to date, the current system at the Peter McAulay Centre is producing results; it is jumping on those wanting to commit crimes very quickly, which means it allows police in Alice Springs to be on the streets, not sitting behind a camera.
In Alice Springs in recent times we have seen more safe houses for youth established and, through the triage services provided at the Youth Hub, these youth safe houses are being well used at the moment. Unfortunately, we have also seen a new juvenile detention facility and lighting of hot spots in the CBD.
Programs operating from the Youth Hub are targeting kids and families who need support, and are helping to get kids at risk off the street. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson; I know he has been to the Youth Hub as well. I reiterate these are long-term social problems we have to deal with, and there is no simple solution. The Youth Hub and the Youth Action Plan is about addressing the medium- to long-term issues and helping families by getting kids off the streets and providing the support they need as a family to build better homes.
Accommodation is a significant issue and, as we said, this year around 500 beds have come online, or will be online, by the end of the year in Alice Springs. An extra 500 beds in Alice Springs is a huge investment by the Commonwealth government, but also the Northern Territory government, in funding extra accommodation that is needed. We do not want to see families visiting from bush who need accommodation living rough in the creek or the hills, so we have seen the opening of the Accommodation Park in Alice Springs during the year. Members opposite were at the opening of that, including the members for Araluen and Braitling.
We have also had The Lodge opening, which particularly focuses on patients from bush needing accommodation for renal treatment in Alice Springs. Percy Court, also, is much-needed transitional accommodation, helping young families adjust to a life of looking after a home and the many responsibilities which come with that. I have been there and met with Mission Australia staff and some of the residents. It is a very important part of preparing families who are entering into a public housing dwelling. These are great additions to accommodation in Alice Springs which is very important in trying to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets.
Regarding the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, I spoke about that the other day during the alcohol policy debate. There are many new homes coming on board in Alice Springs through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and also the social package element of the ASTP. Through that program alone, $150m has been injected into Alice Springs. That is an unprecedented amount of resourcing and funding to deal with issues of homelessness, accommodation, and supporting families in Alice Springs. I acknowledge the great contribution of minister Jenny Macklin, who has been a great advocate and supporter of the ASTP. She has been to the town camps many times, and talked to the residents as well as the services providers such as Congress and Mission Australia. She has seen the success the ASTP is having in Alice Springs.
Times are tough in Alice Springs, and I acknowledge the resilience, particularly of the business community. I will be heading back home to Alice Springs on Friday and will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, as well as tourism industry representatives. We will be working, sitting down, and talking. It is important to sit down with people and listen to their concerns. So, I will be working with the community towards solutions when I get home to Alice Springs on Friday.
Regarding the economy in Alice Springs, I have done some media on that issue this week. The member for Braitling raised it, and he has quoted some media on that. It is a serious issue in Alice Springs, as it is across Australia.
I recently attended the October Business Month breakfast. I do not remember seeing any of the opposition members there, but there were over 200 business people in Alice Springs at the convention centre for the breakfast, which speaks volumes for the business community in Alice Springs. While they are doing it tough, they want to learn and seek ideas about how they can diversify and get support for the challenges they are facing. It was a really good event, organised by the Minister for Business and Employment. I acknowledge the great work the Department of Business and Employment is doing with October Business Month. It is very timely that we have those types of events, services, and assistance available.
This government’s support for the business community has made some significant investments in Alice Springs such as the Building Education Revolution and upgrades to schools. I have been to many of those openings - the other week at Braitling Primary School, this week I will be at the Sadadeen Primary School, Yirara College is coming up, and I have been to Gillen Primary School. The school upgrades have provided a really big stimulus for the local building and construction industry in Alice Springs, providing jobs and some relief and work for people in tough times. I acknowledge the real success of the Building Education Revolution and those upgrades to our schools in Alice Springs, as well as those in my electorate, and in Macdonnell. Lajamanu was a fantastic event; they have a great facility there now. Yuendumu has a great facility, and also Kalkarindji. They are the ones in my electorate. It is really important we have good school facilities to keep kids at school, and also supporting businesses.
The Alice Springs Youth Hub was a $15m commitment by this government, and a very big part of that is the residential facility we announced during the budget as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. A great deal of work has gone into the Youth Hub with upgrades to the building to provide those really important programs for young people and their families.
The town centre revitalisation is a commitment by this government. We have given the money to the town council, and I hope that work gets under way very soon, because I have my electorate office in the mall. I talk with many traders there, and they are certainly doing it tough. I get around, I talk to businesses in the mall, and they are doing it tough. I am hoping the revitalisation project for the mall will bring it to life.
Regarding land release headworks in Kilgariff, my colleague, the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Department of Construction and Infrastructure - a very good announcement today, minister, with the announcement of tenders going out for the interchange and the roadworks. A great deal of money has been put into the headworks, which are well and truly under way. It is a really important project for the future of Alice Springs and future land release.
The Alice Springs Hospital works are well under way. I drive past there all the time and it is very busy there at the moment. So, to the Minister for Health and his team, to the minister for planning, infrastructure, and construction, this is a great project for Alice Springs and for local builders and contractors.
The Larapinta Seniors Village is well under way, as well. I drive past there when I can to have a look at it coming together. It is going to be a fantastic asset for the community of Alice Springs.
The $100m in new and upgraded housing has been a considerable boost to the construction industry, as is the $24.7m upgrade and expansion to the hospital emergency department.
The Territory government has also made numerous grants and programs available to local businesses. In 2010-11, $79 000 in grants was provided to 20 business in Alice Springs to develop strategic plans to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels, and market penetration. In 2010-11, 21 business upskill workshops were held in Alice Springs, with 134 attendees. Twelve events have been held in Alice Springs as part of the October Business Month. As I said, I went to the breakfast where there were 200-plus people. So far, there were 468 attendees at those events for October Business Month in Alice Springs.
It is important to show confidence as well. Recently, David Forrest, Director of First National Real Estate Commercial Framptons has been involved in a major industrial sale that will see the arrival of Bunnings in Alice Springs. I am sure my colleagues from Darwin know about Bunnings, and it is going to be great to have them in Alice Springs. David Forrest from First National Real Estate Commercial Framptons said:
- This sale shows the confidence that major companies such as Bunnings have in Alice and the wider region and should be a lift for local industry. Contractors are already preparing quotes for demolition works and, after construction, the facility will employ around forty people.
Another major retailer, Best & Less, has also announced it is opening a store in Alice Springs, and local businesses are showing their confidence in our town as well. The local Subway owners, Lee and Graeme Willis have invested $30 000 in upgrading their shop, and say it is paying off in sales already. A new flooring shop has just opened its doors. Chris Tangey from Alice Springs Film and Television said this year has been his busiest year. So, good news as well in Alice Springs; it is important to continue to talk about some of the good things that are happening.
In closing, I thank the member for Greatorex - I am sorry I mentioned you again - for the motion. The government is serious about tackling these issues in Alice Springs. I have been able to say a great deal about what government is doing with the Youth Action Plan, the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, police being prepared for this coming summer, and the many meetings I have been involved with. As I said, the member for Braitling has been involved with many meetings which have been driven by Mayor, Damien Ryan, to find community solutions, and with the formation of the Alice Springs Community Action Plan Committee. Much has been done. We know we have our issues down there …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON: I am very optimistic about it. Madam Speaker, government will always support Alice Springs.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, that the Northern Territory government recognise its failures to address law and order issues in Alice Springs during last summer and, therefore, treat this summer in Alice Springs as a known and emerging hot spot. Also, to put in place a comprehensive law and order strategy to combat such known and emerging crime hot spots.
I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the Minister for Central Australia. He says times are tough in Alice Springs; indeed they are - all thanks to your government. I found it quite brave of you to mention the experience of Brian Ede from 1991, 20 years ago, talking about the incidence of crime in Alice Springs. You have been in power for half the time since he made that speech and you are, basically, admitting that things have not improved in Alice Springs. To admit that publicly is a very sad indictment on your government, Minister for Central Australia.
You said it is not all about the politics, it is about leadership, it is not about political parties. I am sorry, Minister for Central Australia, but it is about politics. You are the Labor Party that is in government which is providing leadership - and is dismally failing the people of Alice Springs.
You pleaded that you were trying to make a difference; that you have made a genuine and real commitment to addressing the law and order issues in Alice Springs ‘to try and find the solutions people are looking for’. I listened to your speech with great interest, Minister for Central Australia, and you talked about many things, but I did not hear any clear law and order strategy for Alice Springs. What exactly is your law and order policy for Alice Springs, Minister for Central Australia? I fear that you do not have one. I know that you do not have one. You talked about housing, Percy Court, all the other new and very impressive accommodation facilities that have been placed in Alice Springs in recent times. You even talked about the revitalisation of the mall.
This project has been in the consultation phase for six years, minister. For six long years you have been consulting about how to beautify, upgrade and perform an amazing new facelift on the CBD of Alice Springs, and yet we are waiting patiently - impatiently, most of us, to be honest, minister - for this revitalisation project to commence. It still has not commenced, and I doubt we will see it commence before the next election in August next year. I really do not know why you even mentioned it; it is such a sad indictment of this government.
What is the law and order strategy for Alice Springs? You mentioned the Banned Drinker Register. For all the pomp and ceremony that you carry on about how good and how successful it is, tell me, give me some proof that those people on the Banned Drinker Register are, in fact, not drinking. There is no proof at all that this government has provided to this parliament to say the people on the Banned Drinker Register are not drinking. We know for a fact they are continuing to drink, because they are getting alcohol from their relatives and friends who are simply walking in and buying it for them.
You talked about police dogs. During the Araluen by-election - and this probably sounds incredibly arrogant - I put this issue on the table, I lobbied hard and, thanks to me, you were put in a corner where you felt almost obliged to put some general purpose police dogs on the beat in Alice Springs. So, do not take any credit for that at all, apart from the fact that you succumbed to extraordinary pressure from me.
CCTV monitoring - well, it has all been centralised, has it not? We have had every conceivable service that can be centralised in Darwin - it has, indeed, been centralised. Yes, you have some incredibly wonderful screens to monitor the CCTV cameras throughout the CBD of Alice Springs, and perhaps they are being monitored slightly more effectively than they were in Alice Springs, but the fact they are placed 1500 km away from Alice Springs really makes me wonder whether that is, in fact, so.
Regarding police communications moved from Alice Springs to Darwin, we are still getting a constant flow of complaints from our constituents in Alice Springs saying they are ringing up and not getting an answer, getting hung up on, or getting a very confused and bewildered response from the people answering these calls. I will never be convinced it is in the best interests of the people of Alice Springs, or in the best interests of addressing law and order issues in Alice Springs, that police communications be based in Darwin for Alice Springs.
Police media liaison was centralised from Alice Springs to Darwin - where it all happens, where it all should be centralised. A good Labor government loves to centralise, take it away from the regions, and put it into one centralised position. Yes, the decision to centralise police media liaison was made earlier this year. We got a lovely e-mail recently, on 14 October, from the lovely woman - I am sure she is gorgeous, I will not mention her name - saying: ‘Hi media and others, just to let you know I am on leave for the next four weeks, so all things media pertaining to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, please contact the Darwin Media Unit’. So, for four weeks in Alice Springs, presumably, we do not get any media stories. Presumably, there was no provision made for some sort of backup or relief arrangement. It is just, no, in Alice Springs you do not get any police media for a whole month - another very sad indictment on the commitment of this government to address law and order issues in Alice Springs. However, the government is genuine in its efforts to address law and order - that is what we heard from the Minister for Central Australia. He told us they have a strong, comprehensive law and order strategy. What is it? Please, put us out of our misery and tell us what it is.
For 12 months in parliament, and I have heard about the Youth Hub, the Youth Action Plan, time and time again. The Youth Hub is an old school that was emptied by this government. The kids were thrown out, the teachers were dispersed, the parents were left disillusioned and sad, and the government was left with a big, empty building. The government scratched its head and said: ‘What are we going to do with it? We had better do something with it very quickly, otherwise we will have egg all over our faces. Let us create a Youth Hub’. The Youth Hub was created, and then they had to go about enticing services to come and join them at this fantastic new Youth Hub, which will be an amazing Mecca for youth services. ‘Oh God, we had better organise some kids to come’. When we were there, there was not a child or youth to be seen; they were all hiding under the desks, or hidden under the floorboards. Who knows? But we saw this fabulous building, the Youth Hub. It is indeed, minister, a fabulous building, a testimony to your great commitment to youth services - throw out the school and create something that probably is not really required. Nevertheless, keep banging on about it, minister, because you know what? There is a thing called classical conditioning, and if you keep banging away long enough, people will believe it is such a wonderful thing. Yes, as long as you believe it is a wonderful thing, then that is all that really counts with this government.
With regard to a law and order strategy, I refer to an article in The West Australian newspaper, on 17 October of this year. In this article they describe what I would call a real law and order strategy. In the middle of Perth they have a very bad problem with law and order - juveniles commit about half the property crimes - and the police have been endeavouring to try to stop them from committing these crimes and roaming the streets during the day and night. The Western Australian Police Force intend to implement a law and order strategy starting from December of this year. It will apply 24 hours a day and, throughout the metropolitan area, it will be identifying children and youth who are unaccompanied and have no business whatsoever on the streets of the CBD of Perth and the metropolitan area. They will be taking them to a place where they can ascertain where they are from, where they should be, and connect them back with family. That is what I call a law and order strategy.
This is an example of where this government should be heading; an example of a proactive, very creative, courageous idea which really looks at how we can extend ourselves beyond the norm - and we are talking about a very normal, average, too average, too normal government here that cannot think outside the square. They are not willing to take too many risks, because you know what is important? It is all about extensive consultation that goes on year after year. Just keep consulting because, if you keep consulting, eventually they will all leave town because the shops are closing and the businesses are going. Things are crumbling around you, Minister for Central Australia. Things are not as rosy as you are telling us, and people will leave town if you persevere and hammer them down long enough.
Yes, there are law and order strategies that this government could be employing, considering and, perhaps, be putting them forward to have consultation processes about. But they are not. This Labor government is stuck, and that is the problem when it comes to law and order in Alice Springs. They have had 10 years to try to make an impact, to try to make a difference, and they are stuck. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again and it does not work, it is almost too embarrassing to try something different because it will mean you admit liability that you have failed, that you just do not have a clue what to do next.
This is the terrible situation we find this government in; they just do not know what to do next. They are in the biggest pickle of all time. It is like their failure in the child protection system; they have put themselves in a hole and cannot get out of it, and they are grasping at straws. They are consulting, and doing some more consulting, and telling us more about the Youth Hub and how wonderful it is. They are telling us about all these peripheral things that do not relate to a law and order strategy because they do not have one. They never have had one, they do not know how to implement one, and they would not know one if they fell over it - they do not have a law and order strategy.
Then, other members across the Chamber say: ‘You are talking the town down’. You know what? I do not want to talk the town down; I do not think I have ever talked the town down. I see things the way they are and, from my perspective, as someone who has been in the business community in Alice Springs for many years now, things are looking grim. Things are looking as grim as they ever have been since I have been in Alice Springs, which is almost 18 years. For the last 10 years, there has been a growing lack of confidence in the town. People are very fearful of what is around the corner, what is down their street, and of the future.
I have done extensive consultations with people living in the Gillen area, and the stories fed back to me by e-mails, telephone calls, written letters - from old people and from young people - are quite horrifying. People are living in fear, and it is because this government has not been able to provide a law and order strategy for Alice Springs. We have heard the comments again from the Minister for Central Australia that he is a lone soldier of the government in Central Australia, that there are no votes in it for him, that Central Australia will never be a Labor town. Well, for goodness sake! I have only been a politician for 12 months, but if you started doing the right thing and really listened to and consulted with the people who mattered, you would not be in this pickle you are in now.
Consultation, consultation! If you keep talking to the same people, you are going to get the same answers! I have been around long enough to know that if you keep speaking to all your Labor Party mates, or the people who are telling you what you want to hear, then you will keep hearing what you want to hear and the system and the cycle goes round and round - and that is what we have had for 10 years. People are fed up with this government, this lack of confidence and the misery the Henderson Labor government has created in Alice Springs. It will take a new government that does not have this reputation, that has not fallen into this pit of misery, degradation, negativity, and ineptitude, for Alice Springs to see the light of day. The next election cannot come around soon enough for the people of Alice Springs - they have had enough. They have had enough of the false stories we hearing about how fantastic the alcohol reforms are, and the spin and the lies we hear from various ministers across the Chamber.
I have had e-mails in the last week saying: ‘Please, invite the Labor politicians to Alice Springs and we will show them what it is like to live in Gillen. We will show them what it is like to put up with the misery of lawlessness and crime in Alice Springs’.
When we are talking about law and order, we are not on the same page as the government. We are talking about the need for a very concise and clear strategy forward. People want to know exactly what is going to happen. They do not want to hear about housing developments, Kilgariff, land releases, and other peripheral issues which are very important social issues. However, when we are talking about a law and order strategy, once again, we hear nothing that will give us confidence from the other side of the room.
Madam Speaker, I stand before parliament today feeling desperate, unhappy, and almost to the point of traumatised, thinking about what this summer offers in Alice Springs ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is now 9 pm. Pursuant to standing orders, it is adjournment time. You have 2 minutes and 48 seconds on the clock to go. Do you wish to have that moment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I will conclude, Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I am going to wrap up.
Madam Speaker, I endorse and support the motion put forward by the member for Greatorex about the need for the Northern Territory government to recognise its failures to address law and order issues in Alice Springs. Once again, I fear this government is incapable of truly recognising the damage it has done to Alice Springs by ignoring or being unable to address these problems in Alice Springs.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, today, now that the dust has settled around the allegations raised by the Treasurer and Attorney-General in this House during Question Time, I wish to place on the record some matters the House needs to be aware of.
Over recent days, we have seen what will be the tactic of the Northern Territory government in relation to the next Territory election and how it will position itself. Yesterday, we heard the Leader of Government Business engage in mischievous answers to a dorothy dixer alleging some form of skulduggery, which was not supportable on any level. Even assertions that normal practice was not being followed by the CLP in making adjustments to the administrative orders can be easily evidenced in the sense that I, as the leader of opposition business, have on two other occasions made amendments to the administrative arrangements, other than the one he was referring to yesterday.
Today, in the House, the Minister for Central Australia alleged that we were not responding in sufficient numbers to a ministerial debate; and that was also untrue. The Chief Minister talked about allegations that he had heard rumours and talk about the so-called ‘leaks’ he was receiving about the member for Greatorex’s preselection, which I also demonstrated to be untrue subject, of course, to the final ratification by the Country Liberals Central Council.
We then were presented, during Question Time, with the rather surprising dorothy dixer asked of the Attorney-General. In the past, the government, in its last tawdry little exercise to try to besmirch the good name of the Leader of the Opposition, referred a matter to the Electoral Commission – that was the federal Electoral Commission - as a complaint of a criminal nature which was given short shrift as a political stunt by the federal Electoral Commissioner at the time, and the matter was adequately disposed of as being nothing more than a cheap stunt.
One may have been convinced by the arguments put by the Attorney-General today, to a degree, but for a simple mistake she made - a tactical mistake; namely, the Leader of the Opposition, by entering into some form of negotiation with the member for Macdonnell about her membership of the CLP, had engaged in some form of bribery. Even a cursory read of the legislation could not lead you to that conclusion based on the so-called evidence the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory - she who alleges criminality at the drop of a hat in a most irresponsible fashion - could not make out, or even come close to making out, any form of offence alleged by herself.
Referring to a letter she has in her possession, she went on to say:
- I have a document here that I table. The document is an agreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Macdonnell. The agreement contains a series of inducements from the Leader of the Opposition for the member for Macdonnell to join the CLP.
Not true. That is actually not in the document. I draw honourable members’ attention to the second paragraph in that document, which says:
- I foresee the arrangement would provide you with the ability to remain an independent member of parliament, but be part of the Country Liberals Cabinet in government.
Well, hang on; is the Attorney-General not referring to the recent decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals but a month ago? No, she is not, and she knows she is not. Any reading of this letter she tabled today would quickly make the reader realise the letter is a document which arose out of an arrangement which was sought to be made between the Country Liberals and the then Independent member for Macdonnell, Alison Anderson. It is deceptive in the extreme to suggest the letter that was tabled today has anything to do with the decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals last month. It is clearly an attempt to come to an arrangement with the member for Macdonnell in relation to the government’s crisis of two years ago.
How secret was this particular offer? I draw members’ attention to an article that appeared in the Northern Territory News under the title of ‘No Strings CLP Offer’ about two years ago. I quote:
- CLP leader Terry Mills has offered Cabinet posts to the two politicians who hold the balance of power if they make him Chief Minister.
To the two politicians:
- He has promised Labor rebel Alison Anderson the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, and the Independent Gerry Wood Planning and Infrastructure.
Mr Mills has told both of them that they would not have to join the CLP in return for their Cabinet jobs.
Ms Anderson confirmed to the Northern Territory News yesterday that the offer had been made to her in the past few days.
The secret offer, the secret deal was published two years ago. If we want to talk about inducements, whilst I cannot lay my hands on the agreement at the moment, there is an agreement before this House in which the government promised material goods to the member for Nelson - pools, bike paths, any number of extra things. How long is that document - 13, 14 pages? So, if a suggestion by the government is the Leader of the Opposition had done something untoward, surely their offer, which was accepted …
A member: And signed.
Mr ELFERINK: And signed, thank you. … would constitute a far more complete offence than the one described by the Attorney-General today.
But no, I will not make that allegation because that is the normal process of minority governments trying to form government. It happened in the federal arena. It has happened in any number of jurisdictions. Hell, the Prime Minister of England at the moment has an arrangement with the Liberal Democrats there. These deals are done all the time. They are part of the normal processes of government. The government itself engaged in these things, so the only thing the minister could have been attempting to do is, essentially, deceive Territorians in making them think that letter, which she must have known was a letter from 2009 - she must have known that, because any reading of the letter could only draw you to that conclusion. However, she deviously attempted to leave Territorians with the impression that it had some reference to the recent decision by the member for Macdonnell to join the Country Liberals.
I have spoken to the member for Macdonnell and to the Leader of the Opposition, and there is no deal. Both of them have told me that. The reason the member for Macdonnell abandoned the Australian Labor Party and, ultimately, joined the Country Liberals is she believed the ALP no longer worked as a functioning and competent government in the Northern Territory.
She, like us, wants to get on with the issues that affect Territorians. We talk about them all the time: the cost of living, the price of housing, and the crime rates in our communities. She felt the Labor government has so badly failed, and CLP policies are so promising, that she would join us on those grounds.
I reject and condemn the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, in engaging in muckraking based on a deliberately false misinterpretation of the contents of the letter that she tabled. It is part of the politics that we are going to have to get used to. As I pointed out at the outset of this debate, they will go to any length to muckrake. I only wish one thing: I hope they will put as much effort into the governing of the Northern Territory for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory as they do into muckraking because, if they did, I suspect they would be a much better government.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I too want to speak about the document that was tabled in this House today. It might do members on the opposition side well to listen to what I have to say. Before I turn to that particular document and what I have to say, I just pick up on a few things the member for Port Darwin said in relation to the question I answered yesterday.
If you look at the Daily Hansard - I do not have it in front of me, but I know I said it at the time. I said to the member for Port Darwin when he accosted me after Question Time about it - I think my exact words were it is usual practice for the Leader of the Opposition to make the announcement about any changes to administrative orders on the opposition side. I stand by that. However, the member for Port Darwin said: ‘I have changed them twice. I stood up here twice and changed them. No, three times.’ Three out of how many? There have been many changes in administrative arrangements in the opposition in the past, since 2008 – a great deal more than three. I stand by what I said before; that it is usual and expected practice for the Leader of the Opposition to make and announce any changes to his shadow makeup on the floor of this parliament.
What was even more extraordinary is he did not make any media announcement about it. It was all going to just slip through under the radar. This is all after many assurances by the member for Macdonnell and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition in the media since she joined the Country Liberals that no deal had been done; there would be no offer of a shadow Cabinet portfolio responsibility; she would have to work her way up the ladder, so to speak, and prove herself - work her way into the shadow Cabinet.
It has only been a couple of weeks and, already, the member is a parliamentary secretary, not just for one area, but for three. She is shadowing three on the other side. She is shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous Policy, for Arts and Museum, and Parks and Wildlife. As I said yesterday, those shadow ministers need to look over their shoulders. We know the MO of the member of Macdonnell, so just be very careful. I gave you a few tips about what to listen and watch for, but there is much more to it than that. That is just a word of warning you can take on board if you want from someone who has a ‘no surprises’ policy regarding the member for Macdonnell – that is me. Let me tell you, that ‘no surprises’ policy is that nothing the member for Macdonnell will ever say and do will ever surprise me ever again. They say in politics ‘never say never’, so I might stand corrected on that. But that is my policy: no surprises ...
Mr Elferink: Are you still here? I thought you had announced your retirement.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, I am coming to the document that was tabled here today. Just as I mentioned maths to the member for Port Darwin before, I will mention maths here along with what I have to say – a couple of extraordinary bits about this letter. I take what the member for Port Darwin said about this being a minority government and all that stuff. The one that really caught my eye and ear when the Treasurer read it out:
- Provide you a Cabinet position (position to be agreed to by yourself and myself) …
I turned to the Chief Minister and said: ‘I would not have minded that when I came into parliament in 2001; that would have been great to have an arrangement like that where not only are you guaranteed a Cabinet position, but you can actually choose it.’
On our side of the House, usually it is the Deputy Leader who gets a very strong say about what their portfolios are. That is how we work, and I suspect, historically, it has probably been fairly similar on your side. I might stand corrected. Whilst on the Labor side of the equation, in our Caucus, we actually pick our Cabinet by a voting process - a secret ballot, I might say. We choose people to nominate, or who are nominated, or nominate themselves; there is a voting process, we go down the list until all the agreed Cabinet positions and other remunerated positions are chosen. That is how positions on our side are chosen.
I understand - I might stand corrected here; I would be very interested to know from members opposite - what you do on your side is the leader actually has the right to choose the Cabinet. The leader actually chooses the Cabinet; there is not a voting process on your side for Cabinet positions. I may stand corrected, and I will be very interested to know if I am incorrect.
The main thing I want to talk to opposition members about here tonight is, first, the policy of the CLP - the policy platform in 2008 where the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘The ministry will be reduced to eight ministers’ ...
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Is it seven now? Okay, so you have eight. You have your Chief Minister, who, if you were to be elected, would be the member for Blain. That leaves seven. I reckon there is still a deal on with the member for Macdonnell in your party room, and you need to say if there is a deal because he would not confirm it or deny it today about her having a Cabinet position. I reckon what has happened is she has been promised a Cabinet position. So, there is the member for Blain, and you can definitely count on the member for Macdonnell. That leaves six. Given the situation between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Leader, I am not sure whether she is guaranteed a guernsey.
If you take two away from 12, you have 10 - this is the numbers side of politics, fellows, you better learn it. Two from 12 leaves 10, and there are six positions for you. Six positions left. Who is going to miss out? There will be four who are going to miss out. If I was someone like the member for Sanderson who had been a loyal CLP member for many years - and I admire commitment to a political party, someone who is true blue, rusted on, committed to their own political party - is to be admired. The member for Sanderson and I might not agree on a great deal, but he is a committed member of the CLP.
How galling would it be for a committed member - someone who tried on a number of occasions to get into parliament, ultimately successful - to be left behind by a blow-in who started off on the Labor side of the equation, became an Independent, then decided to be in the CLP? Would you be unhappy? I would be pretty unhappy about that – and with a guarantee from your leader. Moreover, the other extraordinary thing about this document is he said he is making the offer without any discussion with the party room. Making an offer of a guarantee of a Cabinet post without even talking to his party room indicates to me there is probably still a deal on right now. The only reason this deal surfaced is because of the document that was tabled today.
There is probably another document or a verbal agreement I do not think you know about. This is a bloke who is not embracing your party group. Did he tell you he was going to make her a parliamentary secretary last week? I do not think so. You blokes are on the outer and you are being treated like mugs. You have to stand up to him and say: ‘What is going on? I am a loyal member of the CLP. I adhere to CLP policy. I adhere to the CLP ideals. I am dyed in the wool CLP. How come you are making these agreements with someone like that?’ That is the question you have to ask. It all comes down to very simple mathematics. I will let you go away and think about what I have said.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say this with a straight face if I can, but the great Dr Seuss has just spoken as if he was the one with an organ grinder, being ground from behind and spun into a frenzy. That was just fantastic to hear him go. The great Dr Seuss, the member for Johnston. Thank you very much for your enlightening mathematical equations. I am honestly glad the member did not have to take his shoes off to count to 12, but he managed to achieve it very well.
I point out that an agreement of any minority government is no different anywhere else in Australia at the moment. We can look to our fearless Prime Minister and her non-Cabinet post deal with Senator Bob Brown who, for all intents and purposes, calls the shots in every policy that happens in the federal Labor Party, but he does not have a ministry either.
I am sure there is a myriad of organ grinders in Canberra at the moment pushing the Prime Minister’s barrow, telling her which direction to turn at which time; so there is no great difference. But Dr Seuss has come forward tonight and he has actually shown us the great way of the future. He has just demonstrated his counting skills again - he got to five. I believe that might be the final result on that side.
I will get on with what is really important to me, and that is the constituents of Drysdale. It was very good to see in today’s Palmerston Sun another article. The sad part is it is based on negative outcomes, but with a positive future. The article is titled ‘No Walk in the Park’, where an overwhelming majority of neighbours want action on Reg Hillier Park, a small, hardly seen park in Palmerston on Chung Wah Terrace, leading through to Lorna Lim Terrace, beautifully set and directly opposite the police station in Palmerston. The problem is, due to habitual drunks and antisocial behaviour, over a decade that park has become a park that residents do not want to go through and live next to but, unfortunately, they have to.
We have senior residents on one side in Territory Housing, and private residents to the other side. The number of complaints is, without doubt, massive. Two weeks ago, I believe it was, I did an interview there with the Palmerston Sun and, as I was talking to the reporter, drinkers came into the park. It certainly caused unease for me and the reporter because, although it is a beautiful tropical park, it cannot be seen so easily from the road. Of course, due diligence, being an ex-police officer, at the earliest opportunity, we went into the police station across the road and reported the illegal drinkers in the park.
They walked in, had their supply of alcohol for the day, and sat down and started consuming it whilst we were there. This is taken to a point where, after doorknocking the area, I felt we needed to do a direct line telephone survey. As a result of that survey, it can be seen in the paper’s comments here, that 94% of the residents want a change to this park. They want the park to be their park, and they want to be able to take their grandchildren to that park.
So, not wanting to make this an entirely negative speech tonight, we are working with the Palmerston City Council. These parks are very prohibitive to upkeep at times because, unlike Central Australia where we have limited rain and limited growth, in the beautiful tropics and the Tiwi Islands and the like, we have beautiful growth. However, that means there is higher cost to maintain and control those parks.
This morning at the Palmerston Regional Safe Communities Committee, it was raised and discussed, and all working groups agreed there must be something more done. Collaboratively, all the working groups involved in the Palmerston Safer Communities Committee are going to help and chip in as a real community and work towards fixing this problem; working with the itinerants and habitual drunks, finding ways of getting Mission Australia and YMCA working with them, getting them out and finding out why they are there. The police will increase patrols, and the council is looking at options and other considerations.
It is cost-prohibitive to remodel the park, but I believe there could be a way forward. In consultation with the community, the Palmerston City Council, and all the other service providers, I believe our community will achieve a fantastic outcome so we can have people using the park who are not practising illegal behaviours or fornicating in the parks, but are there with their kids playing ball or just having a simple picnic. Perhaps some of the office workers at Highway House would like to start using the park in a different way once it is cleaned up. There are some beautiful rainforest trees there and it would always be good to try to keep them. However, under some of the other trees the undergrowth has got out of control, as you can see in the photograph in the Palmerston Sun today. You can see it is quite dense and you cannot even see Chung Wah Terrace. With real community spirit and involvement in assisting the council, perhaps working with some other collaborative partners, this could be cleaned up.
No matter where you are, as a member of parliament, you really value that community spirit and cherish it and try to foster it to the best of your ability, because it is the community that helps us to move forward in our jobs and retain them. It is our role to help the community move forward. Let us hope we see some great outcomes there. I thought I would just quickly talk on it to let you know that, as a community, we are working on this.
I am pleased to hear constituents report to me that some of the Chief Minister’s staff - whether it is here or in his electorate office - have started ringing around the same neighbours I have just telephoned and asked the same question. Copycat is great flattery, but is sometimes too late. The challenge goes out to the Chief Minister: put your money where your mouth is. If you want to help my community, let us throw some money into it and, together, we will continue to make Palmerston the best place in the Territory to live.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am thrilled tonight to be able to talk about Muriel Jaragba from the Angurugu Health Centre. Muriel won the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker of the Year Award at the very prestigious Deadly Awards ceremony broadcast on national television in September. Muriel is supported by Angurugu Health Manager, Jenni Langrell, who has been at the forefront of Aboriginal mental health for well over a decade.
Working in collaboration with Dr Kylie Lee of Sydney University, Muriel has been instrumental in producing nine short films about a range of health issues including cannabis and mental health, tobacco sickness, nicotine replacement therapy and how to cope with stress and grief. The films are spoken in Anindilyakwa with English subtitles and are based on local ideas developed by Muriel with help from other health workers.
Anija was their most recent film and tells the story of one family’s struggle to deal with problems with alcohol. Fluent in three languages and English, Muriel has managed to deliver complex health education in a format that people can easily understand. Muriel is able to do this because of her great knowledge in both traditional Aboriginal healing and western approaches to health.
Last year, Muriel was recognised with a finalist nomination in the research category of the National Drug and Alcohol Awards for her groundbreaking mental health and substance misuse research efforts. Her work in this difficult area has contributed greatly to enhancing the health and wellbeing of people across Groote Eylandt and the East Arnhem region. This is some of what she said in her acceptance speech:
- I am very proud of what we are trying to achieve on Groote Eylandt and Milyakburra to address drug and alcohol mental health issues. I can see now that my people are not so stuck. They are trying to use less gunja and tobacco and to relearn ways to have a better life. More young people are trying to get jobs. Good changes are happening in my community and this makes me happy.
Muriel, it makes us very happy, too. I was so incredibly proud to see you at the Opera House to receive your award. You just made so many of us in northeast Arnhem and across the Northern Territory incredibly proud. Well done!
While I am speaking about Groote Eylandt, there are also two men who have been the driving force within the Anindilyakwa Land Council who funded Muriel’s films. Tony Wurramarrba and Walter Amagula have been the inspirational leaders at the land council through a period that has seen the establishment of Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises (GEBIE), which has a particularly commercial focus on local employment, the construction of the Dugong Beach Resort - a beautiful place to stay as many members, I am sure, would testify - and the negotiating and signing of the Stages 1 and 2 regional partnership agreements that have bought so many benefits, including amalgamating the four schools into a single college to bring a more concentrated focus to education.
The regional partnership agreement has also brought a $20m investment in sealing the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba, of which $10m was provided by the land council. When I went over to watch the grand final at Angurugu it was good to be able to travel the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba to see the work that is being done on sealing.
Unfortunately, Walter suffered a serious health issue some months ago and had to stand down from the ALC board. While he is recuperating at home in Angurugu, I am sure all members will join me in wishing Walter a speedy recovery.
Tony has recently received notification that he is one of four finalists in the running for the Local Hero Award 2012 in the Territory. He will attend a presentation for the finalists next month with the winner going on to be a finalist in the Australian Local Hero Awards to be announced on Australia Day. I certainly wish you well, Tony.
Still on Groote Eylandt, I mention a wonderful woman, Danjibana Noelene Lalara, who is in the final stages of completing her primary school teaching degree through the department of Education’s Growing Our Own project. I know she has found it hard going, but when completed, she will be qualified to teach anywhere in Australia or overseas. But, guess what? She only wants to teach on Groote Eylandt.
Last, I would like to mention Milingimbi’s Gattjirrk Festival and the hard work put in by all those involved in this amazing event that I never want to miss. In all the years I have been the local member, it is beautiful to be able to attend this festival. I thank the East Arnhem Shire staff, John Horgan and Aroha Jennings but, most importantly, I thank the festival’s chairman, Keith Lapulung. Keith, you do a tremendous job in northeast Arnhem and for the people of Milingimbi. It is always a pleasure to be able to support you at any time, especially around the festival time, in the way you try to bring all the Yolngu groups together, especially amidst much sadness that has taken place on Milingimbi this year.
That weekend was a pretty special time. The festival started around 1986 as a way to establish local musicians, and it slowly grew into a festival over the years, attracting more and more performers. Initially the Milingimbi Music Sound and Light Competition, in 1990 it evolved into the Gattjirrk Festival. Keith has been at the forefront of this festival from the very start - and that is going back to 1986. This year was certainly no different; Keith was there out in front bringing everyone together. He is a wonderful musician and performer, and a tireless worker.
I had a great time when I attended the Milingimbi festival, and I certainly look forward to next year’s. I say to Keith and all the mob on Milingimbi: well done for making everyone feel so welcome.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was going to give you the call, member for Sanderson, but you nearly fell off your chair; I will call you next. So, member for Barkly.
Mr Styles: I did not expect the member for Arnhem to sit down so quickly, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, being the Minister for Arts and Museums is a fantastic job. The sector widely referred to as the creative industries plays a vital and important role across the Northern Territory in job creation, income development, and the cultural wellbeing of Territorians.
To quote the researcher, Richard Florida:
- … human creativity is the ultimate economic resource …
… the industries of the twenty first century will depend increasingly on the generation of knowledge through creativity and innovation …
As Minister for Arts and Museums, I recognise the need to ensure, as the Territory enters its next phase of growth and development, the creative industry sector builds in line with that growth to ensure employment opportunities are maximised and the quality of life for all Territorians is maintained and enhanced. Building our creative industry sector and local capacity creates job opportunities for Territorians in art, music, crafts, design, film, performing arts, publishing, fashion, software development, the media, cultural institutions, advertising, architecture - and the list goes on.
Recently, I have been privileged to be invited to visit and launch a number of activities in the sector including the Alice Springs Festival in September, with memorable performances by the Desert Divas and the remarkable Darwin Symphony Orchestra collaboration with two of the divas, Catherine Satour and Jacinta Price. It was great also to be able to acknowledge a fantastic new arts business partnership, with the sponsorship of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra tour to Alice Springs by Territory business, Sitzler Bros.
Launching the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory’s National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards iPhone App, which is allowing people all around Australia and internationally to access the remarkable work in this most important national art award, now in its 28th year, was fantastic. Even more fantastic was meeting the winner, Dickie Minyintiri - 96 years old.
This week, at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, I announced the winner of the People’s Choice Awards, Alison Riley, from South Australia for her painting Seven Sisters, a delightfully cheeky work that is immediately eye catching.
I encourage anyone who has not yet done so to visit MAGNT and see the NATSIAA exhibition before it closes this Sunday, 30 October, or download the App and view it online.
I was also pleased to recently open Activate Cultivate, a survey exhibition of red hand print posters. This exhibition from MAGNT’s collection gives a fascinating snapshot of activity in Darwin at the turn of the century. The posters were created to promote events, defend the environment, advertise films, announce protests, express social opinions and political views, giving a voice to those who wanted to advertise their event or voice their concerns at that time – again, another great reason to visit our museum at Bullocky Point.
Recently, I met with the Board of Katherine Regional Cultural Precinct Ltd, and visited the advanced construction site of the Godinymayin Yijard Rivers Arts and Cultural Centre. This exciting project currently being built on the Stuart Highway 2 km south of Katherine, will commence a lively program of public activities from April 2012; developed with Katherine Regional Arts Inc, which has the local expertise in planning and presenting arts events, performances, and displays.
Last weekend, I opened the unique Fridge Festival, another landmark, ‘only in the Northern Territory’ event, which is a celebration of Darwin, its people, and the humble fridge.
Last Sunday, I opened the $1.2m upgrade to the Australian Aviation Heritage Centre, which includes the construction of a new entry foyer, a new toilet block, a new engine bay, and the installation of three radar dishes. This work delivers on our government’s election commitment to commemorate the historic significance of Darwin’s bombing during World War II. This major upgrade is part of our five-year, $11.5m plan for Darwin World War II commemorative sites to ensure this history is preserved. Anyone visiting East Point Reserve recently will have noticed the advanced construction of the Defence of Darwin Experience that is on track for the official opening next year, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin.
I also acknowledge and welcome some new appointments to the sector. The first being Pierre Arpin, the new Director at MAGNT, who brings a wealth of museum experience with him. I also welcome the new director at Browns Mart, Jansis O’Hanlon, and the new general manager of the Darwin Entertainment Centre, Richard Fitzgerald. Finally, I welcome Edwina Lunn, the former General Manager of the Darwin Festival to her new role as Artistic Director. The Darwin Festival continues to grow and delight Darwin audiences, and the government has made an ongoing commitment of $1m to ensure the festival is able to continue to develop on a strong and stable platform well into the future. I look forward to hearing news of the 2012 program.
Last night in this House, the member for Brennan adjourned on reports he has received about the impact of the government’s record land release program in Palmerston East. Specifically, he raised the issues of vegetation clearing, dust, noise and, perhaps most surprisingly, ticks. The works being delivered along Roystonea Avenue extension Stage 1 includes the extension of Roystonea Avenue through to our new Palmerston East subdivisions of Johnston and Zuccoli. Major components to this very important project include the installation of the water main, which is complete, and will be tested in the coming weeks.
This is a major milestone in the delivery of this project. It is a project that will support the construction of new homes for thousands of Territorians. I acknowledge that some vacant blocks and homes may have experienced dust and noise along sections of Roystonea Avenue toward Elrundie Avenue. As you will be aware, the majority of large-scale construction works is undertaken in the Dry Season in the Northern Territory. As this type of large-scale project, supporting jobs for Territorians, does create dust, the contractor has put measures in place to reduce that impact. In particular, the contractor regularly waters the surrounding areas to assist in relieving the dust issues for residents. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has also required the contractor to install dust suppression material to those blocks directly affected, and I am advised this has been extremely effective to date.
Speed limits have also been reduced to assist in further reducing dust and noise for residents, and boosting road safety. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure has also been in constant communication with residents in these suburbs. A letterbox drop has been distributed to residents in Gunn, Bakewell, and Rosebery and, importantly, a department representative has personally contacted residents and is working with those who have individual issues to rectify them.
The member for Brennan also raised a tick infestation issue. From my personal experience living in the Territory, I have observed that ticks are on the move generally in the build-up period and towards the Wet Season. These issues seem to be experienced across the Territory. I took interest in the issue and questioned a number of Darwin locals and a couple of Palmerston locals to ask them about tick infestations. They are the same trends we see in Tennant Creek and in the Barkly. I swapped a few yarns too, about remedies for that. It is hard to determine that the Roystonea extension project supporting the development of Zuccoli and Johnston has caused this year’s seasonal advent of ticks. However, residents need to talk to their vets about possible solutions to any infestation of ticks.
In closing, I encourage the member for Brennan and his CLP colleagues to take a drive, cycle, or walk through Palmerston East to personally witness the exciting development of new homes for Territorians, the result of a land release program that is five times faster than anything ever seen before in the Territory and, as a result, a major construction project of new homes for Territorians. To sum it up, it is an area that is now considered in a national context the fastest growing city in Australia. That is something our government is very proud of. Deep down under all that cynicism, sarcasm, and venom from the other side, it is something they are very proud of as well, but just cannot gather the courage to say it.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to an organisation called Friends of the North Australian Railway. In the month of August, I had great pleasure in joining the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, more commonly known as the Nashos, and seniors who did a bus trip organised as part of Seniors Month. We took off from Darwin and headed down the track, through Charles Darwin National Park, where we examined some of the bunkers there where the World War II ammunition was kept and, more recently, RAAF armaments up until the 1960s.
As members will know, the organisation known as Friends of the North Australian Railway turns 10 years of age this year. They have painstakingly restored the Adelaide River Railway Heritage Precinct and, I must say, it is a great credit to them.
In particular, I pay tribute to the Friends of the North Australian Railway’s Vice President, Mr Mick Kent. He is a quiet, laconic bloke who gets about his business with a no-nonsense approach, and is more at home with a meat pie in his hand than anything more fancy - although I am told he will eat a smoked salmon canap under duress.
Mick Kent is responsible for the majority of restoration and interpretation in the precinct, including the two Sydney William’s huts, which have been respectfully dedicated to the precinct’s Overland Telegraph and World War II history. Mick Kent was born in Tantanoola in the Coonawarra region of South Australia in 1953. Mick took an interest in engineering heritage following a trip to Tasmania in 2000, which included heritage railways. It was then he realised that the remaining artifacts of the North Australia Railway, which had closed some 24 years earlier, would quickly disappear as the new standard gauge railway was built, much of it in the North Australia rail corridor.
Mick went on numerous field trips between Darwin and Birdum, interviewed former North Australia Railway employees, and visited other states to track down rolling stock which had been used in the railway. He researched various archival sources and read existing publications on the history of the North Australian Railway. A fact many people do not realise is that Mick walked - and I repeat, he walked - that railway section, which is over 500 km, three times. That is 1500 km he has walked. Not many people know exactly how many kilometres either side of the railway he has walked to gather up what is a magnificent display of railway memorabilia in Australia, let alone the North Australian Railway. The display is a truly a remarkable achievement of his. When I had a look at it and walked through the museum, I could not believe the material that is in there and has been recovered simply by walking the length and breadth of that railway three times. He is to be commended, and it will be his legacy to leave those types of artifacts in one of the greatest railway museums in Australia.
The Overland Telegraph became part of the project because the railway line, essentially, followed the corridor of the Overland Telegraph Line. The Adelaide River guest book includes a comment that the precinct contains ‘the best Overland Telegraph display in Australia’. I can attest to that, having been there and wandered through and seen not only the quality of the artifacts, but the number.
Mick has completed a detailed documentation of the Overland Telegraph Line and is working on an account of the first two years of operation of that particular railway. His contribution to the preservation of engineering heritage was acknowledged in 2007 when Engineers Australia recognised Mick as a person who had made a significant contribution to the recording and preservation of engineering heritage in the Northern Territory.
There was only one other Northern Territory recipient of this award; that is Leo Izod, a person who is known to many Territorians. I was hoping that Mick could be here as my guest this evening, but sadly, he is unwell at home. So, we send Mick our very best wishes for a speedy recovery and, again, congratulate him on the fabulous job he has done and the legacies he has left for future Territorians to see just what the North Australian railway was all about in those early years.
As I said, the Friends celebrate their 10th birthday this year, and they have achieved incredible progress at the heritage precinct. Not only is the precinct a testament to the hard work and thousands of hours put in by volunteers, but it is a tourism hub and serves as a visitor information centre for the township of Adelaide River, which presently has a population of about 200 but, in the past, had a thriving railway, and was a telegraph centre and major strategic military camp.
The Friends thrive on the smell of an oily rag, and reckon they could spend the entire NT government heritage grants allocation of $200 000 per year simply on their own display at Adelaide River. They go to extraordinary lengths to raise funds. I had the pleasure of taking part in the National Servicemen’s seniors day out in August and we had lunch at the railway heritage precinct. Lunch was prepared by volunteers from Darwin who trek down there regularly to put on a good show. They did it again in September when they served morning tea to an extremely large group of ex-United Nations peacekeeping police who were here for their national conference.
The Friends hold heritage open days on May Day and Picnic Day each year. After all, the original reason for picnic day holiday was for railway workers and their families. They have restored an impressive selection of rolling stock, steam locomotives and wagons, and they have more works in progress at a secret site in the greater Darwin area.
On display at the precinct is a 1985 Smith & Coventry wheel lathe which was located at the Parap workshops from 1888 originally for the Palmerston to Pine Creek Railway. Restoration works have included the installation of steam pumping devices next to the hand-dug reservoir at the back of the station which was used to fill the overhead water tank which, in turn, supplied the trains as they passed through - the only refreshment room on the railway between Palmerston and Birdum.
The World War II history is equally fascinating with a lurching cattle car known as Leaping Lena servicing the line for both troops and fresh produce. Unfortunately, the trip from Darwin to Adelaide River took 14 hours and fresh meat from the Vestey’s Meatworks in an open cattle car did not travel at all well. The troops in Adelaide River routinely unloaded the carriage and immediately buried the putrid meat in massive pits.
There is also a significant ambulance siding which the Friends have marked and cleared; it does not fall within their boundary, but stands as a tribute to the nurses of World War II who accompanied and cared for wounded servicemen.
Some hilarious stories have emerged from diggers who served in Adelaide River at the time. One such story is from Max Cathro, who was in the Army Logistics Operations Centre in Adelaide River and was ordered to clear some bush to make way for construction. Max knew a bloke who knew a bloke who had some gelignite. Those of us who know anything about explosives know it is extremely volatile in humid conditions. But, Max and his mate, being young and adventurous - and probably stupid and bullet proof - took some gelignite to get the job done without too much in the way of manual labour. They blew a huge crater in the hill adjacent to the railway precinct, which is now a great touring point on open days and for specialised group tours.
Adelaide River regularly copped a caning during the Japanese air raids, which usually coincided with a full moon for better visibility. During the reunion of ex-servicewomen in 1995, a woman who served as a nurse in Adelaide River recounted those hours everyone spent clearing the bush to create an oval for sporting endeavours. During the air raid, following all the hard work, Japanese pilots mistook the oval for an airstrip and bombed it. No Aussie Rules was ever played on that patch.
Of the 64 air raids over the Top End during World War II, Adelaide River was front and centre as Australia’s front line. It is no wonder then that the last bombing raid, on 11 November 1943, included Adelaide River.
Looking to the future, the Friends are preparing for a big year in 2012: 24 July marks the 150th anniversary of John McDouall Stuart’s epic crossing of the continent from south to north, and August marks the 140th anniversary of completion of the massive engineering fete that was the Overland Telegraph Line, which had its terminus on the side of a magnificent building.
I wish the Friends of the North Australia Railway a happy 10th anniversary, and urge them to keep up their exceedingly good work.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I honour a great, hard-working Northern Territory Public Service person, a member of the Department of Children and Families. On 1 September 2011, Ms Sally Bevis commenced her long service leave and will officially retire from the Northern Territory government when this leave expires on 29 June 2012. Sally has given 24 years of service to the Northern Territory government, 10 of which were dedicated to the Seniors Card scheme.
Sally commenced employment with the Department of Education in 1987 as a teacher’s aide at the Leanyer Primary School. In 2002, Sally became the Administrative Support Officer for the Northern Territory Seniors Card scheme. In 2003, Sally was promoted to the role of Manager, and played a significant role in developing the scheme. In 2008, Sally joined the Policy Unit to focus her attention on business recruitment, the production of the Seniors Card Directory, and also the very successful Seniors Month.
Sally is well-known and loved amongst the seniors community - and I can certainly attest to that – in the Northern Territory because she reaches out to them from such a long distance, and over such a long period of time. Her cheerful nature and energy will sadly be missed. She has truly dedicated herself to improving the Seniors Card and has signed up more businesses per capita than any other state or territory in Australia.
Sally is now planning a sailing adventure trip to Bali, and a holiday to France, and I wish her all the best in her retirement.
I met Sally on a number of occasions and I find her an extremely passionate and dedicated person to seniors in the Northern Territory. I know she will be fondly remembered in the future. She has a very full retirement and a wonderful life ahead of her. We thank her for her years of dedication to this very vital part of the Northern Territory society.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016