2011-12-01
Madam Acting Speaker Walker took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Araluen’s interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2011.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 4 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Rhona Manning, Ms Mary Ryng, and Mrs Kathy Hillery. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of pairing arrangements for today for the whole sitting day. The member for Nightcliff is paired with the member for Blain and that document is signed by both Whips. Also, from 3 pm until close of business, there will be a pairing arrangement between the members for Casuarina and Sanderson. The document is signed by both Whips.
I table those documents.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Speaker, I table a draft bill titled Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill.
The tabling of the draft bill is for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduces the legislation in February. The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the act which governs the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme. The scheme is a pension-based scheme which is privately underwritten.
This draft legislation has been developed following discussions with industry and unions. It provides for certainty by ensuring the Northern Territory maintains consistent workers compensation arrangements in light of a highly-skilled and increasingly transient workforce.
In the interests of encouraging the widest possible discussions with business and the community, a proactive consultation framework has been developed for this legislation to be further discussed. This will take the form of public forums and stakeholder engagement over coming months. It is critical that the arrangements contained are understood by those who will be required to administer and follow the provisions.
As the former Minister for Business and Employment, I recognise any changes to workplace provisions require businesses to plan.
The bill is designed to assist injured workers in the future who are currently excluded from the scheme and provide certainty for employers. This bill reflects this government’s commitment to ensuring the fair and effective operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme while balancing the interests of all stakeholders. The bill will amend:
1. the definition of ‘worker’ to remove the reference to the Australian Business Number, ABN, and to clarify a test for determining whether a person is a worker or a true independent contractor for the purposes of the scheme;
The amendments to this bill have been developed over a considerable period and include input from the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, Unions NT, insurers, and industry representatives. Tabling of this draft bill is a statement by this government that it takes seriously the protection of injured workers and the ongoing viability and effective operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme.
It is now our intention to undertake consultation on the draft bill together with the Department of Business and Employment. Consultation will take place from now until the end of January with a view to introducing the bill in the February 2012 Legislative Assembly Sittings.
Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the draft bill and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring before the Legislative Assembly the Mental Health and Related Services Amendment Bill 2011. In March 2009, our government announced $13.9m capital and $11.4m operational funding per annum for the establishment and operation of secure care services for young people with complex needs and adults with cognitive disability.
There are two primary elements in the secure care services:
11 assessment and stabilisation beds, Tier 1: clients will be provided with a high level of physical security that eliminates their exposure to significant risk. This period of stabilisation will allow a comprehensive clinical assessment to be undertaken to inform the development of a comprehensive case management plan for the client upon which future intense services will be delivered. The additional beds will be co-located within the mental health inpatient settings in the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals.
secure care group homes, Tier 2: 16 adult beds within secure care group homes will offer clients intensive support and therapeutic intervention on a medium- to long-term basis. Implementation of an intense care plan will work towards stepping adults down to a less restrictive care option as expeditiously and safely as possible. Group homes will be built in Darwin and Alice Springs, each with capacity to separately support eight adults and eight children.
When Cabinet originally considered the secure care initiative, it identified legislative amendments to enable delivery of these services would be required. Cabinet recognised that the proposed clientele for these services often do not meet the eligibility criteria of existing legislation and/or current legislation does not provide the required safeguards for delivery of involuntary containment across secure care service settings.
Amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act 2009 constitute Phase 1 of a three-phase project to create the legislative basis from which to operate the secure care facilities and enable appropriately targeted involuntary interventions for persons who require services not traditionally provided within mental health facilities.
The legislative phases are proceeding concurrently as follows:
Phase 1: amend Mental Health and Related Services Act for admission of adults into Tier 1 for stabilisation and assessment;
The Mental Health and Related Services Act provides a sound legislative framework in which to embed provisions to support secure care arrangements. Existing strengths of this legislation fundamental to the success of this initiative include:
effective protection of general and aspirational human rights;
The purpose of introducing the Mental Health and Related Services Amendment Bill 2011 today is to extend the existing provisions of this legislation to provide a legislative basis through which to admit, assess, treat, and care for individuals who have not been diagnosed with mental illness or mental disturbance which could justify detention under the existing criteria but, nevertheless, require a secure environment within which to conduct a comprehensive assessment and safely reduce their level of behavioural disturbance and risks.
I take the opportunity to thank publicly all the individuals and organisations who participated in consultations around the secure care initiative. Your input has been valuable and was considered carefully in developing this bill.
I am confident the provisions in this bill retain the existing strengths of this legislation whilst also responding to the contemporary requirements we face in establishing and delivering a collaborative secure care service model in the Territory’s unique environment.
The bill before the Legislative Assembly today will amend the Mental Health and Related Services Act by introducing:
new definitions and eligibility criteria to ensure the target group eligible to be admitted into secure care stabilisation and assessment beds are clearly articulated;
This bill also includes a schedule of more minor amendments that seek to clarify terminology, align language, style, sequencing, and structure of the act with current Northern Territory legislation guidelines and contemporary drafting approaches.
I now highlight some of the key reforms of this bill in more detail.
Definition and criteria: existing definitions and criteria in the Mental Health and Related Services Act refer to mental illness or disturbance and tend to exclude adults presenting with cognitive impairment who exhibit behaviour that is a serious threat or risk to themselves or others. Currently, any individual who has not been diagnosed with a mental illness, or is not presenting with mental disturbance, cannot be admitted to an approved treatment facility under the provisions of the mental health act.
Some of these individuals may benefit from a brief admission to a secure facility for the purposes of assessment and treatment with a view to stabilisation to enable a comprehensive treatment management plan to be designed and implemented.
This draft bill introduces a definition for the term ‘complex cognitive impairment’ and articulates the relevant criteria to be met for a tribunal-authorised involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment. The definition of complex cognitive impairment included in the bill has four elements. They are that the person:
Criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment: admissions under the proposed provision will generally be collaboratively planned between the mental health and the aged and disability programs. All complex cognitive impairment admissions will be:
time limited;
informed by a tribunal-approved treatment management plan that articulates the intervention to be delivered to the client during their admission;
focused on containing and stabilising an individual’s level of disturbance and/or risk; and
premised on undertaking a comprehensive assessment and developing a plan for the ongoing treatment and management of the person in the community.
To be admitted by the tribunal under the new provisions, a person will need to satisfy the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment articulated in section 15A which are that the person:
is an adult and does not fulfil the criteria for admission on any other grounds (that is, mental illness or mental disturbance);
has significant cognitive impairment;
without the treatment and care available at an approved treatment facility, the person is likely to cause serious harm to self or others, will represent substantial danger to the community, or will suffer serious mental or physical deterioration;
is not capable of giving informed consent to treatment and care; and
no less restrictive option is available.
In practical terms, authorised officers will be employees of disability services within the Department of Health and will have a central role in all matters involving individuals with complex cognitive impairment referred to the tribunal for consideration under the new provisions. The authorised officer’s role will include:
making a referral for assessment of an individual with complex cognitive impairment;
jointly preparing treatment management plans (with an authorised psychiatric practitioner);
making joint applications to the Mental Health Review Tribunal with an authorised psychiatric practitioner for an admission;
coordinating elements of the treatment management plan for which the disability program has been given primary responsibility by the tribunal and ensuring information and presentation is available when required by the Mental Health Review Tribunal; and
an authorised officer must also be notified where any person admitted to an approved treatment facility under existing mental disturbance provisions who, upon review, appears to have a complex cognitive impairment. A notification under this provision will commence the application process for a complex cognitive impairment order granted by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Containment, review, and discharge provisions: a new division has been inserted into Part 6 (Involuntary admissions) of the Mental Health and Related Services Act to clearly articulate the requirements for containment, review, and discharge.
The division is ‘involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment’ and includes: subdivision 1 which defines treatment management plan (section 44A); and subdivision 2, ‘tribunal-authorised planned admission’ which includes a number of elements, including: application of subdivision (section 44B); application for order for involuntary admission (section 44C); notice of application (section 44D); decision on application (section 44E); content of order (section 44F); regular examinations (section 44G); and discharge (section 44H).
Treatment management plans: it is intended all admissions under the new complex cognitive impairment criteria will be managed collaboratively. In order to ensure the tribunal is provided the required information to consider an application, a document prepared by an authorised psychiatric practitioner and an authorised officer outlining a ‘treatment management plan’ has been added to the provisions. This will ensure all admissions and containment for complex cognitive impairment have pre-agreed and tangible objectives. The outcome of the period of admission under one of these orders will also inform the person’s ongoing care and supervision in the community.
The key elements in a treatment management plan are outlined in section 44C and include:
the person’s complex cognitive impairment;
details regarding implementation of the plan, including those providers treating or caring for the person under the plan …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! It is just out of courtesy - the minister has 35 minutes to speak - maybe he could slow his speech down a bit. Trying to understand what he is saying is very difficult. Whether it is the acoustics or the minister’s lovely lilt, but it is very difficult to understand when he reads quickly.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Acting Speaker, if I speak fast, you should listen faster.
Mr Tollner: I am from the country.
Mr VATSKALIS: We gathered that.
Madam Acting Speaker, this speech will be tabled in the House so he can read it, if he can read, because he is from the country.
the proposed or expected medication or treatment the person is to receive under the plan;
Tribunal-authorised planned admission, subdivision 2: before making an application to the tribunal, an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer will both need to be of the opinion the person satisfies the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, section 15A. Where both parties agree, an application must then be made to the tribunal in the approved form and accompanied by a treatment management plan. The approved form and further guidance regarding the application process will be articulated in approved procedures and practice directions issued by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 129(2A) of the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
Existing involuntary patients: while a planned approach is preferred in these matters, it will, no doubt, be necessary from time to time to admit an individual with complex cognitive impairment more urgently. Where an emergency admission is required, it will be made through the existing mental disturbance provisions under the new complex cognitive impairment provisions under section 42 of the Mental Health and Related Services Act. The existing provisions are utilised in circumstances where there is a serious risk to self or others and an escalation in behaviour or disturbance which is either aggressive or indicates the person is engaging in seriously irresponsible conduct.
As currently required by the Mental Health and Related Services Act, a review of the admission will be undertaken within 24 hours by an authorised psychiatric practitioner. If, on review, the authorised psychiatric practitioner is satisfied the person fulfils the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, they must:
notify an authorised officer of the person’s admission within one day of the examination;
In making this decision, an authorised psychiatric practitioner will consider the definition of complex cognitive impairment at section 6A and the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment at section 15A.
Tribunal application and review provisions: in order to ensure the process of admission and containment under the new provisions is well considered and transparent, the Mental Health Review Tribunal will be empowered to conduct a hearing in order to consider all applications and supporting treatment management plans before authorising an order under these provisions.
A new section 44C provides the framework for a Mental Health Review Tribunal application either in circumstances where a person is an existing patient admitted under mental disturbance provisions or where an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer make a planned application seeking admission for assessment and stabilisation for a person in the community.
Where a person is an existing patient, a section 44C application must be made before the date the Mental Health Review Tribunal would have been required to conduct a review had the person continued to be detained on the grounds of mental disturbance; that is, within 10 days. The Mental Health Review Tribunal must hear the application on or before the review date.
Before a hearing scheduled to consider a complex cognitive impairment application, an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer will be required to prepare and lodge an application and a treatment management plan for the person. This will be completed in accordance with any practice directions issued by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 129(2A) regarding such applications.
Notice of the application, section 44D: within one day of making an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the applicants will also be required to give written notice of the application in the approved form. Notice must be given to a range of persons, including the subject of the application; the person’s guardian, if they have one; the person’s primary carer; a legal practitioner; and the principal community visitor. This will ensure the rights of any person subject to the provisions are observed and protected.
Consistent with other provisions in the Mental Health and Related Services Act, this provision allows notification to a primary carer to be withheld if the applicants (authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer) are satisfied it is not in the person’s best interests to make this notification. Where this occurs, the reason for withholding the notification must be detailed in the application to the tribunal.
Decision on application - section 44E: if the Mental Health Review Tribunal finds the person fulfils the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, it may authorise implementation of the treatment and management plan, as prepared by the applicants or as modified by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in a way it considers appropriate.
The provision also provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to dismiss the application where necessary, or to make any other orders available under the act if appropriate.
Content and duration of order, section 44F: Section 44F outlines what will be contained in a tribunal order for complex cognitive impairment and includes:
a date for review of the order where a person is an existing involuntary patient;
A Mental Health Review Tribunal order for involuntary admission for complex cognitive impairment will have a 14-day duration, with the possibility of extending the admission for an additional 14-day period following a review by the tribunal under section 123(5)(ba). This translates to a maximum order period of 28 days.
The only exception to this time frame is in circumstances where a person is admitted under the mental disturbance provisions, 10 days, and subsequently placed on a complex cognitive impairment order by the tribunal, 14 days. This would result in a 24-day period of admission.
In rare cases, the tribunal may, on review, extend the period of admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment for one more 14-day period, resulting in an absolute maximum admission of 38 days. Whilst technically possible, I am advised it is very unlikely an admission of this duration would occur very often.
Regular examinations, section 44G, requires an applicant to examine a person admitted involuntarily on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment not less than once every 72 hours after the tribunal makes an order. These time frames for clinical review are consistent with those already in place elsewhere in Part 6.
Discharge, section 44H: it is important to ensure there is clarity in the legislation around when a person held under these provisions is to be released. Section 44H provides guidance on this question. It is a requirement that the person in charge of the approved treatment facility in which the person is being held discharge them on the earliest of the following:
the date specified for discharge in the person’s treatment and management plan prepared for the application for an order;
Section 123(1) of the Mental Health and Related Service Act has been amended to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with the power to review an involuntary patient admitted under the new provisions on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment.
Section 123(5) has also been amended to insert a new section 123(5)(ba) which provides for the tribunal to order that the person continue to be detained as an involuntary patient on those grounds for not longer than 14 days.
To ensure no individual can be continuously detained under these provisions, a new section 123(6B) has been inserted so that where, following review, an additional 14-day order has been made by the tribunal under section 123(5)(ba), this order ceases after that period and the tribunal cannot further review the matter. This provision will ensure an individual detained under the new complex cognitive impairment provisions will only remain in an approved treatment facility for a period sufficient to effect a reduction in the person’s level of immediate behavioural disturbance and risk, and to complete the necessary assessment and collaborative treatment planning required to more effectively manage the person in the community.
Finally, a new section 129(1A) has been added to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with powers to conduct a hearing following an application for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment. This is a new power for the Mental Health Review Tribunal which allows it to directly receive and consider an application in respect of a person who is not currently admitted to an approved treatment facility or subject to any other order under the Mental Health and Related Services Act where an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer make an application to submit a treatment management plan.
There have not been any specific amendments to the community visitor provisions or its powers in this bill. However, it is important to note all existing community visitor provisions in the legislation will apply to anyone admitted to an approved treatment facility on an involuntary complex cognitive impairment order. Existing powers of the community visitor is one of several provisions intended to assure the rights of individuals admitted to an approved treatment facility. In addition, the community visitor will ensure facilities and practices regarding the care of these individuals are routinely monitored by an independent and external mechanism.
While the roles and powers of the community visitor will not change, the program’s workload will expand to include monitoring the 11 additional beds being established within existing approved treatment facilities. In addition, proposed amendments to the Disability Services Act to support secure care group homes will include provisions for the community visitor to expand delivery of some of its current functions across the 16 secure care group home adult beds.
The aged and disability program also currently provides 24/7 supported accommodation services to some persons subject to custodial supervision options under Part IIA of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 2010. It is proposed these arrangements also be monitored externally by the community visitor.
The final point I would like to make is that penalty provisions in relation to various offences in the regulation of conduct, certain treatment, and measures in the act have been amended pursuant to the Penalty Units Act 2009 and Penalty Units Regulation 2011. A new provision, section 8A, has also been inserted to indicate Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act applies to an offence against the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to move that the second reading of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Amendment Bill be brought on before the Caravan Parks Bill. I have received the agreement of the opposition to do so. I move that the order be changed.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, the minister does have our indulgence and we have no problem with that.
Motion agreed to.
BATCHELOR INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS TERTIARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 192)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Act with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, the institute. To this end, the bill modernises and strengthens the governance provision for the institute and brings the act more in line with the Australian government national governance protocols under the Australian government’s Higher Education Support Act.
More specifically, the bill:
1. reduces the size of the institute’s council from 22 members to 10;
The Batchelor institute, which was formerly Batchelor College, was established as a tertiary institution in 1999 and it is therefore timely to review and make appropriate changes to the governance regime for the institute. The primary purpose of the amendments is, of course, to improve the delivery of education and training services to Indigenous people, particularly those of the Northern Territory. The bill will amend the act to that important end.
In December 2009, the Northern Territory government released its long-term strategic plan Territory 2030 which sets out the Territory government’s direction over the next two decades. Territory 2030 is the result of extensive consultation with ordinary Territorians. From these consultations, education was nominated as a major factor in addressing many of the challenges faced by the Northern Territory. These amendments are consistent with Territory 2030, Closing the Gap, the Remote Service Delivery model, the Department of Education and Training Strategic Plan 2011-14, and the Australian government’s higher education reform agenda.
There is clear evidence that education and training leads to better job prospects, higher income potential, and provides young people with more life choices, improved health and wellbeing, and increases self-worth and self-esteem to ensure active citizens. Simply put, education is vital to the successful future of all Territorians.
The governance provisions of the act were highlighted during the 2009 review of the institute. We must ensure the governance and other structures for the institute are appropriate and relevant for today’s modern educational institutions.
A part of these reforms is the significant reduction in the size of the institute council which conducts the affairs of the institute. This reduction, from 22 members to 10 members, will bring the council more in line with other Australian tertiary institutions, including Charles Darwin University, and it will help to significantly streamline the council’s role and thereby enhance the efficiency of the institute overall.
In addition to reducing the size of the council, the amendments will also vary the composition of the council membership with a view to further improving the governance of the institute. Of the 10 members of the council, four will be appointed by the Administrator on the nomination of the minister, and those four positions on the council will be filled by calling for expressions of interest from suitably-qualified Territorians.
Importantly, representation from the northern and central regions of the Territory is provided for. The bill also provides for members to bring a range of expertise to the council, including commercial and financial expertise; specialist professional/vocational knowledge and/or skills preferably in a remote context; and experience in advising government and other service providers in relation to Indigenous matters. The council will also continue to have elected representation from full-time staff members and students of the institute who normally reside in the Territory. The council will also include the Director of the institute, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the institute, a person nominated by Charles Darwin University, and the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for the administration of the Education Act or their nominee.
It is imperative that in carrying out its functions to improve outcomes for Indigenous students, the council is fully informed on issues affecting Indigenous people. To this end, the bill provides, for the first time, for the establishment of an advisory board for the institute. The advisory board will be composed of six Indigenous members who will be drawn from people who have demonstrated knowledge and understanding of cultural and social issues affecting the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The members will also be able to represent a broad range of Indigenous community interests, and will include people with the experience or expertise in Indigenous education and vocational training, and research and technology, and have experience and expertise in advising government and other service providers on matters affecting Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
As with the procedures for filling vacancies on the council, positions on this board will be filled by advertising for expressions of interest from suitably-qualified Indigenous Territorians. The advisory board will play a key role in consulting with Indigenous people, communities, and relevant organisations to promote constructive dialogue and engagement between the institute and Indigenous people, so as to provide expert advice to the council on social and cultural issues affecting the institute and its clients. It is expected that in doing so, this board will be able to make a significant contribution to the institute’s capacity to provide outcomes for its students and clients, with a particular focus on VET and higher education.
The bill also provides for the establishment of a nominations committee which will consider the expressions of interest received from those people interested in being selected as a member of the council and advisory board. This will ensure people elected and appointed to the council and appointed to the advisory board meet the essential eligibility criteria for membership. This process will also help ensure the council and the advisory board have an appropriate mix of expertise.
The bill will also bring the act into line with the requirements of the Australian government national governance protocols under the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA 2003, which all higher education institutions must comply with by clearly defining the functions and powers of the council. It also extends the duties of members of the council to also apply to members of council committees and to the advisory board. To this end, the amendments will also require the council to establish a program of induction and professional development to ensure members are fully informed about their duties and responsibilities and to assist them in carrying out their duties.
The bill also strengthens the annual reporting requirement of the institute to ensure relevant outcomes are appropriately reported, and risk management within the institute is taken into consideration. The bill also provides for the repeal of the now redundant Part IIA of the Education (College and School Council) Regulations which applied to the former Batchelor College.
Finally, in keeping with government policy, the bill provides for some consequential amendments to the remainder of the act of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments do not affect the existing legislative policy except for where the amendments to two clauses have the effect of making the board subject to the same by-laws as the council. The rest of the amendments simply seek to modernise the terminology used in the remainder of the act.
In summary, these amendments will deliver a contemporary, targeted, and robust set of reforms that are consistent with national and Territory initiatives.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the Explanatory Statement to accompany the bill.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2010, parliament enacted the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2010. The main purpose of this act was stated as being to provide for the regulation of tenancies in caravan parks. It sought to provide long-term residents of these parks with the same level of protection and certainty other tenants enjoy. This bill has the same purpose.
In the course of the debate on the bill for the 2010 act, and in the subsequent discussion concerning implementation of the 2010 act, it became apparent there were significant practical problems with the bill.
In September 2010, my colleague, Hon Delia Lawrie, met with Caravan Park Association members in Alice Springs and reached agreement that aspects of the 2010 legislation would be reconsidered. After further consultation between departmental officers and the Caravan Parks Association, it was agreed that the best way forward was to take the caravan provisions out of the Residential Tenancies Act and place them in a separate act. However, it was also accepted that the basic framework of the Residential Tenancies Act - that is, the coverage - was suitable for long-term caravan park occupancies. Accordingly, this bill repeals the uncommenced provisions of the 2010 act and provides for a comprehensive, standalone law relating to caravan parks.
The main point of contention with the 2010 act was that of the kinds of permanent residents of caravan parks should be subject to the operation of the act. The bill now deals with this issue in two ways.
First, it retains the 2010 act’s exemption of holiday or tourist accommodation. However, it makes it clear that accommodation is ‘holiday accommodation’ or ‘tourist accommodation’ if the park holds itself out as providing such accommodation. It does not matter that the accommodation is provided for long terms, or if the person obtaining the accommodation is not on a holiday or is not a tourist. This means it is the caravan operator who decides what types of occupants are living in the park.
Second, for other kinds of parks, it provides that a person does not come under the operation of the act simply because the person is a resident for more than 12 months. Under the 2010 act, if a resident was in a park for more than 90 days, they were deemed to come under the operation of the act. This led to the possibility that caravan park operators might bring occupancies to an end on each 90th day so as to void the act. Such actions would have been grossly inconvenient to both the residents and the operators. Government cannot make caravan park operators provide long-term accommodation. Caravan parks are businesses such that operators are entitled to choose what type of business they are conducting.
In recognition of this simple fact, the bill now provides that residents and operators can enter into successive 12-month agreements without coming within the operation of the act. These issues are dealt with in clause 10. Subclause (5) of that clause provides that operators and residents, despite the rest of clause 10, can bring themselves within the scope of the act if that is their intention. This period of 12 months replaces the 90-day period contained in the discussion draft of the bill released by the Department of Justice during November 2011. The longer period has been chosen because, from a practical perspective, it is relatively unusual for permanent arrangements to be made in caravan parks for periods of less than 12 months, thus requiring successive 90-day agreements seemed to have limited purposes. As this is a late change to the bill, further consideration will be given to the issue if concerns are raised between now and when the bill is debated in February 2012.
For such non-permanent arrangements, operators will be required to ensure residents are aware the act does not apply to them. They will do this by providing a written document or by having appropriate signage.
The one exception to this permanent resident-only coverage is that the provisions of the act imposing liability on the resident for the actions of his or her guests applies to residents of all caravan parks. This is set out in clause 17. This clause is located in Part 1 of the act. Clause 10 of the act operates so that Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to the situations listed in clause 10(2). The necessary inference is then that the provisions of Part 1, including clause 17, apply to all caravan parks.
The other main differences between the 2010 act and this bill are that the bill:
broadens the options for rent increases. Thus, for example, a caravan park owner may have a caravan park rule which provides that all rents are reviewed on a specific day of each year. This is set out in clause 51(5);
Clause 140 no longer requires operators to consult with residents prior to changing caravan park rules.
The bill now permits, in clause 144, operators to require a change in the location of a caravan for the purposes of the efficient administration of the park.
The bill maintains the 2010 amendments so as to provide for funding under the Agents Licensing Act from the Agents Licensing Fidelity Guarantee Fund for the purposes of industry associations and consumer bodies providing training and information about the operation of the legislation. These provisions are set out in clauses 21 and 22.
Following consultation in Katherine, the bill now includes provisions equivalent to those in the Residential Tenancies Act relating to the termination of tenancies of residents who are employees of the operator of the caravan parks. That is clause 104.
The bill also clarifies issues regarding the sale of caravans that are on site. It tries to make clear that the owner of the caravan on site can only sell the caravan. They do not have the power to sell the site or the right of occupancy. The buyer of the caravan must deal with the caravan park operator in respect of those issues. The bill also seeks to make it clear that the caravan park operator can impose reasonable conditions regarding access to the park for those persons who may wish to purchase the caravan. These matters are covered in clause 146.
I also note that the bill provides for only limited clarification of the rights and responsibilities of operators and residents where the residents have been occupants for very long periods of time. In theory, if there is a formal agreement, this will set out what happens if the operator wants to terminate the arrangement. Under the act, if the occupancy was categorised as permanent when it commenced, the act will provide time lines for termination proceedings.
In practice, the issues may be less able to be resolved. It was pointed out by a businessman in the consultation conducted in November 2011 by the Department of Justice that it is in the interests of business certainty over the long term that rights and responsibilities be clarified. There was also a measure of support from such operators that the legislation needs to better protect those residents who have been residents for a very long time. It may not be sufficient that they have rights derived from principles contained in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Given the complexity of this issue, there has not been time to sort it out prior to the introduction of the bill. However, I have asked the Department of Justice to complete a report by 31 January 2012 so if appropriate the issue can be dealt with by way of committee stage amendment. The report will deal with issues as to whether the termination process should take account of the length of occupancy and the extent to which the operator has permitted an occupant to attach a caravan to the land.
One likely option to be considered is that very long-term occupants who are not otherwise covered by the act should have, in respect of termination, the same rights they would possess if they were covered by the act under a periodic occupancy. This would mean they would be entitled to 42 days notice. However, before formally proposing such an outcome, I would like to hear back from the Department of Justice on the outcomes of their consultation on this issue.
Other key provisions of the bill include:
the bill only applies to arrangements entered into after the commencement of the legislation, with the commencement date being 1 May 2012;
the bill defines ‘caravan park’, in essence, to be a place that has common facilities and sites for caravans. The Residential Tenancies Act is also to be amended so that it does not apply to such parks. Obviously, some parks contain a mix of caravans and cabins. The policy position taken is that such mixed-use places are to be regulated under the Caravan Parks Act, rather than under the Residential Tenancies Act;
a duty of the Chief Executive Officer is to publish a form of occupancy agreement. The act does not make it obligatory for a formal, signed agreement to exist for the purposes of permanent occupancies. However, it does deem there to be an agreement that contains the provisions deemed by the act to apply to all occupancies;
the act also provides for security deposits, rent reviews, terminations, rights and obligations of the operators and residents, as well as dispute resolution. All these provisions are closely modelled on the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act; and
regulations can be made which deal with caravans abandoned by the owners in parks.
The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act concerning caravans being drug premises under that act.
The government is keen to ensure this legislation commences on 1 May 2012. This is the reason I have introduced the bill during these sittings rather than waiting until February 2012. I want to ensure there is plenty of time for this bill to be commented on prior to its enactment. I look forward to further comments on the bill, particularly regarding changes to the bill arising out of the department’s consultations during November 2011. If appropriate, amendments will be made to the bill during the February 2012 sittings. I also propose that the regulations and the default caravan parks agreement required for the operation of the legislation be made available to the public by mid-February 2012.
In closing, I note that one of the themes reported to me by departmental officials concerning the current operations of caravan parks in the Territory is that there are very few problems. Most operators and residents reported they had good relationships and they are capable of sorting out issues between themselves.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, it is also the case that most legislation only seeks to resolve the difficult issues; that is, so that if relations are not so good, there is at least a fair playing field on which such issues can be resolved. Operators and residents only need to access the legislation to sort out problems. The legislation has been designed to minimise impact on the day-to-day relations.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for making this second reading speech as exciting as he did; caravan parks being fairly boring.
Debate adjourned.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Mr James Faraone. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 30 November 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I continue my comments in relation to this matter. Where I left off was dealing with offences of strict liability. The curious thing is when I raised this issue during the briefing my interpretation of strict liability I gave to the House yesterday was agreed with, although I had a little alarm bell ringing in the back of my head while I was on my feet yesterday in the House. So I did some more homework in relation to this matter. Under the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act, Subdivision 4, section 43AN(3):
A legislative drafting nightmare with the double negatives, but it does raise the issue as to the operation of strict liability. In the committee stages of this bill, I will be asking questions as to whether or not this is intended to operate as a form of strict liability or more in the nature of absolute liability, which has different impact. Not too much necessarily turns on that issue and, whether I was wrong or right yesterday, it would not have affected the Country Liberals’ opposition to this bill.
What does come out of this process of this act is, repeatedly through the legislative instruments, it creates a series of offences. Some of them are to be dealt with by way of a civil standard and others are to be dealt by way of normal standards. I will return to that issue shortly. It is the operation of how this legislative instrument works that gives me some concern at law. Bearing in mind that offences in terms of their physical elements are offences of strict liability, when you read the operation of many of the offences in the legislation - I think it occurs at least a dozen times or so in the legislation - where an offence is created. If you are talking about the physical element of the offence nominated in section 12B, then the offence’s physical elements eliminate the false fault elements as described by the Criminal Code.
That means if evidence is taken by a court that facts were such, or the physical elements of an offence were such - let us be accurate about it; that they were found in a certain condition - then whether or not the person charged with a criminal offence had any intent, foresight, negligence, or recklessness on their part no longer becomes necessarily an issue. In these offences I am referring to, the clause, or a clause similar to the one that I will quote now, section 171 says:
The way this nobbles together is, if a person is charged with an offence in relation to certain physical aspects - that is, the presence of a document was required to be revealed and was not, therefore that person was charged with the offence of failing to produce the document - that is all the court needs to determine that the person has committed the offence. If that is so, what I am concerned about is that what you effectively generate through this process is a reversal of the burden of proof. Essentially, under this legislative instrument, you are guilty until you prove your innocence, until you give a reason for why you have supposedly committed the offence. In fact, I draw honourable members’ attention to section 171(7), which says:
A member: Flies in the face of the justice system, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is part of my concern. This is not new; this does exist. It exists in the current Northern Territory work health legislation, and the Country Liberals opposed it on those grounds for the same reasons at the same time. This places a greater evidential burden upon a person charged with an offence against this act than is placed on someone accused of murder. If a murderer is charged with murder and they seek succour under the law, one of the first things offered to them under our judicial process is a presumption of innocence, and then all the defences available under the Criminal Code Act, which is a reflection of centuries of criminal law, are available to that person accused with murder.
But, if you are an employer, no such quality of defence is afforded you. Indeed, the effect of this legislative instrument is to reverse the burden of proof as to almost state that you are guilty of this offence until you provide the reason for a court to find you not guilty. I do not believe that is good law, and whilst some jurisdictions are happy to sign up to this type of thing, the Country Liberals, and certainly I, would not be prepared to sign up to such an arrangement.
I am aware of the amount of time I do not have not in relation to this. I could happily stand for several hours and speak on some of my concerns, but there is one component of this bill I cannot forebear but to mention and discuss in some detail. That deals with the operation between Division 7, section 254 onwards to about 266, and the operation of Part 7 of the legislation, which is workplace entry by Work Health Safety entry permit holders.
Amongst the Workplace Health and Safety entry permit holders will be union officials. Curiously, the union official who comes into a workplace as a permit holder comes into that workplace under certain rules and conditions stipulated in Part 7. However, the part I find most curious about this is they come into the workplace as a union official, who is authorised to enter the workplace under this legislation, and there is no requirement for a member of the union, or any union, to be there at all. Whilst there are provisions in this legislation that say the union cannot be there for the purposes of recruiting - it has to be only for workplace health and safety - the capacity for a legislative instrument of this nature to enable unions to get into the workplace to start recruiting is too great to bear. Surely, an organisation that is generally not created as a statutory authority should not have that type of right of entry into workplaces which are, in many instances, private property. I am not arguing for one second that the law should stop at the front door of private property; however, what I am suggesting is leave the policing to the police force, which is Northern Territory WorkSafe. I will come to WorkSafe shortly.
Moreover, if you then withhold certain information from this union official, you carry liability for which, in the case of a body corporate, you can be fined $50 000. In the case of an individual, you can be fined $10 000 but, curiously, there is no prison sentence attached to that because if you look at Division 7, clause 254 onwards, an offence against Part 7 is dealt with as a civil prosecution. The term ‘civil prosecution’ is curious but we will use it for the purpose of this debate.
I have major concerns about this concept which means if a union official fronts up and you refuse to answer questions - which you are obliged to do; there is no right of silence - or provide the information, then you are prosecuted. Curiously, it is dealt with as a civil matter because of this legislative instrument which means you can be up for a $10 000 fine. It looks like a criminal offence, it smells like a criminal offence, but we are being asked, as legislators here today, to call it a civil matter and it has all the properties of a civil dispute between the two parties.
That means there is a much lower burden of proof in any prosecution that operates in relation to this particular act. That lower burden of prosecution and the rules outlined in this legislation means not only do you not have any of the defences available that you normally would have, the prosecution, or a prosecution under Part 7, would have a much lower burden of proof, but you also then have to have full disclosure because all the rules of civil litigation apply. Before you even walk into a courtroom, you have had to disclose your whole hand, and if it was a civil dispute, I would understand that. However, this is, in essence, a criminal prosecution being dumbed down to a civil dispute and I am being asked, as a legislator, to support that. I cannot; it is not good law.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like a criminal prosecution and operates like a criminal prosecution then it should be a criminal prosecution. It is under the current Territory legislation. I am deeply concerned that this is an erosion of the rights of people charged with criminal offences under this legislation. For that reason, I am deeply concerned about being asked to pass this legislative instrument.
We then touch on the matter of the right to silence. Normally, people who are charged with offences have a right to silence - not so under this legislative instrument. We are then reassured in the legislative instrument that any person who makes an admission cannot have that admission used against them in a civil or criminal prosecution. Cool. That is all very good except for one thing: in the real world where criminal investigations actually occur, there are very few people who have undertaken criminal investigations who rely exclusively on the admissions made to the investigator during the course of an investigation.
For a practical example so members understand what I am banging on about, if a police officer investigates a serious assault involving a knife, then the police officer says to the suspect: ‘Did you do it?’ The suspect says: ‘Yes, and I threw the knife down the drain and you will find the knife down the drain’. According to this legislative instrument, if that principle was to apply, those admissions could not be used, via the fact that the suspect or the accused admitted they had the knife, they committed the offence, and threw the knife down the drain. What it does enable an investigator to do is still find incriminating evidence based on the admissions they received; that is, the police officer goes to the drain, takes the lid off the drain, discovers the knife in the drain, and on that knife is the DNA of the accused as well as the DNA of the victim. That remains admissible evidence under the rules established or contemplated by this legislation.
For argument’s sake, if an employer or a person accused under this legislation makes admissions to an investigative authority and, as a result of those admissions, further evidence of a contravention of this act is discovered or disclosed - be it documentary or physical evidence - then whilst the admissions are not admissible, what is certainly going to be admissible is the subsequent evidence. In the witness box, all the investigator would have to say is: ‘I had a conversation with the defendant and, as a result of that conversation I discovered all this extra evidence’. So, we have removed the right to silence even in the criminal components of this legislation.
Whilst any admissions made are not admissible, any further documentary or physical evidence is available for evidence under a prosecution under this legislation. That is a matter of concern, because a person charged with murder has a right to silence. We seem to be creating a system of offences around this legislative instrument which are, in essence, more onerous than serious offences such as rape and murder. I feel extremely uncomfortable, as a legislator, that we would find ourselves in an environment where we change the law to make the laws and the criminal or civil responsibility of people being pursued under this legislation less available than for people charged with serious criminal offences such as rape and murder.
Surely, if we are going to seek investigations and prosecutions under this legislation, the rights that have been built up over centuries under the common law, and generally enhanced and collected under our existing laws, would be protected? However, they are not. All of this will be done in the claim that we are protecting workers. Well, I do not feel inclined to be supportive of turning over centuries of good law for a claim which is a slogan, when you consider you can still protect workers and maintain the quality of the law in the same breath. Why other jurisdictions have signed up to this, I do not know. I do not much care. I, as a legislator, am being asked to sign up to it, and I wish to place on the record I do not want to sign up to this at all.
I also go on to some other practical components of what is occurring here. The legislative instrument before the House today is to replace – except for the mining industry for the next two years – the occupational work and safety legislation that currently exists in the Northern Territory. The overseeing body of the current legislation is Northern Territory WorkSafe under the Attorney-General’s department.
For all practical purposes, I am concerned that it is beyond the capacity of Northern Territory WorkSafe to effectively police this legislation. Northern Territory WorkSafe, as an organisation, is in a state of decay. Poor reports about its quality of management have surfaced - and I do not mean some second-hand comments, I mean a physical report done into management issues in the organisation. Its Katherine office has been shut down which means the whole of the rural area around Katherine - I presume from Borroloola across to Wadeye - now has no effective coverage for work health and safety. The staff turnover in that organisation has been extraordinary, and many of the people who used to be there who were effective and good operators in their field have been replaced by - and this is not a criticism of those frontline staff - but essentially novices who do not have the vast wealth of knowledge required to be built up by these type of organisations over time.
I am deeply concerned that WorkSafe …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Port Darwin be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their indulgence.
The operation of WorkSafe demonstrates that you have an organisation that will probably have to place this legislative instrument into a holding pattern itself for 12 months, whilst it gets ready and organises itself to do all the things this legislative instrument requires it to do.
Another area where I am critical of this legislative instrument is in relation to the notices, the enforceable undertakings. Talk about fluff! Where WorkSafe will be applying these, if they get organised to the point where they will be applying these enforceable undertakings, is in workplaces which are in potential contravention of this legislative instrument.
Whilst I realise it is part of a national harmonised scheme, I cannot understand why you would create Part 11 of this act for any sensible reason. Essentially, how it works is this: a WorkSafe officer or other permit holder will see a shortcoming under one of the codes in a particular workplace. They will then exchange paperwork with the possible breacher of the legislation. The idea, I presume, is to keep the whole thing out of court. So you have this nice little exchange of paperwork and something almost akin to a contract is engaged in, which is: ‘I will not prosecute you if you fix up this problem in the workplace’. I simply do not understand why you need to put that into legislation. It happens today in any number of regulatory environments where the regulatory inspector, be it a police officer, or a health inspector, walks into a place and says: ‘Get that fixed, otherwise I will prosecute you’.
Now, all of a sudden, we have reams of legislation dedicated to something that occurs on a daily basis anyway and could continue to occur regardless of whether this legislation operates. It is so much tripe and waffle and it does not, in any effective way, change what will happen on the ground in the workplace other than people are filling out bits of paper which, essentially, demand the same thing and extract the same promises.
I am also concerned with the union right of entry operating in the Northern Territory, and a WorkSafe area which will struggle with these legislative instruments. In the Northern Territory, you will effectively create a system of ex officio inspectors through the union movement, doing WorkSafe’s job for them. Regulatory inspectors should be regulatory inspectors who inspect for the purpose of enforcing regulation. Unions are organisations which look after workers’ interests, which are private non-statutory organisations as a general rule, and should not be fulfilling necessarily regulatory roles.
Where a union official becomes aware of a breach of a legislative instrument, there are appropriate authorities like WorkSafe to which they can report these shortcomings. This shortcut to making them the ex officio officer, in my mind and in the mind of the Country Liberals, is unsustainable. It is not right, and it generates a level of authority which is unacceptable in the eyes of members on this side of the House. I know the government will tell me that under Fair Work Australia legislation, these rights of access already exist. In fact, if I read this legislation correctly, you cannot even get a permit under these arrangements unless you are the same union official with access under the Fair Work Australia legislation. Whatever! I still disagree with it and members on this side of the House disagree.
If they were looking after the rights of members and were enabled under this legislation to go into workplaces where they had union members represented by their unofficial non-statutory authority organisation, I could understand that. I believe that to not demand union members be present creates a structure around union officials which was never part of even the reason those unions established themselves.
Madam Acting Speaker, in conclusion, and I wish I had more time but I have already been on my feet for 50 minutes, the Country Liberals oppose this legislation on a raft of areas. As I said at the outset, we support the concept and the principle of national harmonised legislation; however, I remind honourable members that what will happen on 1 January 2012 will not be a national harmonised legislative instrument. In fact, it will not even be harmonised in the Northern Territory by virtue of the amendments the government seeks to pass during the committee stages of this bill.
What it will be is anything but harmony on the grounds that the mining industry will now be exempted for the next two years in the Northern Territory alone. I understand that is not the minister’s fault because this is something generated by Safe Work Australia and problems with the implementation at a national level. The fact that Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria all will not have this legislative instrument operational by 1 January 2012 means that even if this legislation passes the House today, it will not be harmonious and will not have achieved the goals sought by COAG when this arrangement was put in place.
Whilst the minister will argue long and loud that so many people have been consulted, the Chamber of Commerce supports this legislative instrument, and the Master Builders Association has indicated they will support this legislative instrument - mind you, by the way, not nationally, nationally they are agin it …
Ms Lawrie: We are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: This is national legislation.
Ms Lawrie: We are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: This is national legislation.
Ms Lawrie: And we are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: And this is national legislation.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It just shows you how arrogant this ex-Attorney-General is, Madam Acting Speaker. If she was up to the job, she would be running this show, but she is not, and it is typical of this …
Ms Lawrie: I have been waiting for it. It has taken you how long to get to that?
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is typical of this government to just simply roll over to whatever is being suggested by the powers that be and not look after Territory businesses. This is the problem. The Housing Industry Association is agin this, and there are any number of organisations - Independent Contractors of Australia are agin this because they have their problems with it. This is not harmonised. There is not a sense of harmony out there in the community, and there is not a sense of harmony in the industry groups affected by the variant codes.
This is not harmonised legislation. It is a three-ringed circus. It has collapsed as a national agreement, and we continue to soldier down this path to meet this 1 January deadline come hell or high water simply because - why? Because there is $2m attached to this with COAG spending. That is probably it. The fact is, this government is now running down a path that other jurisdictions are baulking at - and I am talking about Labor and Liberal jurisdictions: South Australia, Labor jurisdiction; Tasmania, Labor jurisdiction …
Ms Lawrie: New South Wales.
Mr ELFERINK: If you had listened to the debate the other day, you would have heard what I had to say about New South Wales. Western Australia, Liberal, and Victoria, Liberal all have problems with it. This is not a matter of ideological division. This is a matter of poor legislation, poorly managed through the various organisations affected by it. There are individual businesses and even members - shock horror! - of the Chamber of Commerce who have problems with this legislation. Even the chamber’s own membership in some …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: It is already done. I am on 55 minutes already.
Mr Styles: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: Even the chamber, whilst sending its support, has members who are unhappy with it. There is nothing harmonised about this. This is not good legislation for all the reasons I have described. If I had another 55 minutes, I could continue describing why this is not good legislation.
The Country Liberals oppose this legislation because it is bad law badly implemented. We support worker safety, we support the concept of national harmonised legislation, but for goodness sake, if you are going to go down that path you are duty bound to get it right.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim thought I was wrapping up; he obviously missed the portfolio reshuffle. The member for Daly is Attorney-General with responsibility for this legislation now.
I stand proudly to commend and support this legislation. It flows out of a federal government election commitment to harmonise occupational health and safety laws across our nation. That was in response to a request from the business sectors of our community that operate across state and territory boundaries. Many companies have work sites across state and territory boundaries and they were sick of dealing with a myriad of bureaucracy around occupational health and safety requirements. Across the jurisdictions of our nation, there are quite dramatic and distinct differences in the requirements imposed upon employers in their roles, responsibilities, and duty to keep workers safe in the workplace.
I do not know that anyone in this Chamber is going to argue about the need to have occupational health and safety legislation to ensure a regime of safety for workers in the workplace. What we will hear in this debate, and have heard in this debate, is an ideological divide between the Country Liberal Party and the Labor government in a reasonable and sensible landing point in the legal and regulatory regime around occupational health and safety.
We have not been running down the path as described by the shadow spokesperson. This has been years of hard work and reform by all state and territory governments working with the Commonwealth government, involving officials across the public service agencies responsible for workplace health and safety, involving ministers across all the jurisdictions at many meetings. This has not been running down the path.
An exposure draft was released in September 2009. Here we are, more than two years later, debating the legislation that went out as an exposure draft in 2009. That was open for a six-week consultation period; 480 submissions were received and formed the basis for a number of amendments to the bill. Amendments include, to Part 7, the right of entry offences being subject to a civil penalty regime consistent with that in the Fair Work Act of 2009.
There seems to be a bizarre argument from the shadow that it should be a criminal regime. I would like to hear him explain that to employers across the Territory: that he would not want to see them dealing with breaches in a civil environment, he wants them to be dealt with in a criminal environment. That was a very curious pursuit by the shadow.
The changes and amendments coming out of those consultations all went to the value of penalties for corporations. They also went to a duty for the persons conducting a business or undertaking, a PCBU, to consult not only with the workers directly affected by the health and safety matter, but with the other duty holders who have a duty in relation to the same matter. What we are seeing here is that chain of responsibility in a workplace being genuinely recognised. If you want to see real outcomes in the safety of workplaces, regardless of the risk in the industry, when you identify the chain of responsibility and ensure there is a requirement to engage in that chain of responsibility, you genuinely get safe workplaces.
I have practised occupational health and safety for years across workplaces, and the fears I heard enunciated in debate by the shadow were arguments I heard in the 1980s. It is extraordinary to be in the Chamber of the Territory parliament in 2011 …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting. Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and to hear the same rhetoric and fears around the occupational health and safety provisions, including union right of entry, that were prevailing in the debates in the 1980s when occupational health and safety legislation was coming in across our jurisdictions and being modernised in its application in the workplace.
My experience is, with the sound structure we see in this model legislation, you actually do get a better working relationship, a more constructive working relationship, between the employee and the employer. That is four-and-a-half years of practical implementation using workplace-by-workplace experience of occupational health and safety based on what is in this harmonised legislation. The fear, loathing, and rhetoric coming from the member for Port Darwin is 20 years old and proven across workplaces to be wrong.
I congratulate the Territory’s business industry groups for being at the table every step of the way through the development and consultation into this legislation. They have taken the time and the effort to understand its detail, its practical application to their business members, and how, with sound practice, with the associated education awareness regimes, they will get safer workplaces.
I say to the member for Port Darwin, shame on you, because if you actually want to denigrate and degrade legislation that provides for safer workplaces in a fair and balanced way, you are literally, for the sake of your political ideology, accepting that workplace injury and fatality is just part of accepting your ideology. Anyone who has seen someone injured in a workplace, or had the horror of dealing with someone killed in the workplace, would understand you actually need law and regulation in a workplace environment so that whatever can be done to make that workplace safe, absolutely must be done.
For those who abrogate their responsibility in that, there absolutely must be penalties. There is genuinely a role for unions to play in facilitating identification of the health and safety representatives, ensuring the training of those health and safety representatives occur, and ensuring the identification of risks in the workplace are dealt with through those mechanisms within the workplace. To do that, you cannot sit outside the workplace as a union official; you actually have to be able to come into the workplace. I know the right-wing ideology of the member for Port Darwin finds that somewhat confronting but, in my experience, it is productive. In my experience, it helps get improved outcomes of safety in the workplace. I have had four-and-a-half years of on-the-ground experience, proudly, as a union official …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I hear the laughter of the member for Fong Lim on that. He just shrouds himself in this cloak of right-wing ideology and cannot see through it - cannot see through the practical applications of a robust and well-tested range of regulatory requirements to make workplaces safer.
There is nothing in this legislation today that has not been tested anywhere across our nation. It is a bringing together of the common aspects of the existing occupational health and safety legislation across our nation, and it is - after a series of meetings and negotiations across all state jurisdictions - an agreed outcome of what is the fairest approach in the regulatory environment. Everything in here has been tested and has proven not to be a barrier to the growth of industry. It is not in anyone’s interest to impede the growth of industry. It is not in anyone’s interest to make it difficult for employers to go about their business and grow their business because unions want to see jobs growth too, but not at the expense of the safety of the man or woman undertaking tasks they are directed to undertake.
I am proud to be a Territorian who went through a major overhaul of our own legislation in 2008, and what we have before us today largely reflects that. There are some differences. They are not significant and have been well-articulated by our government. They are well-understood by the industry organisations. The Housing Industry Association stands on its own against it …
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: That is not true!
Ms LAWRIE: As the former Attorney-General, I met with Chris Young, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, who also chairs the WorkSafe Advisory Council, and he is supportive of this. He understands its workability, and is across its detail. He is not unaware of the task ahead in drilling down and ensuring, through the $2m we get from the Commonwealth for passage of this legislation and the time line agreed nationally, we need to spend money raising awareness and education across employer groups. …
Mr Elferink: Are you going to put the rest of the $2m into WorkSafe?
Ms LAWRIE: I also met with the horticultural, agricultural, and seafood industries; I have spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association. All the industry organisations are up for this and will work with WorkSafe through their subcommittees to ensure they have a genuine program of working with their industry members to provide information regarding the requirements of this legislation and regulatory environment. Without a doubt, the Commonwealth funding will help those industry organisations get out there and work with their members to raise the awareness.
What happens in awareness raising? In a practical way, when you are aware of your responsibilities, you turn your mind to how you can deliver on your responsibilities and, in doing that, you are literally saving people from being injured at the workplace, or the horror of one of your employees dying. Ask an employer who has been through that as to whether they could wind the clock back, have their time over again, and pay greater attention to workplace safety. They carry that death for the rest of their life; they carry that injury for the rest of their life. Talk to the families affected by workplace injury and death, and try to explain to them, member for Port Darwin, why you think having standard and fair law and regulation across our nation is wrong. You are anti-union …
Mr Elferink: It is not good law. That is the problem I have with it. It is just bad law.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: This assists employers by ensuring they are not dealing with a myriad of different laws across state borders when they have workplaces across those borders. Tasmania has the bill in the Upper House and debates it this week. The Commonwealth, of course, has already passed the legislation; Western Australia, well, it might be introduced before the end of the year, but it will not be passed; New South Wales Liberals passed it; South Australia, the bill is currently in the Upper House; Victoria, it is drafted but not yet introduced; Queensland, the bill has been passed; and the ACT, the bill has been passed.
This is on the pathway of having a national uniform legislation. The task ahead, with passage today in the Territory, is to ensure WorkSafe gets the support through government to do the work. Mind you, it has already done the heavy lifting work for a couple of years to get us to this point. The task is to continue that implementation, assisting WorkSafe as the responsible authority, and working with industry organisations to ensure they have the practical and real support, and the resource support, to get out there and work with their members.
I am proud to be part of a process which has taken more than two years of mature, sensible, and reasonable negotiation across every state and territory, with the Commonwealth, to arrive at an agreed outcome that will benefit the employers of our nation because they will have one set of rules, and will benefit the employees, the workers of our nation, because there will be a very clear, well-articulated and well-explained set of requirements to make them safe in their workplace. I would expect, with effort, to explain this to our businesses and to our workers in the Territory, to ensure we use the opportunity contained within the law and the regulations to make workplaces safer. I expect to see an improvement in our injury rates by reduction, and my God, I expect an improvement in our fatality rates.
Madam Acting Speaker, this is fundamentally important for the safety of Territorians. It is fair. It has been negotiated for two years. The majority of the employer groups and industry organisations across our nation and, indeed, in the Northern Territory, agree with it, because they called for it in the first place and the Labor government responded to their call. I commend this legislation to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Karama, the way she wears her heart on her sleeve and seems so passionate about these issues. Who, in their right mind, wants to see workers killed? She talks about people being killed, and all this sort of stuff. No one wants to see that, no one wants to see workers injured, and no employer wants to see workers injured. No employee wants to be injured or killed, heaven forbid! The member for Karama waxes lyrical about how we are going to save lives, and all of that. The way she stands on her high horse and preaches to everyone is infuriating.
Of course, everyone supports the harmonisation of laws across Australia - all laws. Australia is a small place and it makes life easier for all of us if the same laws apply everywhere. We have different jurisdictions, however, and people have different views on what those laws would be. In an ideal world, we would have one world law, where the law was the same all over the world. We could all aspire to that. The fact is, the world is made up of individuals, and individuals are, as it says, individuals. People are different. We all have different views and the like, so creating harmonised laws - globally, nationally, even in the Northern Territory at times - is very difficult because people will have different views on what is right and wrong.
Everyone supports safe workplaces. We all want to see a safe workplace. It is wrong to suggest that some people do not care about safety. Of course people care about safety. The level of care about safety varies from person to person; again, we are all individuals. Some people have no problems bungee jumping or motorbike riding; other people are scared to death about that type of thing and say those practices are not safe. Everyone has a different view of what is safe or what is thrilling but, in the main, we all want to see safe workplaces. No employer wants to put his or her employees in danger and no employee wants to be in danger.
One of our concerns with the national harmonised laws is, in many ways, this is not about the safety of workers, nor the ability of employers to maintain worker safety. This is, in many ways, more about strengthening the rights of unions, which of course is the Labor way. They were spawned of the union movement and have much association with the union movement. Trade unions control more than half the votes at their national conference. That is not a bad thing; the world has changed. Only 12% of workers in the Northern Territory are members of unions. It is questionable as to whether 12% of the population should be able to have half the say on anything. However, that is how Labor came into being, and they are still hooked on that conflict approach unions take. You need to have a fight; that is why unions are in business. If you are not fighting about something, what is the point of being around? Unions would dissolve. One of the reasons we see only a small minority of our population as union members these days is the old days of massive disputes are behind us. We have a much more modernised economy and a modernised workplace. People do things by agreement these days, whereas in the past they did it by arbitration and conflict.
My view is that workplace safety is not a matter for bargaining. It is not a bargaining tool used in wages negotiations and should never be seen as that. However, this is one of the sacred cows of the union movement. Along with wages, safety is an important issue and they are going to fight. That is what gives them relevance to their membership - they can get in there and fight. Their whole existence is about fighting.
This side of the Chamber believes that that model is outdated. The days of negotiation and agreement are upon us now, and we should be encouraging people to negotiate individual employment conditions, etcetera. However, safety should not be part of that; safety should be a given. Employers want their workers to be safe, employees want to be safe at work, and that should not enter into any workplace relations discussions at all. It should simply be a given. For that reason, safety at work should not be a bargaining tool used by unions in wages negotiations. Things like right of entry and right to inspect the books all seem to be an anathema to having decent workplace health and safety laws. People should be encouraged to work together to ensure they have strong safety measures in place at their particular workplaces.
Much contained in these proposed laws will, in some ways, drive up costs. Cost should not be a major concern when it comes to the safety of workers, but in a competitive world, costs have an impact. Some of the safety requirements being pedalled by trade unions, quite frankly, are not relevant.
The member for Karama says I am wrapped up in this right-wing blanket. I remind the member for Karama of my previous occupation - I ran a superannuation fund which used to be referred to as a union super fund. We had, on the Board of Directors …
Mr Elferink: The FMEU donate to your election fund?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, the Chamber of Manufacturers was the employer representative with the ACTU, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Bill Kelty, Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean, and a whole range of people like that were my bosses at one stage; they were trustees. I worked out of the Trades and Labor Council building here for five years or so. For 10 years, whilst I was in that occupation, I worked very closely with trade unions in the Territory.
Talking about nationalised workplace laws and the views unions have, I was quite surprised when I was in the Miscellaneous Workers Union office one day and they had these fliers about working in heat. I think it started off at 28C: ‘When the temperature of a workplace hits 28C, we should down tools every 15 minutes; when it gets to 30C, we down tools for half-an-hour every hour; when it gets to 32C, three-quarters-of-an-hour every hour; when it gets to 34C, we shut up shop and everyone goes home because it is clearly too hot to work’. That might be the case in Tasmania, but clearly, in the Northern Territory, if you shut down work every time the temperature exceeded 34C, a big chunk of work would just never happen.
Living in the tropics and other parts of Australia, that is simply a fact of life. People who work outdoors generally will work in quite hot temperatures. To have a mandatory or arbitrary condition that every hour while the temperature is over 30C, we do not work for half-an-hour so people can sit in the shade and have a cool drink of water – quite frankly, things would not get done. In that regard, I am very concerned when I see unions, in particular, pushing workplace safety laws because, quite often, they bring everything down to the lowest common denominator rather than looking at what is appropriate in one place and what is appropriate in another.
If the government was really serious about addressing workplace safety in the Northern Territory, it would look in its own back yard. Rather than shelving off the responsibility to someone else to sort out our workplace safety laws, it would actually take an interest in what goes on here.
In the Northern Territory we have WorkSafe, the watchdog for workplace safety. Unfortunately, WorkSafe in the Northern Territory does not seem to be too concerned with workplace health and safety. It seems more a dumping ground, or a pre-retirement home, for this government, for all those washed-out union officials for whom they cannot find a place. Certainly, the management of WorkSafe is. You look at the management at WorkSafe and ask: ‘Has anyone in this organisation ever employed anyone? Have they ever run a business? Do they have any empathy at all for employers?’ When you look at the management, there is no one there who has any empathy for employers. They are, as I said, predominately washed-out union officials. You hear stories all the time. I had much to do with WorkSafe; it was part of a portfolio I had earlier this term. I received a number of phone calls in my office from employees of WorkSafe, unhappy with the regime there, where they drag in people to comment or provide advice on how to manage the organisation.
I understand the Director of WorkSafe was pulled into line in one of those reports. I do not have the information at hand. I asked questions about it in estimates last year. Of course, the Director of WorkSafe was not prepared to answer those questions I put to her, or to the minister, but there is no denying that WorkSafe is a union-contaminated organisation in the Northern Territory. They are not very focused at all on workplace safety. They are more focused on how they can provide a good landing pad for washed-out union officials. That is very sad ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, given it is now midday, I ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Acting Speaker, I will resume shortly.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: We will be suspending the House for lunchtime and you will have an opportunity to resume your remarks when the House resumes after 2 pm. Thank you.
Debate suspended.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been asked to advise you that at the conclusion of sittings this evening, could you clear your desks please, including any personal belongings or papers. There will be works commencing in the Chamber from tomorrow. Whilst those works are under way, you will not be allowed into the Chamber.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, we are resuming debate on the Work Health bills with the member for Fong Lim in continuation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Speaker, and what a bizarre joke that was. How the Treasurer gets away without a warning, I will never know. Talk about things that are not points of order and that interesting stuff. You seem to get away with anything in this place when you are the Treasurer.
The Treasurer has put forward a bill today seeking support for the harmonisation of workplace laws. The new Attorney-General has taken over from the Treasurer on this. If this government was the least bit concerned about work health and safety in the workplace, the first thing they would do is look at their own agencies. WorkSafe is a good place to start, because it does seem to be a completely dysfunctional organisation, mainly due to the way it is managed and run by the director and her senior officers. If the government was at all serious about fixing up problems of work health and safety, it would run a broom through that joint, clear out all the dead wood because, as I said before Question Time, WorkSafe is simply a pre-retirement home, or this government’s dumping ground for washed-out union hacks, for people who have done their time serving hard-working people in the union movement. It is like a golden handshake before retirement: ‘We will drop you into WorkSafe and give you a go there. Do a couple of years in that organisation, and then toddle off with a Northern Territory government pension or into the wilderness into retirement’. Simply speaking, if you look at the senior ranks of NT WorkSafe it becomes obvious that NT WorkSafe is simply a dumping ground for washed-out union hacks. It is like a pre-retirement home for union officials.
If the government is serious and wants to do something to ensure the safety of workers it should have an agency that is functioning, well-run, and doing the job in the community it should be doing. It should not be a retirement village for union hacks; it should not be a place of industrial dispute, a place where people do not want to turn up to work. They should be doing an effective job in the community.
Madam Acting Speaker, I will finish up now. I was not going to talk for that long on this particular bill. My advice to government is: stop this nonsense of these so-called harmonised laws. The laws are nothing but a tool for unions to belt employers - good employers - in the Northern Territory across the head. They give them rights of entry, rights to inspect books, and practically drive up costs to business. If it is at all serious about work health, it will sort out WorkSafe and make it a viable agency doing a valuable job in the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, the background to the bill is this legislation is about attempting to get national uniform health and safety laws to protect Australians where they work, regardless of what type of work they do. The reason for these rules is to make workplaces safe and reduce or eliminate death or injury to workers - something that has to remain a priority in this debate.
These laws will also mean greater certainty for employers, especially those who work across borders, and will eventually reduce business compliance costs. The laws will also provide better cover for contractors and make very clear everyone’s responsibilities. These changes have not happened overnight so I thought I would read out the chronology of events that has led us here today.
In December 2007, the NT Workplace Health and Safety Act was passed and commenced on 1 July 2008. In March 2008, COAG agreed to 27 deregulation initiatives including harmonisation of OH&S. In April 2008, the federal minister announced a national review. In July 2008, all ministers signed an intergovernmental agreement. In January 2009, a national review was completed. In December 2008, ministers signed a national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy. Part of that was the harmonising of OH&S, which was one of 27 initiatives. In February 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council agreed to establish Safe Work Australia. In March 2009, Safe Work Australia conducted a public forum in the NT. In May 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved outcome of the review and the policy decisions regarding the model bill, and instructed formulation of the model law.
In July 2009, Safe Work Australia was established. In September 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved exposure draft for the model bill and consultation regarding regulation and impact statement was released for public comment. They received, over six weeks, 480 submissions. In September 2009, model regulations to accompany the model bill were released for public comment. These included the model regulations, core function, obligations, and powers, incident notification, union right of entry, health and safety representatives, and dispute resolution.
In October 2009, Northern Territory WorkSafe conducted a public forum in the regions regarding the model act accompanied by newspaper advertisements. In December 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved the model bill. In late 2009, they commenced to develop Stage 2 regulations. In late 2009, there was a commencement to develop the Stage 3 regulations, and in early 2010, there was commencement to develop Stage 4 model regulations. In late 2010, there was the commencement to develop model codes of practice. In December 2010, Safe Work Australia released model regulations and priority codes for public comment.
In February and March 2011, Northern Territory WorkSafe conducted forums in regions and Darwin, accompanied by media advertising. In March 2011, Cabinet endorsed in principle the Northern Territory government submission to Safe Work Australia model regulations. In April 2011, there was public comment on the model regulations and first stage codes were closed. A total of 1343 submissions were received and considered over four months. In April 2011, NT Cabinet approved the draft model bill. In July 2011, the mining regulations and codes of practice public comment period opened. In August 2011, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council endorsed in principle model regulations and first stage codes of practice. In September 2011, they also endorsed the decision for the regulation impact statement for model regulations. In late September, the second tranche of model codes were released for public comment.
In October 2011, the mining regulation impact study was released for public comment. In October, the mining regulations and codes of practice public comment was closed. In November, the mining regulation impact statement and public comment was closed. In November 2011, public comment closed on one group of model codes, which included First Aid in the Workplace, Managing Risks in Construction Work, Preventing Falls in Housing Construction, Managing Electrical Risks at the Workplace, Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals, and Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace.
In December 2011, public comment closed on another group of model codes: Safe Design of Building and Structures, Excavation Work, Demolition Work, Spray Painting and Powder Coating, Abrasive Blasting, Welding and Allied Processes, Safe Access in Tree Trimming and Arboriculture, Preventing and Managing Fatigue in the Workplace, and Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying.
I read that out to emphasise that some people might say this bill is coming before there has been adequate consultation. I gave that chronology as some evidence that there has been a great deal of consultation before it got to this stage.
This legislation is made up of three bills. The main bill sets out the framework for these changes. This bill, although not drafted the same, is essentially the same as what has been operating in the Territory since 2008, except for the introduction of PCBUs - that is, person conducting a business or undertaking – penalties, and rights of entry. The second bill amends other existing acts, and the third bill creates the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority and the Work Health Court.
The regulations, which I have here in a small form, have been developed in consultation with business over a long period. The only regulations which appear to have some sticking points are the mining regulations. It is obvious from the amendments put forward today that that has not been able to be finalised at this time. The regulations may look many, but except for Chapters 1, 2, and 3 which cover preliminary matters, representation and participation, and general risk and workplace management, the rest relate to particular industries.
The existing work health and safety laws directly reference over 120 Australian standards and a number of National Occupational Health and Safety Commission standards incorporated in the body of the law; that is, in the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations and Dangerous Goods Regulations. This means these standards are incorporated into the law of the Territory and a duty holder is required to access and be familiar with these standards, which would ordinarily require that person to purchase the copy of the standard - and we know how much they used to cost. Under the model laws, there are nine Australian standards forming part of the regulations. The other 111 standards have been incorporated into the regulations or the codes, or have dropped off.
There are nine standards specifically still mentioned in the regulations. I will just go through them with their main title: the training and certification of recreational divers and recreational scuba dive supervisor; occupational noise management, measurement and assessment of noise emission and exposure; occupational diving operations, standard operational practice; electrical installations, construction and demolition sites; safe use of lasers in the building and construction industry; method for the quality of identification of asbestos in bulk samples; pressure equipment, hazard levels; amusement rides and devices; designer construction; and gas cylinders and general requirements.
Codes: the codes represent best practice but are not legally binding. There are 12 codes of practice which have been finalised, and public consultation closed in April 2011. I have mentioned some of those before, but I will just go through them so at least people understand what those codes are about. These 12 codes of practice which closed in April 2011 were: How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks; How to Consult on Work Health and Safety; Managing the Work Environment and Facilities; Facilities for Construction Sites; Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work; Hazardous Manual Tasks; Confined Spaces; How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace; How to Prevent Falls at Workplaces; and How to Safely Remove Asbestos. There are a couple I did not mention earlier, but it is worth naming those. There is also the Labelling of Workplace Hazardous Chemicals, and Preparation of Safety Data Sheets for Hazardous Chemicals. There were 15 codes of practice out for consultation and they closed on 18 November 2011; there were also another nine codes which closed on Friday 16 December 2011.
That gives you some idea of the breadth this legislation covers. As a layperson, the best guide for me about whether this bill should be supported or not is to talk to the industry. I have spoken to the industry, especially people like Chris Young, Chief Executive of Chamber of Commerce and Graham Kemp from the Master Builders Association. I spoke to Robert Harding from HIA, South Australia and Northern Territory; Mark Crossin of Unions NT; Peter Stewart, Chief Executive Minerals Council; Dean Harrison, Manager of OH&S Paspaley; Susie Meyerskoff from Brustolin Builders; Matthew Gardiner United Voice formerly Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union; and Laurene Hull, Executive Director NT WorkSafe. Although not mentioned here, the government will probably be the largest employer affected, yet it does not mention OH&S much in annual reports. As an example, the education section has, over the last 10 years, injury claims across Australia totalling more than $37m, and it is something government needs to be responding to as well.
In relation to other states and harmonisation, which was discussed here earlier, we know these laws are part of a harmonisation process for health and safety laws across Australia. In Queensland, the bill has passed and the regulations finalised and approved for commencement on 1 January 2012. In New South Wales, the bills have passed and amendments will be moved this week to remove the amendments made in the House during passage, and the regulations have been finalised and approved for commencement on 1 January 2012. In the Australian Capital Territory, the bill has passed and the regulations are in the final drafting stage in anticipation of commencement on 1 January 2012. In South Australia, the debate on the bill has been adjourned until February 2012, so they will not meet the deadline, leaving only Tasmania which is debating it today, I presume; it is not clear whether this legislation will go through Tasmania today. The expectation of the Tasmanian regulator and the commitment of the Tasmanian government is to commence the legislation on 1 January 2012.
In the Commonwealth, the bill is due for debate in the Upper House later this week, and the regulations are in final draft form for commencement on 1 January 2012. WorkSafe has spoken to its counterpart in Western Australia and has been advised that the WA Commission will be seeking approval to introduce the legislation this year; however, passage will not be possible by 1 January. The Western Australian government has not made any definitive public statement about the timing of implementation of the model law but has noted that 1 January 2012 is not sufficient time to consider the laws. In Victoria, we know the introduction has been delayed and there is no confirmed date.
I was contacted by the HIA - I think he was a solicitor working for them in South Australia - and I listened to his concerns and discussed them with other people as well. One issue is that South Australia does not have the same standard of legislation as the Northern Territory currently, so the model law is a significant change for industry in South Australia. My argument is that one can hold up important legislation for the sake of these points of difference, which I do not think were major points of difference, or pass the law based on the principle that it is too important a piece of legislation to delay.
Generally, one of the reasons industry supports this legislation is the transitional period that has been agreed to, and there are generous transitional periods with the introduction of the regulations. I quote from the Master Builders Australia media release on 11 November:
Further on they said:
Not all states have passed the legislation, but my argument is that it is a little bit like the history of trying to get Australian railways to make up their mind whether we would have one standard-gauge railway. It has taken a long time, but that does not mean because you cannot quite get to harmonisation you do not attempt to do it. If these laws help workers in the NT have a safer workplace - and realising the model laws are almost the same as what we have currently in the Northern Territory - it would be silly to hold off our legislation just because Western Australia and Victoria decided to delay and, in fact, passing this legislation might even encourage those wavering.
Harmonisation, whilst important, is not a showstopper at this time. Education is another key to the passing of this legislation and is an issue that must go hand-in-hand with the legislation. Education is the key to successful implementation of this legislation, not only in relation to some of the changes, but also from the point of view of existing legislation. For instance, we have been told some industries have little knowledge of existing legislation let alone what is coming in. We also know agriculture has one of the worst OH&S records in Australia. Legislation without education is pointless if you are to be effective in changing the culture in some of these industries.
It is of great concern that agriculture, forestry, and fishing has one of the highest fatality rates in Australia. The Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety said that in Australia between 1 January and 30 June 2011, there were 40 on-farm deaths of which 17 were quad bikes. In the same period, there were 59 non-fatal injuries on farms with 14 on quad bikes and 13 on tractors, with another 15 non-fatal injuries on off-farm quad bikes. Data from NT WorkSafe says over a 10-year period, injury claims from agriculture, fishing, and forestry cost $39m, with beef cattle taking the lion’s share with $25m. As I said, education is desperately needed.
Master Builders Australia said in their media release recently:
I note the Cattlemen’s Association already has an OH&S DVD, which I looked at the other night. The President of the Cattlemen’s Association introduces it. It is a great start to assisting new people coming into the agricultural industry of the Northern Territory about OH&S. It has a mixture of students, local station managers, and Aboriginal people. It is easy to understand. It is amusing at times, but it sends the right message. There needs to be not only that type of education, but also on-ground education people whose full-time job is to improve OH&S. If agriculture has the worst record, followed by construction, it is beholden on government to use part or all of that money from the COAG agreement to educate people on what the changes are really about. It is not just about legislation, it is not just about passing this bill, it has to be changing a culture that, I suppose, for a long time was regarded as the norm.
I heard today of a pastoral property being fined $50 000 in relation to the death of an employee on a bull catcher. Whilst we might have enjoyed pictures of people flying through the scrub hanging on for dear life as they knock over anthills and go through trees trying to catch cleanskins, in reality, it is dangerous. The reality is we have to ensure people’s lives are looked after. After all, those people will have families, they will be supporting families or have loved ones, and we do not want those people injured or killed.
There have been issues raised about the costs of this new legislation to consumers in relation to these changes. The NT is already operating under many of these laws and is unlikely to see a major cost increase. I have been told the cost would probably be around $1000 per contractor per year in the building industry. In other states where these laws have not been implemented, there will be higher costs; that is at least admitted. We had this debate in 2008 and time has moved on. Most of our laws are in keeping with what is being introduced here and the figure I have been given is $1000 per contractor per year in the building industry.
The cost savings from reducing deaths and injuries by reducing downtime and insurance payouts is a much bigger saving. You need to look wider than what the costs will be in improving safety. That is an important area which has to be taken into consideration in this debate because the nub of this debate is about reducing the number of fatalities or injuries in industry in the Northern Territory.
Whilst I have spoken to several people who have concerns, and I take those concerns seriously, I found none of those concerns to be a reason for stopping this legislation. Some people even said that. The ones who had some concern said whilst they understood there are some issues, they expressed the view that harmonisation of so many laws over the whole of Australia is extremely difficult and you will not all get what you want. However, they said they want this legislation passed.
An example of support came from the Work Health and Safety Advisory Council, which worked on this legislation. It had members from the Transport Workers Union South Australia/ Northern Territory branch; Unions NT; Chamber of Commerce NT; Minerals Council; United Voice; Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; NT Road Transport Association; and the NT Horticultural Association. A letter stated:
Another letter from United Voice stated:
Another group I have spoken to is the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, which is now acting as a peak body for the Cattlemen’s Association, the seafood industry, and the horticultural industry - an area which requires reform. In fact, they were telling me that arborists are waiting for this legislation to come into place because there were going to be restrictions on how arborists could manage lopping trees. They put forward some changes to what was being proposed and that has been agreed to. They are very happy for those changes to be implemented.
It is sad, as I said before, the cattle industry, especially the beef industry in Australia, and naturally in the Territory, and the seafood industry, have high rates of death and injury. It is really important that the government spends this money - or a large proportion of it - on education; that it employs people whose full-time job it is to go into the bush, out on boats, telling people how to improve safety in their work area.
We can talk until the cows come home about this legislation, but if there is no change in the number of fatalities, then the government has not done its job. It has to go out and sell this, and educate people. It has to do it carefully and responsibly, because if there is a culture which has been around for 100 years, you are not going to change it by someone saying: ‘I am going to fine you $50 000 because you have not done that’. You do not need that type of approach; what you have to do is bring industry along with you and show them that not only is there a moral or ethical side to ensuring a workplace is safe, but there is also an economic advantage in making a workplace safe.
The cattle industry would also gain an advantage because a number of companies in the Northern Territory are cross-border into Queensland, such as AACo which is looking at establishing an abattoir in the Northern Territory. If Queensland and the Northern Territory have harmonised legislation, bringing in OH&S regulations for their industry will be advantageous for that company. They will have one set of regulations, one set of codes, and they will be dealing under the same act. For those types of companies, that would be good. For construction companies, that will be good. The ones that build in other states, such as New South Wales, Queensland and, hopefully, other states as well, will have the same rules and regulations when they come to the Northern Territory.
Some people were concerned about the time needed to digest these regulations. However, when you look at how long it has taken this legislation to get here today - and I read the chronology - the industries involved in developing these regulations and codes of practice, and the general support from Territory business groups, you realise a great deal of work has gone into this legislation. I should make it clear there are some concerns in some areas, but overall I believe the legislation is good.
I emphasise there will be continual assessment of the act. I have been told that Safe Work Australia will meet monthly. Their job will be to listen to what industry is saying about the regulations, and if the regulations need amending, that will be the job of Safe Work Australia. It is not as if these regulations will be set in concrete forever. If there are problems with these regulations, there is the ability to go through the processes of Safe Work Australia.
Not everything may be perfect. It was always going to be difficult to harmonise eight different sets of laws, but to get there, you win some and you lose some. In the end, do we get on with the job, or just look at the negatives and lose sight of the positives of having a safe and healthy environment for working Territorians? I have looked at this legislation that way. I have spoken to NT industry peak bodies, smaller companies, and listened to people who have come to see me about their concerns. I have weighed up those concerns against the benefits of this legislation. I have thought about the importance of having a uniform process across Australia which, unfortunately, has not happened yet. However, I do not see that as a reason to stop our legislation because at least we will be in harmony with Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, the Commonwealth, and Tasmania, if it goes through the Upper House tonight.
I understand why there are delays in some of the other states, but I do not believe that harmonisation is the be-all and end-all. The be-all and end-all is creating a healthy and safe environment for working Territorians. An offshoot of that is the benefit to businesses, especially the construction industry, which does work across borders.
I also feel there is slowly a change of culture. I think it was Chris Young who told me that when they first started having meetings about OH&S some years ago, they might have 20 people turn up. Now when they talk about having an OH&S meeting, something like 200 people turn up. There has been a change in culture in relation to OH&S.
I see this process – and I will say, previously I was not a great fan of OH&S, especially if you worked where I have worked. People do take short cuts; it is probably the Territory way. In the end, if we can instil in people’s minds that everyone is responsible for safety, it does not matter whether you are the PCBU or a subcontractor …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr KNIGHT: I seek an extension of time …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is too late. Once a member’s time has expired, it cannot be extended. It has run out. I have the digital clock here and the member’s time has expired.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! When we looked at the clock, the clock was showing close on two minutes. I do not know what …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have advice from the Clerk, member for Sanderson, and I have the digital clock here. The member’s time has expired.
Mr STYLES: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, can we please get the time clock looked at and repaired because it is inconsistent with the Clerk’s clock on the desk there.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk’s clock runs that clock. I can seek some technical advice and get back to you later, member for Sanderson. However, my understanding is the member’s time has expired. I have advice from the Clerk. You cannot extend time once a member’s time has expired. Unless there are any other speakers to the debate, it is the minister in closing debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is not within or outside the capacity of this House, as a general principle, to extend a certain amount of grace with the accordance of all members. If all members in this House were prepared to offer that grace, I am sure the member for Nelson would accept it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I seek leave of all members for the member for Nelson’s time in this instance, based on the will of the House and the possible technical problem with the clock, to be extended by 10 minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I only have 30 seconds to go, but I do appreciate it. Thank you very much. That is the first sign of Christmas goodwill I have seen in this parliament all day and I appreciate it. I do not want to get emotional; I am not that sort of bloke …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, member for Fong Lim. I just wanted to say this is an extremely important bill. It is about safety and it is about protecting human life. It does not matter what we are talking about: protecting human life should be a key priority in everything we do. This is about putting responsibility back on everyone in the workforce, even if they are not covered by this legislation, to take responsibility for safety. If they see something that could cause injury, they take note of that and try to do something about it.
I have weighed up all the pros and cons of this bill, the positives and the negatives, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I take note of what the member for Fong Lim said about Work Health. I was speaking to the Cattlemen’s Association at lunchtime and someone said they had someone come to their place, walk onto the property, start taking photographs, and would not say where they were from. Eventually, they found out they were from Work Health; pulled out a certificate. I do not know how many years ago this was - so I am not trying to pick on anyone - but it took some time for that person to explain why they were on the property. The bloke said: ‘You should have had a ladder attached to the building and you should have had this and that’. Work Health has to ensure it audits itself to ensure when it sends out its message, it does not turn people off. It does not become a policeman for the sake of being a policeman. We know life is important, we know we do not want injuries and death, but if you want to bring people into this culture of good OH&S, then you need people in the department who are able to use good common sense, to be worker-friendly and user-friendly, so they do not seem to be policemen by the legislation, by the strict letter of the law. Not that they should not carry that out when required, but they are also there to explain things, to help people, because otherwise you start to get aggression, and resistance, and you do not want that.
This is important legislation. If you are to change the culture, then you have to be clever. You do not need to be overly strict in enforcing this legislation. You can explain to people the benefits of the legislation. Most people are intelligent and understand the benefits of this type of legislation and you will find they will support it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I close my comments there, thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members in this extremely important debate to pass these three pieces of legislation. It is an historic day in the Northern Territory in passing such valuable laws. As we all heard today and yesterday, these three bills are a combination of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the COAG decision in July 2008 to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation Australia-wide.
The Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 is based on the National Model Work Health and Safety Bill that was developed through a robust Australia-wide consultation process, which included comprehensive consultation with Northern Territory stakeholders. I will not go into the detail of the development of the bill and the consultation process involved as I believe other members - certainly the member for Nelson - have covered it. All those people who contributed to that process over the last three long years to get us to this point should be commended. Many have found that a difficult but rewarding process.
The main aims of the harmonising of work health and safety laws are to protect the health and safety of workers. That is the key part: the improvement of safety outcomes in the workplace; to reduce the cost on business through compliance; and to have an effective regulatory agency. The harmonisation of the work health and safety laws will have many benefits for Territorians and the whole of Australia.
There will not be complete harmonisation laws on 1 January 2012 as some jurisdictions are still working through their internal processes, as has been highlighted here today. As of today, the bills are ready to go at the Commonwealth level. New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania are still debating the legislation in their Upper House. It has passed their Lower House, and we wish them all the best with that. South Australia has passed the Lower House, has been adjourned in the Upper House, and will come back on in February. We know that Western Australia and Victoria still have delays for their introduction, but all jurisdictions are supportive and have been supportive of this at the national level. There is support; just a few jurisdictions are taking a bit longer.
In the Northern Territory, because of this government’s and this parliament’s decision in 2007 to modernise the work health and safety laws, we are very much in a position to commence these laws pretty well straightaway and by 1 January 2012. Why would we delay the laws for the Northern Territory when Territory businesses are set to benefit from these reduced complexities, the red tape involved, and increased productivity?
This bill provides for better transferability of permits, licensing, and training right across the states and across the Northern Territory borders. All this will provide further incentives and encouragement nationally and internationally for investment in the Northern Territory. One of the most significant costs to business from the existing scheme is the duplication required to comply with regulatory differences across multiple jurisdictions.
I will come to some of the concerns of members of the House, and I will start with the member for Nelson.
I acknowledge one of the worst areas of injury and fatality is in the horticultural, pastoral, and agricultural areas. That should be one of the primary areas for investment of the $2m to get people talking to businesses. I acknowledge the great work that has occurred with the department of Business and the Chamber of Commerce. They have run many occupational health and safety courses, and have been running quarterly forums over the last 12 months and have done a great job. As you say, we need to get out there on the ground with people to educate them because fatalities cost business money. Whether you are a pastoral business, an owner operator, or whatever you are, it costs money and if you can improve the standard, you will save money.
With respect to the example you gave about the pastoral company and someone going on that property, under this new legislation they will be obliged to identify themselves, and there will be a number of other requirements for permit holders. I acknowledge that situation described was unacceptable, and under this new legislation, it should be addressed. With respect to the biggest employer in the Northern Territory being the Northern Territory government, it will be required to upgrade its standard of occupational health and safety. Agencies are putting forward their bids as well; however, I acknowledge the work that needs to happen in the private sector.
Member from Port Darwin, yesterday you queried why the new codes of practice were replacing the Australian Safety Standards. As you would be aware, these laws were agreed by all jurisdictions and include a decision to minimise references to external documents in the new laws to make it clear, on the face of the law, what is required of the duty holders. You are correct, there are a number of Australian Standards called up in the existing laws - over 120 safety standards in fact - but these are documents that are outside the regulatory instrument and must be purchased separately from Standards Australia, a private organisation.
Under the model laws, there will be only nine Australian Standards referenced as law. This is not to say they have been replaced; they have been incorporated into the new regulations such that duty holders will now access the one set of regulations, and depending on their particular industry, will only be required to purchase additional standards under limited circumstances. All other Australian Standards remain a guidance tool but are no longer called into our legislation.
Member for Port Darwin, you queried the status of the codes and I can confirm that 11 codes have been made available on the commencement of this legislation. There are a further 15 which are at various stages of consultation and will be made available in early 2012. However, you misunderstood the nature of these particular codes. These are non-legal documents and neither the bill nor the regulations are dependent on these documents. The codes are only guidance documents, a bit of a how-to with respect to the regulations, which have an evidentiary value, but are not part of the law.
The use of the strict liability offences is consistent with our current act and the national agreement. It has been agreed that not all offences, in particular those with imprisonment as a penalty or those in which a mental element is fundamental - should be strict liability. If the member for Port Darwin had read the whole of the bill, this particular change would have become apparent.
You also suggested that under the bill, you are guilty until proven innocent. This is incorrect. The elements of the offence must still be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Making an offence strict liability does not avoid this requirement.
You also referred to the work health and safety entry permit holders as inspectors. Permit holders are not inspectors and do not have the same roles and functions. The role of an appropriately-trained work health and safety entry permit holder is to provide support to both workers and the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - in achieving the best safety outcomes in the particular workplace. The work health and safety entry permit holders cannot dictate what happens in the workplace.
Following on, you made a number of assertions that the protections available under a criminal prosecution such as the higher burden of proof will not be available to office holders under this civil regime. Let us be clear about that. The civil regime does not apply to the whole of this act; it applies only to Part 7, which relates to entry permit holders. These offences may be brought before the Work Health Court and civil procedures will apply. For example, a breach of these provisions must only be proven to the civil standards of the balance of probabilities. A finding of guilt will not amount to a criminal offence, and the fine is enforceable through the civil means. Where appropriate, criminal sanctions and the criminal defences that accompany them, apply.
The next concern you had, member for Port Darwin, related to the abrogation of the right to silence. This is not an action this government takes lightly. However, there are instances where the abrogation of individual rights are justified, such as where the information to be compelled concerns an issue of major public importance that has a significant impact on our community in general, or a section of the particular community. Such provisions are justified where there may be an immediate need for information to avoid risks such as the danger to human life, serious personal injury, or damage to human health, or where there is a compelling argument that the information is necessary to prevent further harm from happening, such as where health and safety in the workplace is in question.
As for how this right operates, this right is not an attempt to trick workers into giving themselves up, as such. While the member for Port Darwin may have used this right differently in the police force, this bill does not permit NT WorkSafe to force a disclosure of information, only to use such information to obtain a secondary piece of evidence on which to prosecute the person. It is true that this right does not completely exclude a person from prosecution if evidence comes to light which is independent of the information provided in the forced disclosure. A prosecution will be possible, but this cannot be derived from the information which has been provided under this power.
The opposition has concerns regarding the necessity for enforceable undertakings ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Can I just get the minister – and I am not trying to be cute – to repeat the last sentence before the one he just commenced.
Mr KNIGHT: That was in regard to prosecution for forced disclosures. I believe it was in regard to queries you made. It is true that this right does not completely exclude a person from prosecution. If evidence came to light which is independent from the information provided in the forced disclosure; that is, another person provides that information, a prosecution will be possible, but this cannot be derived from the information which has been provided under this power.
Enforceable undertakings are an alternative to prosecution. They are a tool to encourage compliance. That is, ultimately, where we want to get to; we want business and the workers to be protected. The enforceable undertaking is a tool to do that, and it is working collaboratively with PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - to educate and assist them to comply with these obligations. This cannot be achieved by simply threatening them with prosecutorial action. Enforceable undertakings are about encouraging those compliances and working collaboratively with the PCBUs. This government is committed to ensuring that improvements happening in work health and safety continue, and these are further enhancements. They are essential to improving what we do in the workplace.
While there are still injuries sustained in workplaces in the Territory, it is not good enough for us to not do anything, even if Australia is one of the best-performing nations in terms of fatalities. As a reminder, in 2006-07 Australia recorded the sixth-lowest work-related traumatic injury fatality rate. The National OHS Strategy 2002-2012 developed through Safe Work Australia sets very clear goals for work health and safety, and is the key initiative to improve Australia’s work health and safety performance.
One of these goals is to provide sustainable, safe, and healthy work environments for all Australians. Another is to reduce the number of people hurt or killed in the workplace. The national strategy sets aspirational targets to reduce the incidence of work-related death by at least 20% by 30 June 2012, and to reduce the incidence of workplace injury by up to 40%.
While it is unlikely Australia will meet this target it is a recognition that substantial improvement must be made, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels and go backwards, or even stay still, when the health of the individual in the workplace must be maintained.
We have focused on growth in the Territory and the many new construction and other projects which are on the horizon, so work health and safety must be very much centre stage. The Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 supports the implementation of the model national bill in the Territory, providing a range of necessary consequential amendments to the NT statute book.
The Work Health Administration Bill 2011 creates a standalone act for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority, that being the regulator, and the Work Health Court. This approach recognises that the regulator and the Work Health Court have powers and functions under more than just the new Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act.
This reform package is extremely important for Territorians, every worker in the Territory, and every business in the Northern Territory. It is a positive step forward, and it comes on the back of the great work with our current legislation which came into force in 2007. As I see it, and the member for Nelson said, business understands this. They understand that bad practices in the workplace with occupational health and safety costs them money in the hip pocket, ultimately, and it does diminish our community if our fellow community members are being hurt, or sadly, killed in the workplace.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House. It is a very big step for the Northern Territory. It is supported by business, and labour organisations. I seek the support of the House.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184):
Madam CHAIR: The question now is that the bill stand as printed ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek clarification, if I may. Your amendments are in …
Madam CHAIR: There are two amendments to Serial 185.
Mr ELFERINK: I just want to make sure I am not going to miss anything, Madam Chair, so I beg your indulgence.
Madam CHAIR: Do you have questions on Serial 185?
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, no. My questions will be in relation to Serial 186. You have amendments on 185, don’t you, Rob?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I am right.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Honourable members, we will now consider the Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184).
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to, without amendment.
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 (Serial 185):
Clauses 1 to 32, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 33:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 70.1. This amendment inserts a new section 32A in the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate a delay in the commencement of the provisions of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act in its application to mining operations. This amendment is required as it has recently been determined that the National Model Mining Regulations, which were to be adopted as part of the National Model Work Health and Safety Regulations, will not be ready for 1 January 2012.
The amendment allows for the existing regime under the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Regulations to apply in relation to mining operations, despite the repeal of the act and regulations. The proposed definition of mining operations mirrors the current definition in section 152A of the current regulations.
In the Northern Territory, the regulations specific to mining safety are contained within the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations, which are to be repealed. It is not acceptable, from a safety point of view, for these to be repealed with no replacement regulations applying to mines. Accordingly, it is proposed that the amendment to insert clause 32A will allow the existing regime to continue to apply, so there is no hiatus concerning safety for the mining industry.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, just so I am absolutely sure and for anyone else who is listening, the thrust of this amendment is to re-enliven the old act, which we are about to repeal, so it can look after the mining industry because the mining industry regulations under the new regime are not yet ready. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: In the Northern Territory, we have the Workplace Health and Safety Act and its Regulations and that has mining operations in it. As part of this national reform, that bill was to be repealed and replaced with these national laws. At the national level, because of trying to bring together all the different mining operations and different jurisdictions, those model laws and regulations are not ready.
The other option was to adapt our current regulations to the mining industry from our current act into the new bill. That is our intention, and we would hope to have that done by 1 March next year. In the meantime, we are proposing this amendment which will keep the existing act only for the purpose of maintaining those mining regulations of the current NT act. We will commence the national bill on 1 January and will then modify it. Parliamentary Counsel has done much work on adapting the current mining regulations into the new national bill and we are aiming to have those in place by 1 March. This is not ideal, but we are nearly there, and we will tidy it up in the new year.
Mr ELFERINK: So, the short answer to my questions was, yes. That being the case, the maximum length of time permitted under this new clause we are about to insert is two years. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it gives a sunset clause to it for two years. However, as I stated in the previous answer, we would hope to have the modified regulations - our regulations, not the national regulations - in place by 1 March next year. Parliamentary Counsel has been working very hard and I thank them for all the work they have been doing. They cannot get it ready for this sittings of parliament so they will be working furiously and will undertake a consultation process when they have been modified.
Mr ELFERINK: So, the short answer to that was, yes. That being the case, potentially for a period of up to two years, one industry in the Northern Territory will be working under superseded legislation and all other industries will be working under the new legislative regime. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: As I said, it is a period of, at most, three months. It is our intention to have it done by 1 March next year, so it is a fairly short period of time. This commences on 1 January and we would hope to have it in place on 1 March, which is a two-month delay.
Mr ELFERINK: However, you are asking for two years under this legislative instrument so the short answer to my question is, yes. That being the case, would you describe that circumstance where you have two legislative instruments working for different industry as harmonious, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: As I stated before, this is not an ideal situation; however, there are demands on Parliamentary Counsel and we have been working diligently to have this available for 1 January. It is good law and good for our business community. It is good for our community and we should strive to improve the occupational health and safety for our whole community. We have a small part of this legislation which is not completely tidy, but the rest is. Many jurisdictions have come on board, have agreed with the concept, and will be putting those through.
Other jurisdictions such as New South Wales have a completely separate Mining Act, and that will not be part of these laws. So, it will be slightly different in different jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory, we will have this regime for a period of two months and then after – well, we hope to have it in before, we are just giving ourselves a bit of time. We will have this national act and our new modified regulations. Then, the Workplace Health and Safety Act will be completely repealed.
Mr ELFERINK: A short answer to that question was, no. Now, dealing with the issues, we have established the fact you are going to have two industries working under different regimes in the Northern Territory. My next question is, if you only want two months, why are you asking this House for two years?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, two years actually removes it from the statute books completely.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. However, it could operate for two years under this amendment. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is, as I said, once we introduce the new regulations and …
Mr Elferink: I know what you said.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, I am giving you the answer. The advice is, as I have stated, our objective is to have the new regulations in place by 1 March, then there will be one set of regulations and one act and the old act is repealed.
Mr ELFERINK: Right. So, you are telling us you only need a couple of months. In actual fact, you are asking for two years. I love this when politicians stand up and say: ‘Do not worry about it, we are asking for it in law. Trust me, I am a politician’. Anyway, that is just an observation.
I move on, Madam Chair. I will make a few observations for the record, and if the minister wants to respond, that is up to him. For the sake of expediency of the business before this House, I find it concerning that we have an 11th-hour amendment, duly circulated in the last couple of days. I am grateful to the minister for the appropriate notification. Nevertheless, we have an 11th-hour amendment because, as a jurisdiction, we still do not have our regulations ready in relation to a specific industry, yet we are ploughing on relentlessly to this date of 1 January. Despite all the issues in other jurisdictions, in this jurisdiction alone we are not ready.
Would it not have been more simple to have a start date for all industries, so they were all singing off the same song sheet at the same time, commensurate with the last industry ready - in this case, the mining industry?
Mr KNIGHT: Let us just clarify things. Nationally, these regulations are not ready and we have …
Mr Elferink: Yes, I know.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, so what we are proposing is to retain our existing provisions within our existing act for a short period. You know the work of Parliamentary Counsel; they work very hard and very quickly. As soon as we were notified, we came up with a proposal to adapt our existing regulations, rather than wait for the national regulations - which could take quite some time, remembering that industry is involved in the development of these regulations as well at the national level.
We will have our own regulations that the mining community will be covered all the way through, either under the old act up until at least the end of February, and then under the new act after 1 February - or it may even be sooner; as soon as we can get the regulations done.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, minister, I am not going to dwell on it forever. Clearly, this jurisdiction is not yet ready. As you have indicated in your answer, the national legislative instruments are not yet ready. Yet, we hurl ourselves forward rather than taking the wise approach and waiting for a while. It is what some other jurisdictions are trying to do because they can identify these problems. I am on the record as to what the Country Liberals’ position is on this matter. I hope it does not turn to custard. I see the potential for it turning to custard and, frankly, this is a very odd way to go about organising legislative instruments, particularly in areas as important as occupational health and safety.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 70.2 standing in my name.
This amendment invites defeat of clause 33.2 of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill and replaces it with the new subclauses (2) to (5).
New subclause (2) provides that section 32, which relates to the transitional provisions and regulations made under the subclause expire after two years as to provide under the original bill.
New subclause (3) and (4) are technical amendments to ensure section 32A expires once it is no longer required.
Subclause (5) is the key subclause in that it allows for the Administrator to declare an expiry date for section 32A, when the application of the Work Health and Safety Act and Regulations to the mining industry is no longer required. Once we get those new regulations through, the old act expires.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill agreed to, with amendments.
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill (Serial 186):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I thank the House for its indulgence in taking this bill as a whole because examination of the bill requires moving back and forth through the legislative instrument to demonstrate the points I hope to make whilst we are going through it. This is at the heart of the legislation before the House. The bills Serial 184 and Serial 185, which we have just passed through the committee stage, are the surrounding legislation of this particular bill which is Serial 186. This is the heart of the national legislation. This is, in essence, the thing that is going to be as far as possible adopted by all jurisdictions. So it is clear for people in the public gallery who may be interested in these things, this is the big kahuna.
Getting on to the big kahuna, I made some comments in my second reading speech in relation to the operation of clauses 12A and 12B of the bill. During a briefing on the legislative instrument, I described the clauses as applying what is essentially ‘absolute liability’, when in fact, these are offences of strict liability and, therefore, in my second reading speech yesterday, I would have been errant, but it was based on the answers I received during the briefing process. For the record, minister, can you advise the House as to the operation of ‘strict liability’, and how you understand it to work, particularly in relation to general defences?
Mr KNIGHT: There are two essential features of a strict liability offence. First, there is no requirement to prove a fault element, such as an intention or recklessness. It is sufficient to show that the defendant …
Mr Elferink: Or negligence.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: Or negligence, or knowledge.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want to give the answer? It is sufficient to show that the defendant did not do the prohibited act. For example, as the member for Port Darwin noted earlier, it is generally accepted that it should be a strict liability offence to exceed the speed limit where a driver did not intend to drive faster than the speed limit. This is because signs are erected, so people should take notice of the limit, and can be expected to make themselves aware of the speed limit on any given road, but not because of the potential community harm if speeding occurred on a widespread basis.
Second, member for Port Darwin, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake applies. This means if the person reasonably believes in a state of affairs; for example, a reading of a faulty gauge on a piece of plant, say a temperature gauge. If they believe the gauge is working and the reading is correct, the duty holder would not generally be liable if he or she could provide that this incorrect reading led to a breach of duty and it was reasonable to rely on this incorrect information. Generally, strict liability offences are only made in a context where a person knows, or ought to know, their legal obligations.
This is consistent with the objects of the work health and safety regime which is to ensure workers and others are provided with the highest level of protection that is reasonably applicable, and to ensure all the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - and people in workplaces have the positive duty to ensure work health and safety for everyone in the workplace to the extent of availability and influence. The approach to the application of strict liability in the bill reflects the current situation in our current Northern Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, and the second part of that question in relation to the operation of general defences?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, can you just clarify what your belief is of general offences?
Mr ELFERINK: General defences.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, can you describe what you mean by general defences?
Mr ELFERINK: I referred to this in my second reading speech, and in fact, I made a correction. I want to make sure I understand the correction I made is the same as your understanding; that there are general defences available under the Criminal Code Act. Under clause 12B of this bill, do general defences apply?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the mistake of fact does not apply to the general defences.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. You have just told me mistake of fact actually does apply; that is, reading the gauge incorrectly. You are now telling me mistake of fact does not apply. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: It does not apply to absolute liability; it does apply to a mistake of fact.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but absolute liability is something quite different to strict liability, and these questions are pertaining to strict liability. I draw your attention to the Criminal Code Act, section 43AN and 43AO, which makes a clear distinction between strict liability and absolute liability. Here it is: the existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable. I have answered my own question. Goodness!
Mr KNIGHT: We do not have absolute liability; we are dealing with strict liability here.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are you talking about absolute liability? You introduced the topic.
Mr KNIGHT: You introduced the topic and ...
Mr Elferink: No, you talked about absolutely liability. You were telling me absolute liability does not apply …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin. The Attorney-General is on his feet addressing the question.
Mr KNIGHT: My recollection is you introduced absolute liability and it does not apply here. Strict liability does.
Mr ELFERINK: To help you, Attorney-General, in relation to absolute liability, which you referred to, it does not allow for a mistake of fact where strict liability does. For your information, Attorney-General, I draw your attention to section 43AN(3) of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act. The answer to the question is that strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable. It is an unfortunate double negative, but it means general defences do apply. It would have been nice if you could answer the question; however, we move on.
Mr KNIGHT: My recollection is you introduced the subject of absolute liability, which does not apply to this bill; it deals with strict liability. That is my recollection of the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I also asked you the question about general defences which you were thunderously incapable of answering at all. My problem is you are in charge of a bill I suspect you struggle to understand the implications of. However, my point has been made.
I want to draw the minister’s attention to the general principle he outlined previously where he suggested the majority of the bill relating to offences were criminal offences with the exception of Part 7, which were civil offences. Minister, why does the legislation make a distinction for civil and criminal offences in different parts of the legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, this subject was discussed nationally and it was agreed some parts of this legislation should not be dealt with in a criminal manner - issues such as where a permit holder may enter a workplace to conduct inquiries, the rights of permit holders, and the conditions attached to work entry permits. Many of these are associated around those entry permits, and were not agreed, at the national level, to be criminal offences, but more so civil offences. Perhaps at the national level they recognised there were different levels of offence, particularly associated with the entry permits. There is an obligation that holders of the entry permit do the right thing but not in a criminal way.
Mr ELFERINK: Which draws me back to my question: why was that distinction made?
Mr KNIGHT: You are saying that someone who breaks the rule of entering a workplace - being inspected at the wrong time from what is on their entry permit - should be charged with a criminal offence rather than as a civil matter. These examples, which are listed in Part 7, are lesser offences and should be penalised, because we are putting a high standard on these permit holders, but they should not be criminal offences. That is what has been the view and that is certainly my understanding.
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking still, why the distinction is being made. I have half an answer at this stage. Can you tell me, if you think these are not so serious, why on earth are you prepared to make an individual part with $10 000 if it is not that serious? I still do not understand why the distinction is being made. Surely, if you want to make it a less serious offence, you still apply the criminal law and just simply a much smaller fine?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the civil penalty regime is also being applied to provide consistency in approach with other jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth Fair Work Act. It has been discussed nationally and agreed that these lesser offences should only be penalised through the civil proceedings. I have described some of the permit holder’s required conduct and their rights in the workplace when they enter a workplace. These are lesser offences and should be dealt with - and this has been the national view - by civil proceedings.
Mr ELFERINK: I make the observation, of course, that if the rest of the country jumped off a cliff, it does not necessarily follow that we have to follow. However, pressing on, can you describe for me what the effect of a civil proceeding is and how is it different to a criminal proceeding?
Mr KNIGHT: Regarding an offence which we have described in Part 7, these proceedings for breach of that section will be brought into the Work Health Court, which is part of the legislation we have already passed, and civil proceedings will apply. For example, a breach of these provisions will only be proven to the civil standard of the balance of probability. A finding of guilt will not amount to a criminal offence and a fine is enforced through civil means.
Mr ELFERINK: I will repeat the question. Can you describe for me what the difference between a civil and criminal proceeding are, without reference to the legislation?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is a committee stage of a bill relating to workers rehabilitation and important issues like that. This is not a tutorial in Law 101 where the member for Port Darwin wants to show us how much he knows as an academic lawyer. I call relevance on this. It is just an extraneous form of questioning and the intent is obvious. If the member is serious about the bill, we will get back to the bill. If he wants to go to a tutorial, he should take himself off to CDU.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the comments made by the Leader of Government Business, this bill deals with civil and criminal offences. This bill is an expression of the will of the parliament of the Northern Territory and its proponent and proposer should be able to describe how the bill will operate. This question goes to the very heart of two systems which are described in the bill. I want to be able to determine that the proponent of the bill understands what is in it.
Mr KNIGHT: I have described the proceedings under civil proceedings. Obviously, the criminal proceedings will go through the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or they will go through the Supreme Court, as you would expect, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah! How hard was that! Can you still tell me what the implications are? I am asking what is different then. How does it operate differently when one goes through the civil process, as described in the bill - and there is a whole bunch of sections on it? I direct the honourable member to section 254 onwards which outlines the procedure quite fulsomely. I would like to know the minister’s understanding of how that process will work in a civil environment and how it will work in a criminal environment. So far I have not received anything like an answer in relation to it.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, I have described the procedure through the Work Health Court for a civil proceeding, and for a criminal offence, it will follow the normal criminal procedures through the DPP, and through the criminal court, whether it be the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court. I do not know if you are asking whether any sort of change in the civil and the criminal procedures occurs here, but the normal criminal procedures, as for any other criminal offence, will be undertaken here as they are normally done.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, my concern is that your civil offence, as you describe it, still carries a penalty of $10 000 for an individual and $50 000 for a corporation. Those are offences particularly in relation to Part 7 of the bill which deals with workplace entry by permit holders.
What concerns me, minister, is if you go in front of the Work Health Court -tribunal, whatever you want to call it - the civil process robs a person of a whole bunch of rights when they stand to cop what is, for all its flavour and intent, a fine of a criminal nature. To incur this civil debt, as you understand it, what you still have to do is front a court and be proven to be doing something wrong, to a much lower standard of proof, and then you can cop as much as a $10 000 fine, which goes ouch, and still looks like a fine to me. In fact, it is described as a penalty in the legislation.
Minister, do you agree that a person who is going through the civil process described in this legislation will have to make full disclosure to the prosecuting authority of all elements they intend to raise in their defence prior to walking into the courtroom?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, in the civil proceedings, as you would be aware, you are required to give full disclosure, so that is what you would naturally do. You talked about the penalty of $10 000, but you can have a penalty of $1. It is up to the court to decide, on the evidence in front of them and the type of offence you have breached, so we are leaving it up to the court to make a decision based on the evidence, the situation, and the implications of what has occurred. Yes, there is a maximum penalty, but there is also a minimum penalty of $1, or zero, but you do not go to gaol as well. There is obviously a lesser penalty, because if you are in the criminal court and you did something fairly significant, you would go to gaol. It is a different style of proceedings. This process was decided at the national level with industry involved.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you keep saying that, but I draw your attention to the inside cover of the bill, minister, just so we are clear on this. It says on the top of the inside cover of the bill ‘Northern Territory of Australia’. We are not talking about legislation from other jurisdictions and we are not talking about Commonwealth legislation. We are talking about Northern Territory legislation and how it will operate in the Northern Territory.
You can say this was discussed at the national level until you are blue in the face. Frankly, I do not care what other jurisdictions do. I care about law that has integrity in it in this jurisdiction. Whilst it has ‘Northern Territory of Australia’ written on the inside of the bill and we are standing in the Northern Territory parliament I will continue to ask questions. I could do this for hours, and I am not going to, because we have other business before this House.
The fact is if you go through this process, you are deprived through the civil process of full disclosure, so there is no right. If you are charged with a criminal offence, you have the right to silence, except in this legislation, but we will get back to that later. You have a right to silence; you have the right to maintain your defence until you get to court. The prosecution has to fully lay their case out in a criminal matter so the court can see whether there is prima facie evidence, all those sorts of things.
In a civil approach, the poor old punter is going to be told: ‘You have done this thing wrong and we are going to take you through the civil process, so if you are going to raise a defence, mate, do it before you walk into this house so we can have the arguments prepared’, etcetera. The exposure through that process of a person pursued under the civil process concerning their rights is much lower than a person charged with a criminal offence. In this instance where you are talking about rights of entry, and someone comes into your workplace and accuses you of breaching the law in relation to this particular part, you will have limited options in how you deal with that allegation.
A person accused of murder has more rights when they are charged with a criminal offence than an employer charged with a civil prosecution, or when a civil prosecution is being pursued under this legislative instrument. You sit there and say: ‘There is no criminal record’. Mate, if I was slugged, and any employer in a small business was slugged a $10 000 fine and was deprived of things like right to silence and of any defence against secondary evidence, physical evidence, or documentary evidence divulged during the breach of the right to silence, then what you have is, in my opinion, an injustice. And what you are asking this House to do is to perpetrate an injustice.
I could understand introducing workplace legislation which makes all offences criminal offences. At least the defences available under the criminal law would apply and be available to a person charged. But this smells, looks, and feels like nothing more than prosecutorial convenience. It is a poor legislative instrument indeed that will change the law for the sake of prosecutorial convenience and set aside some of what I consider the most important principles of law in this country. It is for this reason, in my opinion, this is bad, bad, bad legislation. It is badly written, badly considered, and has poor outcomes for the people who will be prosecuted under it.
Mr KNIGHT: That was a statement, wasn’t it?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it was; you do not have to reply. Actually, I will keep going then on one other thing whilst I am on my feet. You made the comment - and I asked you to repeat it during your wrapping up - in relation to the right to silence. Correct me if I am wrong – under this power this cannot be derived from information achieved or received. I did not quite understand it. I understood that to mean that if a person, an investigator, becomes aware of information, which can be information such as the location of documentary information made under an admission, whilst the information or the admission is not admissible under the rules of this legislation, is other evidence obtained as a result of that admission admissible or not?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, it has to be a second source of evidence, a second person providing that information. In your example, if a person is required to give a forced disclosure about some documents, those documents cannot be used against that person. However, if another person says that is where the documents are, that evidence could be used because it was a disclosure made by another person.
Mr ELFERINK: That is contrary to the briefing I received. Listening to that, can you direct me, in a legislative instrument, to where it says that?
Mr KNIGHT: I have been referred to section 172(2). It is not exactly the way I said it, but that is apparently the way it operates, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am reading it carefully now because I am trying to reconcile what you said and what I read here. Would you agree there is a qualification in section 172(2)?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, for clarification, the advice I have is they will be prosecuted for the false and misleading information listed in clause 172(2) but not for the admission they give about the evidence.
Mr ELFERINK: That is my point. I have no truck with the structure of this section:
(1) A person is not excused from answering a question or providing information or a document under this Part on the ground that the answer to the question, or the information or document, may tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.
There goes your right to silence.
(2) However, the answer to a question or information or a document provided by an individual is not admissible as evidence against that individual in criminal or civil proceedings …
Up to that point, before we get to the qualification, if I make admissions when I am being questioned, those admissions are not admissible. If I then provide a document directly as a result of those questions, once again, that is not admissible. What I am asking, before we get to the point of the qualification is, if in that admission there is some third party evidence which is discovered, is that evidence admissible?
Mr KNIGHT: I believe you have jumped a couple of things there. If I say the member for Brennan has a heap of chocolate bars stolen from Speaker’s Corner, which may be true, that cannot be used. We stole it, so it cannot be used against me, but it can incriminate him. It can be used against a third party.
Mr ELFERINK: No, no. You have completely missed my point. Perhaps I should give an example, because that was about as clear as mud …
A member: Let us get away from the chocolate bars.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, let us get away from the chocolate bars, minister. Let me give you an example. An investigator walks into a workplace, the investigator sees what the investigator believes to be an offence against this legislation - some type of unsafe work practice. The investigator then goes to see the person with carriage and responsibility for the workplace and says: ‘I want you to answer some questions regarding what I believe is an offence over there’. The person says: ‘All right, I know I am obliged under this legislation to speak to you, but I am relaxed about speaking to you because I know anything I say of a self-incriminatory nature will not in any way expose me to a prosecution, because the act says I cannot be prosecuted on the basis of those admissions. Hell! I even have a document here, which I hand over, that is not admissible either’.
However, if as the investigator I am told something, and because of what I am told I inspect something else that I would not have otherwise - it is only because of the admission made I discover some evidence which is neither documentary or directly related to the person who made the admission, and I take a photograph of it which demonstrates an unsafe work practice, is that contemporaneous documentary evidence in this case admissible, or not?
Mr KNIGHT: I will just run through your scenario, member for Port Darwin. An inspector enters a workplace where an incident or an unsafe practice is occurring. They would initially try to gather information themselves so they could find out exactly who was responsible, or what was responsible, and they can gather voluntary information to be used as evidence. If they believe there is further information they have not been able to gather from an individual, they would have to give a written notice to that person about the requirement to provide that information, and that person would then be aware of the fact that it could not be used in evidence against them.
Mr ELFERINK: It is like talking to someone who replies in Latin. Minister, you are not even close to what I am talking about.
I will give you an example, if it helps. A police officer is investigating a crime, a stabbing - I used this example in my second reading debate. The police officer speaks to the accused person, who makes certain admissions. As a result of those admissions, the police officer goes down the street, pulls up the lid of a drain, and sees a knife. On that knife is the DNA of the victim and the offender – pretty damning evidence.
It is by no means evidence which has been handed to the police officer, and in the instance of the police officer who does not even rely in a criminal prosecution on the admissions made - for whatever reason they are ruled as inadmissible – he or she can still rely on the physical evidence they found. How it goes in a court case is like this: the police officer says: ‘Your Honour, I had a conversation with the defendant. As a result of that conversation, I went down the street, looked in the drain, and found the knife’. Whilst the admissions are inadmissible, the secondary physical evidence removed from the drain – which had nothing to do with the admissions, other than the fact that you got it there - is that secondary physical evidence admissible in spite of the fact that it was obtained because of a requirement under section 172? Normally, it is.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, I am advised that that secondary evidence may not be admissible, but it would be up to the court to determine on the admission, whether it is admissible or not. Obviously, the inspectors - or the police officer in your case - suspected someone, they would try to gather that information through voluntary means or by doing a physical search to try to get the evidence they require without forcing it out of someone where they could not use that in that situation. What I am saying is that secondary evidence may or may not be used in the court; it would be up to the court to decide.
Mr ELFERINK: Now, I have gotten to where I wanted to be. It is up to a court, absolutely. But the point is, the court then makes a determination. It is conceivable under this legislative instrument that despite the fact that any admissions made are not available in a criminal or civil prosecution, any subsequent information arising from that information could well be used. That, in my opinion, does not capture the intent of what you say the point of this legislation is. It removes the right of silence and whilst the self-incriminatory statement cannot be used, any subsequent and further information can be used as evidence. That is only a partial protection against the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. That is a statement; it does not require comment.
Madam Chair, I want to ask the minister to take me through these enforceable undertakings. Minister, can you describe, for the average punters sitting in the public gallery, how these enforceable undertakings work, what do they do, and how you anticipate them operating?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the regulator will continue to be able to enter into these enforceable undertakings as an alternative to prosecution. They can be brought forward by, say, a business which has done poor work practice, or an offence, or an unsafe work environment. They can come into an enforceable undertaking as an alternative to prosecution where the regulator accepts one given to them by the person alleged to have breached the act and regulations.
Currently, these are provided under section 80 of the act. However, enforceable undertakings are only for the lesser level of offences. Category 1 offences for the serious contraventions cannot have enforceable undertakings. These enforceable undertakings are about encouraging compliance and working collaboratively with the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - to educate and assist them. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we want safe working environments and safety for workers. Where an employer has been found to have done the wrong thing, they may give an undertaking to rectify a situation in their workplace, whether it be a procedural or a physical problem in the workplace. It is a way of getting, at the end of the day, a safer workplace. The mechanism is there, but it is not there for the more serious offences where there has been an extremely dangerous situation provided.
Mr ELFERINK: From that description, minister, I understand that it is almost in the flavour or the nature of, if you like, a contract; an agreement reached between the enforcement body and the potential offender. Is that a reasonable, general summation?
Mr KNIGHT: It is an agreement, not a contract. As the term implies, it is enforceable and there is a penalty if it is not undertaken. It is a mechanism to get the workplace rectified and provide a safe working environment.
Mr ELFERINK: Under this legislation, is there required to be an admission by the person in charge of the suspect workplace before these undertakings can be entered into? The answer is yes, by the way, if that helps.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, on the face of it, there is no true admission, but if the employer suggests, or is keen to work with the inspector to enter into an enforceable undertaking, it is a bit of an admission …
Mr Elferink: Hallelujah, we got there!
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it is a bit of an admission, but it is another way through. We want to work with employers to get there. Ultimately, some may be a little more difficult than others, and this is the way of doing it. This is the way of not beating them over the head, but having another mechanism where we can get there, where people can be safe and employers can change their work practices or their work sites.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah, we got there! Of course, there has to be admission. It would be a very strange undertaking if you walked into a workplace as an inspector and said: ‘Go and fix that’. ‘Nah, there is nothing wrong with it’. Or, ‘Here is your undertaking’. It does not work. There has to be an admission. That is the only way this system could possibly work. You used the word ‘agreement’ before. Precisely right; it has to be an agreement. Why you have to wrestle around for such a long time over such an obvious answer is confusing to me, but there you go.
That leads me to my next issue. Currently, under any form of regulatory instrument, there is a common law power of discretion for any investigator or regulatory officer, unless it is expressly removed, which means it is quite possible for a regulatory officer to walk into an unsafe workplace and say: ‘Mate, not happy about the fact that your grinding wheel has no cover over it. You should put a cover over it, and if you do not, I will prosecute you. What do you reckon?’ The owner of the workplace says: ‘Oh, yes, all right, fair cop, I will get the cover over it’. ‘Mate’, says the inspector, ‘I am going to be back next week. If you have not done it, I will prosecute you for unsafe work practices’.
What is the difference between that and the multitude of provisions required under these enforceable agreements in practical terms?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, what you described was where an inspector would issue an improvement notice for a situation they want remedied correctly and instantly, or within a certain time. The enforceable undertaking is something the employer agrees to, in collaboration with the inspector. There are two different types of situations. All those things are in the toolbox available to both the employer and the regulator in this case, and the court, ultimately, as well. It is all available and all about improving the workplace for both the worker and the business involved.
Mr ELFERINK: You have the improvement notices, you have enforcement notices, you have common law power of discretion, which by the way, is such a wide power that it covers improvement notices and enforceable undertakings; it really does.
This is an idea, and one of the things I will make a more general comment about. Something that gives me the ‘irrits’ about this type of legislative instrument - when it is drafted, someone has a good idea in an office somewhere and thinks they are going to do this great thing: create enforceable undertakings where we get agreements from other parties and we will have improvement notices because that is a written version of doing the same thing - get that fixed by next week or otherwise I will prosecute you. It is all the same thing. It makes no practical improvement on the common law power of discretion.
The only thing it could be an improvement on is the record keeping for evidentiary purposes, but anyone worth their salt makes enough notes of this type of thing to cover off on that anyhow. In short, it is gumph, and another reason it is simply bad law. Anything in Part 11 of this bill could be achieved under the common law power of discretion. That is an observation; it does not require an answer.
Madam Chair, I have covered briefly the issues that are wrong with this legislation, both philosophical and wrong, in my opinion, at law. I have nothing further to add to my criticism of this bill other than to point out it is deficient in a whole bunch of ways. It does not make good philosophical sense; it is bad law in how it enables prosecutions, particularly under Part 7 of the legislation.
I understand the common defence for the passage of this legislation will always be: ‘This is all about workers’ rights. We do not want to see dead people’. Of course, we do not want to see dead people. I do not want to see dead people and I do not want to see workers injured. I have done coronial investigations when Riley Chin Quan was knocked into the hold of a boat in Darwin Harbour - he fell 15-odd metres into the hull of a boat, landed on his head, and it killed him instantly.
I am aware of the need for occupational health and safety, but it does not reasonably stack up that the haste for occupational safety automatically justifies departures from what I consider to be fundamental and common legal practices. This bill is wrong. I do not care what other jurisdictions do; as far as the members of the Country Liberals and I are concerned, if bad legislation is enacted in every other jurisdiction, it does not follow that we have to do the same here.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is unusual for people to speak in third reading speeches but never has a bill passed through this House which has been so badly captained as this bill. I am frustrated to an extraordinary degree by the lack of understanding the minister has brought to this legislative instrument, which is obvious to any third party. Whilst I appreciate the minister is new to his role, he could have done a great deal more to prepare himself for the passage of this legislation. This stuff is not rocket science. As far as we are concerned, and as I said before, whilst we appreciate this bill will pass because the government desperately wants to get this legislative instrument through, this is bad law.
Nothing I heard through the committee stage gave me any comfort that this law was not as bad as I thought it was at the outset. It is bad law because it does not give a person the comfort they would normally be given during a criminal, or for that matter civil, prosecution.
People charged with murder, rape, and paedophilia have more rights than employers do under this legislative instrument when it comes to being prosecuted under these laws. For that reason, this is bad law. Never mind the issue of worker protection, which is important and we do not stand against, and never mind the issue of harmonisation which we support, what is in this legislative instrument is simply wrong and should not be allowed to pass through any right-thinking parliament. I do not mean that in a political sense, just in what is good law and what is bad law.
The passage of this bill through other parliaments demonstrates that the same lack of critical thinking has been applied in those instances. As far as I am concerned, the lack of critical thinking applied by this government to this bill is now available for all to see and hear and read in Parliamentary Record. We signed up to this in a COAG agreement and everyone has to get all excited about the COAG agreements and now that whole agreement is rattling to pieces around this country; but never mind, we press on.
As far as I am concerned, this is bad law, and I certainly do not want to have my name attached to it.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 25 October 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that the passage of this bill will be a whole lot less difficult than the passage of the last bill, primarily for the reason that we have no desire to oppose what is contained in this legislative instrument.
The purpose of this bill is to make minor amendments to the following legislation: Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, Absconding Debtors Act, Associations Act, Interpretation Act, Summary Offences Act, Food Act, Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act, Care and Protection of Children Act, Darwin Port Corporations Act, Liquor Act, Marine Act, Mineral Titles Act, Unit Titles Schemes (Management Modules) Regulations and the Unit Titles (Management Modules) Regulations.
These type of bills are not uncommon in the House. Whilst this bill does more than merely dot some i’s and cross some t’s by inserting whole new sections, it does not offend common sense. Consequently, I am satisfied that the bill should pass through all stages in the House here today.
In relation to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, the new section 10A refers to decisions under section 10 to continue in some circumstances. The bill introduces a new section so an existing ministerial determination can continue, despite the making of a new classification determination by the Administrator.
The existing system required the minister to make a new determination every time a minister made a new classification determination, even if the new determination did not impact on the statutory body. This amendment appears to be a commonsense solution to improve the efficient administration of the system - and so say all of us.
Clause 8 of the bill: the current situation is the Remuneration Tribunal determines entitlements, but occasionally leaves certain details to be decided, endorsed, or approved by another. The amendment expressly follows a determination to specify a person to whom certain functions can be delegated. The new provisions allow that specified person to make decisions on administrative matters and to approve alternative entitlements because of special circumstances to avoid hardships, or as specified in the determination. There is nothing controversial coming out that I can glean and, consequently, the opposition will not be opposing the provisions.
The Interpretation Act amendment is very straightforward: it plays with z’s and s’s; no issues there. In relation to the Food Act, the amendment allows the Chief Health Officer to specify a date when food businesses’ registration expires. Currently, the requirement is 1 July each year.
Having said that, and already bored everyone to the point of tears, the opposition supports this bill and will allow its passage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, after the previous bill, this looks like a fairly minor bill, but I still have a question about section 83. I thank the department for the briefing. In relation to the sale and disposal of food businesses, it says:
(1) If the proprietor of a registered food business sells or otherwise disposes of the food business or other property used in relation to carrying on the operations of the food business, the proprietor must, in an approved form, notify the Chief Health Officer of the sale or disposal not later than 14 days after the date of sale or disposal.
I understand it is a relatively minor thing, but I believe it needs an explanation, because I would not want to see someone getting pinged 100 penalty units if you decide to sell the frying pan because you had not notified the Chief Health Officer. Otherwise, I do not have any problems with the bill. It is one of those, I suppose some people might call them boring bills, just amending bits and pieces here and there, and replacing z’s with s’s and other exciting things like that, but just in this particular issue, I would like the Chief Minister to give an explanation.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Speaker, this is an omnibus bill to tidy up and sort out various legislation. It is quite common to have these bills before the House. The main reason I have carriage is I am responsible for the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Entitlements) Act. This is a key act being amended.
I thank the opposition for its support for this. The member for Nelson’s essential question was: ‘Does this mean the food business operators will be responsible for monitoring the expiry date of the registration’. The answer is no; this does not mean the food business will be responsible for monitoring the expiry date of their registration. The food business owner will have to have a general idea when the registration renewal is due, just like a car registration, although the Department of Health normally notifies the food business well in advance of the required renewal date to ensure seamless renewal of the registration.
The question you had is, on expiry of that registration, who is going to tell the Chief Health Officer? My understanding is that is the responsibility of the department to send out those renewal notices. I will just get advice on that.
As I thought, member for Nelson, if the operator of the business decides not to renew their licence, then when the licence falls due and has not been renewed, it will be deemed to be no longer operating. There is no requirement for the holder of the licence to advise the Chief Health Officer that they are not going to renew the licence. That is what I am told ...
Mr Wood: That is not what section 83(1) says.
Mr HENDERSON: I am quite happy to have a committee stage discussion about this.
Mr Wood: I think we can do it outside the Chamber.
Mr HENDERSON: We will do it outside. I do not think it goes to the fundamentals of the bill. I am also advised that if someone decides to sell the rotisserie or the fridge, they do not have to tell the Chief Health Officer either. We will meet out the back, member for Nelson.
With those few words, Madam Acting Speaker, this is just tidying up some legislation across the statutes. I thank honourable members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, this report submitted to the Assembly covers matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. The report covers the results of performance management system audits and compliance audits to assess the adequacy of controls over the administration of public money. Our government is committed to open and transparent government and we value the work of the independent Auditor-General in the process of ensuring transparency and accountability.
Of the agency compliance audits where issues were raised by the Auditor-General, agencies have accepted the findings and are taking remedial actions regarding the issues identified. I say this every time I speak of an Auditor-General’s report, but it is always in my memory. When we came to government in 2001, I was on the Public Accounts Committee and we were briefed by the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers. One of his major complaints was that he would make reports to the Legislative Assembly and they would go nowhere. There was no response from agencies and, indeed, agencies were not required to make a response.
He did not overtly say this, but I and members from our side were given the very strong impression from Iain Summers that he felt in some cases agencies were snubbing their nose at him and his findings, and he did not feel his work was valued.
As government, we set about to change that and we require agencies to submit a response, in general, to the reports of the Auditor-General. Agencies might not always agree with the findings of the Auditor-General, and in some cases over the years we found agencies disagreed in some ways, but that disagreement is always put in a polite way, or the agency points to difficulties in what the Auditor-General may be requiring it to do. It is always done with courtesy. I would say in 95% of cases, agencies comply and flag in a response to the Auditor-General’s report that it will address the issues raised by the Auditor-General’s report. It is always open to the Auditor-General and members of this parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, to ask questions of the Auditor-General - whether he believes issues are followed up on. Essentially, it is a way of ensuring honest and accountable government.
As minister for Education, I am the minister responsible for the acts which establish the Charles Darwin University and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. Whilst the Auditor-General had some comments in relation to Charles Darwin University and the Batchelor Institute, he did not put in a qualification in his audit in relation to his findings.
He made comment about the Charles Darwin University Foundation, an organisation I commend. It is a way people with philanthropic intent, or corporations with philanthropic intent, can bestow gifts upon Charles Darwin University to assist the university in its operations, and in being a university. It might sound a silly thing to some people, but universities have many roles in our community. Charles Darwin University is very intent on its art collection, and it has a fantastic collection of art. They are very interested through the various gardens - they have a Chinese garden and an Indonesian garden - in the amenity of the campus. For those of us who are going to school or university, it is good to be able to study and attend somewhere that is uplifting, where it is a pleasure to be, with an amenity conducive to study, community, and the ongoing function of the institution.
The Auditor-General’s key finding was:
Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor of the university, will take into account these comments by the Auditor-General. He does make other comment, which I am sure other members will pick up on in relation to Mataranka Station. I think we are all aware of the public issues there. He made the comment:
It is difficult to get an exact number of animals counted. Everyone is aware of the varying views of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General on this issue. I understand that conversation is probably ongoing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I digress. There are a number of other ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! What an outrageous insult really. He should correct the record.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I am not offended, and I am sure it was an oversight.
Dr BURNS: What did I say?
Mr ELFERINK: You said ‘Mr Acting Deputy Speaker’.
Dr BURNS: Oh, my glasses have fogged up. It must be the humidity of the Wet Season. I do apologise. I think he was in the seat when I started. I was very intent on the report of the Auditor-General, which makes riveting reading, and I did not notice, member for Port Darwin, there had been a change of who was in the seat. We are nearly at the end of seven sitting days and extraordinary vagueness on my part, I am sure, will be forgiven by you, Madam Acting Speaker, and all members in this place.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: No offence taken, minister.
Dr BURNS: The Auditor-General made comment about a performance management system audit in the housing system. He said, in his opinion ‘the department had developed a performance management system for both urban public housing and remote indigenous housing’. He also said the system was still to be extended to include government employee housing.
That is an important element of the audit. I was nearly going to digress into the issue which arose in Question Time about the sale of public housing; the issue originally raised by the member for Sanderson. I hope that if the opposition want to debate it at another time - I do not know how it is particularly relevant here – but I suppose we are talking about audits. The member for Sanderson made an error in his calculations when he talked about the number of public housing properties sold by the government. He simplistically took a number from a report in 2001 and compared it to a number, I think, in 2006-07. What he did not do was see the footnote which said at one time - I think it was at the 2006-07 figures - it did not include government employee housing which number about 1500 properties. If you take the 1500 away from the 2100, or whatever the number was, it comes to the 600 or 700 I am saying government sold in that period.
That is the explanation to you, member for Sanderson. I am more than happy to debate it at any time; I am more than happy to sit down with you with the reports. I always have them in a little file down here beside my desk at the ready. I also have a set of figures compiled by the department. It did take them some time, I have to say - probably a bit longer than I would have liked - but I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Those numbers, by region, etcetera, are very clear about who sold what over what period. As I said in Question Time today, I do not think it is a wholly negative thing, because to some degree, many Territorians got equity in their houses, both under the previous government and this government.
I have a couple of figures when you really ramped up the sales towards the end of the 1990s, when you had quite a few thousand people on the waiting list, so it is bit rich for the opposition to be criticising the government when they were selling houses at an extremely high rate towards the end of the 1990s.
There is a moratorium on the sale of public housing that I put on, and I am going to make some announcements in the next few weeks about plans for the management of our stock over the next 10 years, and I want to remove that moratorium as soon as I can. I want to see people getting equity in their houses. I want to see sales resume, and there will be some parameters around those sales. I digress.
The key findings the Auditor-General made in relation to the department:
The department commented:
There are other findings, other audits, and systems audits of other agencies. The Auditor-General raised some issues about compliance issues with procurement directions and procurement policies, weaknesses in the reconciliation of accountable officers’ trust funds, lack of compliance with Treasurer’s Directions, deficiencies in controls over fixed assets, and weaknesses in internal audit procedures. A number of agencies, including the Department of the Legislative Assembly, made comments, and in general, there is an acknowledgement of issues of some weaknesses and a desire, will, plan, and commitment by these agencies to remedy the issues.
What we have to take into account is, whilst we are not the largest jurisdiction in Australia, we certainly have significant expenditure through our budget. I believe our annual budget, and the Treasurer might correct me if I am wrong, is somewhere around the $3bn mark. That is a significant amount of expenditure.
We value the efforts and expertise of the Auditor-General to independently go into systems, have a look, and make recommendations. I commend the work of the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness. He is a very special type of person. He is the type of statutory officer who is very constructive in what he says. He is not destructive. He is not completely critical about things; he recognises difficulties. He works cooperatively with agencies and CEOs to get positive results. I believe that is a better way. If the big stick needs to come out sometimes, I have no doubt the Auditor-General will bring out the big stick. I believe it is better to work cooperatively and collaboratively with agencies, and I know agencies appreciate the way Frank McGuiness operates, the way he raises issues and asks them how they might address those issues. In some cases, he makes positive and constructive suggestions about how they might be addressed. I will leave it there.
I notice some issues in relation to Territory Discoveries’ Calypso system, which is, as I recall, a reservation system. There are risks in that just one person seems to have most of the knowledge about the system. Tourism NT has commented about Calypso, and about how it might remedy the issues. I know the Tourism Minister might also have some comments about it. It is a computer-based system. The Chief Executive of Tourism NT has responded very positively, accepting the findings of the audit, and quickly moving to strengthen user access controls as recommended by the Auditor-General. He has also ensured improvements to the governance through heightened management awareness of the Calypso system, and he has worked to reduce the risk arising from key knowledge of this business system resting with just one person.
We thank the Auditor-General. Territory Discoveries is a very important organisation, a very important element of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. It comes under some criticism sometimes. It is criticised and some of the criticism comes from operators who feel it may present competition to them, and it is unfair competition because government funds it. I heard those complaints when I was minister, and I am sure other ministers have also heard those complaints.
As minister I heard the overwhelming support, particularly by the smaller tourism operators, in relation to Territory Discoveries. I am almost certain the member for Fong Lim, as part of his agenda when he was shadow Tourism minister, wanted to sell Territory Discoveries. I heard him a few times in this House, and I was a bit concerned with what the member for Fong Lim had to say. Interstate, there has been sales of similar entities and, essentially, all those tourism operators who had used the entities similar to Territory Discoveries interstate were left high and dry. The organisation or company that bought the equivalent of Territory Discoveries was not interested in that end of the market.
I do not believe government - any government - in the Northern Territory should consider selling Territory Discoveries. There is much we can do within government - work between Treasury and Territory Discoveries about various aspects. In my view, and it is probably more a personal view I am expressing here, I would not like to see us sell Territory Discoveries.
I am just a bit wary the opposition, obviously – well, not obviously; one would hope they are going to come out with a tourism policy coming into the 2012 election. All they seem to be interested in doing is moving motions on General Business Day and by so doing, they are going to push out any legislative agenda they have had because they will all be up with the easy picking fruit, speak on a motion, etcetera. They will not be putting forward any alternative legislative …
Mr Elferink: I have had three bills.
Dr BURNS: You will be focusing on your little puff pieces of motions. We are going to be inundated by puff pieces of motions. We will have puff pieces coming out of our ears every General Business Day. We will be sick of the puff pastry of the puff pieces because there is no filling – there is no meat inside those puff pieces. It is not very good pastry, it is not very nourishing. Yesterday, we must have seen 15 or 20 motions, all puff pieces. We will see what they do next year; whether they have an important policy on tourism where they put before the tourism industry their intentions for important entities like Territory Discoveries.
I digress, Madam Acting Speaker. I commend the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly to this House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, with the exception of the comments directed at the Country Liberals by the Leader of Government Business, pretty much ditto in his observations directly relating to the Auditor-General’s report. When he is not talking politics, he talks sense, and I quite enjoy listening to him and many of his contributions.
I was hoping he was going to touch on the obligation to return unspent grant monies to the Commonwealth from the Batchelor Institute. I was not here for the whole of the Education minister’s response in relation to this. I will check Hansard but did you touch on the return of grant monies by the Batchelor Institute to the Commonwealth?
Dr Burns: No, I did not touch on that.
Mr ELFERINK: I was just wondering about that, and I am not suggesting any wrongdoing. I would be concerned if the Batchelor Institute lost $6m it might otherwise have been entitled to. Perhaps some other mechanism can be found to inform me of that. Perhaps a chat behind the room later on would probably do it.
I note the Auditor-General made comments about the Darwin Port Corporation and the key findings were:
I note the Darwin Port Corporation has responded positively. I confess I was a little surprised, particularly when the Auditor-General briefed the PAC as to what was occurring at the Darwin Port Corporation - that what was occurring actually was occurring. It did not make for good managerial practices. I note the Auditor-General made those comments in his report and I take comfort that the Darwin Port Corporation has responded to it, and there are improvements at the Darwin Port Corporation. Time will tell in annual reports from the Darwin Port Corporation as to whether these improvements percolate their way into actual results.
In the Department of Health, CareSys, which is their clinical patient management system, the key finding was:
It is a Treasurer’s Direction that each department has its own audit committee operating, which must meet on a quarterly basis. I hope the Health Department will pay attention to this, but it is clear the audit processes within the departments are still not picking up all the problems departments face because one would hope the department itself would recognise these issues.
IT security has been an issue for the Auditor-General for some time, and in previous reports, IT security has been criticised across departments. Similarly so, and referred to by the Leader of Government Business, issues in the IT system called Calypso, which is attached to Territory Discoveries, drew notice from the Auditor-General.
I ask the Treasurer to reassure this House that her directions on the performance of these audit committees are being complied with, as I am surprised to continually see negative reports, for lack of better expression, by the Auditor-General in relation to these systems flowing from these departments. One would expect, hope, and pray that the audit committees would be across these issues, particularly with the Auditor-General’s natural penchant for pursing these matters through his office.
Madam Acting Speaker, I also concur with the Leader of Government Business on the performance of the Auditor-General; he is a useful and constructive fellow. I enjoy the briefings he gives and the reports he brings into this House. It offers a useful window by which we in opposition get to press our noses to the glass and look into the operation of government. I place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General for another report.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report covering audits conducted during the six months ending 30 June 2011. The work carried out by Mr McGuiness and his team gives Territorians surety in government agencies’ processes and is an important element of this government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure was assessed in the Auditor-General’s selected agencies’ compliance audits.
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the Land Development Corporation, and the Darwin Port Corporation were assessed in the selected agencies’ procurement review. I note the audits did not identify significant examples of failures to comply with the procurement framework.
The Auditor-General also conducted a performance management systems audit on managerial reporting at the Darwin Port Corporation. I am pleased to say the Darwin Port Corporation has acted favourably and proactively. In a response to the Auditor-General’s recommendation, the Darwin Port Corporation’s internal reporting to senior management was amended. The amendment moved away from reporting at a very detailed level on activities which occurred for the month to a more concise reporting model which focuses on issues that may have the potential to adversely impact on safety, environment, and reputation; have an unplanned cost or revenue implication; have an impact on relationships with stakeholders; and key operational indicators for each of the business lines.
The monthly financial reports were also amended to focus on high-level financial information only, with the more detailed information now reported on a quarterly basis. The Darwin Port Corporation’s restructured annual reporting highlights key achievements in line with Territory 2030 objectives, including increasing shipping links and supporting the continued contribution of the resources sector.
There is extensive work under way at Darwin Port Corporation and particularly at East Arm. The Eastern Reclaim Area Project and Reclamation of Pond F will both support the port’s growth by providing additional hardstand for bulk mineral stockpiles. In this year’s budget, $3m has been allocated to further improve the bulk loading system, and more than $1.5m has been invested in improving the environmental standards of the existing conveyor belt. This is an exciting time for the Darwin Port Corporation in the strategic growth of the port to support Darwin’s role as the gateway to Asia and the capital of Northern Australia. This government takes the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations very seriously, agencies respond to the reports accordingly, and I thank him for his work.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, through agreement with the opposition and the member for Port Darwin, I move that consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No 4 be postponed until a later hour and that we now consider the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I feel I have to rise. I was expecting the shadow Treasurer to contribute to this debate. He may not be far; he has spent a fair amount of time in the Chamber and we might give him the opportunity to appear shortly. I am not wrapping in this - I am literally ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: I could rise ...
Ms LAWRIE: No, I get a sense that he would not be far. I am not wrapping ...
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Sorry about that, I thought you were still going.
Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her indulgence and for not taking the opportunity she was just offered. Jolly decent of her. Must be Christmas or something ...
Dr Burns: She is waiting for it.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I should have been more cynical. You are quite right, Leader of Government Business, she is obviously waiting for it.
Madam Acting Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read this document and, as the Treasurer noted, we are heading for a cash deficit, or I should say that in the last financial year we received a cash deficit of $387m. That is on the general government sector. Once you incorporate the total government sector, which includes government-owned corporations and GBDs, the figure stretches out to $610m, which is not an insubstantial figure.
I appreciate variations to the GST, in part, have led to this deficit amount, but it is also spending decisions which have led to this deficit amount. I do not feel inclined to revisit the debate, which has now been had on numerous occasions in this House, about the government’s determination to spend the extra money it has spent protecting jobs etcetera. I actually do not take much dispute with that position. My concern has always been that government did not properly use the opportunities the GST provided in the first 10 years of this decade.
If you include Commonwealth expenditure, own-source revenue, GST, all those types of things, our revenue stream since 2001 has more than doubled - substantially more than doubled. In that time, we had an opportunity to reduce our debt to zero. The Treasurer will tell us all the reasons why the decision was not taken: we have reduced debt over time, and now due to the GFC we have to increase debt, etcetera. If this government had shown a modicum of discipline, the figure could have been zero, as was done by Gallop in Western Australia, by Howard in the Commonwealth arena, by other jurisdictions, and could certainly have been done in this jurisdiction.
Do not take the comment I am about to make as any suggestion that I would cut public servants as a matter of policy – not true - if only you had restrained growth of public servants to about half of what you actually allowed the public service to grow in that time. The government itself acknowledges this is a problem. They announced a freeze on growth in public service numbers, have not restrained themselves to it, but announced a freeze in the growth of public service numbers. If they had simply allowed that growth to reach a figure of, let us say, 13 500 or 14 000, rather than the current - what is it, 16 000? Someone help me quickly, 19 000? I have just forgotten the figure; I believe16 000 is correct - if that growth of public servants had been restrained, so the growth of government had been restrained, that extra income could have paid off the Northern Territory’s debt.
When the GFC did come, the Territory would have been supremely well positioned to deal with the GFC, not positioned where it was, already carrying $900m, $1bn worth of nett debt. What a great position to have been in.
It was possible for the new Western Australian Liberal government to borrow under the circumstances of the GFC because of the legacy left by an ALP government that did exactly that. I am not talking about this as an ideological crank; I am talking about this as a matter of good policy. The problem we have with the government currently - and I am not quite sure what position we are in at the moment with the release of the MYEFO out of Canberra last week - is our debt is growing. If you include government-owned corporations, a deficit this year of $610bn is pretty awesome. Even the general government sector, which is just the public service departments, producing a deficit of $385m is of concern.
The question that percolates and resonates its way over the last decade is, how good was government’s management of its money during the good times, and how well did it position itself to deal with its management in the leaner times? Government was warned - if you track back through that period, government was often asked by members on this side of the House: ‘Why are you not putting more away for a rainy day?’ The government’s answer was always: ‘Oh, we put some away, we have reduced nett debt from that level to that level’. That was true, but so much more could have been done with a little restraint in growth.
There are signs in this document as to why government has not shown the restraint hoped for, and taken that once-in-a-century opportunity to reduce our debt to zero. One of the common signs we see, we can find on pages 141, and particularly 142 of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. I know this hoary, old chestnut will have the Treasurer rolling her eyes and sucking air through her teeth, but I am going back to it anyhow.
Every year when we prepare a budget, the Treasurer says: ‘I have prepared the budget, and I would also like $40m extra, in case of those sundry expenses you run into from time to time that you do not expect’. A household budget works on the same principle; it is nice to have a little extra cash aside in case something goes wrong, like the washing machine breaks down. No different for government - a natural disaster will draw down in an unexpected way on a budget. The Treasurer says: ‘I will need $40m for those unforseen occasions’. We say: ‘Yes, that is fine, we will give you $40m’. But also, under the Financial Management Act, the government can then take out more, as much as 5% of the overall appropriation, the overall money taken from Territory coffers, if it needs to, without coming back to the House.
If it is that out of control that once it hits the 5% level, it has to come back to this House, very serious questions have to be asked. It is notable that a couple of budgets ago, it went all the way to the 5% threshold. On this occasion, by my calculation, it went to 2.3%, or in total $124m worth of extra. Not only did it use everything we put in the piggy bank in case of a rainy day, it also needed an extra $84m for expenditure. The government will say: ‘Yes, we had some floods and we had Cyclone Carlos and they required some attention’.
However, if you track through the rest of the document, you come to some interesting figures. I will give you an example. Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services had an extra off-budget expenditure, which is a variation to its budget, to buy a replacement aircraft to support operations. Did the old one crash? I did not see a newspaper report on that. Is it a case of the old one having worn out or something like that? Surely, the Chief Financial Officer of an organisation like that will be keeping asset management under control and saying: ‘All right, we should be able to know that at a certain point we will have to replace our aircraft’. It should not be an off-budget spend. It should be a spend that is budgeted for. That has not been the case; it was an off-budget spend. Unless they crashed the aircraft, I am surprised they did not make allowances for it at the beginning of the financial year. Higher than anticipated employee expenses, including overtime, police housing entitlements, and workers compensation - workers compensation I can understand - but a figure of $10m? You did not know you had to deal with housing entitlements and overtime issues? Overtime can be budgeted for and often is in budgets, so I am surprised to see a figure of that size.
To not know you were going to build a power station in a budget cycle strikes me as surprising. Whilst a power station is necessary - I do not have any argument with the fact that you have to build a power station. But, to not know during your budget planning phase you had to build a power station so that you then, halfway through the year, a third of the way through the year, or whenever the decision was made to buy a power station, you suddenly said: ‘Oh, we have to build that power station’. We get $17.8m and we build that power station. I find that a surprising decision to make off the budget cycle. Halfway through a budget cycle Cabinet makes a decision to build a new power station, which has not been planned for.
That does not leave me with great confidence that the government has been going through an effective planning system when you get variations of that nature. I realise some of these variations are beyond the government’s control, such as payments received through national partnerships and SPPs, and those are clearly noted in these legislative instruments; however, some of these decisions are definitely within the government’s control and it chose to make them anyhow.
How could you not anticipate you were going to build a 12-court squash facility at Marrara? Perhaps a very necessary thing - I daresay, a very necessary thing. I have no great objection that the government is choosing to build a squash court in Marrara, but why would you not plan for it through the normal budgetary process?
That question resonates through these extra variations again, and again, and again - and here is the hint. They knew the squash court issue was going to become pressing before the budget cycle. It became even more pressing after the budget cycle started, so Cabinet made the determination to spend more money. Hence, reach into the piggy bank, take the money out, and cycle it through the departments so you can start construction on your squash court rather than waiting for the next budget cycle, because the budget cycle starts well before the budget starts.
Budget Cabinet, which is held around March, would receive a suggestion by a department that it has to build this $4m set of squash courts. However, there is a problem. If you wait for the Budget Cabinet to make that decision, you are waiting until March next year to make that decision. This would be contrary to the needs of government for other reasons which are it does not want to have the plans on the drawing board in March to proceed down the path of building a set of squash courts because it will take 12 to 14 months to build a set of squash courts. No, they need those plans ratified earlier so they can cut the ribbon in, let us say, August of next year. It would be an extremely cynical exercise, of course, as it would sidestep the stringent fiscal policies of this government to bring an off-budget spend into the Northern Territory budget for the last financial year - to hurry up what will be a popular thing to open just before the next Territory election. Surely not!
It is the same with the power station – a $17.8m power station: ‘Oh, let us have that authorised before we go through the normal budgetary process so rather than starting the process late in terms of the election cycle, we will be able to cut the ribbon by the time the next election rolls around’. That is what is resonating through this document: a determination by government to engage in what I call less than rock solid fiscal practice and more focused on the political decisions it has to make on its expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars. Rather than wait for an appropriate approach in the budget cycle, we have a government which makes an increasing number of political decisions, particularly arising out of its expenditure from the Treasurer’s Advance. It raids the piggy bank year-in, year-out. This year is no exception, but it is particularly bringing forward projects which are going to be vote winners. This document is loaded with them.
I would like to hear what the Treasurer has to say about the $42m write-off from the railway consortium. Clearly, Cabinet would have come to that decision for a reason. I am curious to hear from Treasury how it came to the determination that it was necessary to write off that debt owed to the people of the Northern Territory. Now it is not paying, someone else has to.
I acknowledge grants and subsidies decreased by $132m since May 2010 due to reduced GST revenue of $135.6m and lower national GST collections, offset by a nett increase in specific permit payments and national partnerships payments of about $3.5m. In other words, GST went down by a great deal, NPPs and SPPs went up by a little, and that contributed to the black hole.
Perhaps the Treasurer in her response would care to comment on the modelling currently being used by Treasury in Canberra, and more importantly, in the Northern Territory. The modelling is consistently overstating the fiscal and economic indicators of the Northern Territory. Particularly, growth predictions have not achieved earlier promise; growth predictions in GST have not achieved the anticipated figures. Whilst the Treasurer will insist conservative numbers are generally used, clearly conservative numbers are now not producing reliable figures. The only reason this could be occurring is the modelling is no longer producing conservative numbers and it may well be worth reviewing how the modelling is being done when they are consistently not meeting. I want to hear what the Treasurer has to say about that.
I have a choice at this point to bang on about debt and deficit endlessly, but I have made my point. I cannot see much point in labouring on about it. As far as I am concerned, the government has taken an unfortunate approach to its fiscal management policy over the last 10 years. I have been cautious not to say at any point that debt should not be used as a vehicle in difficult times, but if you look at the Keynesian construct of counter-cyclical spending, it is the old Aesop’s Fable - and I have used it before in this House - of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant squirrels away food for winter, whereas the grasshopper just parties on all the way through summer. When winter comes, the ant is prepared.
That is the fundamental principle of counter-cyclical spending. This government has not practised that principle. At the time of surprising growth in the Northern Territory, in the private sector and in engineering and building, in both domestic and non-domestic areas, government was directly competing with the marketplace for workers in the construction of the Convention Centre. If it had waited for a time where the Convention Centre would have helped the Territory economy by doing what it argues borrowing does now; that is, protecting jobs, that would have been a fair and useful approach. However, it chose to enter the marketplace at a time when growth was strong, and then amplify that growth.
I am surprised government is surprised that because of the contraction in the building industry - through the cyclical situation that has existed since I have lived in the Territory since 1969, and long before; the boom-bust cycle - that it has chosen not to spend during the bad time. Mind you, it is doing it at the moment - but it chose to spend when the times were good. As a consequence, rather than squirreling away cash, its capacity to borrow has been limited, yet it still persists. The problem is that I look for the forecasts, and those forecasts do not give me comfort. The Treasurer’s assertion is that surplus is coming back - not in any forecast I have seen and it will not be in the mid-year report. The reason being that if the mid-year report had good numbers in it, we would not be sitting here on Thursday afternoon, the last day of the sittings year, waiting for the mid-year report to hit the table. The government would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops in Question Time. So the news is not good. We will look at the mid-year report, see how it marries up to the MYEFO, and then see if the answers given by the Treasurer in the last couple of days have any credence.
As for this, it is more Labor, it is more borrowing, spending, spending, borrowing, and no idea as to how it is going to pay it all back.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that was predictable. The member for Port Darwin is on the repeat cycle and he simply does not understand exactly what is required in the Territory. We are a developing jurisdiction. We make no apology that as a government which came to power in 2001 when nett debt to revenue ratios under the CLP were 61%, that after eight budget surpluses in a row we have driven down that nett debt to revenue ratio to 25%, having wiped $582m off Territory debt ratcheted up by the CLP. Having done all that, we delivered improved services at the same time, and started to rebuild the infrastructure of the Territory where the R&M was in a disastrous situation.
Have a look at what our road network was like in 2001; there was not enough cash in the capital program to meet the capital program - growth was at 0%. What we did through tough economic management and strong fiscal measures is build the Territory in service delivery - the provision of services, not just in the urban centres, which is what we saw and what we inherited, but delivering services in the regional and remote areas where they were desperately needed.
Renal dialysis is one clear example. Opening up secondary education in the bush - another example - where they require not only recurrent expenditure for the nurses, teachers, and staff, but also require the infrastructure spend for the physical buildings. For a decade, through tough focused management, we did both.
We built the Territory, improving on and delivering key and critical services to Territorians. It was in dire need. They needed it. We are a developing jurisdiction. We also built the fundamental infrastructure from a shattered base into a robust delivery of improved roads, improved health clinics, improved schools, and improved housing across the Territory, just to name a few areas.
In the debate today, the answer from the member for Port Darwin is we should have squirrelled all the GST revenue increases during that period away and shaved off all debt. The answer to how he would have done that - and it will not add up, but anyway - is he would have constrained growth in the public sector by half. He said they were not about sacking: ‘I am not about sacking, but I would have constrained growth in the public sector by half’. It will be interesting to see how he is going to handle his views in 2012, and explain the plethora of commitments from the CLP spend-o-meter, and how it is going to get that constraint in place in the public service without the sacking platform it ran from the 2008 election on.
If you take his word in today’s debate on face value, he said he would have constrained that expenditure by half. If you accept his view that infrastructure is a positive spend - which we all know it is, but you really have to look at your recurrent, you really need to look at your public sector - let us have a look at what would have occurred.
Instead of 720 nurses employed during that period to help support the 127 extra hospital beds, slash that by half. Instead of 250 extra doctors employed to provide the desperately-needed improved GP and health services across the Territory, slash that by half. They certainly would not have had the funding, the recurrent or capital, to have delivered the first cancer care centre for the Territory, the first palliative care unit, the Barbara James House accommodation for cancer patients, or the first medical school. You would not have seen the major upgrades to Royal Darwin Hospital, the new emergency department. You certainly would not have the birthing centre. You would not have the additional theatres for operations, so you would not be cutting into your waiting lists for elective surgery. You would not have the Rapid Admission Planning Unit to improve the flow through of beds from people in emergency. You would not have the trauma centre, and you would not have the upgrades to other Territory hospitals. That is what the member for Port Darwin is articulating in, ‘we would have constrained expenditure by half’.
What he is also saying is forget about the 407 extra teachers, because you would not have them, and certainly, we know, you would not have the schools in the bush, because that had been their track record - so we can take a good guess at that one. You would not have seen upgrades to every primary school across the Territory. You certainly would not have gone ahead and built nine new schools, including Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary, and Rosebery Middle School, because you would not have wanted to hire the teachers to fill the schools. God knows where those students would have gone, but you would not have done that because you would have wanted to deliver cuts in debt rather than delivering services Territorians quite reasonably expect a government to deliver in a growing, developing jurisdiction.
Let us have a look at police. When we came to government we know they had had a freeze on the recruitment of police for four years. If you follow his logic of constraining expenditure by half, instead of 400 police, there would have only been 200 police. Instead of 60 police in new police stations across remote areas, we probably would have seen none of them, because let us face it, they were not there under their priorities in the past. Forget about the new police stations at Humpty Doo and Casuarina - and we all know what condition Casuarina Police Station was in. You can certainly forget about the Police Beats, because we know that is not their policy; we know they are opposed to Police Beats. Moreover, you would not have seen that 300% increase in infrastructure spending and that 213% increase in the roads.
That is what we did, and at the same time, we cut debt by $582m- eight budget surpluses in a row. We built the Territory in infrastructure, we built up the service delivery, and we made it a place where people wanted to come to live, work, raise a family, and expect they would receive the services Australians expect to receive elsewhere.
The bizarre logic of the member for Port Darwin was that there is a simple solution to this. Do not do all of those things. As a government, you need to understand you have responsibility to deliver core services in education, health, law and order, across transport mechanisms - roads - to build the infrastructure you need to get products to market, training and employment, and housing. We are charged with the responsibility of ensuring our expenditure meets needs. We are also charged with the responsibility that we live within our means, and we have been. We delivered eight budget surpluses in a row so we were well and truly living within our means. We were cutting debt at the same time, and improving services, and we were well positioned to take the blows of the global financial crisis.
We took the blows of the global financial crisis on behalf of our community. If we said: ‘We are going to stay on our pathway of capital expenditure of around $840m’ - which we were in 2008-09 - ‘and we will watch private sector investment dry up’ - because the capital markets had frozen - ‘We will not change that pathway because we want to continue to deliver surpluses’, we would have seen 15 500 Territorians unemployed. That is what that decision would have done. Yes, we would be in surplus and we would be continuing to cut debt, but you would see 15 500 on the unemployment scrap heap. If you look at the 2010-11 actuals and the TAFR results we are debating today, without the public spend increase, instead of delivering 1.6% economic growth in the 2010-11 financial year, we would have been at 0.2%.
Under the CLP’s and the member for Port Darwin’s view of the world we would be flatlining; we would not be in growth. As we saw in 2001 when the CLP flatlined the economy, you would have seen local Territorians, born and raised here, the subbies, packing up, getting in their utes, and heading somewhere to find a job. We saw it in 2001, and you would have seen it again as a result of the GFC, but we took the tough decision to step up and carry the construction sector through the tough times resulting from the prevailing global financial conditions, which continue to prevail.
At the same time, we knew we had to constrain expenditure, because we recognised you have to live within your means. When you are making bold decisions such as doubling your capital program to keep people in jobs and keep the economy in growth, at 1.6% instead of 0.2%, you need to put downward pressure on your recurrent expenditure, so you are living within your means. The only deficit you are carrying, the only add-on to the debt you are doing is through your capital, through your infrastructure, not through your recurrent.
So, what did we do? Tough fiscal decisions were made and implemented, which are delivering savings. We put a staffing cap in place across the public service. We have driven efficiency dividends through the budget process. We have found initiatives through reprioritisation of agency budgets. Tough decisions; measures that achieved $52m in saving in 2010-2011 alone, and by the end of this financial year, will achieve $150m in savings. We are tightening our belts. At the same time we are making the bold, responsible decisions to keep our economy in growth, to keep the construction sector buoyant, and to realise the opportunities for the major projects on our horizon.
The member for Port Darwin likes to think the decisions our government is making are unusual - that we are the only ones in this situation in our nation. He could not be more wrong. If you look at the 2010-11 actuals across the nation, every jurisdiction is in deficit, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory which posted a $10m surplus. Their 2011-12 budget predicts a deficit of $339m, but they scraped through in the 2010-11 actual. Every jurisdiction in Australia, like us, which had been in surplus pre-GFC, plunged into deficit to prop up their economy. The International Monetary Fund said governments needed to spend to stimulate their economies. We have avoided dramatic jobless queues in Australia because governments were strong enough to step up and support their economies. We are the envy of the world in how we have been able to manage through these tough global conditions.
We do have the borrowing capacity. The member for Port Darwin thinks he can say anything and not be brought to account for it. I will bring him to account for it today. I know that when visiting a shire, he said our debt level was like Greece. That is blatantly untrue. There is not a skerrick of truth in that statement. We do not shy away from being scrutinised about whether our debt levels are manageable. In fact, we have just had the rating agency, Moody’s, here to scrutinise whether we can we manage our debt. Its view is that we have a very moderate level of debt; it is manageable, and Moody’s see the savings measures and constraints we are putting in place.
Going to the nett debt as a percentage of GSP, if you want to look at the reality rather than the misleading musings of the member for Port Darwin, the Northern Territory nett debt as a percentage of GSP is 8.8%. Compare the Commonwealth nett debt, which as a percentage of GSP is 8.9% - a very manageable level at 8.8%, the national debt as a percentage of GSP is 8.9% - and Greece. The member for Port Darwin compares our nett debt levels to a nation that has a nett debt as a percentage of GSP of 165.6%. He is saying that nett debt to GSP of 8.8% is the same as nett debt to GSP of 165.6%. I do not know how much more wrong he could be but he peddles that myth; he talks his doom and gloom, says we do not know how to manage our fiscal environment, and we do not understand the economy. Well, I will give him the tip: he does not understand it; he consistently gets it wrong.
I do not know what type of advice he seeks, but I suspect he does not seek advice because he is too arrogant. I seek advice as the Treasurer. I am proud of the Territory’s Treasury officials. I have seen them on the national stage and I will back the officials of the Territory Treasury against any official in any Treasury in our nation. No one is getting the modelling figures perfect right now, not Access Economics, not the Commonwealth Treasury, and not our own. They are getting close, but what we are seeing is consumers who are so conservative in their spending patterns that it is affecting retail, so everyone revises their figures down currently and continues to do so.
We are keeping the Territory in growth to ensure we are well positioned to take advantage of the economic boom times. That is not just what we are saying; independent commentators, Deloitte Access Economics, say we will be the third-fastest growing jurisdiction in our nation for the next five years, just behind Western Australia and Queensland - but not the merchant of doom and gloom over here. He will not have that. He thinks we are stagnant. We are in growth. He thinks we are debt burdened, but we are not – 8.8% is not debt burdened, it is manageable. He thinks we are just on a spending spree; we are not. We have constrained recurrent; we have found savings in recurrent whilst we are deliberately propping up the construction sector through the capital spend.
I could be in surplus today by shaving a quarter off the capital spend and still have it above the pre-GFC levels. If I did that, you could kiss goodbye to 750 jobs straight up; 750 people are not employed because the whimsy of the member for Port Darwin is ‘let us all just stay in surplus land’, despite the fact that every jurisdiction in our nation has gone down the path of heavy lifting their economies when prevailing global economic conditions require them to.
It does not suit his strange musings about the Territory economy to understand those realities. It does not suit him to think the employment of nurses, teachers, doctors, police officers, child protection workers is not the right thing to do. God forbid that man should ever be allowed anywhere near a Treasury decision-making role because he does not listen to advice. He defies the views of all the economic commentators around. Chris Richardson from Access Economics was on television the other day saying not to pursue surplus at the cost of the economy. BIS Shrapnel said the same thing. The temptation is always there for a Treasurer …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: The temptation will always be there for an egomaniac Treasurer to pursue a surplus, to beat their chest, and say: ‘How good am I’, and turn a blind eye to the Territorians who are unemployed and ignore the flatlining growth. The temptation would be there for the member for Port Darwin. The temptation is not there for me. I will do the heavy lifting. I will not take the ridiculous assertions of the member for Port Darwin. I prefer to keep Territorians in jobs, to build legacy infrastructure, to deliver and improve services, and to constrain our own expenditure and find savings, despite the tough global conditions prevailing. I will keep this economy in growth to take advantage of the economic opportunities on our horizon.
On his bizarre musings about the Treasurer’s Advance, I will give him a tip. Have a look at the use of Treasurer’s Advance up to 5% throughout the 1990s growth period; go to the growth period. They drew on Treasurer’s Advance year-in, year-out because they were in growth, and that is where we have been. We are creating growth, and the idea that we decided to spend money on the squash courts simply so we can be cutting a ribbon around election time - you have to be kidding me. We provided capital expenditure for the squash courts because the courts were bulldozed. That is why we did it.
This idea that we are building the power station at Wadeye because we want to cut a ribbon is bizarre. We brought forward capital expenditure on a project, so we could get ahead of the construction pressures during the buildup of those major projects of INPEX, the Marine Supply Base, and the prison. It is smart to bring forward capital expenditure so you can get in and get the construction workforce and keep the construction workforce strong before you are out there competing with the big guys. No, in his strange world, that was all about ribbon cutting. He really does like to go into a strange meandering.
He has previously asked about the railway debt, and previously been advised, so he asked again about the railway debt write-off in this 2010-11. Okay, provided previously with the advice, it is absolutely consistent - we provided for the debt write-off in about 2006, so we accounted for it then. This is bringing the write-off onto the books because the railway was sold. You might have missed that one; Genesee and Wyoming bought it. Nothing unusual there, but in the mind of the bizarre member for Port Darwin, it is all unusual.
I will just recap. Yes, we are in deficit because of our deliberate decision to double our infrastructure spend. We make no apology for keeping our jurisdiction in growth. We are not alone. Every other jurisdiction in our nation did exactly the same thing, and they all came in on deficit in the 2010-11 actuals, except for the ACT which scraped through on a $10m surplus and is predicting a $339m deficit in 2011-12. This bizarre notion that we are debt ridden - we are not - 8.8%, compared to the nation at 8.9%, and his comparison of us with Greece at 165.6%. Go figure, member for Port Darwin. I am going to call you out on your madness.
I will note the industry organisations in the 2010-11 Budget all congratulated the government for making the right decision to go into deficit to support jobs in their industries and to support their industries. That budget was rated an eight out of 10 by all the industry commentators in the Territory. I managed to get an eight out of 10 rating out of Daryl Manzie for the next budget, which was the 2011-12. It is not easy. You have to show fiscal constraint in tough times, and we are doing that through the reprioritisation, the efficiency dividends, and the staffing cap.
There is not a whole lot of joy across the public service about the constraints I have put in place, budget after budget, as Treasurer, but there is a whole lot of understanding in the Territory that we are meeting the key needs of Territorians in health, police, teachers, child protection workers, across those critical areas. We are building the legacy infrastructure the Territory needs to develop. We are keeping us in economic growth at 1.6%. If we had listened to the member for Port Darwin, we would only be scraping through at 0.2%, which would be flatlining.
We will continue to be tough fiscal managers in the worst global economic conditions in a century. We are up to it because we have the experience. We delivered eight budget surpluses in a row to reduce debt. We positioned ourselves to be able to carry the load through the GFC-affected marketplace, and continue to provide Territorians with the services they quite rightly and quite reasonably expect from their government.
I certainly take exception to the snide accusations by the member for Port Darwin that somehow I have been hiding the mid-year report - not true. It is convention to hand down the mid-year report on the Thursday of sittings. I spoke about the mid-year report GST revisions on Tuesday in Question Time. I repeated them yesterday in Question Time. I am not hiding anything. The member for Port Darwin is hiding. He is such a coward that in Question Time today, he had to get one of his mates to ask a question because he was too frightened to ask the Treasurer.
Do not stoop that low, member for Port Darwin. Do not show yourself to be the coward you did today. Bring it on and ask the Treasurer questions. You may not like the answer, it may not fit your fantasy world, but I will give factual answers. The 2010-11 TAFR is fact. The Auditor-General audits it. It shows the fiscal constraints; it shows we met our $1.7bn infrastructure spend. It shows a 1.6% economic growth, not the 0.2% we would have otherwise had. It shows our debt levels are manageable and nett debt to revenue ratio is well below what we inherited in 2001.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12 which provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
The global financial crisis first affected financial markets, economic activity, and government revenues in 2008, and continues to be the dominant influence on the budgets of all governments.
The Territory budget and Territory economy has been affected by the cumulative effects of the GFC, slower growth in the national and local economy, and moderation of the housing market. At the time of the 2011-12 Budget, it was anticipated the national economy was moving into a recovery phase and revenues, most noticeably the GST, would begin to return to more normal growth patterns, albeit from a lower base. However, recent indications are that national economic growth remains subdued and, as a result, GST revenue estimates for the Territory have again been revised downwards. This is consistent with the information released by the Commonwealth on Tuesday in its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report.
The global financial crisis has also contributed to a moderation in the Territory’s residential and commercial property market resulting in lower own-source revenues, particularly stamp duty. In addition to revised revenue estimates, the mid-year report incorporates the flow-on effect of the 2010-11 outcome, and the financial effect of the new Darwin correctional facility. Against this backdrop, the fiscal outlook in the 2011-12 mid-year report includes: an improved nett operating balance in 2011-12, then increased operating deficits from 2012-13; cash deficit of $396m in 2011-12, largely unchanged since budget time with the underlying deficits over the four years consistent with those included in the May budget; and higher ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue due to the effect of the higher 2010-11 cash deficit and the obligations associated with the new Darwin correctional facility.
The mid-year report also includes an update on the Territory’s economic outlook. Economic growth in the Territory is forecast to strengthen to 2.3% in 2011-12, a slight downward revision from that forecast in the budget. Strong growth in international goods exports will contribute to the Territory’s economic growth in 2011-12, reflecting the commencement of production at the Kitan and Montara oil fields, and increased production at a number of Territory mines.
State final demand in the Territory is cyclical and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. SFD is forecast to increase by 0.8% in 2011-12, 0.6% points more than forecast at the time of the 2011-12 budget reflecting updated estimates of public consumption and inclusion of new major projects, most notably, the Darwin correctional facility.
The Territory economy is expected to continue to grow strongly in the coming years, primarily reflecting major private sector investment projects commencing in the Territory. Property markets are expected to remain subdued during 2011-12 with continuing global uncertainties affecting consumer sentiment and credit availability.
The population growth forecast has been revised to 0.6% reflecting current levels of nett overseas migration and interstate migration. Population levels have been influenced by the relocation of Defence personnel movements, the completion of several major projects, and changes in national migration policies. The employment growth forecast for 2011-12 is for growth of 2% compared with 2.8% at budget time, reflecting lower population levels.
Turning back to the fiscal outlook, GST revenue remains the Territory’s most significant revenue source. Historically, GST represented around 60% of the Territory’s revenues; however, since the start of the GFC, this ratio has dropped to around 50%. The further downward revision in the mid-year report means the accumulative reduction in GST revenue to the Territory over the three years to 2011-12 is now $670m less than estimated prior to the GFC.
The Territory’s residential property market has operated at very high levels in the recent past, fuelled by above-average levels of population growth, low interest rates, and the flow-on effect of housing assistance schemes. More recently, there has been a softening in the Territory’s residential and commercial property market resulting in stamp duty collections in 2011-12 being revised down by $13m. These revenue reductions place further stress on the Territory’s fiscal position, notwithstanding, as evidenced by eight consecutive cash surpluses through to 2009-10, the Henderson government remains committed to fiscal responsibility. Accordingly, in response to revenue reductions, the government has reviewed particular elements of funding set aside in forward estimates and reduced the level of future spending.
In recent years, spending on infrastructure has grown substantially to counteract the effects of the lower private sector investment that resulted from the GFC. Infrastructure spending increased from $885m in 2008-09 to $1.7bn in 2010-11, with an estimated $1.5bn in 2011-12. Without this investment, economic data indicates the Territory’s economic growth for 2010-11 would have been 0.2% instead of 1.6% and would have cost Territory jobs.
From 2012-13, private sector investment is expected to increase markedly due to the progress of major resource-related projects. This investment will enable the government to move to a counter-cyclical approach to the capital works program and reduce capital investment over the forward estimates to levels more commensurate with the depreciation in line with the fiscal strategy. This lower infrastructure spending, together with a further commitment to ongoing budget restraint measures, has allowed the cash targets over the forward estimates to be maintained largely in line with those estimated in May 2011.
On an accrual basis, similar to the cash outcome, the fiscal balance and the nett operating balance are projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle. However, consistent with the fiscal strategy, untied expenditure growth remains below untied revenue growth. Nett debt is estimated to increase in 2014-15 to $2.843bn from the May 2011 budget, largely due to the effect of the 2010-11 outcome on the recognition of the debt associated with the Darwin correctional facility in 2013-14, following financial close as indicated at the time of the budget. The Territory will not make any payments until the facility is operational. In accordance with accounting standards, the asset and associated financial lease liability will be recognised once construction of the facility is complete, which is expected to be in the last quarter of 2013-14. This significant capital investment will increase nett capital investment, the underlying cash deficit, and associated nett debt by $495m from 2013-14.
The 2011-12 mid-year report highlights the cumulative effects of the GFC affecting the Territory’s economic and fiscal position. Despite these challenges, the medium-term objective of the government strategy remains the commitment to retire debt and return the budget to a surplus position as soon as it becomes economically prudent to do so. This commitment is evidenced by ongoing budget improvement measures already in place which will result in savings of around $150m by the end of 2011-12.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the 2011-12 mid-year report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am tempted to launch into this now because there are some very important figures here. However, before I move to complete my comments at a later date, I point out that the government has historically made much of the issue of the nett debt to revenue ratio and said repeatedly that the 2001-02 figure of 61% was unsustainable and a disaster for the Northern Territory. It sheeted home the blame for that unsustainable and dreadful position to the Country Liberals.
I note the forward projections to the nett debt to revenue ratio now exceed, under this government’s tutelage, in spite of its substantially increased income, the 2001-02 levels. This is an unspeakable disaster for the Northern Territory. If it was unsustainable in 2001, what is happening now, or what will be happening in a couple of years time, is worse. This is a Greco-Roman Treasurer taking us down the road to financial ruin. She missed the chance to fix the Territory’s situation - a chance of a century - and she stuffed it up.
Madam Acting Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Acting Speaker, I table the government’s response to the Council of Territory Cooperation Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee Final Report.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Speaker, I will make a short tabling statement. I thank the committee for its report and the recommendations about improving animal welfare governance across the Northern Territory.
I take the opportunity to highlight your role as Chair of that committee, and the member for Arafura; the Independent member for Nelson; the Country Liberals’ member for Port Darwin; and the Country Liberals’ member for Goyder. I thank each and every member of that committee.
I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions over the last 12 to 18 months when we have looked at the horrific incident which occurred at Mataranka regarding the welfare of animals and cattle. I am on the record about the absolute disgrace of what occurred at Mataranka, and I put to the House and to members present that an inquiry was needed to look at the disconnect that concerned me quite deeply, as the Minister for Local Government, and also the disconnect within agencies across government, and those outside of government, regarding their responsibilities and roles.
There are 21 recommendations in this report. I considered whether we should take more time to go into depth with the recommendations, but I chose to put this to the parliament before the end of the year. It was only in the last sittings that this came down. This is an important issue to leave on the table, and I wanted to allow all members of parliament to have a look at this, so we can talk about it in the February 2012 sittings.
I have made a commitment to learn from the events that occurred at Mataranka and to ensure animal welfare is improved through scrutiny and examination through the processes of government and government agencies. I also want to ensure such events never happen again in the Northern Territory. To do that, we needed to see this was an open and transparent process, thoroughly scrutinised by members of this committee, and we certainly wanted members of this committee to question me and my role as the minister; to put everything on the table. This was too critical to the people of the Northern Territory to ensure whatever lessons had to be learned from this were learnt and are learnt, so we can move forward to tighten up those areas. There were certainly many areas lacking throughout this whole process.
The committee has made a significant contribution to animal welfare, and I thank each of you for the work in the four weeks since the committee’s final report was tabled in the House. The response I am tabling today outlines what we have done to address the recommendations made by the committee. Members are aware the government has previously announced additional resource allocations for the Animal Welfare Unit and improvements to across-government operational working arrangements. Enhanced training in investigations and prosecutions has been incorporated into standard operating procedures of animal welfare inspectors and officers. I listened to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution when the CTC report was tabled regarding investigation and his suggestions on ways forward. These have all been taken into consideration by my agency, together with the contributions of other members of the committee.
A memorandum of understanding between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services and the Department of Resources has been put in place to define roles, responsibilities, and procedures in relation to commercial livestock. I believe the committee’s work builds on this work and is a significant contribution to improving animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory.
The committee has made 21 recommendations, and the government is moving immediately to implement the majority of the recommendations. I expect to be saying more about the other recommendations in the new year. The balance of the recommendations require further assessment of the most effective legislative or policy response across government. This will necessarily involve a two-stage process, with some legislative amendments to be made immediately, and other amendments to be introduced at a later stage.
Government will be responding to 11 of the recommendations through legislative amendments to be made immediately. In some cases, government has decided to go beyond the report’s recommendations to further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act and the operational arm of the department. These amendments complement the work of the CTC and significantly increase the coverage and penalties that may be applied under the legislation.
A key recommendation of the report is for government policy to reflect that a single agency is responsible for the Animal Welfare Act by stipulating that all investigations under the Animal Welfare Act are referred to that agency. As an immediate response to this recommendation, standard operating procedures will be implemented across relevant government agencies to ensure clarity regarding the responsibility to refer potential breaches of the act to the animal welfare authority for investigation. In the new year, I hope to be able to add to this recommendation regarding a single agency responsible for the Animal Welfare Act. Given there has only been that month, and I know this is an important part of the concern that many members on the CTC relayed in their speeches to the parliament, I will be taking that on board in further discussions in the new year. Clearly, there are also going to be conversations that need to take place with Cabinet and other relevant agencies.
As highlighted by the committee’s report, animal ethics committees are a crucial aspect of animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory. In addition to responding to the recommendations in the committee’s report, I confirm that I will be making a submission to the current review of the code of practice applying to animal ethics committees that is being conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In that submission, I will be seeking inclusion in the code of practice, a mandatory requirement for an animal welfare advisor on all animal ethics committees, and a requirement that licensees and their respective animal ethics committees must inform themselves of their reporting obligations under state and territory animal welfare legislation.
In relation to the need for increased animal welfare education and enforcement in remote regions of the Territory, allocation of additional resources for animal management and control in remote regions is being actively considered. In addition, the government has provided significant funding to the non-government organisation, Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) to work in partnership with shire councils in addressing animal management issues. The Commonwealth has also directed significant resources to AMRRIC for animal management work in the Northern Territory. Although most shire councils have made progress in this area compared to the pre-reform area of local government, there is still much more to be achieved.
The government is conscious of the need to close the gap in this area and I will be seeking the support of the Commonwealth, as recommended by the committee. I am very conscious, not only from this report, but also from my own travels across the Territory, that as we are embarking across these reforms in local government, animal management is a core service of each of the shires across the regions. There is also a very real difference between the by-laws in the municipal councils, so our government is concerned the issue around animal management raised through the CTC and its recommendations will be taken very seriously.
Recommendation 13 of the subcommittee’s report is that the subcommittee reconvenes in 2012 to scrutinise progress in addressing the recommendations of the final report. I welcome that. I have from the outset, and on the record in parliament and outside parliament, stated this has to be an open and transparent process. I welcome that scrutiny of the monitoring and vigilance of how these 21 recommendations progress.
There is more work to be done, but significant work has been undertaken in that short space of time. I reflected, as did the CEO, Ken Davies, on the evidence given before the committee and the work being done in the Animal Welfare Unit. This is a continuing body of work with actions, including legislative amendments and new policy and procedures. I look forward to providing further information to the House in the future regarding the steps we are taking in this important area.
In closing, I personally thank all those outside this parliament for their work, and that of the parliamentarians and the committee. I also thank all those who came forward to the CTC to provide their reflections and stories of how and what happened at Mataranka. It was very difficult for many people who came before the committee. On behalf of government, I thank them for being a part of this very important report of the committee.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to the hard-working selfless people who frequently give their time to help others. I am referring to the volunteer firefighters and personnel who recently travelled to Central Australia to combat the devastating bush and wildfires that raced across some 200 000 km2 of bushland and desert. This normally dry country experienced record rainfall not long ago. Usually the fuel load in this part of the Territory is, on average, less than one tonne per hectare of sparse clumps of spinifex and native grasses. This year, because of the intense Wet Season, the grasses provided three to four tonnes in a continuous carpet that stretched right up to the tops of ridges and hills, which in normal seasons would form natural firebreaks.
The fire started in and around Alice Springs and many fires were started by lightning strikes. Sadly, many were deliberately lit, which is a great source of concern to everyone. I hope the authorities catch the low-life mongrels who started the fires and throw the whole book at them. People fought the fires around Alice Springs for days and finally got them under control and contained. There was no serious loss of property or injury to people - either the firefighters or residents. There were fires further out in the bush and these fires seemed to pop up like mushrooms and were fought on Bond Springs Station, Yambah, Kings Creek, Erldunda, Ti Tree, Mount Skinner, Stirling, Kurundi, and Muckaty Station, plus other numerous smaller locations.
Some members may know the story about the fire that roared across the landscape, surrounded Banka Banka Station, and very nearly engulfed the homestead and camping grounds, but did not, due to the efforts of the station people and the many tourists who were camping there and pitched in to help. That will be a story they take home with them for sure.
Back to the fires. Because of the sheer size and scope of the problem, it was obvious the resources of existing firefighters and others were stretched and people were suffering fatigue. More help was needed and that is when the Top End people volunteered to help. In the rural area, which I represent, there is a combination of NT Fire Service volunteer brigade people and Bushfire Council volunteer brigades and people went from all units across the rural area.
I pay tribute to the people in my electorate and the rural area for their courage, dedication, and selfless acts. From the Koolpinyah brigade were Lou Cowan, Steve Say, and Fran Say. From the Humpty Doo brigade were Damien Shaw, Bob Burgess - who did three trips to Central Australia, Cameron Burrows, and Doug Burns. From Howard Springs were Steve Gross, Maxine Way, Bronte Way, Lachlan Way, Chris Peberdy, Garry Casey and Stephen Russell - who was a mighty fine volunteer firefighter, who also went three times and happens to be my brother-in-law. From Virginia was Janelle Stewart; and from Jabiru was Tamira Anderson. The Bushfire Council people were Davo McLaughlin from Lambells Lagoon way, and Ralf Koberstein. I know most of these people and I can tell you they are not retired or sitting at home waiting for telephone calls. They work, they have families, children, pets, properties, and people who love and care for them. To volunteer to fight monstrous fires is terrific, and I say well done and we thank you, as I am sure the people of Central Australia do as well.
The rain finally arrived in early October and there was a collective sigh of relief as the danger passed, perhaps for another year.
While I am talking about the volunteer fire people in the rural area, the Humpty Doo volunteer fire brigade has their annual Santa run on Saturday, 10 December, commencing at 1 pm and the Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade has their Santa run the following Saturday, 17 December, commencing at 4 pm. They are wonderful events and bring much happiness to children scattered across the rural area.
In closing, I thank all those firefighters, whether they were in a paid capacity or volunteers. It is a much-needed service to our community and we are all truly grateful.
Madam Acting Speaker, I extend my thanks and appreciation to my electorate staff; Trish O’Hehir, the full-time permanent electorate officer who is a terrific person and a great support to me and my many constituents. Thanks also to the part-time temporary people who come in and help when Trish is away: Jinx Smith, Carol Lynch, Annette Post, and Muskett the Magnificent.
To my electorate office staff, Karen, and all the relief staff - Liz who is there today - and a few others over the course of the year, thank you for your support and help.
Thank you to the staff of the Legislative Assembly. To Ian McNeill, we wish you a speedy recovery. We have missed you in the parliament and look forward to your return next year. To the staff in the Clerk’s office over the course of the year, thank you for your help and a very Merry Christmas. Thank you to the Table Office staff. To the Committee staff, thank you very much. To the Hansard staff, who have done a great job this year, a very Merry Christmas and thank you for your help. To the Building Management staff who keep this place functioning and in tiptop shape, thank you very much. The Parliamentary Services staff are very important – thank you to all those in Parliamentary Services. They are the difference between getting that new car, your mobile phone, your reimbursement, and whether it is at the bottom of the pile or the top of the pile, so to those guys a very Merry Christmas and thank you very much for your help and support. To the catering staff throughout Parliament House, and the ministerial staff who aided me with briefings this year, I have to thank each one of you, and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and holiday season.
The year started pretty badly for the Northern Territory government. It has not been a great year for the Northern Territory government. We started with one of the worst crime waves in Alice Springs’ history and you were floundering from the start; that was in January. The Chief Minister failed to turn up, to show any intestinal fortitude in front of the people of Alice Springs at the regional sittings in March, despite them calling for him to come out and address the crowd. The budget in May essentially saddled every Territorian with $30 000 worth of debt. We had the debacle with the aeromedical tender. We were only up to about June by this stage and, if things could not really get any worse, we had the mother of them all - the live cattle export ban. The Banned Drinker Register is another plank in the government’s fixation of punishing responsible Territorians for the sake of the irresponsible minority. That is what they are all about, dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. Just like the kid in the classroom who misbehaves, we will keep the whole class back. That is what they are all about. The appalling crime statistics were finally released and only confirmed what everyone else knew - the government is just soft on crime; soft, soft, soft. We already knew that, but the crime statistics confirmed what we already knew.
Then we moved on to the appalling statistics surrounding the hospital waiting lists and a minister identified by health care professionals across the Northern Territory, most of whom work for him in his very department, as being sloppy, lazy, and more interested in posting videos on YouTube and Facebook than in the health and wellbeing of Territorians. Thus far, it has not been very good.
To cap it all off, we have a Chief Minister who cannot recall whether he signed a document relating to one of the longest-running, most important land claims in the Northern Territory’s history. He was asleep at the wheel. He walked in here twice to change his position. Have we ever seen it before where a Chief Minister has walked in to make a personal statement to clarify his position, to correct the record twice in one day on the same bill? I do not think so - pretty ordinary stuff. It has not been a great year.
I have to say well done to the opposition for holding this mob to account. It is no mean feat. There is no rest when you have such an incompetent government. The Country Liberals team has done a remarkable job.
I wish the government members a Merry Christmas. I hope you have some rest over the Christmas period and come back with a bit more spring in your step. For you this Christmas I wish some humility, decency, and maybe integrity. Who knows what you will find under the Christmas tree, but it would help if you could find some ability and a little bit of competence. You could deliver that to those Territorians who so desperately need it. You are going to need it if you are going to move on from being the worst government in the nation.
Madam Acting Speaker, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. I thank all those who have supported me during the course of the year. To all my parliamentary colleagues, the staff of the Legislative Assembly, and my staff and family in Alice Springs, thank you very much and Merry Christmas.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Speaker, tonight I thank the many people who supported me and my government throughout the year. It has been a great year, full of high-profile visitors to the Territory. We saw the Oprah Winfrey shows in January; we recently hosted President Obama; and the other day Cadel Evans was here to help promote the Territory. These visits show how the news of our great Territory has gone global. The Lonely Planet named Darwin as one of the top 10 cities to visit in 2012.
We had some challenges - Cyclone Carlos in the Top End and the terrible fires that roared through Central Australia. We have recovered extremely well and my thanks again to the emergency services staff and volunteers who helped with that recovery.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thank you for your support throughout the year. We can be proud of our achievements. Your commitment and dedication to making the Territory an even greater place is outstanding. It is great to be working with such a united team. You all deserve a safe and restful holiday season with your families. To my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you and your families a safe and happy festive season.
The Legislative Assembly staff work very hard all year to make our jobs a little easier. Thank you and enjoy the festive season.
To the drivers who deliver us to our meetings and events, and then ensure we get home safely to our families, I wish you all the best for Christmas and thank you.
Thank you and Merry Christmas to the essential staff in Parliament House, Speaker’s Corner staff, cleaners, and our security team.
To the CEOs of my departments, Mike Burgess and John McRoberts, your support and advice this year has been fantastic. I appreciate all the hours you put in. Happy Christmas to you and your families.
To all the staff in the Department of the Chief Minister: every one of you plays a crucial role. I thank you for your hard work this year and hope I can make it to the DCM Christmas function as it is always a fun afternoon.
A special thank you to the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff. I mentioned Cyclone Carlos and the fires earlier. You all put in such a valiant effort in the management and cleanup; it was terrific. Your work all year round is terrific, and, in the words of the United States Consul General, world-class. I thank you and wish you all a happy and safe holiday season. You certainly deserve it.
To all public servants across the Territory, you keep the Territory moving in the right direction and I thank you for your hard work.
My ministerial staff - despite the fact that we work really long hours and spend more time with each other than we do with our families, we all get on really well. It is a pleasure working with all of you. I would like to thank you for all our achievements this year, have a happy festive season.
To all the members of the Labor Party, in particular the Casuarina Branch, you are a great bunch of people. I look forward to working with you more closely next year. Without you, we would not be here, so I thank you, and Merry Christmas to you all.
To all the residents of the Wanguri electorate, have a great Christmas break. The Wanguri electorate is a fantastic electorate to represent and I am privileged to be able to do so.
To my electorate officer, Jenny, thank you for keeping the office ticking along. I wish I could spend more time out there, but you do a great job. All the best for Christmas, Jenny.
Last, but certainly not least, my wife, Stacey, and my children Alasdair, Liam, and Isobel. I have said it before, but it is so true - I definitely would not be able to do this if it was not for the love and support I receive from them. It is hard not to be able to spend as much time with them as I would like, but Christmas is special and we will make the most of that time we have together.
Finally, to all Territorians, it is an honour to be able to represent you. I hope all Territorians have a safe and happy Christmas.
I also specifically thank the principals, teachers, and staff of the schools in my electorate of Wanguri, and acknowledge the wonderful job they do. To Acting Principal Susan Kilgour from Wanguri Primary School, Principal Bernadette Morris from Holy Spirit, Principal Carolyn Edwards from Henbury Avenue, and Principal Damon Prenzler from St Andrew Lutheran School, thank you and Merry Christmas.
I acknowledge and thank the administration staff, caretakers, students, and parents for a very rewarding and positive year within the schools in the Wanguri electorate, and wish you all a very happy, safe, and relaxing Christmas break.
I make special mention tonight of a person, who as Principal at Leanyer Primary School has become a friend of mine over the 11 years Leanyer has been in the electorate of Wanguri. Henry Gray retires at the end of this year after 36 years of service to education in the Northern Territory, most of that as a Principal. Henry has been an inspiration to me, as the local member, and certainly gave me much good advice as Education minister and as Chief Minister. Henry, I have really enjoyed the opportunities we had to sit and talk about advancing education in the Territory and the challenges we have in doing that.
Henry is a real character. The great thing about Henry Gray is he loves the kids and the kids love him. One of the early things Henry Gray spoke to me about was how he believes in a very simple philosophy regarding being the principal of a school, and that is, schools are for and about children. If children are happy and safe at school, they will learn. Henry really does live by that philosophy. Every time I visit Leanyer Primary School, the kids are always running up and saying hello to Mr Gray. He knows all of them by name. Henry really does believe in a philosophy that teaching is not just about the academic learning of a child. It is also about seeing a child develop as a person, as an individual, and ensuring they develop as an individual to the best of their potential, as well as obviously learning the three Rs and the other academic requirements of school.
Henry certainly is an educational leader. All the teachers who work with him respect him, because he really does believe in team building and is not a person who would ask someone to do something he was not prepared to do himself. He has been fun around the school. There are many photographs around of Henry over the years dressed up in fancy dress as the Wizard of Oz, Merlin, or some other character on theme day at the school. He is well known for sporting carnivals, dying his beard the different house colours, and wearing all the colours of the houses competing at sports day. Henry is going to be missed.
In a couple of farewells we have already had for Henry, he is at pains to point out that Leanyer Primary School is not Henry Gray’s School; it belongs to the community and he has had the privilege and the honour of being the Principal for 20 years.
The great legacy Henry has left is that Leanyer Primary School will go from strength to strength. One of the great traits of a true leader is building a team and an institution around you that not only survives, but also thrives when you move on. That will happen at Leanyer. Whoever takes over at that school, the whole philosophy and culture of Leanyer Primary School is so strong because of Henry’s stewardship over the years. Even though a new principal will bring their own style and personality, the school will continue to go from strength to strength.
The other great lasting legacy for Henry Gray in the 36 years he has been teaching in the Northern Territory, starting in 1975 at Numbulwar with Margot. I asked him the other day if he had ever attempted to calculate how many thousands of kids would have gone through his care as a principal and teacher over the years. It would probably be hundreds of thousands. He has not attempted to do that calculation. Many of those kids will have gone on to become adults and have children themselves and always remember Henry Gray and the great lessons they took from him, as we all do with teachers who touch us. Henry would have touched many thousands of kids for the better over the years with their memories of a fantastic Principal.
Henry, you are going to stay in Leanyer. I will continue to seek your advice on a whole range of things. On behalf of so many people across the Northern Territory, as the Chief Minister, I thank you for a remarkable 36 years of service to Territory education.
We had a farewell in the Education offices and my colleague, the Education minister, was there. Many people waxed lyrical about Henry’s time at Leanyer and Groote Eylandt. Henry is very fond of singing, so a song was penned to the tune of Jamaica Farewell by Harry Belafonte. I am not going to sing it here tonight and I am not going to have time to read it. Dr Burns is the only person I know who has sung in this House and I am not going to attempt to sing it. The words that go to Harry Belafonte’s Jamaica Farewell, ‘Poor Old Henry Gray’ I table in this House for the Parliamentary Record as a cheeky but fun interpretation of Henry and the unique contribution he has made to education in the Territory.
Henry, enjoy your retirement and to Margot, thank you for supporting Henry through his 36 years in education in the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Speaker, I give my very warmest wishes for the holiday season, for Christmas, and for a safe New Year to the people of the Northern Territory. No matter what we do in this House, we must remember we are all here to advance the true welfare of Territorians. Every time I come to this House, every time I get up in the morning and go to work, whether I am working in my electorate office, travelling around the Northern Territory, or preparing for the election in 2012, I have the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory in mind.
I wish everyone, particularly those living in Katherine, in my electorate, the best. I thank them for the past 12 months of support they have given me. There are challenges everywhere in the Northern Territory, and Katherine is no different. There are challenges which arise with being a local member, but I do not resile from those challenges. I grasp them with zest and vigour because this job is about making a difference whether you are making a difference to the whole of the Northern Territory population or to one individual. That is why we are here.
I thank the parliamentary staff, the staff in the Chamber, the Tabled Papers Office, Parliamentary Services, our library, and particularly the Hansard people who are listening tonight and taking all this down. To all of you, and I hope I have not offended anyone if I have missed them, but thanks and a very Merry Christmas.
I thank my Country Liberal colleagues in the parliamentary wing and in the party broader, and particularly the Katherine branch without whose support my job would be nigh on impossible. I know they will be a great support as we move into 2012.
I extend my very warmest wishes, the warmest I can give, to my darling wife and my children - I have two living in Katherine with me and one living in Brisbane and it was nice to hear today that he got through his first year of university studying science and passed all his subjects. I am very pleased with that, Nicholas - well done.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the very hard work of my electorate officer, Pat Witte. Pat is devoted and dedicated to the member for Katherine. She served my predecessor, Fay Miller, very well and continues to serve me to the utmost level of service. Without her, I could not do the job. In fact, I have often described Pat as the glue that holds me together. When you are running an office, an electorate officer is the substance that keeps everything running smoothly. To Pat, I say thank you for the past 12 months of your work.
I specifically mention my colleagues because the guys and girls on this side of the House have worked so very hard in the past 12 months to show the people of the Northern Territory we are a credible alternative government. I particularly mention the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, and the leadership he has shown over the past 12 months. We have had some difficult times, as parties often do, but the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership over that period is unquestioned and I very much look forward to the member for Blain taking us to the next election as the Leader of the Opposition.
I will work my way around the room because we all contribute in many different ways. The member for Port Darwin is a person you cannot sneak anything past. He is sharp, and his ability in the Chamber - I saw it again today, as he gave the Attorney-General the death of a thousand cuts in the debate on the Work Health bills. That was a pleasure watch.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Kezia Purick is doing an absolutely wonderful job of looking after the Primary Industry sector. I commend her for the hard work she does in that arena.
The member for Brennan is doing a wonderful job as shadow Education minister, shadow for the Environment, and also Parks and Wildlife. The intelligence he brings to those portfolios will serve the Territory well should we win government in 2012.
The member for Fong Lim is also a very sharp operator. I know he is not very popular on the other side of the House - and I see the member for Karama raising her eyebrows, as she likes to do. The member for Fong Lim possesses an enormous corporate knowledge, which is of enormous benefit to this side of the House. So Dave, thanks and well done.
To our new member, the member for Macdonnell, welcome aboard. I am looking forward to working with you as we move forward as well. You bring a new depth to the Country Liberals’ parliamentary team.
The member for Drysdale plays an important and integral part in our parliamentary wing. He puts a lot of effort into his portfolio areas. Sitting so close to him, I enjoy his sharp wit. He is probably our most prolific interjector during Question Time.
The member for Sanderson brings other unique properties to the Country Liberals in the way he looks after his portfolios. I know he has an absolute passion for seniors and youth. To Peter and his good wife, Linda, I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
The member for Braitling is probably one of the most energetic politicians I know. That man never stops working. I know he gets up very early every morning and probably survives on about four or five hours sleep. He brings an enormous amount to this Chamber.
The member for Greatorex has this innate ability to come into this House and deliver blow after blow, punch after punch, on this government. He is a fast thinker, and quick on his feet. I have seen him hold this government to account many times and it is a pleasure to watch.
The member for Araluen is a fast learner. She has come along in leaps and bounds in the 12 months she has been in her electorate for the Country Liberals. She is a passionate performer. She has picked up the role of shadow for Child Protection and will continue to make enormous inroads in that portfolio as time moves on.
To all my colleagues over here, a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year! I genuinely wish all members on the other side of the House a safe and happy New Year, a very Merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing you all in 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Speaker, I add my Christmas wishes to everyone. I start with the backbone of my Karama office, my colleague, and someone who has become a very dear friend, Kerry Wetherall. She is a tireless worker for Karama and Malak residents and, with my ministerial responsibilities, I rely significantly on her in the local office to follow up on residents’ concerns and queries. We work as a team and she is an absolute gun regarding her efforts to ensure people get fair treatment. She has been through the national Indigenous Leadership Program, she is a strong role model for the young Indigenous residents of Karama and Malak, a mother of four, but also a foster carer; she has three regular additional foster children. She is an absolute star and one hell of a fun person to be around as well. Her wit and humour keeps much joy happening in my life.
I thank Dee Hona, a dear friend and mother of three beautiful girls, who steps up and does relief work in my Karama office, a local resident, a tireless worker, a women with an enormous heart, and great integrity and ethics.
Thanks also to Ruth Palmer who gets into my Karama office from time to time. She is an incredible workhorse. She is always there when you need someone to step up, and she is very talented and creative. I love watching her blossom professionally and I thoroughly enjoyed watching her get married this year. It has been a special year for our Ruth.
Donna Smith, who is not a constituent; she used to live in the electorate of Sanderson and has moved to the electorate of Wanguri. I got to know her through her time on the school council at Malak Primary School, and then the school council at Sanderson Middle School. We formed a friendship, and I tell you, she will do anything, any time to help and assist me in any fundraising efforts around the community. Donna is an absolute star. She is a lovely mother and a great example of just how fine Territorians are, and incredibly selfless in giving her time, efforts, and energy when it comes to fundraising.
I thank my ministerial staff, who work enormous hours and put in an incredible effort for me. My senior advisor, Sonia Peters, is held in very high regard and respect by all the industry groups, and all the public servants, we work with in relation to our responsibilities. I call her my right-hand woman and she is an absolute gem. She is an incredible woman. She has two beautiful children, and at the same time as being a senior advisor, she manages to be an owner/builder who has built herself and her beautiful children a lovely home. I not only admire and respect her advice, her intelligence, and her work ethic, but also the wonderful nature in which she goes about working with other people. She is always constructive and supportive of people across government and industry.
To my other advisors, Chris Grace, Patrick Hastwell, and Alyson Brown who have been with me through the year, thank you for your tremendous work. You are a great team and I value all your efforts. I enjoy working with you and I know I can fundamentally rely on each of you all of the time, and I genuinely appreciate that.
To Jo Pethick and Jo Martin, who have been Justice advisors for me when I was the Attorney-General, I have been well served by their legal knowledge, their astuteness, and their thoroughness. To the beautiful and wonderful Marita Lunney, I miss you. I lost her in the reshuffle recently, because she has always worked for the Attorney-General. She is a woman of incredible professionalism and I have had three wonderful years being supported by her. To Stephanie Lutzke, my personal assistant, she is an absolutely delightful young woman, just turned 21. She is also a model, and I can tell you, everyone who visits the office of the Deputy Chief Minister appreciates the reception they receive from this gorgeous, pleasant, professional, and hard-working Stephanie who is of great support to me.
To Graeme Kevern and Pompea Sweet who have come across with the DBE portfolio, I am enjoying the early days of working with them. I like their enthusiasm and effort. I have known both of them for quite some time and I value them as staff members.
To Maya and Emily who have stepped into the admin roles on the loss of Marita - I had Emily first and she had to go back to the department, and now I have Maya; thank you for your fresh, bright, young, and enthusiastic effort in my office.
To my schools in the electorate; I am proud of the fact that I have seven schools in the Karama electorate, from Marrara Christian College, O’Loughlin Catholic College, Holy Family School, Sanderson Middle School, Karama Primary School, Malak Primary School, and Manunda Terrace Primary School. The principals of each of those schools and the staff who provide the support to the teachers do a tremendous job. I have enjoyed attending all of those schools throughout the year, attending the assemblies, continuing with the Literacy and Numeracy Awards I provide to the students. Probably the best part of my job is getting out to those schools, mixing it up with the students, having fun, answering their amazing questions, and looking at the inspirational work those teachers, and the principals with their leadership, perform in our education system. Congratulations and Merry Christmas to all of them.
To the Legislative Assembly staff, I do not envy you your jobs, I have to say. You have to put up with all of us and that is a huge effort. From the Clerk’s staff, the Table Office, Hansard, and the parliamentary support teams, everyone who works in this building does so with a great degree of dedication in ensuring that as elected members of parliament we can serve our communities while supported in a professional manner. I say thank you and a Merry Christmas to them.
To the agencies I work closely with and whose advice I rely upon and value. The Under-Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, is outstanding and has an outstanding team of Assistant Under-Treasurers and Treasury staff. I thoroughly enjoy my visits to Treasury. To all of them, thank you for your tremendous efforts throughout the year.
To the CEO of the Department of Justice, Greg Shanahan, and to Micheil Brodie heading up RGL, and all the staff in Justice and Racing, Gaming and Licensing, thank you for your commitment and tremendous efforts through this year, particularly with the alcohol reform program. They have undertaken an enormous task and done so with great integrity and professionalism.
I am getting used to the Department of Business and Employment. I am getting across all the issues and information. They have been diligent in providing me with good and timely advice and information so early in the change. I am enjoying the portfolio enormously of Business, Employment and Training, and the opportunities and importance of Asian Relations and Trade and now with Defence Support.
To all the industry organisations I have the opportunity to work with, I value their support and advice because I believe with the advice from the public service, coupled with the advice from the private sector, you get a very well-rounded view of the needs across the portfolio areas in government.
I sincerely thank my colleagues. I love being a member of the Henderson Labor government. Each of us makes a strong team who enjoy each other’s company. We learn from each other constantly, we support each other because the days are long, the job is not without its challenges, and it often takes us away from our respective families. We have become not just a team, but also a supportive family under the leadership of the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri.
I say thanks to my family, bless them, and my children, Jhenne, now 16 - oh, my goodness! Bronte is now 15, and Zac is now seven. I had Zac in office, poor little guy. He knows nothing different from his mother being a complete workaholic and missing in action because she is at work. That means he values me even more when I do turn up and he is particularly excited when he sees me in daylight, which is not that often. However, he is a champion, and his sisters are incredible; fine young women they are growing into and I am very proud of my three children.
That being said, I have an extra one - a filler - my 21-year-old whom I have taken on. She adds a fabulous dynamic to our household and has done so for a couple of years now. I have watched her mature and grow into a lovely young woman. Just to make things more interesting on the home front, I have Lisa, a German exchange student here for three months. Lisa is having her first taste of life in the tropical Northern Territory and will have her first tropical Christmas - her village is snow laden! To my mum, my sister, my brother, and my whole family, thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Speaker, the year has flown; we are in December, two pays to Christmas, and I have not even come close to doing my Christmas shopping yet. I send some early Christmas wishes: Kristy, who is everything; Dawn, who has been a lifesaver this year, and is a joy to be around, full of wisdom, good cheer, and common sense - she has been a boon to me; and to Lindsay, a top young bloke with energy and enthusiasm.
I cannot mention young blokes without thanking of Hamish, a future member in the making. Siobhan, Ruth, and Shaan are legends; I love your work. Wolf is a man with a great name, immeasurable patience and knowledge. He has been a source of consistent and excellent advice just like Mano and the Cass-meister and SP, whose patience I am sure I have tested at times but they have always been there, as have a bevy of brilliant and out-of-the-box minds in Rhyno, Bags, Gracey, Kez, Gino, Kenny, Marty, and Vim, the newly-married Eddie, a fellow Carlton supporter, who always seems to be calm and composed; I love doing events with him. The wise counsel of Ash, Judy, and Fiona, and their fellow historians; Wendy, my fellow physiotherapy patient who is always chipper, her mood is infectious; Helen, with the support of Brian, is a source of inspiration for the local work she does at East Point.
As Whip, I spend a great deal of time working with the member for Nelson and Michelle. Thank you for the laughs, the debates, and the lollies. We receive a lot of great support from ‘Legies’ to do our work as members, and I welcome Russell to the team. It was great to have Gaddy chip in with committees last year; I am sure he agrees it is good to have Russell on board now. We had an Acting Speaker and an Acting Clerk these sittings. They have done well and I am thinking of them. In thinking of them we wish the Clerk and Madam Speaker all the best and look forward to seeing them in the Chamber next year.
I acknowledge the hard work and support of Jenny, Helen, Brero, Brenno, Kate, Carly, and Linda, whether it is at meetings, outside shops, letterboxing or more, especially at this time of year - your efforts are gold.
We have some great schools, the best schools in the Territory, and they all have excellent leadership with their principals and school chairs; Parap Primary School, Stuart Park Primary School, Darwin High, and Darwin Middle School. I enjoy working with them. Recently I had good chats with all the schools about Cash for Containers and preparing for that. I am not sure if they want to think about Day 1, Term 1 as we near the last day of Term 4.
I wish Aderyn and Helen, Bernie and Helen, Marcus and Maxine, Marion and Trevor, and Sue well.
There have been and continue to be a number of big projects around the electorate. Building sites demand constant negotiations and management around issues and Manuel and Toby have been excellent in working through the competing needs of worksites and neighbours.
There are excellent community clubs in Fannie Bay and I am always happy to support them. They are mainly driven by volunteers and the endeavour that keeps our community clubs going is the endeavour that built this place and makes the Territory a great place - Barry and Duncan, Anna and Kane, Tony, and now Len, of course, Brett, Jusso, Chucky, and Phil.
Madam Acting Speaker, finally, to a bunch of friends who I do not get to see much anymore but who always have time when I do: Dave, Borrie, Butler, and Watto. At some stage over Christmas, we will all catch up, and I wish the goodwill we will share on all members.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Speaker, Merry Christmas to you and thank you for a very enduring year. I thank my Country Liberals’ colleagues: Terry Mills, member for Blain and Leader of the Country Liberal Party; Kezia Purick, Deputy Leader and member for Goyder; John Elferink, member for Port Darwin; Robyn Lambley, the new member for Araluen; Matt Conlon, member for Greatorex; Adam Giles, member for Braitling; Peter Styles, member for Sanderson; Alison Anderson, member for Macdonnell; Willem Westra van Holthe, member for Katherine; Dave Tollner, member for Fong Lim; and my fellow Palmerston colleague, Mr Peter Chandler. Thank you to you all.
It is without doubt a challenging job, as the government opposite definitely knows. We wish a Merry Christmas to those members opposite and to the member for Nelson, Gerry ‘Chicka’ Wood. It has been a long year, but somehow it seems to have come so quickly to an end.
I also thank the Opposition Leader’s Office staff: Karen Gutteridge, Bonnie Hageman, Belinda Dukic, Lawson Broad, Mike Delosa, Col Fuller, Francine Tomsen, Cam Smith, Leanne Britton, Paul McLaughlin, and for much of this year, Alison Penfold, and Kylie Sylvie.
To the staff in Hansard upstairs, the magical people who turn spoken words into written ones and type it out, so it is recorded for life. The Table Staff hide for most of the day behind the pillar I cannot see behind. They do a great job, and are there for everyone’s support at any time. The Legislative Assembly staff who so ably help all of us on both sides of this Chamber. They are also the contact point for our electorate officers, sorting out our various travel needs, right down to simple things like today, the hot water boiler in my electorate office, the one in my community room, would not stop boiling. The simple things most people do not consider; there needs to be a contact point and the Legislative Assembly staff help coordinate those things.
The Clerk of the House and his respective Deputy Clerks, and deputy, deputy clerks; it has been great to see so many people taking their role and learning as they go.
The County Liberals as a whole, who, in my opinion, hold the light for the future of the Northern Territory, particularly Sue Fraser-Adams and Peter Allen, the management team as a whole, the members of the Calder Branch, many of whom I call friends and some even family-like. The entire electorate of Drysdale, the people who keep me inspired to continue the fight, to make real change, and bring back some new direction.
All my schools, which make you laugh. The member for Karama mentioned her schools earlier. She is so right, they are the people who make you laugh, and they are a joy to visit. I am lucky to have so many schools: Driver Primary, Durack School, Palmerston Christian School, Palmerston Senior College, and I have adopted Gray Primary School as well. They are on the border of our divide currently and many of the children live in the portion of Gray suburb that I hold within the electorate of Drysdale - I enjoy going there as well.
On Father’s Day this year - those who know me know my daughter, unfortunately, lives overseas so I missed the benefit of having my own Father’s Day. I was able to go to the Gray Primary School and be a pseudo-father at a breakfast they hold where some 98 family members turned up. It was good fun to have some young kids come and sit down at the table because unfortunately their father could not be there. They shared breakfast with me and told jokes and we had a good morning. It was nice to start a day like that, especially being so far from my own daughter.
The three fantastic electorate officers in Palmerston are Tasma, Marlise, and Donna. They create the triangle of strength for the Palmerston people. Donna, you are without doubt the best electorate officer. I know we all say that, but in my opinion, you are the best electorate officer. You support me, and even whilst we are in the Chamber the constant dialogue we have by these great magical black boxes, the computers, continues and we can still do our best to coordinate what is happening in the electorate from the parliament, which is so often disconnected from what is happening in the real world. Donna, you are fantastic. I wish you the best Christmas possible –
To all my friends, there are so many of them. The job of a politician is not always a job people look up to. Sometimes you are seen as the easiest target in the House and having a great bunch of friends in many diverse worlds keeps me grounded. It is easy to come into this place, put on a fancy suit or a fancy set of clothes, and forget you are actually a normal person. As we know on both sides of this House, we are normal people, and it is our friends who keep us grounded and in connection with what is really happening out there. So, thank you to all my friends.
All the sporting clubs I am involved with right down to the Centre of Australia: the Alice Springs Off Road Racing Club, through to Top End Mud Racing Association, drag racing, speedway, karting, and quads. They are all places I love to go when I have a bit of a spare time. Motor sport is my passion and I love getting out and seeing those guys.
We heard the Chief Minister talking of Henry Gray, who is a supporter of athletics, and has been to quite a few events I have been to. He was on the microphone commentating for athletics. Henry is another great Territorian who has taken to retirement. Henry was the principal for my daughter when she first started school at Leanyer. Henry, thank you for the guidance you gave my daughter as a principal in her first years of schooling before she went overseas. She still remembers you, and that is well over five years ago. You have left a mark on her. As far as I am concerned, and many others, she is a fantastic young lady. I am sure, Henry, your influence will have left a mark on many people.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is the season to be jolly. I hope everyone plays safe. Whether you are staying in town or going interstate or overseas, please forget the banter of the floor, have a safe Christmas. I look forward to coming back, engaging, and locking horns for the betterment of the Territory. I will see many of you around the traps leading up to, and after, Christmas. I will be in the office, and at the Palmerston Shopping Centre wrapping presents with Somerville. Somerville Community Services is a place where I spend much of the lead-up to Christmas, I suppose, as part of my artistic flair, wrapping presents and throwing in a good 20 to 30 hours a week there between duties.
Best of luck to all. Have a Merry Christmas, and enjoy your time with your family.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also pass on my thanks and appreciation for the year to the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and all the Legislative Assembly staff. I was listening to the member for Drysdale and wanted to mention those people who pick up those issues in our electorate offices and elsewhere: Vicki Long, Mary-Anne Almond, and Alice Tsang. I cannot thank Alice enough; she is a fantastic person in sorting out some of the issues I have had. To Corinna, Karen, Eva, and Lukas in the Human Resource and Salaries area, sorting out a number of issues over the last year, I thank you for all your assistance and the efficiency with which you provide that service.
To the Table Office, to Gaddy, Steven, and Annette, thank you for all the support. I have done this since 2001. I do not know if people watch that little show just before the news, they have those five minutes of the little flies or the bees. I sometimes wish I could be a little fly on the wall in the Table Office when members are on their feet talking, and the other stuff that is happening in here. And not just the Table Office - I would not mind being in the Hansard area. It would be a fantastic place to be a little fly on the wall just to listen. I thank the Hansard staff. The member for Drysdale is absolutely right, they take what we say, put it into context, and make us sound very intelligent. I thank the Hansard staff for that. They do a fantastic job. It cannot be easy when you have members screaming and booming through the microphones.
To all my colleagues - and what can I say to the Chief Minister - thank you. Your support of me over the last 12 months has been invaluable and I thank you for that. To the Deputy Chief Minister, to all our ministers and colleagues, to the member for Nhulunbuy, with whom I do a lot of travel, and the member for Fannie Bay, on committees. We are the trio who hold up all the committees and I enjoy it. I thank both of you for your camaraderie and friendship. It makes all those long committee meetings worthwhile. The three of us bonded to ensure we hold up the government’s side.
I have to say it before I forget, out of all of the opposition members I want to extend a Merry Christmas to the member for Drysdale. The member for Katherine said he is the most prolific interjector on their side, and from one interjector to another interjector, member for Drysdale, when I call you ‘stupid’, it is a term of endearment. I find you very endearing out of everyone on that side and think you are a decent person. You are trying to do your job and I wish you all the best for Christmas. I hope you have a good Christmas and Happy New Year. I am not crying for you; I have a runny nose. I wish you a good Christmas and a safe New Year.
Back to the members of government: member for Johnston, I am always enthralled listening to your captivating speeches. I was listening to the delusions of grandeur from the member for Katherine when he said certain people cut through and lay blows on the body. No one does it better on this side than the member for Johnson. You do it in a strategic, intelligent, and precise way, and I have enjoyed listening to your speeches over the last year.
To my friend, the Speaker of the Assembly, the member for Nightcliff, I hope you will have a rest with your family. To Simon and your children, I hope you have a restful Christmas and New Year and you take this time to have a rest.
To my colleague, the member for Stuart - out of all of us on this side he, and the member for Barkly travel often and are both constantly on the road. For both families, particularly the member for Stuart with his wife and children in Alice Springs and being the only government member in Alice Springs, it can be hard and we think of you. I hope you, Rebecca, and the kids have a fantastic break over Christmas, and the same for the member for Barkly, who is going to stay in Tennant Creek. I always say this is the best time to stay in the Territory, and for me, Darwin is always the best place to stay. Member for Barkly, to you, Dawn, and your family, all the best over Christmas.
To my sister, the member for Arnhem - Arnhem and Arafura are like sister electorates. I think they are going away for Christmas. I hope you get that rest with your two boys and take time to recharge your batteries. You will do that and come back next year well rested because we have a long year ahead.
To all my colleagues, thank you. It has been a privilege and an honour to work with you and to have your support. It has not been easy and I have appreciated that support.
To my husband, David, we always get to that time of the year and I think of the last 12 months, but I particularly think of the last three months having given up smoking. I always say my husband deserves the biggest medal for all he puts up with. He has put up with the last three months of me not smoking, having smoked since I was 15. To him and my three children, Cherise, Richard, and Helen, and my six grandchildren - being a mother of three older children and having six little grandchildren, Christmas is always a fantastic time. I am looking forward to spending that time with my children and my grandchildren.
Having little grandchildren reinforces how important family, Christmas, and New Year becomes, and how important it is to love and look after family and value the time you have with those individuals. To my family, I am looking forward to spending time with you and with my greater extended family, my eight sisters, one brother, and all my nieces and nephews. We all get together on Christmas Day. There are 10 of us and with all our children it makes about 55; then there are the great-grandchildren, and the great great-grandchildren. It is a great day. I look forward to the one time a year when we see each other because that does not happen for another 12 months.
Member for Nelson, thank you. It has been good to work with you on CTC looking at various issues.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to everyone, stay safe, enjoy your Christmas, and I will see you in 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on the last parliamentary sitting day in 2011 I acknowledge and thank the people I work with as an MLA and minister in the Henderson Labor government.
To the members of the Barkly Sub-branch of the Australian Labor Party, thank you for your support and guidance throughout another busy year, working for the people of the Barkly and the Northern Territory.
The festive season is a time to reflect on what it means to be a true believer in a political movement which has delivered major national, state, and Territory reform, characteristic of policies to protect the environment, create equity, sharing the wealth of this country with the regions, and building lasting social infrastructure which supports future development for the Northern Territory and this great nation.
A special mention to Dawn McCarthy for the tireless membership drive which has continually increased the Barkly Sub-branch membership from 2008 to 2011, including new bush members and Indigenous members. To the Barkly electorate office and Nancy Cowan we had another busy year that involved flood, fire, and, on an occasion, famine. Nancy Cowan, through her work with Barkly constituents and the Tennant Creek Sub-branch of the RSL has become a very popular member of the community, creating an organised and supportive network, listening to and serving the electorate. Best wishes to Nancy and to your partner, Frank, and a Merry Christmas, prosperous New Year, and safe holiday with your family and friends.
A special mention to Lynda Clarke, a relief electorate officer from Tennant - good on you Lynda; you are always ready to step in when needed, you are part of a team, and you provide great support to Nancy and me.
To the constituents of the Barkly and the Territory who, as a local member and minister of the Crown, I seek to serve, whether it be sitting under a shady tree on a remote community talking with an Elder, standing at the big house gate on a station debating with the manager, attending Caucus and Cabinet meetings, developing government policy, performing street theatre at the Tennant Creek Show, as the Master of Ceremonies at a community event, talking at a school assembly, visiting a prison, holding a media event, playing in a band, or in the solitude and solemnity of Mass on Sunday, it is a privilege and honour to serve the community I love and cherish, and to know the diverse and vibrant people of the Barkly and the Northern Territory are providing the guidance and knowledge which influences and delivers good governance for the Northern Territory.
To the Chief Minister, boss, and all my Labor colleagues, thank you for your support, guidance, and inspiration as a united team. You are a united team; you talk the talk, and walk the walk through innovative and major reform as massive public infrastructure steps out of the Territory’s red earth to support innovative and creative industries and endeavours which seek to support social, cultural, and economic development for all Territorians. You are a good mob, Labor Caucus, keep up the good work. Working with ‘Team Hendo’ is best described as a marathon, not a sprint, and is fuelled by the mantra: ‘What it is that we can do for the Territory and what it is we seek to leave for future generations of Territorians’. Not being shy, the tough decisions, premised on equality and a fair go for all.
To Madam Speaker and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the true keepers of democracy in this Parliament House, the people’s house: your professional support here and in the electorate is exemplary and provides the real linkages for serving the community of the Northern Territory.
To the ministerial drivers, I can assure you that getting dropped off in a white car in Mitchell Street in Darwin for a ministerial function for the arts is a big hit for a boy from the bush and a privilege that comes with the job. Thank you for the professional service and the great Territory yarns that come complementary with the job.
The ministerial staff of the parliamentary office, Suite No 1: what a fantastic and diverse bunch of Territorians work in that busy, challenging, and productive work environment for the very complex and sometimes excruciating business of government. You cannot please everyone and nearly everyone in the public arena is an expert, yet, in with true sense of dignity and willingness to serve as the ministerial staff, they deliver day-in and day-out for the people of the Northern Territory, whether they be friend or foe, hostile or polite, young or old, town or country, from every corner of the globe. For that, I am truly thankful; it is a privilege to work with you.
The staff we have seen in Suite No 1 in 2011: Brett Brogan, as a senior advisor, what an incredible young guy he is. He is a great Territorian with a big future and congratulations to Brett and Dee on the birth of their first child. We all celebrated that with great delight. Penny Lyons, what a great DLO in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, has gone back to the department. Thanks for introducing us to Michael, you are a great couple, you are a fun couple, and you are Territorians who have influenced everyone you have come in contact with through your great work. Bernie Ingram, a lady who rides a pink Harley Davidson; she has attitude that girl, and she is a DLO for Transport. Back in the department and I am sure we will be seeing a lot of Bernie with her work in the CPV industry. Brenton Higgins, good on you, mate. A young guy who came across from Queensland, has really helped out in the Corrections area as an advisor, and has gone on to more jobs in working with the government. I look forward to continuing a friendship and working with you, Brenton.
Edwin Edlund, what can you say? A media advisor extraordinaire; it was great to work with Edwin. He has gone on to bigger and better things, but a fine young Territorian and congratulations on your wedding as well. To Kylie Bell, a personal assistant, moved on to bigger and better things as well. It was great fun having you in the office and it is good that you come back and visit us regularly. To Natalie Dinsdale, ministerial assistant, great young woman and back in the department as well with a wealth of experience she takes with her and she brought to us as well. Good on you, Nat, and look forward to seeing you around town.
All these Territorians rose to the challenge and stood shoulder to shoulder as a team delivering in very challenging circumstances that can be intimidating at times, well outside the professional boundaries of the mainstream public sector; however, each and every one thrived on the challenge and made the best use of the job’s extraordinary nature to professionalise and enhance their careers, delivering for the community of the Northern Territory.
The unwritten rule in Suite No 1 is you cannot leave unless it is to enhance your career and, once again, in 2011, each and every one has accepted that challenge and moved forward into new and varied positions. For that, I am proud, as a minister and a de facto dad - after all, they are all my children to foster and nurture as young Territorians.
To the current staff in 2011, what a great bunch; we work as a team. I could not do without you, and we all look after each other. Rebecca Cass, the senior advisor, a smart, intelligent woman who not only influences the work I do, but has a great influence as a senior member of Team Hendo and works tirelessly with her colleagues to do the best for Territorians. Special thank you to Jamie, her husband, and boys, Lachlan and Oliver, for sharing mum with us, because we could not do it without her.
Jasmine Thomson, a DLO for Transport, welcome onboard, Jasmine. She is a very quiet, calm, and confident young woman and I look forward to more of your advice, Jasmine, as we work together in the New Year. Claire March, a media advisor who brought a lot of good experience from New South Wales and now shares it across the floor. She has a good promotion coming up. Thank you for your work in Corrections as well, Claire.
Alan James as an Arts advisor is a born and bred Territorian, very well connected, very sleek, and very smart. Alan, you are very popular and people really like the direction we are taking the Arts, so well done. Wolf Loenneker is the Lands and Planning advisor and Darwin Port Corporation advisor. He is the guy who I am sure Barak Obama would have dropped in on to get some advice. He is truly the old gentleman of the team, and has a wealth of knowledge. I meet some amazing people in this job and everyone compliments Wolf and comments on the privilege it is to work with him.
Tegan Berg is a young woman of fine stock in the Northern Territory. She is a DLO for the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. It is great working with you, Tegan, and it is going to be good on the way forward because you are taking great interest in the job, professionalising your career, and making the opportunity a real one. To Natalie Westley, personal assistant - thank you Natalie, you are fantastic. You are new on board, you fitted into the family really well, and we are looking forward to working together as we go through some more very intense times in our ministerial work.
Rebecca McAlear is the ministerial assistant. What a kid! She is amazing, and what a year she has had. Her team, the Palmerston Raiders beat my team, the Nightcliff Dragons, in the grand final of the Rugby League, and she had a major overseas holiday. What a great kid, and I watch your career take place. Good on you, Rebecca, keep up the good work.
Jan and Cecilia McCarthy; Lynne McCarthy; Tim, Judy, Hanna, Daniel, and Ella Morgan; Robert McCarthy, my big brother; to my wife Dawn; Thomas and Maria, getting married next year; Joey, cheeky as ever; Robert, Abbi, and Reece Josephson, you are the family that keep it all together. You are going to be rallying next year. You certainly have taken up your share of politics and you enjoy every minute of it.
I am going to give 10 seconds to the opposition. What a moribund mob of losers. What a mob of oxygen thieves. What a mob of losers. They need to be detoxed; they need macrobiotics. Hey guys, no hard feelings, it is only a joke!
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is certainly a hard act to follow. My colleague from Central Australia, the member for Barkly, as always, is entertaining; he is a real entertainer. Maybe I should call him Robbie Williams!
It has been a year of action and achievement in Central Australia. Tonight I take the opportunity to acknowledge these achievements and the efforts of many people who make Alice Springs and the Centre such a great place to live. I am proud to live in Alice Springs, to call it home. I take every opportunity to sing the praises of my home town and the great people who come from all over the world to live and visit.
I love the warm weather; I am looking forward to summer this year, and getting around to some of the many holiday activity programs that have been coordinated by the Youth Hub staff. This government has invested an extra $60 000 in these activities over the coming holidays. Centralian Middle School will be opening its doors over summer. The aquatic centre will be running night activities, and extra youth transport services are being run. The police are looking at a great cops and kids program, and organisations like Congress, Tangentyere, the Alice Springs Youth Centre, Gap Youth Centre, InCite, the YMCA and many others are playing their part.
The Youth Action Plan has really been kicking some goals. The Youth Hub is becoming a service centre for families and young people, as well as a place for youth-focused events like dance parties, live bands, performances, workshops - maybe we should get the member for Barkly there with his guitar. The Youth Hub is also becoming a vital cog concerning social services, and I pay tribute to the Youth Services Coordinator, John Adams, and Matty Day, who are doing great work; the Youth Street Outreach Service, and the agencies and organisations that operate from the hub, a big thank you on behalf of government for your work this year.
Police are confident a range of anti-crime initiatives will mean we will not see a repeat of last year’s summer crime wave. That is not to say there will be no crime. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any place in the world that has ever been able to make that claim, but police are confident there will not be a repeat of last summer. I meet with the local police regularly, and Superintendant Michael Murphy and Acting Commander Michael White have been planning all year for the summer months. I thank them, their staff, and the police of Alice Springs for their enduring duties to the community of Alice Springs.
Operation Thresher started today and will continue until the end of January, with a focus on antisocial behaviour and property crime. Police will also implement a number of initiatives designed to combat alcohol-related crime, violence, and drink-driving.
Police have praised this government’s alcohol reforms. It gives them a strong tool to combat grog-related crime. This is something members opposite fail to grasp. They are soft on grog and soft on crime. Together with high-visibility policing on foot, bikes, motor bikes, horseback and more covert operations, police will be concentrating on making our community in Alice Springs safer over summer. I thank all members of the Alice Springs police again for the dedication and commitment to our community. While many of us will be enjoying our holidays, they will be hard at work.
As well as police and youth agencies, the Northern Territory government is working with the Alice Springs community to tackle issues of crime and antisocial behaviour. Earlier this year, the community identified the need for a locally-driven action plan at a series of meeting convened by me, the Chief Minister, the town council, and other agencies. Our local committee, co-chaired by Mayor Damien Ryan and local lady, Catherine Liddle, was formed in August. The committee has driven development of the plan which outlines the community’s goals, aspirations, and roles in creating a better community in Alice Springs. They have released their first regular e-newsletter to share progress with the community and to continue to receive feedback about key issues.
I thank other members of the committee, but particularly our Mayor, Damien Ryan. Damien does a fantastic job in Alice Springs. He is a local born and bred man and a great asset for our town. Thanks, Damien, for all your support over the past 12 months.
Catherine Liddle is a local Arrernte lady from a large extended family in Alice Springs. Thanks to Catherine for getting on board. She also works in education and does a fantastic job. It is great to see local Aboriginal women becoming strong leaders in our community.
To the other members, Brad Bellette, Neil Ross, Liz Martin, Harold Furber, Jenny Nixon, Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government, and Mark Coffey from the Australian government, thanks for your huge commitments to the committee. They will continue to work with agencies and service providers to ensure the community has a strong voice in determining future priorities, and I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 2011 has been a year of huge achievements under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. All 196 rebuilds and refurbishments of existing town camp houses are complete, and we are days away from handing over the last of the 85 new houses which have been built. A very happy Christmas to many town camp families in their new and refurbished houses. We know they treasure them and, in many cases, are very excited to have their own bedrooms.
This year saw 500 extra beds come online in Alice Springs. What a huge achievement for the town of Alice Springs. Again, I thank the Australian government and minister Macklin for their ongoing support for such a successful program. I was very proud to join the Prime Minister at the opening of the Percy Court complex and minister Macklin at the opening of the new visitor park in Alice Springs. The Lodge is now open, accommodating renal patients. Akangkentye Hostel is offering short-term accommodation on South Terrace, and extra beds are online at the Salvation Army. It has been a huge year for Alice Springs in addressing homelessness and the housing shortage, particularly in our town camps.
A huge range of social support services is helping people across the community tackle alcohol issues, violence, school attendance, health, and dog control programs. The services are making a real impact on people's lives and are something the Labor government in the Territory certainly values.
I acknowledge the work of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan team: Tracey Brand, Eva Lawler, Jodie Methel, Leonore Hargraves, Kathleen Burgen, Sarah Furgood, and Karine Mendes. I also acknowledge the work put in by the members of the joint steering committee, the Alice Springs Town Council, Lhere Artepe, Tangentyere, and the Northern Territory and Australian governments. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan is a $150m partnership with the federal government and a model of what can be achieved when we work together. Thanks must also go to Dave Chalmers and Mark Coffey and his team in Alice Springs. The ASTP has made a dramatic improvement on living conditions on town camps. It does not solve all the issues. Remember, we were starting from a point of significant arrears in housing and services. However, when you get out, see the work, and talk to the families, I have no doubt this is an enormous achievement.
It has been a big year for staff in my departments and I record my appreciation for their advice, support, and professionalism. In particular, I recognise the work undertaken by Jim Grant the Chief Executive of NRETAS, and his team including, Diana Leeder, Graham Phelps, Alaric Fisher, Susan Kirkman, Matt Darcey, and Steve Rossingh. 2011 has been a busy year for environmental reform and delivery of better sports facilities and events. My departmental staff have been crucial in delivering this government’s priorities.
In my other portfolio areas, in the Department of the Chief Minister, I acknowledge Mike Burgess and his team in the Climate Change Unit who have supported us through a tough period regarding the economy worldwide and at the national level. I thank Mike and the Climate Change Unit for their work over the last 12 months. Kathleen Robinson and her team in the Department of Business and Employment have supported us as the Commonwealth delivers the National Broadband Network.
Turning to my ministerial staff on the fifth floor - we call them Team Hampton. We have had a bit of turnover this year but I thank Kieran Condillo - my thoughts are always with you - Jade, Sheena, Patrick, Vanessa, Joaquim, and Anne – staff who have left us over the last 12 months. The current members, David, my senior advisor; Ken, one of my sports advisors; Martin, ICT; Eddie, my media advisor, what a great guy Eddie is, pity he is a Carlton supporter; Jodie, Carol, Cathy and all the members of Team Hampton in 2011, thank you for your support and friendship. It has been great working with you and I know we all enjoy a great Territory lifestyle on the fifth floor in Team Hampton.
To all the other staff on the fifth floor; they are a fantastic team. I know the opposition despises them, but they are a great bunch of workers. They work tirelessly; I do not know where we would be without them. To all the drivers, Hansard staff, Legislative Assembly staff, Madam Speaker, the Clerk, security, Karen Sheldon and her staff at Speaker’s Corner, thank you very much.
To Des, Andre, Jess, and Mandy the backbone of the office in Alice Springs, whom I rely on enormously, thank you for your work. To Vicky and Gavin, Mary-Lou and Charles, Jo and Sam, and Mary-Lou in Katherine. Thank you very much to the branch members of Alice Springs and Katherine Labor parties.
To my wife, Rebecca, and my sons Josh, Curtly, and Jamie, thank you for your ongoing support. To my father Robert, my brother Vaughan, sisters Pauline and Vanya, thank you very much. To the in-laws, the out-laws, and to the family from Yuendumu - what more can I say? Merry Christmas.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I start by acknowledging the brilliant work Arafura Dance Association does and has done for many years in teaching young people to dance and perform. It would be one of the largest dance schools in the Northern Territory and can boast some fantastic achievements. I went to their matinee concert on Sunday afternoon. It was absolutely stunning; the program listed 31 performances which were done across a number of different genres - brilliant choreography, wonderful music, exceptional talent, and amazing costumes.
I acknowledge Rachael Wallis, the principal dance teacher who is incredibly talented. I am sure she has been with a number of dance companies but I know she has been with Bangarra Dance. What she brings to Arafura Dance with classical, contemporary, and the mix of music is absolutely fantastic, and we all hope she never leaves. Rachael is well supported by Sharlene Cardilini, who teaches Highland and tap dancing, Melissa Kennedy who teaches jazz and hip-hop, and Ineke Wallis, Rachael’s daughter, who teaches the Boyz Rock class. I think there is a name missing off that list amongst the dance teachers but, no, that must be it. Well done to everyone.
I have been involved with Arafura Dance for a number of years. My daughter, Zoe, danced for nearly 10 years. I worked on the committee for a year and it is quite pleasant to go to these concerts, sit back and enjoy it all, knowing you have not had to slave over costumes and whatnot. My contribution this year, as it was last year, was to sponsor prizes. I sponsored the outstanding achievement prizes for 2011 and the prize is the first-term fees for each of those dancers in 2012.
I offer congratulations to Eliza Jovicic, who received the Ballet Junior Award; Tayla Miegel, Ballet Senior Award; Leila Dunn, Contemporary Junior Outstanding Achievement Award; Milly McDonald, Contemporary Senior Outstanding Achievement Award; Lucy Laverack, Jazz Junior Award; Georgette Birch, Jazz Senior Award; Siena Stubbs, Tap Junior Award; Zoe Farnsworth, Tap Senior Award; Lachlan Frick, Hip-Hop Junior Award; Ineke Wallis, Hip-Hop Senior Award; Sean Laverack, Boyz Rock Class Award; in the Highland Junior class – Yllana Waller; in the Highland Senior class, Megan Donovan; and Most Outstanding Dance Student of 2011, Emily Tankard.
There were many other awards presented as well. Congratulations to all those dancers who performed extremely well, and the support from their teachers, parents, and the wider community. Well done, everyone.
I start by looking to my electorate and acknowledging the amazing people I am honoured to represent in Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala, Elcho Island, the Marthakal Homelands, and the Lanhupuy Homelands. There is much we have to be proud of and thankful for. When I think of some of the achievements across a range of areas, it makes me very proud to be the local member and work with the people I do.
In so many of our communities, it is the schools that are at the heart of communities, so I want to acknowledge each of the schools in my electorate, the principals, the students, the very hard-working staff, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous and the school communities that support those schools, along with families: Nhulunbuy Primary School – Principal, Matt Watson; Nhulunbuy High School – Principal, Julie Perry; Nhulunbuy Christian School – Steve Venour; Yirrkala School – Geoff Perry; Yirrkala Homeland School – Haidee Dentith; Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Elcho Island – Bryan Hughes; Gawa Christian School, a beautiful school right up the top of Elcho Island – Principal, Lara Hvala, and I also acknowledge the incredible support she has from Gotha or Guthadjaka in running that school and running an Indigenous languages program for those kids; and Baniyala at Blue Mud Bay – Pat Ellis and the fantastic work that he and his wife Wendy do out there, working so well with the community. I know Djambawa Marawili, the traditional owner, is really happy with what is happening at that little school which government built last year. I went out with the Education Minister a few months ago over the Garma Festival weekend to open that school.
I acknowledge my small but hard-working branch in Nhulunbuy. They are a very stoic mob. Some of them who are senior site delegates at Rio Tinto Alcan would have been shocked to hear the debate today on the national uniform legislation for occupational health and safety in workplaces, and to hear some of the stuff coming out of the mouths of the opposition. It was just staggering. I acknowledge my branch members at Nhulunbuy; they are hard-working and supportive and gearing up for another election next year.
I acknowledge and thank my electorate officer, Karen Cislowski. Karen is incredibly reliable, dependable, mature, and empathetic. She works incredibly well with people, and she is so supportive of me. I can leave the office in her hands and be confident that anyone who steps through the door, or if something comes through on the phone, she can always handle it very capably. Karen has her family in Nhulunbuy. Her youngest daughter, Erin, had her engagement party the Saturday before last. Congratulations to Erin and Matt. Karen had a little grandson born about six weeks ago. Welcome to little Benjamin Angus Dwyer. It is lovely when Karen’s kids and grandkids visit our office and keep us entertained and grounded as well.
I acknowledge the support and friendship I find through my book club. I have been a member of a book club for about 10 years in Nhulunbuy. The membership has turned over considerably. I am the only person who remains in that book club from the original group. I acknowledge Lyn Percic, Lyn Whitford, Sue Hemsworth, Nikki Jovicic, Louise McKinnon, Theresa Holdsworth, Terry Kieley, who has just left but we hope she will return, and Jenny Laverty. It is one of those book clubs where you are forgiven if you have not actually read the book when you turn up to book club. It is all about having a social evening. Sometimes we talk for an hour about the book and sometimes it might be for about 15 minutes. The next book club is at my place on 21 December, and I am looking forward to the girls coming around for an evening of catch up and a chat, and hopefully a little literary talk as well.
I want to mention my Christmas card this year. I was thrilled Shepherdson College students did the artwork for the card. I acknowledge Michele Swanborough, the art teacher who does incredible work in an arts program with the kids. Knowing the work she has done over the last couple of years, I made an approach to her earlier this year with a proposal to commission a work from students. Michele worked with one particular class of students and asked them to produce something around a Christmas theme; it was very broad. I received works from Sherilyn, Cardo, Trisha, Katelyn, Libby, Earnest, Judy, and Solomon, and forgive me, I do not have all of those kids’ surnames. They were the kids who produced artwork, and some of them did more than one.
When they arrived in my office, it must have been in the October sittings, and I received a message from my electorate officer to say: ‘The artwork has arrived, and you are going to find it hard to pick something, because everything here is just so beautiful’. I picked this one in the end. It is by Judy Gawunu Dhurrkay, a Year 8 student, who has worked collaboratively with Solomon Rrumaliny Gumbula in Year 7. That little picture is Christmas at Galiwinku, and that is kind of what Galiwinku looks like. I will be up there on 13 and 14 December on an overnight visit, so I will present awards to those students who participated, and I am looking forward to catching up with the good people at Elcho Island.
I offer my thanks and Christmas wishes to all the members on this side. I enjoy working with you all and hope to continue to grow in that enjoyment of working with people. Bush Caucus colleagues, we obviously spend a lot of time together. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you said we are a very small group on the backbench trying to cover all the committees so we spend a lot of time together in those committees. That is where we will be tomorrow morning - at Howard Springs for the Youth Suicide Committee. All of it is important work and I enjoy it. I certainly enjoy the collegiality and the friendship I share with members on this side.
I also acknowledge the members on the other side and wish them and their families a very Merry Christmas.
I also acknowledge and thank all the staff on the fifth floor, advisors, through to personal assistants, through to media advisors who I call upon frequently and who are always very helpful and supportive.
I thank Legislative Assembly staff for all their support.
Last but not least I thank my family. Without them, I could not do this. My husband, Lawrence, my daughter, Zoe, my sons, Harry and Patrick - my boys are up in the gallery today. For the benefit of my boys, I want to mention the newest member of our family, a little miniature Dachshund called Pippa, who came into our lives in May. We absolutely adore this little dog. His name is actually Pippa von Kransky. We have resisted being a dog owner for years, but we finally caved in, and that little dog is very much a part of our family as well.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on this final night of the parliamentary year 2011 to acknowledge it has been our centenary year. It has been an amazing year for the Northern Territory, 100 years for the Northern Territory and over 50 000 years of stories has been a very important theme. It has been a privilege in this centenary year to be responsible for calling on all Territorians to reflect on our history, both good and bad, and to ask ourselves what direction we are going as the people of the Northern Territory, black, white, young, old, male, female; those who were born here, those who have come here. As we look to the future of the Northern Territory, it is very exciting to see the incredible opportunities that are beginning to open up.
I thank those people who have been very much a part of working with me throughout this year, beginning with the Legislative Assembly staff. Thank you, each and every one of you, for the work you do in this Assembly keeping us all focused on the processes of the Westminster system. It is vital in our debates and upholding the tools of democracy.
I acknowledge the Clerk and wish him all the best with his recovery. It has been quite a medically-challenging time for him and our prayers and thoughts have been with him throughout these last few months. I wish you and your family all the best.
Best wishes also to Madam Speaker, who gave everything in the debate towards the Statehood Constitutional Convention. She put her heart and soul into that and I wish her well over these next few days and Christmas.
To the Statehood Secretariat team, very warm Christmas wishes to each of you. Stay strong: we are going to have a good year next year, and I am confident about how the future looks for the Northern Territory becoming the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
To our Hansard team, lovely to spend a very quick time with you this morning as the Chief Minister and I walked through. Helen, and the team there, you are just amazing. Thank you so much for what you endure. I wish you and your team a very happy and safe Christmas.
To the drivers, what can I say? Always there and getting us from A to B and B to C, and everywhere else in between. Thank you. To Speaker’s Corner and all the staff, always an absolute pleasure going there to see the welcome smiles we get when we come in.
To the security staff at Parliament House, and the cleaning staff, I love chatting with you guys. You know what is going on everywhere and it is good to be able to stop and have a chat and hear the latest about what might be happening.
To the library staff, thank you for the work you do. Each of us relies on the knowledge that comes from our history. It was wonderful, earlier in the year, to have some special exhibits as part of the centenary year in our library in the great hall. As we look forward to some amazing things in 2012, I look forward to working with you.
A very special wish to each family across my electorate of Arnhem. It is an absolute privilege to represent you in the Northern Territory Assembly. I reflect on my first couple of months in the position, and as I travel through Arnhem and see the improvements we are making and the investment in capital - the schools, the clinics, the airstrips, and the access to and from these places is becoming better and better. We have a way to go, but I wish my constituents across Arnhem a happy and safe Christmas.
Of course, we always watch the Wet Season, and I will be watching it vigilantly as I know my bush colleagues will be in their electorates, especially in the Top End. We know it is a precarious time and you know my office, the Arnhem electorate office, is always available to you whatever happens, especially in those desperate situations of flooding and when there are concerns about food and access in and out of our region. Know that we are there, and the Arnhem office is always there for you, particularly through this difficult time, as we all want to celebrate with our families. We are mindful of the weather and the change in weather patterns across the Top End.
I wish all the students well, especially those who are graduating from Year 12. I take great pleasure as the member for Arnhem to put the graduates in my Christmas newsletter, and each year those graduates are increasing in number. It is wonderful to see these young men and women graduating in places that never had graduates. That is quite an amazing exception that should never be an exception. It is going to be something very normal for all Northern Territory students and something I am incredibly proud of in Labor’s commitment to education and Labor’s total commitment to education in the bush. To be able to put out those Christmas newsletters with those men and women graduating from their community, from the growth towns, from their homelands, or from boarding schools, says much about the emphasis our government is placing on the importance of education. It is not only the importance of these young men and women graduating, but also about them going into jobs.
I take great pleasure as I reflect on the Christmas newsletters to look at those graduates and ask where these young men and women are now because we have to ensure we are not losing them once they finish Year 12. I enjoy being able to, especially around Christmas, look again at where these young men and women are, keep them in touch with each other, and keep mentoring them through to good jobs and looking after themselves and their families.
I pay special attention to the agencies I am responsible for. Ken Davies and the team in Local Government and Indigenous policy - thank you, Ken, for the terrific support you provide to me and to the ministerial staff. You expect it should be a given, but at this time of the year, it is good to mention the people who help, try to improve, and work for and on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory.
We have had a tough year. Without a doubt, the inquiry into Mataranka stands out in my mind as a vital one for our agency to work on and improve animal welfare. In addition, Local Government, the reforms in the shires and the work we need to do to ensure there is a stronger connection for people on the ground, and their relationship with the shires. I thank you, Ken, and all the team in the agency for the work you do, day in and day out, with the historic reforms we have carriage of, not only with the shires, but also with A Working Future.
To the Tourism NT team, John Fitzgerald - a pretty amazing first year on the job, John, and we are going ahead in leaps and bounds. It has been an incredibly challenging year for tourism, but I am very proud of the team in Tourism NT. Under your leadership, it is exciting to see the directions we are heading in for 2012. To you and the team, not only in the Northern Territory but also across Australia and around the world, it was an exceptional visit to China. I am encouraged by the direction we are heading with the eastern Asian market and I know 2012 will be a good one.
To Ben Scambury and the team at AAPA, thank you for the work you do. To our new Coordinator-General, Olga Havnen, and to our former Coordinator-General, Bob Beadman, wishing you all a very happy and safe Christmas. To my ministerial staff: Pete, you are a legend, thank you for always being there; to Charlie in the electorate office, you are another legend, it is a privilege to work beside you; to Ammo, Freya, Ursula, Scott, and Soraya, and to those who worked with me this year, Lucy and Andrew, Eddie and Tania, thank you so much team.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank my family for being with me. I wish every member of this Assembly a happy and safe Christmas with your families. I look forward to seeing you all in 2012.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I give thanks and Christmas cheer to all the people who helped me: Bella in my electorate office, Nicole in my ministerial office, and all the people who work there. I will thank every one of you personally, as we approach Christmas. To my colleagues, thank you also. To my family, Elizabeth and the kids, thank you so much, and thank you to all the people in the departments.
As the member for Barkly remarked earlier, this is a marathon, not a sprint, and ever so the job of Leader of Government Business. I am here until the end of business every night and tonight I have a serious matter on which to adjourn.
Sunday night was the Walkley Awards and three Territory people received awards, some in the photographic field. Congratulations to Katrina Bolton on receiving a gong for her very important story on alcohol in Alice Springs. To Russell Skelton, whose book I have had for some time, King Brown Country: The Betrayal of Papunya, published in 2010. I have read it carefully, as members will see, and I have alluded to it in this House previously in Alice Springs. I said it was probably a very important book about cataloguing and analysing, and putting perspectives on various policies in Indigenous affairs over the last 40 years in Australia.
I carefully avoided reference to personalities in the book, but the fact Russell Skelton now has a Walkley Award for this book, I will just read the press about the book. It is for Long Form Journalism. It says:
The judges said, and these are formidable judges:
In a news story by Emma Masters on 28 November, there is a quote from Russell Skelton. He was talking about the people of Papunya who helped him. He said: ‘I cannot mention them by name because they would not thank me for that …’. Why is that? It does not take long to get into this book to find out why. There is so much in this book; there is much to say about it.
Before I launch into this book, I want to say a couple of things about the member for Macdonnell. When she came to us in 2005, she was shrouded in controversy. There were investigations and allegations, principally by members opposite, about her activities. She kept assuring us, and particularly then Chief Minister Clare Martin: ‘It is all made up. It is not true. I have had a disagreement with my husband. There are all these things they are saying and they are not true’. We believed her on face value. We believed her; we supported her. Chief Minister, Clare Martin, stood in here many times, and protected her, and spoke for her on many occasions. As we all know, the member for Macdonnell went to the crossbenches and now she has gone to the CLP. We took her at face value, we took her assurances at face value, and I understand none of those investigations were conclusive.
However, this book is conclusive. This book is conclusive in a political sense now, and I have decided to speak out now because the Leader of the Opposition has made her shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs and Arts and Museums.
There is much in here, but there is one particular part about price gouging in the local store at Papunya. This is talking about a Mr Verek, who was the store manager. Verek said he once tried to get Vroom, the clerk of the place, to lower store prices, but Anderson flatly rejected the idea, saying it was not what the majority of councillors wanted. Alison and Handley, who is Anderson’s husband, avoided the store, doing most of their shopping in Alice Springs, yet Verek said they benefited from the profits via, amongst other prizes, a $35 000 Toyota Land Cruiser. So, here is someone who was not only aware of price gouging in their local store, but actually required it - actually ordered them to price gouge the most disadvantaged people living in a remote area, and rip them off of funds so she and her family could buy a car. What sort of cynical person is that? What sort of person who clothes themselves in this place as being some champion of Indigenous people would do that to her own people? It is catalogued throughout this book. He calls it motorcar dreaming. He not only catalogues that, but he also catalogues, in other ways, about a store owner in a particular store. The book says he held a position for several years until he was sacked. Before his dismissal by an extraordinary vote of council, he clashed with Anderson over store trading hours. Brially said Anderson wanted him to close the store on weekends so it did not interfere with a small business she operated from her house. He refused, arguing the residents were entitled to buy food and vegetables over the weekend, and he was contractually obliged to reverse the substantial losses he had inherited.
Here we have bullying, and there is a catalogue of bullying in this book. There is the bullying that went on with the school principal, one Dianne DeVere, who had taken the school from near disaster to one of the most successful bush schools in Central Australia. Here is a successful Principal who had raised attendance, who had raised standards, but it says a former Education Department official who asked not to be named said DeVere’s problem was she had achieved too much. The man said Anderson, her brother Syd and others felt DeVere had become too big for her boots. She had become a threat to the authority of the member for Macdonnell so she had her sacked. She had her moved out of the community; she hunted her out like so many people.
Here is my question to the Leader of the Opposition. You are pushing a line about the Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory, and education is part and parcel of that. Part and parcel of that is ensuring proper governance in remote stores; that there is not this type of rorting and price gouging going on. Yet, his shadow parliamentary secretary is front and centre, insisting on price gouging, part and parcel of it, profiting from it for her own benefit.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to remove Alison Anderson as the shadow parliamentary secretary. He should be giving an assurance to all Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, that that person will never ever be an Indigenous affairs minister within the Northern Territory, given the history of this book, and this book has now been validated through the Walkley Awards, through peer review, a book that now has status in this place and in Australia. The allegations made in here are very serious. At a political level, she cannot sustain it, and he cannot sustain it. I call on him to remove her from that portfolio, and I will be continuing extracts from this book and arguing this when we resume parliament next year, when we resume debate on Stronger Futures, and the measures there.
I do not want to hear such rubbish as was put forward by the member for Macdonnell. She talks about people, she says, because they are the beneficiaries. She is attacking Fran Kilgariff and Tony Tapsell. She says they are the beneficiaries of the poverty and the misery these people live in. You were the beneficiary of that misery, member for Macdonnell.
Shame on you, and shame on the Opposition Leader if he does not remove you, the same as he did with the member for Katherine. He cannot sustain these political arguments in this place. I call on him to remove the member for Macdonnell from her position as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination –
Interstate Travel Report – Member for Araluen
Remuneration Tribunal Determination –
Interstate Travel Report – Member for Araluen
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Araluen’s interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2011.
VISITORS
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 and Year 4 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Rhona Manning, Ms Mary Ryng, and Mrs Kathy Hillery. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangements –
Members for Nightcliff and Blain;
Members for Casuarina and Sanderson
Pairing Arrangements –
Members for Nightcliff and Blain;
Members for Casuarina and Sanderson
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of pairing arrangements for today for the whole sitting day. The member for Nightcliff is paired with the member for Blain and that document is signed by both Whips. Also, from 3 pm until close of business, there will be a pairing arrangement between the members for Casuarina and Sanderson. The document is signed by both Whips.
I table those documents.
TABLED PAPER
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill – Draft
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill – Draft
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Speaker, I table a draft bill titled Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill.
The tabling of the draft bill is for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduces the legislation in February. The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the act which governs the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme. The scheme is a pension-based scheme which is privately underwritten.
This draft legislation has been developed following discussions with industry and unions. It provides for certainty by ensuring the Northern Territory maintains consistent workers compensation arrangements in light of a highly-skilled and increasingly transient workforce.
In the interests of encouraging the widest possible discussions with business and the community, a proactive consultation framework has been developed for this legislation to be further discussed. This will take the form of public forums and stakeholder engagement over coming months. It is critical that the arrangements contained are understood by those who will be required to administer and follow the provisions.
As the former Minister for Business and Employment, I recognise any changes to workplace provisions require businesses to plan.
The bill is designed to assist injured workers in the future who are currently excluded from the scheme and provide certainty for employers. This bill reflects this government’s commitment to ensuring the fair and effective operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme while balancing the interests of all stakeholders. The bill will amend:
1. the definition of ‘worker’ to remove the reference to the Australian Business Number, ABN, and to clarify a test for determining whether a person is a worker or a true independent contractor for the purposes of the scheme;
The amendments to this bill have been developed over a considerable period and include input from the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, Unions NT, insurers, and industry representatives. Tabling of this draft bill is a statement by this government that it takes seriously the protection of injured workers and the ongoing viability and effective operation of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme.
It is now our intention to undertake consultation on the draft bill together with the Department of Business and Employment. Consultation will take place from now until the end of January with a view to introducing the bill in the February 2012 Legislative Assembly Sittings.
Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the draft bill and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 189)
(Serial 189)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring before the Legislative Assembly the Mental Health and Related Services Amendment Bill 2011. In March 2009, our government announced $13.9m capital and $11.4m operational funding per annum for the establishment and operation of secure care services for young people with complex needs and adults with cognitive disability.
There are two primary elements in the secure care services:
11 assessment and stabilisation beds, Tier 1: clients will be provided with a high level of physical security that eliminates their exposure to significant risk. This period of stabilisation will allow a comprehensive clinical assessment to be undertaken to inform the development of a comprehensive case management plan for the client upon which future intense services will be delivered. The additional beds will be co-located within the mental health inpatient settings in the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals.
secure care group homes, Tier 2: 16 adult beds within secure care group homes will offer clients intensive support and therapeutic intervention on a medium- to long-term basis. Implementation of an intense care plan will work towards stepping adults down to a less restrictive care option as expeditiously and safely as possible. Group homes will be built in Darwin and Alice Springs, each with capacity to separately support eight adults and eight children.
When Cabinet originally considered the secure care initiative, it identified legislative amendments to enable delivery of these services would be required. Cabinet recognised that the proposed clientele for these services often do not meet the eligibility criteria of existing legislation and/or current legislation does not provide the required safeguards for delivery of involuntary containment across secure care service settings.
Amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act 2009 constitute Phase 1 of a three-phase project to create the legislative basis from which to operate the secure care facilities and enable appropriately targeted involuntary interventions for persons who require services not traditionally provided within mental health facilities.
The legislative phases are proceeding concurrently as follows:
Phase 1: amend Mental Health and Related Services Act for admission of adults into Tier 1 for stabilisation and assessment;
The Mental Health and Related Services Act provides a sound legislative framework in which to embed provisions to support secure care arrangements. Existing strengths of this legislation fundamental to the success of this initiative include:
effective protection of general and aspirational human rights;
The purpose of introducing the Mental Health and Related Services Amendment Bill 2011 today is to extend the existing provisions of this legislation to provide a legislative basis through which to admit, assess, treat, and care for individuals who have not been diagnosed with mental illness or mental disturbance which could justify detention under the existing criteria but, nevertheless, require a secure environment within which to conduct a comprehensive assessment and safely reduce their level of behavioural disturbance and risks.
I take the opportunity to thank publicly all the individuals and organisations who participated in consultations around the secure care initiative. Your input has been valuable and was considered carefully in developing this bill.
I am confident the provisions in this bill retain the existing strengths of this legislation whilst also responding to the contemporary requirements we face in establishing and delivering a collaborative secure care service model in the Territory’s unique environment.
The bill before the Legislative Assembly today will amend the Mental Health and Related Services Act by introducing:
new definitions and eligibility criteria to ensure the target group eligible to be admitted into secure care stabilisation and assessment beds are clearly articulated;
This bill also includes a schedule of more minor amendments that seek to clarify terminology, align language, style, sequencing, and structure of the act with current Northern Territory legislation guidelines and contemporary drafting approaches.
I now highlight some of the key reforms of this bill in more detail.
Definition and criteria: existing definitions and criteria in the Mental Health and Related Services Act refer to mental illness or disturbance and tend to exclude adults presenting with cognitive impairment who exhibit behaviour that is a serious threat or risk to themselves or others. Currently, any individual who has not been diagnosed with a mental illness, or is not presenting with mental disturbance, cannot be admitted to an approved treatment facility under the provisions of the mental health act.
Some of these individuals may benefit from a brief admission to a secure facility for the purposes of assessment and treatment with a view to stabilisation to enable a comprehensive treatment management plan to be designed and implemented.
This draft bill introduces a definition for the term ‘complex cognitive impairment’ and articulates the relevant criteria to be met for a tribunal-authorised involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment. The definition of complex cognitive impairment included in the bill has four elements. They are that the person:
Criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment: admissions under the proposed provision will generally be collaboratively planned between the mental health and the aged and disability programs. All complex cognitive impairment admissions will be:
time limited;
informed by a tribunal-approved treatment management plan that articulates the intervention to be delivered to the client during their admission;
focused on containing and stabilising an individual’s level of disturbance and/or risk; and
premised on undertaking a comprehensive assessment and developing a plan for the ongoing treatment and management of the person in the community.
To be admitted by the tribunal under the new provisions, a person will need to satisfy the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment articulated in section 15A which are that the person:
is an adult and does not fulfil the criteria for admission on any other grounds (that is, mental illness or mental disturbance);
has significant cognitive impairment;
without the treatment and care available at an approved treatment facility, the person is likely to cause serious harm to self or others, will represent substantial danger to the community, or will suffer serious mental or physical deterioration;
is not capable of giving informed consent to treatment and care; and
no less restrictive option is available.
In practical terms, authorised officers will be employees of disability services within the Department of Health and will have a central role in all matters involving individuals with complex cognitive impairment referred to the tribunal for consideration under the new provisions. The authorised officer’s role will include:
making a referral for assessment of an individual with complex cognitive impairment;
jointly preparing treatment management plans (with an authorised psychiatric practitioner);
making joint applications to the Mental Health Review Tribunal with an authorised psychiatric practitioner for an admission;
coordinating elements of the treatment management plan for which the disability program has been given primary responsibility by the tribunal and ensuring information and presentation is available when required by the Mental Health Review Tribunal; and
an authorised officer must also be notified where any person admitted to an approved treatment facility under existing mental disturbance provisions who, upon review, appears to have a complex cognitive impairment. A notification under this provision will commence the application process for a complex cognitive impairment order granted by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Containment, review, and discharge provisions: a new division has been inserted into Part 6 (Involuntary admissions) of the Mental Health and Related Services Act to clearly articulate the requirements for containment, review, and discharge.
The division is ‘involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment’ and includes: subdivision 1 which defines treatment management plan (section 44A); and subdivision 2, ‘tribunal-authorised planned admission’ which includes a number of elements, including: application of subdivision (section 44B); application for order for involuntary admission (section 44C); notice of application (section 44D); decision on application (section 44E); content of order (section 44F); regular examinations (section 44G); and discharge (section 44H).
Treatment management plans: it is intended all admissions under the new complex cognitive impairment criteria will be managed collaboratively. In order to ensure the tribunal is provided the required information to consider an application, a document prepared by an authorised psychiatric practitioner and an authorised officer outlining a ‘treatment management plan’ has been added to the provisions. This will ensure all admissions and containment for complex cognitive impairment have pre-agreed and tangible objectives. The outcome of the period of admission under one of these orders will also inform the person’s ongoing care and supervision in the community.
The key elements in a treatment management plan are outlined in section 44C and include:
the person’s complex cognitive impairment;
details regarding implementation of the plan, including those providers treating or caring for the person under the plan …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! It is just out of courtesy - the minister has 35 minutes to speak - maybe he could slow his speech down a bit. Trying to understand what he is saying is very difficult. Whether it is the acoustics or the minister’s lovely lilt, but it is very difficult to understand when he reads quickly.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Acting Speaker, if I speak fast, you should listen faster.
Mr Tollner: I am from the country.
Mr VATSKALIS: We gathered that.
Madam Acting Speaker, this speech will be tabled in the House so he can read it, if he can read, because he is from the country.
the proposed or expected medication or treatment the person is to receive under the plan;
Tribunal-authorised planned admission, subdivision 2: before making an application to the tribunal, an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer will both need to be of the opinion the person satisfies the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, section 15A. Where both parties agree, an application must then be made to the tribunal in the approved form and accompanied by a treatment management plan. The approved form and further guidance regarding the application process will be articulated in approved procedures and practice directions issued by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 129(2A) of the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
Existing involuntary patients: while a planned approach is preferred in these matters, it will, no doubt, be necessary from time to time to admit an individual with complex cognitive impairment more urgently. Where an emergency admission is required, it will be made through the existing mental disturbance provisions under the new complex cognitive impairment provisions under section 42 of the Mental Health and Related Services Act. The existing provisions are utilised in circumstances where there is a serious risk to self or others and an escalation in behaviour or disturbance which is either aggressive or indicates the person is engaging in seriously irresponsible conduct.
As currently required by the Mental Health and Related Services Act, a review of the admission will be undertaken within 24 hours by an authorised psychiatric practitioner. If, on review, the authorised psychiatric practitioner is satisfied the person fulfils the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, they must:
notify an authorised officer of the person’s admission within one day of the examination;
In making this decision, an authorised psychiatric practitioner will consider the definition of complex cognitive impairment at section 6A and the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment at section 15A.
Tribunal application and review provisions: in order to ensure the process of admission and containment under the new provisions is well considered and transparent, the Mental Health Review Tribunal will be empowered to conduct a hearing in order to consider all applications and supporting treatment management plans before authorising an order under these provisions.
A new section 44C provides the framework for a Mental Health Review Tribunal application either in circumstances where a person is an existing patient admitted under mental disturbance provisions or where an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer make a planned application seeking admission for assessment and stabilisation for a person in the community.
Where a person is an existing patient, a section 44C application must be made before the date the Mental Health Review Tribunal would have been required to conduct a review had the person continued to be detained on the grounds of mental disturbance; that is, within 10 days. The Mental Health Review Tribunal must hear the application on or before the review date.
Before a hearing scheduled to consider a complex cognitive impairment application, an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer will be required to prepare and lodge an application and a treatment management plan for the person. This will be completed in accordance with any practice directions issued by the Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 129(2A) regarding such applications.
Notice of the application, section 44D: within one day of making an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the applicants will also be required to give written notice of the application in the approved form. Notice must be given to a range of persons, including the subject of the application; the person’s guardian, if they have one; the person’s primary carer; a legal practitioner; and the principal community visitor. This will ensure the rights of any person subject to the provisions are observed and protected.
Consistent with other provisions in the Mental Health and Related Services Act, this provision allows notification to a primary carer to be withheld if the applicants (authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer) are satisfied it is not in the person’s best interests to make this notification. Where this occurs, the reason for withholding the notification must be detailed in the application to the tribunal.
Decision on application - section 44E: if the Mental Health Review Tribunal finds the person fulfils the criteria for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment, it may authorise implementation of the treatment and management plan, as prepared by the applicants or as modified by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in a way it considers appropriate.
The provision also provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to dismiss the application where necessary, or to make any other orders available under the act if appropriate.
Content and duration of order, section 44F: Section 44F outlines what will be contained in a tribunal order for complex cognitive impairment and includes:
a date for review of the order where a person is an existing involuntary patient;
A Mental Health Review Tribunal order for involuntary admission for complex cognitive impairment will have a 14-day duration, with the possibility of extending the admission for an additional 14-day period following a review by the tribunal under section 123(5)(ba). This translates to a maximum order period of 28 days.
The only exception to this time frame is in circumstances where a person is admitted under the mental disturbance provisions, 10 days, and subsequently placed on a complex cognitive impairment order by the tribunal, 14 days. This would result in a 24-day period of admission.
In rare cases, the tribunal may, on review, extend the period of admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment for one more 14-day period, resulting in an absolute maximum admission of 38 days. Whilst technically possible, I am advised it is very unlikely an admission of this duration would occur very often.
Regular examinations, section 44G, requires an applicant to examine a person admitted involuntarily on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment not less than once every 72 hours after the tribunal makes an order. These time frames for clinical review are consistent with those already in place elsewhere in Part 6.
Discharge, section 44H: it is important to ensure there is clarity in the legislation around when a person held under these provisions is to be released. Section 44H provides guidance on this question. It is a requirement that the person in charge of the approved treatment facility in which the person is being held discharge them on the earliest of the following:
the date specified for discharge in the person’s treatment and management plan prepared for the application for an order;
Section 123(1) of the Mental Health and Related Service Act has been amended to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with the power to review an involuntary patient admitted under the new provisions on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment.
Section 123(5) has also been amended to insert a new section 123(5)(ba) which provides for the tribunal to order that the person continue to be detained as an involuntary patient on those grounds for not longer than 14 days.
To ensure no individual can be continuously detained under these provisions, a new section 123(6B) has been inserted so that where, following review, an additional 14-day order has been made by the tribunal under section 123(5)(ba), this order ceases after that period and the tribunal cannot further review the matter. This provision will ensure an individual detained under the new complex cognitive impairment provisions will only remain in an approved treatment facility for a period sufficient to effect a reduction in the person’s level of immediate behavioural disturbance and risk, and to complete the necessary assessment and collaborative treatment planning required to more effectively manage the person in the community.
Finally, a new section 129(1A) has been added to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with powers to conduct a hearing following an application for involuntary admission on the grounds of complex cognitive impairment. This is a new power for the Mental Health Review Tribunal which allows it to directly receive and consider an application in respect of a person who is not currently admitted to an approved treatment facility or subject to any other order under the Mental Health and Related Services Act where an authorised psychiatric practitioner and authorised officer make an application to submit a treatment management plan.
There have not been any specific amendments to the community visitor provisions or its powers in this bill. However, it is important to note all existing community visitor provisions in the legislation will apply to anyone admitted to an approved treatment facility on an involuntary complex cognitive impairment order. Existing powers of the community visitor is one of several provisions intended to assure the rights of individuals admitted to an approved treatment facility. In addition, the community visitor will ensure facilities and practices regarding the care of these individuals are routinely monitored by an independent and external mechanism.
While the roles and powers of the community visitor will not change, the program’s workload will expand to include monitoring the 11 additional beds being established within existing approved treatment facilities. In addition, proposed amendments to the Disability Services Act to support secure care group homes will include provisions for the community visitor to expand delivery of some of its current functions across the 16 secure care group home adult beds.
The aged and disability program also currently provides 24/7 supported accommodation services to some persons subject to custodial supervision options under Part IIA of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 2010. It is proposed these arrangements also be monitored externally by the community visitor.
The final point I would like to make is that penalty provisions in relation to various offences in the regulation of conduct, certain treatment, and measures in the act have been amended pursuant to the Penalty Units Act 2009 and Penalty Units Regulation 2011. A new provision, section 8A, has also been inserted to indicate Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act applies to an offence against the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Change Order of Bills
Change Order of Bills
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to move that the second reading of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Amendment Bill be brought on before the Caravan Parks Bill. I have received the agreement of the opposition to do so. I move that the order be changed.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, the minister does have our indulgence and we have no problem with that.
Motion agreed to.
BATCHELOR INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS TERTIARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 192)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Act with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, the institute. To this end, the bill modernises and strengthens the governance provision for the institute and brings the act more in line with the Australian government national governance protocols under the Australian government’s Higher Education Support Act.
More specifically, the bill:
1. reduces the size of the institute’s council from 22 members to 10;
- 4. extends the duties currently imposed on the members of the institute council to apply to other institute entities such as committees of the council and members of the advisory board;
5. establishes a nominations committee to facilitate the filling of vacancies on the council and the advisory board, and brings the governance provisions for the institute more in line with the current Australian government national governance protocols for higher education institutions;
6. amends the Education (College and School Councils) Regulations by repealing the now redundant provisions applicable to the former Batchelor College; and
7. effects a range of statute law revision amendments to modernise terminology in the remainder of the act.
The Batchelor institute, which was formerly Batchelor College, was established as a tertiary institution in 1999 and it is therefore timely to review and make appropriate changes to the governance regime for the institute. The primary purpose of the amendments is, of course, to improve the delivery of education and training services to Indigenous people, particularly those of the Northern Territory. The bill will amend the act to that important end.
In December 2009, the Northern Territory government released its long-term strategic plan Territory 2030 which sets out the Territory government’s direction over the next two decades. Territory 2030 is the result of extensive consultation with ordinary Territorians. From these consultations, education was nominated as a major factor in addressing many of the challenges faced by the Northern Territory. These amendments are consistent with Territory 2030, Closing the Gap, the Remote Service Delivery model, the Department of Education and Training Strategic Plan 2011-14, and the Australian government’s higher education reform agenda.
There is clear evidence that education and training leads to better job prospects, higher income potential, and provides young people with more life choices, improved health and wellbeing, and increases self-worth and self-esteem to ensure active citizens. Simply put, education is vital to the successful future of all Territorians.
The governance provisions of the act were highlighted during the 2009 review of the institute. We must ensure the governance and other structures for the institute are appropriate and relevant for today’s modern educational institutions.
A part of these reforms is the significant reduction in the size of the institute council which conducts the affairs of the institute. This reduction, from 22 members to 10 members, will bring the council more in line with other Australian tertiary institutions, including Charles Darwin University, and it will help to significantly streamline the council’s role and thereby enhance the efficiency of the institute overall.
In addition to reducing the size of the council, the amendments will also vary the composition of the council membership with a view to further improving the governance of the institute. Of the 10 members of the council, four will be appointed by the Administrator on the nomination of the minister, and those four positions on the council will be filled by calling for expressions of interest from suitably-qualified Territorians.
Importantly, representation from the northern and central regions of the Territory is provided for. The bill also provides for members to bring a range of expertise to the council, including commercial and financial expertise; specialist professional/vocational knowledge and/or skills preferably in a remote context; and experience in advising government and other service providers in relation to Indigenous matters. The council will also continue to have elected representation from full-time staff members and students of the institute who normally reside in the Territory. The council will also include the Director of the institute, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the institute, a person nominated by Charles Darwin University, and the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for the administration of the Education Act or their nominee.
It is imperative that in carrying out its functions to improve outcomes for Indigenous students, the council is fully informed on issues affecting Indigenous people. To this end, the bill provides, for the first time, for the establishment of an advisory board for the institute. The advisory board will be composed of six Indigenous members who will be drawn from people who have demonstrated knowledge and understanding of cultural and social issues affecting the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The members will also be able to represent a broad range of Indigenous community interests, and will include people with the experience or expertise in Indigenous education and vocational training, and research and technology, and have experience and expertise in advising government and other service providers on matters affecting Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
As with the procedures for filling vacancies on the council, positions on this board will be filled by advertising for expressions of interest from suitably-qualified Indigenous Territorians. The advisory board will play a key role in consulting with Indigenous people, communities, and relevant organisations to promote constructive dialogue and engagement between the institute and Indigenous people, so as to provide expert advice to the council on social and cultural issues affecting the institute and its clients. It is expected that in doing so, this board will be able to make a significant contribution to the institute’s capacity to provide outcomes for its students and clients, with a particular focus on VET and higher education.
The bill also provides for the establishment of a nominations committee which will consider the expressions of interest received from those people interested in being selected as a member of the council and advisory board. This will ensure people elected and appointed to the council and appointed to the advisory board meet the essential eligibility criteria for membership. This process will also help ensure the council and the advisory board have an appropriate mix of expertise.
The bill will also bring the act into line with the requirements of the Australian government national governance protocols under the Higher Education Support Act, or HESA 2003, which all higher education institutions must comply with by clearly defining the functions and powers of the council. It also extends the duties of members of the council to also apply to members of council committees and to the advisory board. To this end, the amendments will also require the council to establish a program of induction and professional development to ensure members are fully informed about their duties and responsibilities and to assist them in carrying out their duties.
The bill also strengthens the annual reporting requirement of the institute to ensure relevant outcomes are appropriately reported, and risk management within the institute is taken into consideration. The bill also provides for the repeal of the now redundant Part IIA of the Education (College and School Council) Regulations which applied to the former Batchelor College.
Finally, in keeping with government policy, the bill provides for some consequential amendments to the remainder of the act of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments do not affect the existing legislative policy except for where the amendments to two clauses have the effect of making the board subject to the same by-laws as the council. The rest of the amendments simply seek to modernise the terminology used in the remainder of the act.
In summary, these amendments will deliver a contemporary, targeted, and robust set of reforms that are consistent with national and Territory initiatives.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the Explanatory Statement to accompany the bill.
CARAVAN PARKS BILL
(Serial 190)
(Serial 190)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2010, parliament enacted the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2010. The main purpose of this act was stated as being to provide for the regulation of tenancies in caravan parks. It sought to provide long-term residents of these parks with the same level of protection and certainty other tenants enjoy. This bill has the same purpose.
In the course of the debate on the bill for the 2010 act, and in the subsequent discussion concerning implementation of the 2010 act, it became apparent there were significant practical problems with the bill.
In September 2010, my colleague, Hon Delia Lawrie, met with Caravan Park Association members in Alice Springs and reached agreement that aspects of the 2010 legislation would be reconsidered. After further consultation between departmental officers and the Caravan Parks Association, it was agreed that the best way forward was to take the caravan provisions out of the Residential Tenancies Act and place them in a separate act. However, it was also accepted that the basic framework of the Residential Tenancies Act - that is, the coverage - was suitable for long-term caravan park occupancies. Accordingly, this bill repeals the uncommenced provisions of the 2010 act and provides for a comprehensive, standalone law relating to caravan parks.
The main point of contention with the 2010 act was that of the kinds of permanent residents of caravan parks should be subject to the operation of the act. The bill now deals with this issue in two ways.
First, it retains the 2010 act’s exemption of holiday or tourist accommodation. However, it makes it clear that accommodation is ‘holiday accommodation’ or ‘tourist accommodation’ if the park holds itself out as providing such accommodation. It does not matter that the accommodation is provided for long terms, or if the person obtaining the accommodation is not on a holiday or is not a tourist. This means it is the caravan operator who decides what types of occupants are living in the park.
Second, for other kinds of parks, it provides that a person does not come under the operation of the act simply because the person is a resident for more than 12 months. Under the 2010 act, if a resident was in a park for more than 90 days, they were deemed to come under the operation of the act. This led to the possibility that caravan park operators might bring occupancies to an end on each 90th day so as to void the act. Such actions would have been grossly inconvenient to both the residents and the operators. Government cannot make caravan park operators provide long-term accommodation. Caravan parks are businesses such that operators are entitled to choose what type of business they are conducting.
In recognition of this simple fact, the bill now provides that residents and operators can enter into successive 12-month agreements without coming within the operation of the act. These issues are dealt with in clause 10. Subclause (5) of that clause provides that operators and residents, despite the rest of clause 10, can bring themselves within the scope of the act if that is their intention. This period of 12 months replaces the 90-day period contained in the discussion draft of the bill released by the Department of Justice during November 2011. The longer period has been chosen because, from a practical perspective, it is relatively unusual for permanent arrangements to be made in caravan parks for periods of less than 12 months, thus requiring successive 90-day agreements seemed to have limited purposes. As this is a late change to the bill, further consideration will be given to the issue if concerns are raised between now and when the bill is debated in February 2012.
For such non-permanent arrangements, operators will be required to ensure residents are aware the act does not apply to them. They will do this by providing a written document or by having appropriate signage.
The one exception to this permanent resident-only coverage is that the provisions of the act imposing liability on the resident for the actions of his or her guests applies to residents of all caravan parks. This is set out in clause 17. This clause is located in Part 1 of the act. Clause 10 of the act operates so that Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to the situations listed in clause 10(2). The necessary inference is then that the provisions of Part 1, including clause 17, apply to all caravan parks.
The other main differences between the 2010 act and this bill are that the bill:
broadens the options for rent increases. Thus, for example, a caravan park owner may have a caravan park rule which provides that all rents are reviewed on a specific day of each year. This is set out in clause 51(5);
Clause 140 no longer requires operators to consult with residents prior to changing caravan park rules.
The bill now permits, in clause 144, operators to require a change in the location of a caravan for the purposes of the efficient administration of the park.
The bill maintains the 2010 amendments so as to provide for funding under the Agents Licensing Act from the Agents Licensing Fidelity Guarantee Fund for the purposes of industry associations and consumer bodies providing training and information about the operation of the legislation. These provisions are set out in clauses 21 and 22.
Following consultation in Katherine, the bill now includes provisions equivalent to those in the Residential Tenancies Act relating to the termination of tenancies of residents who are employees of the operator of the caravan parks. That is clause 104.
The bill also clarifies issues regarding the sale of caravans that are on site. It tries to make clear that the owner of the caravan on site can only sell the caravan. They do not have the power to sell the site or the right of occupancy. The buyer of the caravan must deal with the caravan park operator in respect of those issues. The bill also seeks to make it clear that the caravan park operator can impose reasonable conditions regarding access to the park for those persons who may wish to purchase the caravan. These matters are covered in clause 146.
I also note that the bill provides for only limited clarification of the rights and responsibilities of operators and residents where the residents have been occupants for very long periods of time. In theory, if there is a formal agreement, this will set out what happens if the operator wants to terminate the arrangement. Under the act, if the occupancy was categorised as permanent when it commenced, the act will provide time lines for termination proceedings.
In practice, the issues may be less able to be resolved. It was pointed out by a businessman in the consultation conducted in November 2011 by the Department of Justice that it is in the interests of business certainty over the long term that rights and responsibilities be clarified. There was also a measure of support from such operators that the legislation needs to better protect those residents who have been residents for a very long time. It may not be sufficient that they have rights derived from principles contained in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Given the complexity of this issue, there has not been time to sort it out prior to the introduction of the bill. However, I have asked the Department of Justice to complete a report by 31 January 2012 so if appropriate the issue can be dealt with by way of committee stage amendment. The report will deal with issues as to whether the termination process should take account of the length of occupancy and the extent to which the operator has permitted an occupant to attach a caravan to the land.
One likely option to be considered is that very long-term occupants who are not otherwise covered by the act should have, in respect of termination, the same rights they would possess if they were covered by the act under a periodic occupancy. This would mean they would be entitled to 42 days notice. However, before formally proposing such an outcome, I would like to hear back from the Department of Justice on the outcomes of their consultation on this issue.
Other key provisions of the bill include:
the bill only applies to arrangements entered into after the commencement of the legislation, with the commencement date being 1 May 2012;
the bill defines ‘caravan park’, in essence, to be a place that has common facilities and sites for caravans. The Residential Tenancies Act is also to be amended so that it does not apply to such parks. Obviously, some parks contain a mix of caravans and cabins. The policy position taken is that such mixed-use places are to be regulated under the Caravan Parks Act, rather than under the Residential Tenancies Act;
a duty of the Chief Executive Officer is to publish a form of occupancy agreement. The act does not make it obligatory for a formal, signed agreement to exist for the purposes of permanent occupancies. However, it does deem there to be an agreement that contains the provisions deemed by the act to apply to all occupancies;
the act also provides for security deposits, rent reviews, terminations, rights and obligations of the operators and residents, as well as dispute resolution. All these provisions are closely modelled on the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act; and
regulations can be made which deal with caravans abandoned by the owners in parks.
The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act concerning caravans being drug premises under that act.
The government is keen to ensure this legislation commences on 1 May 2012. This is the reason I have introduced the bill during these sittings rather than waiting until February 2012. I want to ensure there is plenty of time for this bill to be commented on prior to its enactment. I look forward to further comments on the bill, particularly regarding changes to the bill arising out of the department’s consultations during November 2011. If appropriate, amendments will be made to the bill during the February 2012 sittings. I also propose that the regulations and the default caravan parks agreement required for the operation of the legislation be made available to the public by mid-February 2012.
In closing, I note that one of the themes reported to me by departmental officials concerning the current operations of caravan parks in the Territory is that there are very few problems. Most operators and residents reported they had good relationships and they are capable of sorting out issues between themselves.
Whilst this is undoubtedly true, it is also the case that most legislation only seeks to resolve the difficult issues; that is, so that if relations are not so good, there is at least a fair playing field on which such issues can be resolved. Operators and residents only need to access the legislation to sort out problems. The legislation has been designed to minimise impact on the day-to-day relations.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for making this second reading speech as exciting as he did; caravan parks being fairly boring.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Mr James Faraone. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
WORK HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BILL
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
Continued from 30 November 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I continue my comments in relation to this matter. Where I left off was dealing with offences of strict liability. The curious thing is when I raised this issue during the briefing my interpretation of strict liability I gave to the House yesterday was agreed with, although I had a little alarm bell ringing in the back of my head while I was on my feet yesterday in the House. So I did some more homework in relation to this matter. Under the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act, Subdivision 4, section 43AN(3):
- (3) the existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.
A legislative drafting nightmare with the double negatives, but it does raise the issue as to the operation of strict liability. In the committee stages of this bill, I will be asking questions as to whether or not this is intended to operate as a form of strict liability or more in the nature of absolute liability, which has different impact. Not too much necessarily turns on that issue and, whether I was wrong or right yesterday, it would not have affected the Country Liberals’ opposition to this bill.
What does come out of this process of this act is, repeatedly through the legislative instruments, it creates a series of offences. Some of them are to be dealt with by way of a civil standard and others are to be dealt by way of normal standards. I will return to that issue shortly. It is the operation of how this legislative instrument works that gives me some concern at law. Bearing in mind that offences in terms of their physical elements are offences of strict liability, when you read the operation of many of the offences in the legislation - I think it occurs at least a dozen times or so in the legislation - where an offence is created. If you are talking about the physical element of the offence nominated in section 12B, then the offence’s physical elements eliminate the false fault elements as described by the Criminal Code.
That means if evidence is taken by a court that facts were such, or the physical elements of an offence were such - let us be accurate about it; that they were found in a certain condition - then whether or not the person charged with a criminal offence had any intent, foresight, negligence, or recklessness on their part no longer becomes necessarily an issue. In these offences I am referring to, the clause, or a clause similar to the one that I will quote now, section 171 says:
- (6) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement under this section.
The way this nobbles together is, if a person is charged with an offence in relation to certain physical aspects - that is, the presence of a document was required to be revealed and was not, therefore that person was charged with the offence of failing to produce the document - that is all the court needs to determine that the person has committed the offence. If that is so, what I am concerned about is that what you effectively generate through this process is a reversal of the burden of proof. Essentially, under this legislative instrument, you are guilty until you prove your innocence, until you give a reason for why you have supposedly committed the offence. In fact, I draw honourable members’ attention to section 171(7), which says:
- (7) Subsection (6) places an evidential burden on the accused to show a reasonable excuse.
A member: Flies in the face of the justice system, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, that is part of my concern. This is not new; this does exist. It exists in the current Northern Territory work health legislation, and the Country Liberals opposed it on those grounds for the same reasons at the same time. This places a greater evidential burden upon a person charged with an offence against this act than is placed on someone accused of murder. If a murderer is charged with murder and they seek succour under the law, one of the first things offered to them under our judicial process is a presumption of innocence, and then all the defences available under the Criminal Code Act, which is a reflection of centuries of criminal law, are available to that person accused with murder.
But, if you are an employer, no such quality of defence is afforded you. Indeed, the effect of this legislative instrument is to reverse the burden of proof as to almost state that you are guilty of this offence until you provide the reason for a court to find you not guilty. I do not believe that is good law, and whilst some jurisdictions are happy to sign up to this type of thing, the Country Liberals, and certainly I, would not be prepared to sign up to such an arrangement.
I am aware of the amount of time I do not have not in relation to this. I could happily stand for several hours and speak on some of my concerns, but there is one component of this bill I cannot forebear but to mention and discuss in some detail. That deals with the operation between Division 7, section 254 onwards to about 266, and the operation of Part 7 of the legislation, which is workplace entry by Work Health Safety entry permit holders.
Amongst the Workplace Health and Safety entry permit holders will be union officials. Curiously, the union official who comes into a workplace as a permit holder comes into that workplace under certain rules and conditions stipulated in Part 7. However, the part I find most curious about this is they come into the workplace as a union official, who is authorised to enter the workplace under this legislation, and there is no requirement for a member of the union, or any union, to be there at all. Whilst there are provisions in this legislation that say the union cannot be there for the purposes of recruiting - it has to be only for workplace health and safety - the capacity for a legislative instrument of this nature to enable unions to get into the workplace to start recruiting is too great to bear. Surely, an organisation that is generally not created as a statutory authority should not have that type of right of entry into workplaces which are, in many instances, private property. I am not arguing for one second that the law should stop at the front door of private property; however, what I am suggesting is leave the policing to the police force, which is Northern Territory WorkSafe. I will come to WorkSafe shortly.
Moreover, if you then withhold certain information from this union official, you carry liability for which, in the case of a body corporate, you can be fined $50 000. In the case of an individual, you can be fined $10 000 but, curiously, there is no prison sentence attached to that because if you look at Division 7, clause 254 onwards, an offence against Part 7 is dealt with as a civil prosecution. The term ‘civil prosecution’ is curious but we will use it for the purpose of this debate.
I have major concerns about this concept which means if a union official fronts up and you refuse to answer questions - which you are obliged to do; there is no right of silence - or provide the information, then you are prosecuted. Curiously, it is dealt with as a civil matter because of this legislative instrument which means you can be up for a $10 000 fine. It looks like a criminal offence, it smells like a criminal offence, but we are being asked, as legislators here today, to call it a civil matter and it has all the properties of a civil dispute between the two parties.
That means there is a much lower burden of proof in any prosecution that operates in relation to this particular act. That lower burden of prosecution and the rules outlined in this legislation means not only do you not have any of the defences available that you normally would have, the prosecution, or a prosecution under Part 7, would have a much lower burden of proof, but you also then have to have full disclosure because all the rules of civil litigation apply. Before you even walk into a courtroom, you have had to disclose your whole hand, and if it was a civil dispute, I would understand that. However, this is, in essence, a criminal prosecution being dumbed down to a civil dispute and I am being asked, as a legislator, to support that. I cannot; it is not good law.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like a criminal prosecution and operates like a criminal prosecution then it should be a criminal prosecution. It is under the current Territory legislation. I am deeply concerned that this is an erosion of the rights of people charged with criminal offences under this legislation. For that reason, I am deeply concerned about being asked to pass this legislative instrument.
We then touch on the matter of the right to silence. Normally, people who are charged with offences have a right to silence - not so under this legislative instrument. We are then reassured in the legislative instrument that any person who makes an admission cannot have that admission used against them in a civil or criminal prosecution. Cool. That is all very good except for one thing: in the real world where criminal investigations actually occur, there are very few people who have undertaken criminal investigations who rely exclusively on the admissions made to the investigator during the course of an investigation.
For a practical example so members understand what I am banging on about, if a police officer investigates a serious assault involving a knife, then the police officer says to the suspect: ‘Did you do it?’ The suspect says: ‘Yes, and I threw the knife down the drain and you will find the knife down the drain’. According to this legislative instrument, if that principle was to apply, those admissions could not be used, via the fact that the suspect or the accused admitted they had the knife, they committed the offence, and threw the knife down the drain. What it does enable an investigator to do is still find incriminating evidence based on the admissions they received; that is, the police officer goes to the drain, takes the lid off the drain, discovers the knife in the drain, and on that knife is the DNA of the accused as well as the DNA of the victim. That remains admissible evidence under the rules established or contemplated by this legislation.
For argument’s sake, if an employer or a person accused under this legislation makes admissions to an investigative authority and, as a result of those admissions, further evidence of a contravention of this act is discovered or disclosed - be it documentary or physical evidence - then whilst the admissions are not admissible, what is certainly going to be admissible is the subsequent evidence. In the witness box, all the investigator would have to say is: ‘I had a conversation with the defendant and, as a result of that conversation I discovered all this extra evidence’. So, we have removed the right to silence even in the criminal components of this legislation.
Whilst any admissions made are not admissible, any further documentary or physical evidence is available for evidence under a prosecution under this legislation. That is a matter of concern, because a person charged with murder has a right to silence. We seem to be creating a system of offences around this legislative instrument which are, in essence, more onerous than serious offences such as rape and murder. I feel extremely uncomfortable, as a legislator, that we would find ourselves in an environment where we change the law to make the laws and the criminal or civil responsibility of people being pursued under this legislation less available than for people charged with serious criminal offences such as rape and murder.
Surely, if we are going to seek investigations and prosecutions under this legislation, the rights that have been built up over centuries under the common law, and generally enhanced and collected under our existing laws, would be protected? However, they are not. All of this will be done in the claim that we are protecting workers. Well, I do not feel inclined to be supportive of turning over centuries of good law for a claim which is a slogan, when you consider you can still protect workers and maintain the quality of the law in the same breath. Why other jurisdictions have signed up to this, I do not know. I do not much care. I, as a legislator, am being asked to sign up to it, and I wish to place on the record I do not want to sign up to this at all.
I also go on to some other practical components of what is occurring here. The legislative instrument before the House today is to replace – except for the mining industry for the next two years – the occupational work and safety legislation that currently exists in the Northern Territory. The overseeing body of the current legislation is Northern Territory WorkSafe under the Attorney-General’s department.
For all practical purposes, I am concerned that it is beyond the capacity of Northern Territory WorkSafe to effectively police this legislation. Northern Territory WorkSafe, as an organisation, is in a state of decay. Poor reports about its quality of management have surfaced - and I do not mean some second-hand comments, I mean a physical report done into management issues in the organisation. Its Katherine office has been shut down which means the whole of the rural area around Katherine - I presume from Borroloola across to Wadeye - now has no effective coverage for work health and safety. The staff turnover in that organisation has been extraordinary, and many of the people who used to be there who were effective and good operators in their field have been replaced by - and this is not a criticism of those frontline staff - but essentially novices who do not have the vast wealth of knowledge required to be built up by these type of organisations over time.
I am deeply concerned that WorkSafe …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Port Darwin be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members for their indulgence.
The operation of WorkSafe demonstrates that you have an organisation that will probably have to place this legislative instrument into a holding pattern itself for 12 months, whilst it gets ready and organises itself to do all the things this legislative instrument requires it to do.
Another area where I am critical of this legislative instrument is in relation to the notices, the enforceable undertakings. Talk about fluff! Where WorkSafe will be applying these, if they get organised to the point where they will be applying these enforceable undertakings, is in workplaces which are in potential contravention of this legislative instrument.
Whilst I realise it is part of a national harmonised scheme, I cannot understand why you would create Part 11 of this act for any sensible reason. Essentially, how it works is this: a WorkSafe officer or other permit holder will see a shortcoming under one of the codes in a particular workplace. They will then exchange paperwork with the possible breacher of the legislation. The idea, I presume, is to keep the whole thing out of court. So you have this nice little exchange of paperwork and something almost akin to a contract is engaged in, which is: ‘I will not prosecute you if you fix up this problem in the workplace’. I simply do not understand why you need to put that into legislation. It happens today in any number of regulatory environments where the regulatory inspector, be it a police officer, or a health inspector, walks into a place and says: ‘Get that fixed, otherwise I will prosecute you’.
Now, all of a sudden, we have reams of legislation dedicated to something that occurs on a daily basis anyway and could continue to occur regardless of whether this legislation operates. It is so much tripe and waffle and it does not, in any effective way, change what will happen on the ground in the workplace other than people are filling out bits of paper which, essentially, demand the same thing and extract the same promises.
I am also concerned with the union right of entry operating in the Northern Territory, and a WorkSafe area which will struggle with these legislative instruments. In the Northern Territory, you will effectively create a system of ex officio inspectors through the union movement, doing WorkSafe’s job for them. Regulatory inspectors should be regulatory inspectors who inspect for the purpose of enforcing regulation. Unions are organisations which look after workers’ interests, which are private non-statutory organisations as a general rule, and should not be fulfilling necessarily regulatory roles.
Where a union official becomes aware of a breach of a legislative instrument, there are appropriate authorities like WorkSafe to which they can report these shortcomings. This shortcut to making them the ex officio officer, in my mind and in the mind of the Country Liberals, is unsustainable. It is not right, and it generates a level of authority which is unacceptable in the eyes of members on this side of the House. I know the government will tell me that under Fair Work Australia legislation, these rights of access already exist. In fact, if I read this legislation correctly, you cannot even get a permit under these arrangements unless you are the same union official with access under the Fair Work Australia legislation. Whatever! I still disagree with it and members on this side of the House disagree.
If they were looking after the rights of members and were enabled under this legislation to go into workplaces where they had union members represented by their unofficial non-statutory authority organisation, I could understand that. I believe that to not demand union members be present creates a structure around union officials which was never part of even the reason those unions established themselves.
Madam Acting Speaker, in conclusion, and I wish I had more time but I have already been on my feet for 50 minutes, the Country Liberals oppose this legislation on a raft of areas. As I said at the outset, we support the concept and the principle of national harmonised legislation; however, I remind honourable members that what will happen on 1 January 2012 will not be a national harmonised legislative instrument. In fact, it will not even be harmonised in the Northern Territory by virtue of the amendments the government seeks to pass during the committee stages of this bill.
What it will be is anything but harmony on the grounds that the mining industry will now be exempted for the next two years in the Northern Territory alone. I understand that is not the minister’s fault because this is something generated by Safe Work Australia and problems with the implementation at a national level. The fact that Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria all will not have this legislative instrument operational by 1 January 2012 means that even if this legislation passes the House today, it will not be harmonious and will not have achieved the goals sought by COAG when this arrangement was put in place.
Whilst the minister will argue long and loud that so many people have been consulted, the Chamber of Commerce supports this legislative instrument, and the Master Builders Association has indicated they will support this legislative instrument - mind you, by the way, not nationally, nationally they are agin it …
Ms Lawrie: We are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: This is national legislation.
Ms Lawrie: We are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: This is national legislation.
Ms Lawrie: And we are in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: And this is national legislation.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It just shows you how arrogant this ex-Attorney-General is, Madam Acting Speaker. If she was up to the job, she would be running this show, but she is not, and it is typical of this …
Ms Lawrie: I have been waiting for it. It has taken you how long to get to that?
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is typical of this government to just simply roll over to whatever is being suggested by the powers that be and not look after Territory businesses. This is the problem. The Housing Industry Association is agin this, and there are any number of organisations - Independent Contractors of Australia are agin this because they have their problems with it. This is not harmonised. There is not a sense of harmony out there in the community, and there is not a sense of harmony in the industry groups affected by the variant codes.
This is not harmonised legislation. It is a three-ringed circus. It has collapsed as a national agreement, and we continue to soldier down this path to meet this 1 January deadline come hell or high water simply because - why? Because there is $2m attached to this with COAG spending. That is probably it. The fact is, this government is now running down a path that other jurisdictions are baulking at - and I am talking about Labor and Liberal jurisdictions: South Australia, Labor jurisdiction; Tasmania, Labor jurisdiction …
Ms Lawrie: New South Wales.
Mr ELFERINK: If you had listened to the debate the other day, you would have heard what I had to say about New South Wales. Western Australia, Liberal, and Victoria, Liberal all have problems with it. This is not a matter of ideological division. This is a matter of poor legislation, poorly managed through the various organisations affected by it. There are individual businesses and even members - shock horror! - of the Chamber of Commerce who have problems with this legislation. Even the chamber’s own membership in some …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: It is already done. I am on 55 minutes already.
Mr Styles: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: Even the chamber, whilst sending its support, has members who are unhappy with it. There is nothing harmonised about this. This is not good legislation for all the reasons I have described. If I had another 55 minutes, I could continue describing why this is not good legislation.
The Country Liberals oppose this legislation because it is bad law badly implemented. We support worker safety, we support the concept of national harmonised legislation, but for goodness sake, if you are going to go down that path you are duty bound to get it right.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim thought I was wrapping up; he obviously missed the portfolio reshuffle. The member for Daly is Attorney-General with responsibility for this legislation now.
I stand proudly to commend and support this legislation. It flows out of a federal government election commitment to harmonise occupational health and safety laws across our nation. That was in response to a request from the business sectors of our community that operate across state and territory boundaries. Many companies have work sites across state and territory boundaries and they were sick of dealing with a myriad of bureaucracy around occupational health and safety requirements. Across the jurisdictions of our nation, there are quite dramatic and distinct differences in the requirements imposed upon employers in their roles, responsibilities, and duty to keep workers safe in the workplace.
I do not know that anyone in this Chamber is going to argue about the need to have occupational health and safety legislation to ensure a regime of safety for workers in the workplace. What we will hear in this debate, and have heard in this debate, is an ideological divide between the Country Liberal Party and the Labor government in a reasonable and sensible landing point in the legal and regulatory regime around occupational health and safety.
We have not been running down the path as described by the shadow spokesperson. This has been years of hard work and reform by all state and territory governments working with the Commonwealth government, involving officials across the public service agencies responsible for workplace health and safety, involving ministers across all the jurisdictions at many meetings. This has not been running down the path.
An exposure draft was released in September 2009. Here we are, more than two years later, debating the legislation that went out as an exposure draft in 2009. That was open for a six-week consultation period; 480 submissions were received and formed the basis for a number of amendments to the bill. Amendments include, to Part 7, the right of entry offences being subject to a civil penalty regime consistent with that in the Fair Work Act of 2009.
There seems to be a bizarre argument from the shadow that it should be a criminal regime. I would like to hear him explain that to employers across the Territory: that he would not want to see them dealing with breaches in a civil environment, he wants them to be dealt with in a criminal environment. That was a very curious pursuit by the shadow.
The changes and amendments coming out of those consultations all went to the value of penalties for corporations. They also went to a duty for the persons conducting a business or undertaking, a PCBU, to consult not only with the workers directly affected by the health and safety matter, but with the other duty holders who have a duty in relation to the same matter. What we are seeing here is that chain of responsibility in a workplace being genuinely recognised. If you want to see real outcomes in the safety of workplaces, regardless of the risk in the industry, when you identify the chain of responsibility and ensure there is a requirement to engage in that chain of responsibility, you genuinely get safe workplaces.
I have practised occupational health and safety for years across workplaces, and the fears I heard enunciated in debate by the shadow were arguments I heard in the 1980s. It is extraordinary to be in the Chamber of the Territory parliament in 2011 …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting. Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and to hear the same rhetoric and fears around the occupational health and safety provisions, including union right of entry, that were prevailing in the debates in the 1980s when occupational health and safety legislation was coming in across our jurisdictions and being modernised in its application in the workplace.
My experience is, with the sound structure we see in this model legislation, you actually do get a better working relationship, a more constructive working relationship, between the employee and the employer. That is four-and-a-half years of practical implementation using workplace-by-workplace experience of occupational health and safety based on what is in this harmonised legislation. The fear, loathing, and rhetoric coming from the member for Port Darwin is 20 years old and proven across workplaces to be wrong.
I congratulate the Territory’s business industry groups for being at the table every step of the way through the development and consultation into this legislation. They have taken the time and the effort to understand its detail, its practical application to their business members, and how, with sound practice, with the associated education awareness regimes, they will get safer workplaces.
I say to the member for Port Darwin, shame on you, because if you actually want to denigrate and degrade legislation that provides for safer workplaces in a fair and balanced way, you are literally, for the sake of your political ideology, accepting that workplace injury and fatality is just part of accepting your ideology. Anyone who has seen someone injured in a workplace, or had the horror of dealing with someone killed in the workplace, would understand you actually need law and regulation in a workplace environment so that whatever can be done to make that workplace safe, absolutely must be done.
For those who abrogate their responsibility in that, there absolutely must be penalties. There is genuinely a role for unions to play in facilitating identification of the health and safety representatives, ensuring the training of those health and safety representatives occur, and ensuring the identification of risks in the workplace are dealt with through those mechanisms within the workplace. To do that, you cannot sit outside the workplace as a union official; you actually have to be able to come into the workplace. I know the right-wing ideology of the member for Port Darwin finds that somewhat confronting but, in my experience, it is productive. In my experience, it helps get improved outcomes of safety in the workplace. I have had four-and-a-half years of on-the-ground experience, proudly, as a union official …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I hear the laughter of the member for Fong Lim on that. He just shrouds himself in this cloak of right-wing ideology and cannot see through it - cannot see through the practical applications of a robust and well-tested range of regulatory requirements to make workplaces safer.
There is nothing in this legislation today that has not been tested anywhere across our nation. It is a bringing together of the common aspects of the existing occupational health and safety legislation across our nation, and it is - after a series of meetings and negotiations across all state jurisdictions - an agreed outcome of what is the fairest approach in the regulatory environment. Everything in here has been tested and has proven not to be a barrier to the growth of industry. It is not in anyone’s interest to impede the growth of industry. It is not in anyone’s interest to make it difficult for employers to go about their business and grow their business because unions want to see jobs growth too, but not at the expense of the safety of the man or woman undertaking tasks they are directed to undertake.
I am proud to be a Territorian who went through a major overhaul of our own legislation in 2008, and what we have before us today largely reflects that. There are some differences. They are not significant and have been well-articulated by our government. They are well-understood by the industry organisations. The Housing Industry Association stands on its own against it …
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: That is not true!
Ms LAWRIE: As the former Attorney-General, I met with Chris Young, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, who also chairs the WorkSafe Advisory Council, and he is supportive of this. He understands its workability, and is across its detail. He is not unaware of the task ahead in drilling down and ensuring, through the $2m we get from the Commonwealth for passage of this legislation and the time line agreed nationally, we need to spend money raising awareness and education across employer groups. …
Mr Elferink: Are you going to put the rest of the $2m into WorkSafe?
Ms LAWRIE: I also met with the horticultural, agricultural, and seafood industries; I have spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association. All the industry organisations are up for this and will work with WorkSafe through their subcommittees to ensure they have a genuine program of working with their industry members to provide information regarding the requirements of this legislation and regulatory environment. Without a doubt, the Commonwealth funding will help those industry organisations get out there and work with their members to raise the awareness.
What happens in awareness raising? In a practical way, when you are aware of your responsibilities, you turn your mind to how you can deliver on your responsibilities and, in doing that, you are literally saving people from being injured at the workplace, or the horror of one of your employees dying. Ask an employer who has been through that as to whether they could wind the clock back, have their time over again, and pay greater attention to workplace safety. They carry that death for the rest of their life; they carry that injury for the rest of their life. Talk to the families affected by workplace injury and death, and try to explain to them, member for Port Darwin, why you think having standard and fair law and regulation across our nation is wrong. You are anti-union …
Mr Elferink: It is not good law. That is the problem I have with it. It is just bad law.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: This assists employers by ensuring they are not dealing with a myriad of different laws across state borders when they have workplaces across those borders. Tasmania has the bill in the Upper House and debates it this week. The Commonwealth, of course, has already passed the legislation; Western Australia, well, it might be introduced before the end of the year, but it will not be passed; New South Wales Liberals passed it; South Australia, the bill is currently in the Upper House; Victoria, it is drafted but not yet introduced; Queensland, the bill has been passed; and the ACT, the bill has been passed.
This is on the pathway of having a national uniform legislation. The task ahead, with passage today in the Territory, is to ensure WorkSafe gets the support through government to do the work. Mind you, it has already done the heavy lifting work for a couple of years to get us to this point. The task is to continue that implementation, assisting WorkSafe as the responsible authority, and working with industry organisations to ensure they have the practical and real support, and the resource support, to get out there and work with their members.
I am proud to be part of a process which has taken more than two years of mature, sensible, and reasonable negotiation across every state and territory, with the Commonwealth, to arrive at an agreed outcome that will benefit the employers of our nation because they will have one set of rules, and will benefit the employees, the workers of our nation, because there will be a very clear, well-articulated and well-explained set of requirements to make them safe in their workplace. I would expect, with effort, to explain this to our businesses and to our workers in the Territory, to ensure we use the opportunity contained within the law and the regulations to make workplaces safer. I expect to see an improvement in our injury rates by reduction, and my God, I expect an improvement in our fatality rates.
Madam Acting Speaker, this is fundamentally important for the safety of Territorians. It is fair. It has been negotiated for two years. The majority of the employer groups and industry organisations across our nation and, indeed, in the Northern Territory, agree with it, because they called for it in the first place and the Labor government responded to their call. I commend this legislation to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Karama, the way she wears her heart on her sleeve and seems so passionate about these issues. Who, in their right mind, wants to see workers killed? She talks about people being killed, and all this sort of stuff. No one wants to see that, no one wants to see workers injured, and no employer wants to see workers injured. No employee wants to be injured or killed, heaven forbid! The member for Karama waxes lyrical about how we are going to save lives, and all of that. The way she stands on her high horse and preaches to everyone is infuriating.
Of course, everyone supports the harmonisation of laws across Australia - all laws. Australia is a small place and it makes life easier for all of us if the same laws apply everywhere. We have different jurisdictions, however, and people have different views on what those laws would be. In an ideal world, we would have one world law, where the law was the same all over the world. We could all aspire to that. The fact is, the world is made up of individuals, and individuals are, as it says, individuals. People are different. We all have different views and the like, so creating harmonised laws - globally, nationally, even in the Northern Territory at times - is very difficult because people will have different views on what is right and wrong.
Everyone supports safe workplaces. We all want to see a safe workplace. It is wrong to suggest that some people do not care about safety. Of course people care about safety. The level of care about safety varies from person to person; again, we are all individuals. Some people have no problems bungee jumping or motorbike riding; other people are scared to death about that type of thing and say those practices are not safe. Everyone has a different view of what is safe or what is thrilling but, in the main, we all want to see safe workplaces. No employer wants to put his or her employees in danger and no employee wants to be in danger.
One of our concerns with the national harmonised laws is, in many ways, this is not about the safety of workers, nor the ability of employers to maintain worker safety. This is, in many ways, more about strengthening the rights of unions, which of course is the Labor way. They were spawned of the union movement and have much association with the union movement. Trade unions control more than half the votes at their national conference. That is not a bad thing; the world has changed. Only 12% of workers in the Northern Territory are members of unions. It is questionable as to whether 12% of the population should be able to have half the say on anything. However, that is how Labor came into being, and they are still hooked on that conflict approach unions take. You need to have a fight; that is why unions are in business. If you are not fighting about something, what is the point of being around? Unions would dissolve. One of the reasons we see only a small minority of our population as union members these days is the old days of massive disputes are behind us. We have a much more modernised economy and a modernised workplace. People do things by agreement these days, whereas in the past they did it by arbitration and conflict.
My view is that workplace safety is not a matter for bargaining. It is not a bargaining tool used in wages negotiations and should never be seen as that. However, this is one of the sacred cows of the union movement. Along with wages, safety is an important issue and they are going to fight. That is what gives them relevance to their membership - they can get in there and fight. Their whole existence is about fighting.
This side of the Chamber believes that that model is outdated. The days of negotiation and agreement are upon us now, and we should be encouraging people to negotiate individual employment conditions, etcetera. However, safety should not be part of that; safety should be a given. Employers want their workers to be safe, employees want to be safe at work, and that should not enter into any workplace relations discussions at all. It should simply be a given. For that reason, safety at work should not be a bargaining tool used by unions in wages negotiations. Things like right of entry and right to inspect the books all seem to be an anathema to having decent workplace health and safety laws. People should be encouraged to work together to ensure they have strong safety measures in place at their particular workplaces.
Much contained in these proposed laws will, in some ways, drive up costs. Cost should not be a major concern when it comes to the safety of workers, but in a competitive world, costs have an impact. Some of the safety requirements being pedalled by trade unions, quite frankly, are not relevant.
The member for Karama says I am wrapped up in this right-wing blanket. I remind the member for Karama of my previous occupation - I ran a superannuation fund which used to be referred to as a union super fund. We had, on the Board of Directors …
Mr Elferink: The FMEU donate to your election fund?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, the Chamber of Manufacturers was the employer representative with the ACTU, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Bill Kelty, Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean, and a whole range of people like that were my bosses at one stage; they were trustees. I worked out of the Trades and Labor Council building here for five years or so. For 10 years, whilst I was in that occupation, I worked very closely with trade unions in the Territory.
Talking about nationalised workplace laws and the views unions have, I was quite surprised when I was in the Miscellaneous Workers Union office one day and they had these fliers about working in heat. I think it started off at 28C: ‘When the temperature of a workplace hits 28C, we should down tools every 15 minutes; when it gets to 30C, we down tools for half-an-hour every hour; when it gets to 32C, three-quarters-of-an-hour every hour; when it gets to 34C, we shut up shop and everyone goes home because it is clearly too hot to work’. That might be the case in Tasmania, but clearly, in the Northern Territory, if you shut down work every time the temperature exceeded 34C, a big chunk of work would just never happen.
Living in the tropics and other parts of Australia, that is simply a fact of life. People who work outdoors generally will work in quite hot temperatures. To have a mandatory or arbitrary condition that every hour while the temperature is over 30C, we do not work for half-an-hour so people can sit in the shade and have a cool drink of water – quite frankly, things would not get done. In that regard, I am very concerned when I see unions, in particular, pushing workplace safety laws because, quite often, they bring everything down to the lowest common denominator rather than looking at what is appropriate in one place and what is appropriate in another.
If the government was really serious about addressing workplace safety in the Northern Territory, it would look in its own back yard. Rather than shelving off the responsibility to someone else to sort out our workplace safety laws, it would actually take an interest in what goes on here.
In the Northern Territory we have WorkSafe, the watchdog for workplace safety. Unfortunately, WorkSafe in the Northern Territory does not seem to be too concerned with workplace health and safety. It seems more a dumping ground, or a pre-retirement home, for this government, for all those washed-out union officials for whom they cannot find a place. Certainly, the management of WorkSafe is. You look at the management at WorkSafe and ask: ‘Has anyone in this organisation ever employed anyone? Have they ever run a business? Do they have any empathy at all for employers?’ When you look at the management, there is no one there who has any empathy for employers. They are, as I said, predominately washed-out union officials. You hear stories all the time. I had much to do with WorkSafe; it was part of a portfolio I had earlier this term. I received a number of phone calls in my office from employees of WorkSafe, unhappy with the regime there, where they drag in people to comment or provide advice on how to manage the organisation.
I understand the Director of WorkSafe was pulled into line in one of those reports. I do not have the information at hand. I asked questions about it in estimates last year. Of course, the Director of WorkSafe was not prepared to answer those questions I put to her, or to the minister, but there is no denying that WorkSafe is a union-contaminated organisation in the Northern Territory. They are not very focused at all on workplace safety. They are more focused on how they can provide a good landing pad for washed-out union officials. That is very sad ...
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, given it is now midday, I ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Acting Speaker, I will resume shortly.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: We will be suspending the House for lunchtime and you will have an opportunity to resume your remarks when the House resumes after 2 pm. Thank you.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY ACTING SPEAKER
Planned Works in Chamber
Planned Works in Chamber
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been asked to advise you that at the conclusion of sittings this evening, could you clear your desks please, including any personal belongings or papers. There will be works commencing in the Chamber from tomorrow. Whilst those works are under way, you will not be allowed into the Chamber.
WORK HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BILL
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
(Serial 184)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 185)
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 186)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, we are resuming debate on the Work Health bills with the member for Fong Lim in continuation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Speaker, and what a bizarre joke that was. How the Treasurer gets away without a warning, I will never know. Talk about things that are not points of order and that interesting stuff. You seem to get away with anything in this place when you are the Treasurer.
The Treasurer has put forward a bill today seeking support for the harmonisation of workplace laws. The new Attorney-General has taken over from the Treasurer on this. If this government was the least bit concerned about work health and safety in the workplace, the first thing they would do is look at their own agencies. WorkSafe is a good place to start, because it does seem to be a completely dysfunctional organisation, mainly due to the way it is managed and run by the director and her senior officers. If the government was at all serious about fixing up problems of work health and safety, it would run a broom through that joint, clear out all the dead wood because, as I said before Question Time, WorkSafe is simply a pre-retirement home, or this government’s dumping ground for washed-out union hacks, for people who have done their time serving hard-working people in the union movement. It is like a golden handshake before retirement: ‘We will drop you into WorkSafe and give you a go there. Do a couple of years in that organisation, and then toddle off with a Northern Territory government pension or into the wilderness into retirement’. Simply speaking, if you look at the senior ranks of NT WorkSafe it becomes obvious that NT WorkSafe is simply a dumping ground for washed-out union hacks. It is like a pre-retirement home for union officials.
If the government is serious and wants to do something to ensure the safety of workers it should have an agency that is functioning, well-run, and doing the job in the community it should be doing. It should not be a retirement village for union hacks; it should not be a place of industrial dispute, a place where people do not want to turn up to work. They should be doing an effective job in the community.
Madam Acting Speaker, I will finish up now. I was not going to talk for that long on this particular bill. My advice to government is: stop this nonsense of these so-called harmonised laws. The laws are nothing but a tool for unions to belt employers - good employers - in the Northern Territory across the head. They give them rights of entry, rights to inspect books, and practically drive up costs to business. If it is at all serious about work health, it will sort out WorkSafe and make it a viable agency doing a valuable job in the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, the background to the bill is this legislation is about attempting to get national uniform health and safety laws to protect Australians where they work, regardless of what type of work they do. The reason for these rules is to make workplaces safe and reduce or eliminate death or injury to workers - something that has to remain a priority in this debate.
These laws will also mean greater certainty for employers, especially those who work across borders, and will eventually reduce business compliance costs. The laws will also provide better cover for contractors and make very clear everyone’s responsibilities. These changes have not happened overnight so I thought I would read out the chronology of events that has led us here today.
In December 2007, the NT Workplace Health and Safety Act was passed and commenced on 1 July 2008. In March 2008, COAG agreed to 27 deregulation initiatives including harmonisation of OH&S. In April 2008, the federal minister announced a national review. In July 2008, all ministers signed an intergovernmental agreement. In January 2009, a national review was completed. In December 2008, ministers signed a national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy. Part of that was the harmonising of OH&S, which was one of 27 initiatives. In February 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council agreed to establish Safe Work Australia. In March 2009, Safe Work Australia conducted a public forum in the NT. In May 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved outcome of the review and the policy decisions regarding the model bill, and instructed formulation of the model law.
In July 2009, Safe Work Australia was established. In September 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved exposure draft for the model bill and consultation regarding regulation and impact statement was released for public comment. They received, over six weeks, 480 submissions. In September 2009, model regulations to accompany the model bill were released for public comment. These included the model regulations, core function, obligations, and powers, incident notification, union right of entry, health and safety representatives, and dispute resolution.
In October 2009, Northern Territory WorkSafe conducted a public forum in the regions regarding the model act accompanied by newspaper advertisements. In December 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council approved the model bill. In late 2009, they commenced to develop Stage 2 regulations. In late 2009, there was a commencement to develop the Stage 3 regulations, and in early 2010, there was commencement to develop Stage 4 model regulations. In late 2010, there was the commencement to develop model codes of practice. In December 2010, Safe Work Australia released model regulations and priority codes for public comment.
In February and March 2011, Northern Territory WorkSafe conducted forums in regions and Darwin, accompanied by media advertising. In March 2011, Cabinet endorsed in principle the Northern Territory government submission to Safe Work Australia model regulations. In April 2011, there was public comment on the model regulations and first stage codes were closed. A total of 1343 submissions were received and considered over four months. In April 2011, NT Cabinet approved the draft model bill. In July 2011, the mining regulations and codes of practice public comment period opened. In August 2011, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council endorsed in principle model regulations and first stage codes of practice. In September 2011, they also endorsed the decision for the regulation impact statement for model regulations. In late September, the second tranche of model codes were released for public comment.
In October 2011, the mining regulation impact study was released for public comment. In October, the mining regulations and codes of practice public comment was closed. In November, the mining regulation impact statement and public comment was closed. In November 2011, public comment closed on one group of model codes, which included First Aid in the Workplace, Managing Risks in Construction Work, Preventing Falls in Housing Construction, Managing Electrical Risks at the Workplace, Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals, and Managing Risks of Plant in the Workplace.
In December 2011, public comment closed on another group of model codes: Safe Design of Building and Structures, Excavation Work, Demolition Work, Spray Painting and Powder Coating, Abrasive Blasting, Welding and Allied Processes, Safe Access in Tree Trimming and Arboriculture, Preventing and Managing Fatigue in the Workplace, and Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying.
I read that out to emphasise that some people might say this bill is coming before there has been adequate consultation. I gave that chronology as some evidence that there has been a great deal of consultation before it got to this stage.
This legislation is made up of three bills. The main bill sets out the framework for these changes. This bill, although not drafted the same, is essentially the same as what has been operating in the Territory since 2008, except for the introduction of PCBUs - that is, person conducting a business or undertaking – penalties, and rights of entry. The second bill amends other existing acts, and the third bill creates the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority and the Work Health Court.
The regulations, which I have here in a small form, have been developed in consultation with business over a long period. The only regulations which appear to have some sticking points are the mining regulations. It is obvious from the amendments put forward today that that has not been able to be finalised at this time. The regulations may look many, but except for Chapters 1, 2, and 3 which cover preliminary matters, representation and participation, and general risk and workplace management, the rest relate to particular industries.
The existing work health and safety laws directly reference over 120 Australian standards and a number of National Occupational Health and Safety Commission standards incorporated in the body of the law; that is, in the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations and Dangerous Goods Regulations. This means these standards are incorporated into the law of the Territory and a duty holder is required to access and be familiar with these standards, which would ordinarily require that person to purchase the copy of the standard - and we know how much they used to cost. Under the model laws, there are nine Australian standards forming part of the regulations. The other 111 standards have been incorporated into the regulations or the codes, or have dropped off.
There are nine standards specifically still mentioned in the regulations. I will just go through them with their main title: the training and certification of recreational divers and recreational scuba dive supervisor; occupational noise management, measurement and assessment of noise emission and exposure; occupational diving operations, standard operational practice; electrical installations, construction and demolition sites; safe use of lasers in the building and construction industry; method for the quality of identification of asbestos in bulk samples; pressure equipment, hazard levels; amusement rides and devices; designer construction; and gas cylinders and general requirements.
Codes: the codes represent best practice but are not legally binding. There are 12 codes of practice which have been finalised, and public consultation closed in April 2011. I have mentioned some of those before, but I will just go through them so at least people understand what those codes are about. These 12 codes of practice which closed in April 2011 were: How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks; How to Consult on Work Health and Safety; Managing the Work Environment and Facilities; Facilities for Construction Sites; Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work; Hazardous Manual Tasks; Confined Spaces; How to Manage and Control Asbestos in the Workplace; How to Prevent Falls at Workplaces; and How to Safely Remove Asbestos. There are a couple I did not mention earlier, but it is worth naming those. There is also the Labelling of Workplace Hazardous Chemicals, and Preparation of Safety Data Sheets for Hazardous Chemicals. There were 15 codes of practice out for consultation and they closed on 18 November 2011; there were also another nine codes which closed on Friday 16 December 2011.
That gives you some idea of the breadth this legislation covers. As a layperson, the best guide for me about whether this bill should be supported or not is to talk to the industry. I have spoken to the industry, especially people like Chris Young, Chief Executive of Chamber of Commerce and Graham Kemp from the Master Builders Association. I spoke to Robert Harding from HIA, South Australia and Northern Territory; Mark Crossin of Unions NT; Peter Stewart, Chief Executive Minerals Council; Dean Harrison, Manager of OH&S Paspaley; Susie Meyerskoff from Brustolin Builders; Matthew Gardiner United Voice formerly Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union; and Laurene Hull, Executive Director NT WorkSafe. Although not mentioned here, the government will probably be the largest employer affected, yet it does not mention OH&S much in annual reports. As an example, the education section has, over the last 10 years, injury claims across Australia totalling more than $37m, and it is something government needs to be responding to as well.
In relation to other states and harmonisation, which was discussed here earlier, we know these laws are part of a harmonisation process for health and safety laws across Australia. In Queensland, the bill has passed and the regulations finalised and approved for commencement on 1 January 2012. In New South Wales, the bills have passed and amendments will be moved this week to remove the amendments made in the House during passage, and the regulations have been finalised and approved for commencement on 1 January 2012. In the Australian Capital Territory, the bill has passed and the regulations are in the final drafting stage in anticipation of commencement on 1 January 2012. In South Australia, the debate on the bill has been adjourned until February 2012, so they will not meet the deadline, leaving only Tasmania which is debating it today, I presume; it is not clear whether this legislation will go through Tasmania today. The expectation of the Tasmanian regulator and the commitment of the Tasmanian government is to commence the legislation on 1 January 2012.
In the Commonwealth, the bill is due for debate in the Upper House later this week, and the regulations are in final draft form for commencement on 1 January 2012. WorkSafe has spoken to its counterpart in Western Australia and has been advised that the WA Commission will be seeking approval to introduce the legislation this year; however, passage will not be possible by 1 January. The Western Australian government has not made any definitive public statement about the timing of implementation of the model law but has noted that 1 January 2012 is not sufficient time to consider the laws. In Victoria, we know the introduction has been delayed and there is no confirmed date.
I was contacted by the HIA - I think he was a solicitor working for them in South Australia - and I listened to his concerns and discussed them with other people as well. One issue is that South Australia does not have the same standard of legislation as the Northern Territory currently, so the model law is a significant change for industry in South Australia. My argument is that one can hold up important legislation for the sake of these points of difference, which I do not think were major points of difference, or pass the law based on the principle that it is too important a piece of legislation to delay.
Generally, one of the reasons industry supports this legislation is the transitional period that has been agreed to, and there are generous transitional periods with the introduction of the regulations. I quote from the Master Builders Australia media release on 11 November:
- Master Builders Australia, the peak body for the building and construction industry, today welcomed the government’s announcement that there will be sensible transitional arrangements to give builders extra time to implement OHS harmonisation.
Further on they said:
- There are new obligations, especially for builders in South Australia and Tasmania.
Not all states have passed the legislation, but my argument is that it is a little bit like the history of trying to get Australian railways to make up their mind whether we would have one standard-gauge railway. It has taken a long time, but that does not mean because you cannot quite get to harmonisation you do not attempt to do it. If these laws help workers in the NT have a safer workplace - and realising the model laws are almost the same as what we have currently in the Northern Territory - it would be silly to hold off our legislation just because Western Australia and Victoria decided to delay and, in fact, passing this legislation might even encourage those wavering.
Harmonisation, whilst important, is not a showstopper at this time. Education is another key to the passing of this legislation and is an issue that must go hand-in-hand with the legislation. Education is the key to successful implementation of this legislation, not only in relation to some of the changes, but also from the point of view of existing legislation. For instance, we have been told some industries have little knowledge of existing legislation let alone what is coming in. We also know agriculture has one of the worst OH&S records in Australia. Legislation without education is pointless if you are to be effective in changing the culture in some of these industries.
It is of great concern that agriculture, forestry, and fishing has one of the highest fatality rates in Australia. The Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety said that in Australia between 1 January and 30 June 2011, there were 40 on-farm deaths of which 17 were quad bikes. In the same period, there were 59 non-fatal injuries on farms with 14 on quad bikes and 13 on tractors, with another 15 non-fatal injuries on off-farm quad bikes. Data from NT WorkSafe says over a 10-year period, injury claims from agriculture, fishing, and forestry cost $39m, with beef cattle taking the lion’s share with $25m. As I said, education is desperately needed.
Master Builders Australia said in their media release recently:
- Although the transitional arrangements are welcome and important, they must be accompanied by a comprehensive education campaign. This is already happening in some jurisdictions. Master Builders calls on all governments to ensure that there is also a focus on bringing industry up to speed on what is required by the new OH&S laws.
I note the Cattlemen’s Association already has an OH&S DVD, which I looked at the other night. The President of the Cattlemen’s Association introduces it. It is a great start to assisting new people coming into the agricultural industry of the Northern Territory about OH&S. It has a mixture of students, local station managers, and Aboriginal people. It is easy to understand. It is amusing at times, but it sends the right message. There needs to be not only that type of education, but also on-ground education people whose full-time job is to improve OH&S. If agriculture has the worst record, followed by construction, it is beholden on government to use part or all of that money from the COAG agreement to educate people on what the changes are really about. It is not just about legislation, it is not just about passing this bill, it has to be changing a culture that, I suppose, for a long time was regarded as the norm.
I heard today of a pastoral property being fined $50 000 in relation to the death of an employee on a bull catcher. Whilst we might have enjoyed pictures of people flying through the scrub hanging on for dear life as they knock over anthills and go through trees trying to catch cleanskins, in reality, it is dangerous. The reality is we have to ensure people’s lives are looked after. After all, those people will have families, they will be supporting families or have loved ones, and we do not want those people injured or killed.
There have been issues raised about the costs of this new legislation to consumers in relation to these changes. The NT is already operating under many of these laws and is unlikely to see a major cost increase. I have been told the cost would probably be around $1000 per contractor per year in the building industry. In other states where these laws have not been implemented, there will be higher costs; that is at least admitted. We had this debate in 2008 and time has moved on. Most of our laws are in keeping with what is being introduced here and the figure I have been given is $1000 per contractor per year in the building industry.
The cost savings from reducing deaths and injuries by reducing downtime and insurance payouts is a much bigger saving. You need to look wider than what the costs will be in improving safety. That is an important area which has to be taken into consideration in this debate because the nub of this debate is about reducing the number of fatalities or injuries in industry in the Northern Territory.
Whilst I have spoken to several people who have concerns, and I take those concerns seriously, I found none of those concerns to be a reason for stopping this legislation. Some people even said that. The ones who had some concern said whilst they understood there are some issues, they expressed the view that harmonisation of so many laws over the whole of Australia is extremely difficult and you will not all get what you want. However, they said they want this legislation passed.
An example of support came from the Work Health and Safety Advisory Council, which worked on this legislation. It had members from the Transport Workers Union South Australia/ Northern Territory branch; Unions NT; Chamber of Commerce NT; Minerals Council; United Voice; Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; NT Road Transport Association; and the NT Horticultural Association. A letter stated:
- The members of council are of the view that although there are some Safe Work Australia processes still to be completed, this should not delay introduction and passage of the Work Health and Safety Bill. Commencement of the laws will rely on completion of Safe Work Australia processes and realistic transitional arrangements for model work health and safety regulations. It is important that this reform proceeds in a timely manner in order that employers and workers have the benefit of harmonised laws across Australia.
Another letter from United Voice stated:
- We have been involved in the process of national harmonisation since its inception and we are looking forward to having the laws introduced that will protect all Territorians in the workplace, regardless of where that workplace is. The changes will not be dramatic as most of the current NT legislation will not change, but will bring us in line with the rest of Australia.
Another group I have spoken to is the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, which is now acting as a peak body for the Cattlemen’s Association, the seafood industry, and the horticultural industry - an area which requires reform. In fact, they were telling me that arborists are waiting for this legislation to come into place because there were going to be restrictions on how arborists could manage lopping trees. They put forward some changes to what was being proposed and that has been agreed to. They are very happy for those changes to be implemented.
It is sad, as I said before, the cattle industry, especially the beef industry in Australia, and naturally in the Territory, and the seafood industry, have high rates of death and injury. It is really important that the government spends this money - or a large proportion of it - on education; that it employs people whose full-time job it is to go into the bush, out on boats, telling people how to improve safety in their work area.
We can talk until the cows come home about this legislation, but if there is no change in the number of fatalities, then the government has not done its job. It has to go out and sell this, and educate people. It has to do it carefully and responsibly, because if there is a culture which has been around for 100 years, you are not going to change it by someone saying: ‘I am going to fine you $50 000 because you have not done that’. You do not need that type of approach; what you have to do is bring industry along with you and show them that not only is there a moral or ethical side to ensuring a workplace is safe, but there is also an economic advantage in making a workplace safe.
The cattle industry would also gain an advantage because a number of companies in the Northern Territory are cross-border into Queensland, such as AACo which is looking at establishing an abattoir in the Northern Territory. If Queensland and the Northern Territory have harmonised legislation, bringing in OH&S regulations for their industry will be advantageous for that company. They will have one set of regulations, one set of codes, and they will be dealing under the same act. For those types of companies, that would be good. For construction companies, that will be good. The ones that build in other states, such as New South Wales, Queensland and, hopefully, other states as well, will have the same rules and regulations when they come to the Northern Territory.
Some people were concerned about the time needed to digest these regulations. However, when you look at how long it has taken this legislation to get here today - and I read the chronology - the industries involved in developing these regulations and codes of practice, and the general support from Territory business groups, you realise a great deal of work has gone into this legislation. I should make it clear there are some concerns in some areas, but overall I believe the legislation is good.
I emphasise there will be continual assessment of the act. I have been told that Safe Work Australia will meet monthly. Their job will be to listen to what industry is saying about the regulations, and if the regulations need amending, that will be the job of Safe Work Australia. It is not as if these regulations will be set in concrete forever. If there are problems with these regulations, there is the ability to go through the processes of Safe Work Australia.
Not everything may be perfect. It was always going to be difficult to harmonise eight different sets of laws, but to get there, you win some and you lose some. In the end, do we get on with the job, or just look at the negatives and lose sight of the positives of having a safe and healthy environment for working Territorians? I have looked at this legislation that way. I have spoken to NT industry peak bodies, smaller companies, and listened to people who have come to see me about their concerns. I have weighed up those concerns against the benefits of this legislation. I have thought about the importance of having a uniform process across Australia which, unfortunately, has not happened yet. However, I do not see that as a reason to stop our legislation because at least we will be in harmony with Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, the Commonwealth, and Tasmania, if it goes through the Upper House tonight.
I understand why there are delays in some of the other states, but I do not believe that harmonisation is the be-all and end-all. The be-all and end-all is creating a healthy and safe environment for working Territorians. An offshoot of that is the benefit to businesses, especially the construction industry, which does work across borders.
I also feel there is slowly a change of culture. I think it was Chris Young who told me that when they first started having meetings about OH&S some years ago, they might have 20 people turn up. Now when they talk about having an OH&S meeting, something like 200 people turn up. There has been a change in culture in relation to OH&S.
I see this process – and I will say, previously I was not a great fan of OH&S, especially if you worked where I have worked. People do take short cuts; it is probably the Territory way. In the end, if we can instil in people’s minds that everyone is responsible for safety, it does not matter whether you are the PCBU or a subcontractor …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr KNIGHT: I seek an extension of time …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is too late. Once a member’s time has expired, it cannot be extended. It has run out. I have the digital clock here and the member’s time has expired.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! When we looked at the clock, the clock was showing close on two minutes. I do not know what …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have advice from the Clerk, member for Sanderson, and I have the digital clock here. The member’s time has expired.
Mr STYLES: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, can we please get the time clock looked at and repaired because it is inconsistent with the Clerk’s clock on the desk there.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk’s clock runs that clock. I can seek some technical advice and get back to you later, member for Sanderson. However, my understanding is the member’s time has expired. I have advice from the Clerk. You cannot extend time once a member’s time has expired. Unless there are any other speakers to the debate, it is the minister in closing debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is not within or outside the capacity of this House, as a general principle, to extend a certain amount of grace with the accordance of all members. If all members in this House were prepared to offer that grace, I am sure the member for Nelson would accept it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I seek leave of all members for the member for Nelson’s time in this instance, based on the will of the House and the possible technical problem with the clock, to be extended by 10 minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I only have 30 seconds to go, but I do appreciate it. Thank you very much. That is the first sign of Christmas goodwill I have seen in this parliament all day and I appreciate it. I do not want to get emotional; I am not that sort of bloke …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, member for Fong Lim. I just wanted to say this is an extremely important bill. It is about safety and it is about protecting human life. It does not matter what we are talking about: protecting human life should be a key priority in everything we do. This is about putting responsibility back on everyone in the workforce, even if they are not covered by this legislation, to take responsibility for safety. If they see something that could cause injury, they take note of that and try to do something about it.
I have weighed up all the pros and cons of this bill, the positives and the negatives, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I take note of what the member for Fong Lim said about Work Health. I was speaking to the Cattlemen’s Association at lunchtime and someone said they had someone come to their place, walk onto the property, start taking photographs, and would not say where they were from. Eventually, they found out they were from Work Health; pulled out a certificate. I do not know how many years ago this was - so I am not trying to pick on anyone - but it took some time for that person to explain why they were on the property. The bloke said: ‘You should have had a ladder attached to the building and you should have had this and that’. Work Health has to ensure it audits itself to ensure when it sends out its message, it does not turn people off. It does not become a policeman for the sake of being a policeman. We know life is important, we know we do not want injuries and death, but if you want to bring people into this culture of good OH&S, then you need people in the department who are able to use good common sense, to be worker-friendly and user-friendly, so they do not seem to be policemen by the legislation, by the strict letter of the law. Not that they should not carry that out when required, but they are also there to explain things, to help people, because otherwise you start to get aggression, and resistance, and you do not want that.
This is important legislation. If you are to change the culture, then you have to be clever. You do not need to be overly strict in enforcing this legislation. You can explain to people the benefits of the legislation. Most people are intelligent and understand the benefits of this type of legislation and you will find they will support it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I close my comments there, thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members in this extremely important debate to pass these three pieces of legislation. It is an historic day in the Northern Territory in passing such valuable laws. As we all heard today and yesterday, these three bills are a combination of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the COAG decision in July 2008 to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation Australia-wide.
The Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 is based on the National Model Work Health and Safety Bill that was developed through a robust Australia-wide consultation process, which included comprehensive consultation with Northern Territory stakeholders. I will not go into the detail of the development of the bill and the consultation process involved as I believe other members - certainly the member for Nelson - have covered it. All those people who contributed to that process over the last three long years to get us to this point should be commended. Many have found that a difficult but rewarding process.
The main aims of the harmonising of work health and safety laws are to protect the health and safety of workers. That is the key part: the improvement of safety outcomes in the workplace; to reduce the cost on business through compliance; and to have an effective regulatory agency. The harmonisation of the work health and safety laws will have many benefits for Territorians and the whole of Australia.
There will not be complete harmonisation laws on 1 January 2012 as some jurisdictions are still working through their internal processes, as has been highlighted here today. As of today, the bills are ready to go at the Commonwealth level. New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania are still debating the legislation in their Upper House. It has passed their Lower House, and we wish them all the best with that. South Australia has passed the Lower House, has been adjourned in the Upper House, and will come back on in February. We know that Western Australia and Victoria still have delays for their introduction, but all jurisdictions are supportive and have been supportive of this at the national level. There is support; just a few jurisdictions are taking a bit longer.
In the Northern Territory, because of this government’s and this parliament’s decision in 2007 to modernise the work health and safety laws, we are very much in a position to commence these laws pretty well straightaway and by 1 January 2012. Why would we delay the laws for the Northern Territory when Territory businesses are set to benefit from these reduced complexities, the red tape involved, and increased productivity?
This bill provides for better transferability of permits, licensing, and training right across the states and across the Northern Territory borders. All this will provide further incentives and encouragement nationally and internationally for investment in the Northern Territory. One of the most significant costs to business from the existing scheme is the duplication required to comply with regulatory differences across multiple jurisdictions.
I will come to some of the concerns of members of the House, and I will start with the member for Nelson.
I acknowledge one of the worst areas of injury and fatality is in the horticultural, pastoral, and agricultural areas. That should be one of the primary areas for investment of the $2m to get people talking to businesses. I acknowledge the great work that has occurred with the department of Business and the Chamber of Commerce. They have run many occupational health and safety courses, and have been running quarterly forums over the last 12 months and have done a great job. As you say, we need to get out there on the ground with people to educate them because fatalities cost business money. Whether you are a pastoral business, an owner operator, or whatever you are, it costs money and if you can improve the standard, you will save money.
With respect to the example you gave about the pastoral company and someone going on that property, under this new legislation they will be obliged to identify themselves, and there will be a number of other requirements for permit holders. I acknowledge that situation described was unacceptable, and under this new legislation, it should be addressed. With respect to the biggest employer in the Northern Territory being the Northern Territory government, it will be required to upgrade its standard of occupational health and safety. Agencies are putting forward their bids as well; however, I acknowledge the work that needs to happen in the private sector.
Member from Port Darwin, yesterday you queried why the new codes of practice were replacing the Australian Safety Standards. As you would be aware, these laws were agreed by all jurisdictions and include a decision to minimise references to external documents in the new laws to make it clear, on the face of the law, what is required of the duty holders. You are correct, there are a number of Australian Standards called up in the existing laws - over 120 safety standards in fact - but these are documents that are outside the regulatory instrument and must be purchased separately from Standards Australia, a private organisation.
Under the model laws, there will be only nine Australian Standards referenced as law. This is not to say they have been replaced; they have been incorporated into the new regulations such that duty holders will now access the one set of regulations, and depending on their particular industry, will only be required to purchase additional standards under limited circumstances. All other Australian Standards remain a guidance tool but are no longer called into our legislation.
Member for Port Darwin, you queried the status of the codes and I can confirm that 11 codes have been made available on the commencement of this legislation. There are a further 15 which are at various stages of consultation and will be made available in early 2012. However, you misunderstood the nature of these particular codes. These are non-legal documents and neither the bill nor the regulations are dependent on these documents. The codes are only guidance documents, a bit of a how-to with respect to the regulations, which have an evidentiary value, but are not part of the law.
The use of the strict liability offences is consistent with our current act and the national agreement. It has been agreed that not all offences, in particular those with imprisonment as a penalty or those in which a mental element is fundamental - should be strict liability. If the member for Port Darwin had read the whole of the bill, this particular change would have become apparent.
You also suggested that under the bill, you are guilty until proven innocent. This is incorrect. The elements of the offence must still be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Making an offence strict liability does not avoid this requirement.
You also referred to the work health and safety entry permit holders as inspectors. Permit holders are not inspectors and do not have the same roles and functions. The role of an appropriately-trained work health and safety entry permit holder is to provide support to both workers and the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - in achieving the best safety outcomes in the particular workplace. The work health and safety entry permit holders cannot dictate what happens in the workplace.
Following on, you made a number of assertions that the protections available under a criminal prosecution such as the higher burden of proof will not be available to office holders under this civil regime. Let us be clear about that. The civil regime does not apply to the whole of this act; it applies only to Part 7, which relates to entry permit holders. These offences may be brought before the Work Health Court and civil procedures will apply. For example, a breach of these provisions must only be proven to the civil standards of the balance of probabilities. A finding of guilt will not amount to a criminal offence, and the fine is enforceable through the civil means. Where appropriate, criminal sanctions and the criminal defences that accompany them, apply.
The next concern you had, member for Port Darwin, related to the abrogation of the right to silence. This is not an action this government takes lightly. However, there are instances where the abrogation of individual rights are justified, such as where the information to be compelled concerns an issue of major public importance that has a significant impact on our community in general, or a section of the particular community. Such provisions are justified where there may be an immediate need for information to avoid risks such as the danger to human life, serious personal injury, or damage to human health, or where there is a compelling argument that the information is necessary to prevent further harm from happening, such as where health and safety in the workplace is in question.
As for how this right operates, this right is not an attempt to trick workers into giving themselves up, as such. While the member for Port Darwin may have used this right differently in the police force, this bill does not permit NT WorkSafe to force a disclosure of information, only to use such information to obtain a secondary piece of evidence on which to prosecute the person. It is true that this right does not completely exclude a person from prosecution if evidence comes to light which is independent of the information provided in the forced disclosure. A prosecution will be possible, but this cannot be derived from the information which has been provided under this power.
The opposition has concerns regarding the necessity for enforceable undertakings ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Can I just get the minister – and I am not trying to be cute – to repeat the last sentence before the one he just commenced.
Mr KNIGHT: That was in regard to prosecution for forced disclosures. I believe it was in regard to queries you made. It is true that this right does not completely exclude a person from prosecution. If evidence came to light which is independent from the information provided in the forced disclosure; that is, another person provides that information, a prosecution will be possible, but this cannot be derived from the information which has been provided under this power.
Enforceable undertakings are an alternative to prosecution. They are a tool to encourage compliance. That is, ultimately, where we want to get to; we want business and the workers to be protected. The enforceable undertaking is a tool to do that, and it is working collaboratively with PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - to educate and assist them to comply with these obligations. This cannot be achieved by simply threatening them with prosecutorial action. Enforceable undertakings are about encouraging those compliances and working collaboratively with the PCBUs. This government is committed to ensuring that improvements happening in work health and safety continue, and these are further enhancements. They are essential to improving what we do in the workplace.
While there are still injuries sustained in workplaces in the Territory, it is not good enough for us to not do anything, even if Australia is one of the best-performing nations in terms of fatalities. As a reminder, in 2006-07 Australia recorded the sixth-lowest work-related traumatic injury fatality rate. The National OHS Strategy 2002-2012 developed through Safe Work Australia sets very clear goals for work health and safety, and is the key initiative to improve Australia’s work health and safety performance.
One of these goals is to provide sustainable, safe, and healthy work environments for all Australians. Another is to reduce the number of people hurt or killed in the workplace. The national strategy sets aspirational targets to reduce the incidence of work-related death by at least 20% by 30 June 2012, and to reduce the incidence of workplace injury by up to 40%.
While it is unlikely Australia will meet this target it is a recognition that substantial improvement must be made, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels and go backwards, or even stay still, when the health of the individual in the workplace must be maintained.
We have focused on growth in the Territory and the many new construction and other projects which are on the horizon, so work health and safety must be very much centre stage. The Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 supports the implementation of the model national bill in the Territory, providing a range of necessary consequential amendments to the NT statute book.
The Work Health Administration Bill 2011 creates a standalone act for the establishment and operation of the Work Health Authority, that being the regulator, and the Work Health Court. This approach recognises that the regulator and the Work Health Court have powers and functions under more than just the new Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act.
This reform package is extremely important for Territorians, every worker in the Territory, and every business in the Northern Territory. It is a positive step forward, and it comes on the back of the great work with our current legislation which came into force in 2007. As I see it, and the member for Nelson said, business understands this. They understand that bad practices in the workplace with occupational health and safety costs them money in the hip pocket, ultimately, and it does diminish our community if our fellow community members are being hurt, or sadly, killed in the workplace.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House. It is a very big step for the Northern Territory. It is supported by business, and labour organisations. I seek the support of the House.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184):
Madam CHAIR: The question now is that the bill stand as printed ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek clarification, if I may. Your amendments are in …
Madam CHAIR: There are two amendments to Serial 185.
Mr ELFERINK: I just want to make sure I am not going to miss anything, Madam Chair, so I beg your indulgence.
Madam CHAIR: Do you have questions on Serial 185?
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, no. My questions will be in relation to Serial 186. You have amendments on 185, don’t you, Rob?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I am right.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Honourable members, we will now consider the Work Health Administration Bill 2011 (Serial 184).
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to, without amendment.
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011 (Serial 185):
Clauses 1 to 32, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 33:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 70.1. This amendment inserts a new section 32A in the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill 2011. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate a delay in the commencement of the provisions of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act in its application to mining operations. This amendment is required as it has recently been determined that the National Model Mining Regulations, which were to be adopted as part of the National Model Work Health and Safety Regulations, will not be ready for 1 January 2012.
The amendment allows for the existing regime under the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Regulations to apply in relation to mining operations, despite the repeal of the act and regulations. The proposed definition of mining operations mirrors the current definition in section 152A of the current regulations.
In the Northern Territory, the regulations specific to mining safety are contained within the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations, which are to be repealed. It is not acceptable, from a safety point of view, for these to be repealed with no replacement regulations applying to mines. Accordingly, it is proposed that the amendment to insert clause 32A will allow the existing regime to continue to apply, so there is no hiatus concerning safety for the mining industry.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, just so I am absolutely sure and for anyone else who is listening, the thrust of this amendment is to re-enliven the old act, which we are about to repeal, so it can look after the mining industry because the mining industry regulations under the new regime are not yet ready. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: In the Northern Territory, we have the Workplace Health and Safety Act and its Regulations and that has mining operations in it. As part of this national reform, that bill was to be repealed and replaced with these national laws. At the national level, because of trying to bring together all the different mining operations and different jurisdictions, those model laws and regulations are not ready.
The other option was to adapt our current regulations to the mining industry from our current act into the new bill. That is our intention, and we would hope to have that done by 1 March next year. In the meantime, we are proposing this amendment which will keep the existing act only for the purpose of maintaining those mining regulations of the current NT act. We will commence the national bill on 1 January and will then modify it. Parliamentary Counsel has done much work on adapting the current mining regulations into the new national bill and we are aiming to have those in place by 1 March. This is not ideal, but we are nearly there, and we will tidy it up in the new year.
Mr ELFERINK: So, the short answer to my questions was, yes. That being the case, the maximum length of time permitted under this new clause we are about to insert is two years. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it gives a sunset clause to it for two years. However, as I stated in the previous answer, we would hope to have the modified regulations - our regulations, not the national regulations - in place by 1 March next year. Parliamentary Counsel has been working very hard and I thank them for all the work they have been doing. They cannot get it ready for this sittings of parliament so they will be working furiously and will undertake a consultation process when they have been modified.
Mr ELFERINK: So, the short answer to that was, yes. That being the case, potentially for a period of up to two years, one industry in the Northern Territory will be working under superseded legislation and all other industries will be working under the new legislative regime. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: As I said, it is a period of, at most, three months. It is our intention to have it done by 1 March next year, so it is a fairly short period of time. This commences on 1 January and we would hope to have it in place on 1 March, which is a two-month delay.
Mr ELFERINK: However, you are asking for two years under this legislative instrument so the short answer to my question is, yes. That being the case, would you describe that circumstance where you have two legislative instruments working for different industry as harmonious, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: As I stated before, this is not an ideal situation; however, there are demands on Parliamentary Counsel and we have been working diligently to have this available for 1 January. It is good law and good for our business community. It is good for our community and we should strive to improve the occupational health and safety for our whole community. We have a small part of this legislation which is not completely tidy, but the rest is. Many jurisdictions have come on board, have agreed with the concept, and will be putting those through.
Other jurisdictions such as New South Wales have a completely separate Mining Act, and that will not be part of these laws. So, it will be slightly different in different jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory, we will have this regime for a period of two months and then after – well, we hope to have it in before, we are just giving ourselves a bit of time. We will have this national act and our new modified regulations. Then, the Workplace Health and Safety Act will be completely repealed.
Mr ELFERINK: A short answer to that question was, no. Now, dealing with the issues, we have established the fact you are going to have two industries working under different regimes in the Northern Territory. My next question is, if you only want two months, why are you asking this House for two years?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, two years actually removes it from the statute books completely.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. However, it could operate for two years under this amendment. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: My advice is, as I said, once we introduce the new regulations and …
Mr Elferink: I know what you said.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, I am giving you the answer. The advice is, as I have stated, our objective is to have the new regulations in place by 1 March, then there will be one set of regulations and one act and the old act is repealed.
Mr ELFERINK: Right. So, you are telling us you only need a couple of months. In actual fact, you are asking for two years. I love this when politicians stand up and say: ‘Do not worry about it, we are asking for it in law. Trust me, I am a politician’. Anyway, that is just an observation.
I move on, Madam Chair. I will make a few observations for the record, and if the minister wants to respond, that is up to him. For the sake of expediency of the business before this House, I find it concerning that we have an 11th-hour amendment, duly circulated in the last couple of days. I am grateful to the minister for the appropriate notification. Nevertheless, we have an 11th-hour amendment because, as a jurisdiction, we still do not have our regulations ready in relation to a specific industry, yet we are ploughing on relentlessly to this date of 1 January. Despite all the issues in other jurisdictions, in this jurisdiction alone we are not ready.
Would it not have been more simple to have a start date for all industries, so they were all singing off the same song sheet at the same time, commensurate with the last industry ready - in this case, the mining industry?
Mr KNIGHT: Let us just clarify things. Nationally, these regulations are not ready and we have …
Mr Elferink: Yes, I know.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, so what we are proposing is to retain our existing provisions within our existing act for a short period. You know the work of Parliamentary Counsel; they work very hard and very quickly. As soon as we were notified, we came up with a proposal to adapt our existing regulations, rather than wait for the national regulations - which could take quite some time, remembering that industry is involved in the development of these regulations as well at the national level.
We will have our own regulations that the mining community will be covered all the way through, either under the old act up until at least the end of February, and then under the new act after 1 February - or it may even be sooner; as soon as we can get the regulations done.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, minister, I am not going to dwell on it forever. Clearly, this jurisdiction is not yet ready. As you have indicated in your answer, the national legislative instruments are not yet ready. Yet, we hurl ourselves forward rather than taking the wise approach and waiting for a while. It is what some other jurisdictions are trying to do because they can identify these problems. I am on the record as to what the Country Liberals’ position is on this matter. I hope it does not turn to custard. I see the potential for it turning to custard and, frankly, this is a very odd way to go about organising legislative instruments, particularly in areas as important as occupational health and safety.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 70.2 standing in my name.
This amendment invites defeat of clause 33.2 of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill and replaces it with the new subclauses (2) to (5).
New subclause (2) provides that section 32, which relates to the transitional provisions and regulations made under the subclause expire after two years as to provide under the original bill.
New subclause (3) and (4) are technical amendments to ensure section 32A expires once it is no longer required.
Subclause (5) is the key subclause in that it allows for the Administrator to declare an expiry date for section 32A, when the application of the Work Health and Safety Act and Regulations to the mining industry is no longer required. Once we get those new regulations through, the old act expires.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill agreed to, with amendments.
Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill (Serial 186):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I thank the House for its indulgence in taking this bill as a whole because examination of the bill requires moving back and forth through the legislative instrument to demonstrate the points I hope to make whilst we are going through it. This is at the heart of the legislation before the House. The bills Serial 184 and Serial 185, which we have just passed through the committee stage, are the surrounding legislation of this particular bill which is Serial 186. This is the heart of the national legislation. This is, in essence, the thing that is going to be as far as possible adopted by all jurisdictions. So it is clear for people in the public gallery who may be interested in these things, this is the big kahuna.
Getting on to the big kahuna, I made some comments in my second reading speech in relation to the operation of clauses 12A and 12B of the bill. During a briefing on the legislative instrument, I described the clauses as applying what is essentially ‘absolute liability’, when in fact, these are offences of strict liability and, therefore, in my second reading speech yesterday, I would have been errant, but it was based on the answers I received during the briefing process. For the record, minister, can you advise the House as to the operation of ‘strict liability’, and how you understand it to work, particularly in relation to general defences?
Mr KNIGHT: There are two essential features of a strict liability offence. First, there is no requirement to prove a fault element, such as an intention or recklessness. It is sufficient to show that the defendant …
Mr Elferink: Or negligence.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: Or negligence, or knowledge.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want to give the answer? It is sufficient to show that the defendant did not do the prohibited act. For example, as the member for Port Darwin noted earlier, it is generally accepted that it should be a strict liability offence to exceed the speed limit where a driver did not intend to drive faster than the speed limit. This is because signs are erected, so people should take notice of the limit, and can be expected to make themselves aware of the speed limit on any given road, but not because of the potential community harm if speeding occurred on a widespread basis.
Second, member for Port Darwin, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake applies. This means if the person reasonably believes in a state of affairs; for example, a reading of a faulty gauge on a piece of plant, say a temperature gauge. If they believe the gauge is working and the reading is correct, the duty holder would not generally be liable if he or she could provide that this incorrect reading led to a breach of duty and it was reasonable to rely on this incorrect information. Generally, strict liability offences are only made in a context where a person knows, or ought to know, their legal obligations.
This is consistent with the objects of the work health and safety regime which is to ensure workers and others are provided with the highest level of protection that is reasonably applicable, and to ensure all the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - and people in workplaces have the positive duty to ensure work health and safety for everyone in the workplace to the extent of availability and influence. The approach to the application of strict liability in the bill reflects the current situation in our current Northern Territory Workplace Health and Safety Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, and the second part of that question in relation to the operation of general defences?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, can you just clarify what your belief is of general offences?
Mr ELFERINK: General defences.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, can you describe what you mean by general defences?
Mr ELFERINK: I referred to this in my second reading speech, and in fact, I made a correction. I want to make sure I understand the correction I made is the same as your understanding; that there are general defences available under the Criminal Code Act. Under clause 12B of this bill, do general defences apply?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the mistake of fact does not apply to the general defences.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. You have just told me mistake of fact actually does apply; that is, reading the gauge incorrectly. You are now telling me mistake of fact does not apply. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: It does not apply to absolute liability; it does apply to a mistake of fact.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but absolute liability is something quite different to strict liability, and these questions are pertaining to strict liability. I draw your attention to the Criminal Code Act, section 43AN and 43AO, which makes a clear distinction between strict liability and absolute liability. Here it is: the existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable. I have answered my own question. Goodness!
Mr KNIGHT: We do not have absolute liability; we are dealing with strict liability here.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are you talking about absolute liability? You introduced the topic.
Mr KNIGHT: You introduced the topic and ...
Mr Elferink: No, you talked about absolutely liability. You were telling me absolute liability does not apply …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin. The Attorney-General is on his feet addressing the question.
Mr KNIGHT: My recollection is you introduced absolute liability and it does not apply here. Strict liability does.
Mr ELFERINK: To help you, Attorney-General, in relation to absolute liability, which you referred to, it does not allow for a mistake of fact where strict liability does. For your information, Attorney-General, I draw your attention to section 43AN(3) of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act. The answer to the question is that strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable. It is an unfortunate double negative, but it means general defences do apply. It would have been nice if you could answer the question; however, we move on.
Mr KNIGHT: My recollection is you introduced the subject of absolute liability, which does not apply to this bill; it deals with strict liability. That is my recollection of the subject.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I also asked you the question about general defences which you were thunderously incapable of answering at all. My problem is you are in charge of a bill I suspect you struggle to understand the implications of. However, my point has been made.
I want to draw the minister’s attention to the general principle he outlined previously where he suggested the majority of the bill relating to offences were criminal offences with the exception of Part 7, which were civil offences. Minister, why does the legislation make a distinction for civil and criminal offences in different parts of the legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, this subject was discussed nationally and it was agreed some parts of this legislation should not be dealt with in a criminal manner - issues such as where a permit holder may enter a workplace to conduct inquiries, the rights of permit holders, and the conditions attached to work entry permits. Many of these are associated around those entry permits, and were not agreed, at the national level, to be criminal offences, but more so civil offences. Perhaps at the national level they recognised there were different levels of offence, particularly associated with the entry permits. There is an obligation that holders of the entry permit do the right thing but not in a criminal way.
Mr ELFERINK: Which draws me back to my question: why was that distinction made?
Mr KNIGHT: You are saying that someone who breaks the rule of entering a workplace - being inspected at the wrong time from what is on their entry permit - should be charged with a criminal offence rather than as a civil matter. These examples, which are listed in Part 7, are lesser offences and should be penalised, because we are putting a high standard on these permit holders, but they should not be criminal offences. That is what has been the view and that is certainly my understanding.
Mr ELFERINK: I am asking still, why the distinction is being made. I have half an answer at this stage. Can you tell me, if you think these are not so serious, why on earth are you prepared to make an individual part with $10 000 if it is not that serious? I still do not understand why the distinction is being made. Surely, if you want to make it a less serious offence, you still apply the criminal law and just simply a much smaller fine?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the civil penalty regime is also being applied to provide consistency in approach with other jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth Fair Work Act. It has been discussed nationally and agreed that these lesser offences should only be penalised through the civil proceedings. I have described some of the permit holder’s required conduct and their rights in the workplace when they enter a workplace. These are lesser offences and should be dealt with - and this has been the national view - by civil proceedings.
Mr ELFERINK: I make the observation, of course, that if the rest of the country jumped off a cliff, it does not necessarily follow that we have to follow. However, pressing on, can you describe for me what the effect of a civil proceeding is and how is it different to a criminal proceeding?
Mr KNIGHT: Regarding an offence which we have described in Part 7, these proceedings for breach of that section will be brought into the Work Health Court, which is part of the legislation we have already passed, and civil proceedings will apply. For example, a breach of these provisions will only be proven to the civil standard of the balance of probability. A finding of guilt will not amount to a criminal offence and a fine is enforced through civil means.
Mr ELFERINK: I will repeat the question. Can you describe for me what the difference between a civil and criminal proceeding are, without reference to the legislation?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is a committee stage of a bill relating to workers rehabilitation and important issues like that. This is not a tutorial in Law 101 where the member for Port Darwin wants to show us how much he knows as an academic lawyer. I call relevance on this. It is just an extraneous form of questioning and the intent is obvious. If the member is serious about the bill, we will get back to the bill. If he wants to go to a tutorial, he should take himself off to CDU.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the comments made by the Leader of Government Business, this bill deals with civil and criminal offences. This bill is an expression of the will of the parliament of the Northern Territory and its proponent and proposer should be able to describe how the bill will operate. This question goes to the very heart of two systems which are described in the bill. I want to be able to determine that the proponent of the bill understands what is in it.
Mr KNIGHT: I have described the proceedings under civil proceedings. Obviously, the criminal proceedings will go through the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or they will go through the Supreme Court, as you would expect, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah! How hard was that! Can you still tell me what the implications are? I am asking what is different then. How does it operate differently when one goes through the civil process, as described in the bill - and there is a whole bunch of sections on it? I direct the honourable member to section 254 onwards which outlines the procedure quite fulsomely. I would like to know the minister’s understanding of how that process will work in a civil environment and how it will work in a criminal environment. So far I have not received anything like an answer in relation to it.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, I have described the procedure through the Work Health Court for a civil proceeding, and for a criminal offence, it will follow the normal criminal procedures through the DPP, and through the criminal court, whether it be the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court. I do not know if you are asking whether any sort of change in the civil and the criminal procedures occurs here, but the normal criminal procedures, as for any other criminal offence, will be undertaken here as they are normally done.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, my concern is that your civil offence, as you describe it, still carries a penalty of $10 000 for an individual and $50 000 for a corporation. Those are offences particularly in relation to Part 7 of the bill which deals with workplace entry by permit holders.
What concerns me, minister, is if you go in front of the Work Health Court -tribunal, whatever you want to call it - the civil process robs a person of a whole bunch of rights when they stand to cop what is, for all its flavour and intent, a fine of a criminal nature. To incur this civil debt, as you understand it, what you still have to do is front a court and be proven to be doing something wrong, to a much lower standard of proof, and then you can cop as much as a $10 000 fine, which goes ouch, and still looks like a fine to me. In fact, it is described as a penalty in the legislation.
Minister, do you agree that a person who is going through the civil process described in this legislation will have to make full disclosure to the prosecuting authority of all elements they intend to raise in their defence prior to walking into the courtroom?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, in the civil proceedings, as you would be aware, you are required to give full disclosure, so that is what you would naturally do. You talked about the penalty of $10 000, but you can have a penalty of $1. It is up to the court to decide, on the evidence in front of them and the type of offence you have breached, so we are leaving it up to the court to make a decision based on the evidence, the situation, and the implications of what has occurred. Yes, there is a maximum penalty, but there is also a minimum penalty of $1, or zero, but you do not go to gaol as well. There is obviously a lesser penalty, because if you are in the criminal court and you did something fairly significant, you would go to gaol. It is a different style of proceedings. This process was decided at the national level with industry involved.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you keep saying that, but I draw your attention to the inside cover of the bill, minister, just so we are clear on this. It says on the top of the inside cover of the bill ‘Northern Territory of Australia’. We are not talking about legislation from other jurisdictions and we are not talking about Commonwealth legislation. We are talking about Northern Territory legislation and how it will operate in the Northern Territory.
You can say this was discussed at the national level until you are blue in the face. Frankly, I do not care what other jurisdictions do. I care about law that has integrity in it in this jurisdiction. Whilst it has ‘Northern Territory of Australia’ written on the inside of the bill and we are standing in the Northern Territory parliament I will continue to ask questions. I could do this for hours, and I am not going to, because we have other business before this House.
The fact is if you go through this process, you are deprived through the civil process of full disclosure, so there is no right. If you are charged with a criminal offence, you have the right to silence, except in this legislation, but we will get back to that later. You have a right to silence; you have the right to maintain your defence until you get to court. The prosecution has to fully lay their case out in a criminal matter so the court can see whether there is prima facie evidence, all those sorts of things.
In a civil approach, the poor old punter is going to be told: ‘You have done this thing wrong and we are going to take you through the civil process, so if you are going to raise a defence, mate, do it before you walk into this house so we can have the arguments prepared’, etcetera. The exposure through that process of a person pursued under the civil process concerning their rights is much lower than a person charged with a criminal offence. In this instance where you are talking about rights of entry, and someone comes into your workplace and accuses you of breaching the law in relation to this particular part, you will have limited options in how you deal with that allegation.
A person accused of murder has more rights when they are charged with a criminal offence than an employer charged with a civil prosecution, or when a civil prosecution is being pursued under this legislative instrument. You sit there and say: ‘There is no criminal record’. Mate, if I was slugged, and any employer in a small business was slugged a $10 000 fine and was deprived of things like right to silence and of any defence against secondary evidence, physical evidence, or documentary evidence divulged during the breach of the right to silence, then what you have is, in my opinion, an injustice. And what you are asking this House to do is to perpetrate an injustice.
I could understand introducing workplace legislation which makes all offences criminal offences. At least the defences available under the criminal law would apply and be available to a person charged. But this smells, looks, and feels like nothing more than prosecutorial convenience. It is a poor legislative instrument indeed that will change the law for the sake of prosecutorial convenience and set aside some of what I consider the most important principles of law in this country. It is for this reason, in my opinion, this is bad, bad, bad legislation. It is badly written, badly considered, and has poor outcomes for the people who will be prosecuted under it.
Mr KNIGHT: That was a statement, wasn’t it?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it was; you do not have to reply. Actually, I will keep going then on one other thing whilst I am on my feet. You made the comment - and I asked you to repeat it during your wrapping up - in relation to the right to silence. Correct me if I am wrong – under this power this cannot be derived from information achieved or received. I did not quite understand it. I understood that to mean that if a person, an investigator, becomes aware of information, which can be information such as the location of documentary information made under an admission, whilst the information or the admission is not admissible under the rules of this legislation, is other evidence obtained as a result of that admission admissible or not?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, it has to be a second source of evidence, a second person providing that information. In your example, if a person is required to give a forced disclosure about some documents, those documents cannot be used against that person. However, if another person says that is where the documents are, that evidence could be used because it was a disclosure made by another person.
Mr ELFERINK: That is contrary to the briefing I received. Listening to that, can you direct me, in a legislative instrument, to where it says that?
Mr KNIGHT: I have been referred to section 172(2). It is not exactly the way I said it, but that is apparently the way it operates, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am reading it carefully now because I am trying to reconcile what you said and what I read here. Would you agree there is a qualification in section 172(2)?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, for clarification, the advice I have is they will be prosecuted for the false and misleading information listed in clause 172(2) but not for the admission they give about the evidence.
Mr ELFERINK: That is my point. I have no truck with the structure of this section:
(1) A person is not excused from answering a question or providing information or a document under this Part on the ground that the answer to the question, or the information or document, may tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.
There goes your right to silence.
(2) However, the answer to a question or information or a document provided by an individual is not admissible as evidence against that individual in criminal or civil proceedings …
Up to that point, before we get to the qualification, if I make admissions when I am being questioned, those admissions are not admissible. If I then provide a document directly as a result of those questions, once again, that is not admissible. What I am asking, before we get to the point of the qualification is, if in that admission there is some third party evidence which is discovered, is that evidence admissible?
Mr KNIGHT: I believe you have jumped a couple of things there. If I say the member for Brennan has a heap of chocolate bars stolen from Speaker’s Corner, which may be true, that cannot be used. We stole it, so it cannot be used against me, but it can incriminate him. It can be used against a third party.
Mr ELFERINK: No, no. You have completely missed my point. Perhaps I should give an example, because that was about as clear as mud …
A member: Let us get away from the chocolate bars.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, let us get away from the chocolate bars, minister. Let me give you an example. An investigator walks into a workplace, the investigator sees what the investigator believes to be an offence against this legislation - some type of unsafe work practice. The investigator then goes to see the person with carriage and responsibility for the workplace and says: ‘I want you to answer some questions regarding what I believe is an offence over there’. The person says: ‘All right, I know I am obliged under this legislation to speak to you, but I am relaxed about speaking to you because I know anything I say of a self-incriminatory nature will not in any way expose me to a prosecution, because the act says I cannot be prosecuted on the basis of those admissions. Hell! I even have a document here, which I hand over, that is not admissible either’.
However, if as the investigator I am told something, and because of what I am told I inspect something else that I would not have otherwise - it is only because of the admission made I discover some evidence which is neither documentary or directly related to the person who made the admission, and I take a photograph of it which demonstrates an unsafe work practice, is that contemporaneous documentary evidence in this case admissible, or not?
Mr KNIGHT: I will just run through your scenario, member for Port Darwin. An inspector enters a workplace where an incident or an unsafe practice is occurring. They would initially try to gather information themselves so they could find out exactly who was responsible, or what was responsible, and they can gather voluntary information to be used as evidence. If they believe there is further information they have not been able to gather from an individual, they would have to give a written notice to that person about the requirement to provide that information, and that person would then be aware of the fact that it could not be used in evidence against them.
Mr ELFERINK: It is like talking to someone who replies in Latin. Minister, you are not even close to what I am talking about.
I will give you an example, if it helps. A police officer is investigating a crime, a stabbing - I used this example in my second reading debate. The police officer speaks to the accused person, who makes certain admissions. As a result of those admissions, the police officer goes down the street, pulls up the lid of a drain, and sees a knife. On that knife is the DNA of the victim and the offender – pretty damning evidence.
It is by no means evidence which has been handed to the police officer, and in the instance of the police officer who does not even rely in a criminal prosecution on the admissions made - for whatever reason they are ruled as inadmissible – he or she can still rely on the physical evidence they found. How it goes in a court case is like this: the police officer says: ‘Your Honour, I had a conversation with the defendant. As a result of that conversation, I went down the street, looked in the drain, and found the knife’. Whilst the admissions are inadmissible, the secondary physical evidence removed from the drain – which had nothing to do with the admissions, other than the fact that you got it there - is that secondary physical evidence admissible in spite of the fact that it was obtained because of a requirement under section 172? Normally, it is.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, I am advised that that secondary evidence may not be admissible, but it would be up to the court to determine on the admission, whether it is admissible or not. Obviously, the inspectors - or the police officer in your case - suspected someone, they would try to gather that information through voluntary means or by doing a physical search to try to get the evidence they require without forcing it out of someone where they could not use that in that situation. What I am saying is that secondary evidence may or may not be used in the court; it would be up to the court to decide.
Mr ELFERINK: Now, I have gotten to where I wanted to be. It is up to a court, absolutely. But the point is, the court then makes a determination. It is conceivable under this legislative instrument that despite the fact that any admissions made are not available in a criminal or civil prosecution, any subsequent information arising from that information could well be used. That, in my opinion, does not capture the intent of what you say the point of this legislation is. It removes the right of silence and whilst the self-incriminatory statement cannot be used, any subsequent and further information can be used as evidence. That is only a partial protection against the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. That is a statement; it does not require comment.
Madam Chair, I want to ask the minister to take me through these enforceable undertakings. Minister, can you describe, for the average punters sitting in the public gallery, how these enforceable undertakings work, what do they do, and how you anticipate them operating?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, the regulator will continue to be able to enter into these enforceable undertakings as an alternative to prosecution. They can be brought forward by, say, a business which has done poor work practice, or an offence, or an unsafe work environment. They can come into an enforceable undertaking as an alternative to prosecution where the regulator accepts one given to them by the person alleged to have breached the act and regulations.
Currently, these are provided under section 80 of the act. However, enforceable undertakings are only for the lesser level of offences. Category 1 offences for the serious contraventions cannot have enforceable undertakings. These enforceable undertakings are about encouraging compliance and working collaboratively with the PCBUs - person conducting a business or undertaking - to educate and assist them. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we want safe working environments and safety for workers. Where an employer has been found to have done the wrong thing, they may give an undertaking to rectify a situation in their workplace, whether it be a procedural or a physical problem in the workplace. It is a way of getting, at the end of the day, a safer workplace. The mechanism is there, but it is not there for the more serious offences where there has been an extremely dangerous situation provided.
Mr ELFERINK: From that description, minister, I understand that it is almost in the flavour or the nature of, if you like, a contract; an agreement reached between the enforcement body and the potential offender. Is that a reasonable, general summation?
Mr KNIGHT: It is an agreement, not a contract. As the term implies, it is enforceable and there is a penalty if it is not undertaken. It is a mechanism to get the workplace rectified and provide a safe working environment.
Mr ELFERINK: Under this legislation, is there required to be an admission by the person in charge of the suspect workplace before these undertakings can be entered into? The answer is yes, by the way, if that helps.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, on the face of it, there is no true admission, but if the employer suggests, or is keen to work with the inspector to enter into an enforceable undertaking, it is a bit of an admission …
Mr Elferink: Hallelujah, we got there!
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it is a bit of an admission, but it is another way through. We want to work with employers to get there. Ultimately, some may be a little more difficult than others, and this is the way of doing it. This is the way of not beating them over the head, but having another mechanism where we can get there, where people can be safe and employers can change their work practices or their work sites.
Mr ELFERINK: Hallelujah, we got there! Of course, there has to be admission. It would be a very strange undertaking if you walked into a workplace as an inspector and said: ‘Go and fix that’. ‘Nah, there is nothing wrong with it’. Or, ‘Here is your undertaking’. It does not work. There has to be an admission. That is the only way this system could possibly work. You used the word ‘agreement’ before. Precisely right; it has to be an agreement. Why you have to wrestle around for such a long time over such an obvious answer is confusing to me, but there you go.
That leads me to my next issue. Currently, under any form of regulatory instrument, there is a common law power of discretion for any investigator or regulatory officer, unless it is expressly removed, which means it is quite possible for a regulatory officer to walk into an unsafe workplace and say: ‘Mate, not happy about the fact that your grinding wheel has no cover over it. You should put a cover over it, and if you do not, I will prosecute you. What do you reckon?’ The owner of the workplace says: ‘Oh, yes, all right, fair cop, I will get the cover over it’. ‘Mate’, says the inspector, ‘I am going to be back next week. If you have not done it, I will prosecute you for unsafe work practices’.
What is the difference between that and the multitude of provisions required under these enforceable agreements in practical terms?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Port Darwin, what you described was where an inspector would issue an improvement notice for a situation they want remedied correctly and instantly, or within a certain time. The enforceable undertaking is something the employer agrees to, in collaboration with the inspector. There are two different types of situations. All those things are in the toolbox available to both the employer and the regulator in this case, and the court, ultimately, as well. It is all available and all about improving the workplace for both the worker and the business involved.
Mr ELFERINK: You have the improvement notices, you have enforcement notices, you have common law power of discretion, which by the way, is such a wide power that it covers improvement notices and enforceable undertakings; it really does.
This is an idea, and one of the things I will make a more general comment about. Something that gives me the ‘irrits’ about this type of legislative instrument - when it is drafted, someone has a good idea in an office somewhere and thinks they are going to do this great thing: create enforceable undertakings where we get agreements from other parties and we will have improvement notices because that is a written version of doing the same thing - get that fixed by next week or otherwise I will prosecute you. It is all the same thing. It makes no practical improvement on the common law power of discretion.
The only thing it could be an improvement on is the record keeping for evidentiary purposes, but anyone worth their salt makes enough notes of this type of thing to cover off on that anyhow. In short, it is gumph, and another reason it is simply bad law. Anything in Part 11 of this bill could be achieved under the common law power of discretion. That is an observation; it does not require an answer.
Madam Chair, I have covered briefly the issues that are wrong with this legislation, both philosophical and wrong, in my opinion, at law. I have nothing further to add to my criticism of this bill other than to point out it is deficient in a whole bunch of ways. It does not make good philosophical sense; it is bad law in how it enables prosecutions, particularly under Part 7 of the legislation.
I understand the common defence for the passage of this legislation will always be: ‘This is all about workers’ rights. We do not want to see dead people’. Of course, we do not want to see dead people. I do not want to see dead people and I do not want to see workers injured. I have done coronial investigations when Riley Chin Quan was knocked into the hold of a boat in Darwin Harbour - he fell 15-odd metres into the hull of a boat, landed on his head, and it killed him instantly.
I am aware of the need for occupational health and safety, but it does not reasonably stack up that the haste for occupational safety automatically justifies departures from what I consider to be fundamental and common legal practices. This bill is wrong. I do not care what other jurisdictions do; as far as the members of the Country Liberals and I are concerned, if bad legislation is enacted in every other jurisdiction, it does not follow that we have to do the same here.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is unusual for people to speak in third reading speeches but never has a bill passed through this House which has been so badly captained as this bill. I am frustrated to an extraordinary degree by the lack of understanding the minister has brought to this legislative instrument, which is obvious to any third party. Whilst I appreciate the minister is new to his role, he could have done a great deal more to prepare himself for the passage of this legislation. This stuff is not rocket science. As far as we are concerned, and as I said before, whilst we appreciate this bill will pass because the government desperately wants to get this legislative instrument through, this is bad law.
Nothing I heard through the committee stage gave me any comfort that this law was not as bad as I thought it was at the outset. It is bad law because it does not give a person the comfort they would normally be given during a criminal, or for that matter civil, prosecution.
People charged with murder, rape, and paedophilia have more rights than employers do under this legislative instrument when it comes to being prosecuted under these laws. For that reason, this is bad law. Never mind the issue of worker protection, which is important and we do not stand against, and never mind the issue of harmonisation which we support, what is in this legislative instrument is simply wrong and should not be allowed to pass through any right-thinking parliament. I do not mean that in a political sense, just in what is good law and what is bad law.
The passage of this bill through other parliaments demonstrates that the same lack of critical thinking has been applied in those instances. As far as I am concerned, the lack of critical thinking applied by this government to this bill is now available for all to see and hear and read in Parliamentary Record. We signed up to this in a COAG agreement and everyone has to get all excited about the COAG agreements and now that whole agreement is rattling to pieces around this country; but never mind, we press on.
As far as I am concerned, this is bad law, and I certainly do not want to have my name attached to it.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
(Serial 183)
(Serial 183)
Continued from 25 October 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that the passage of this bill will be a whole lot less difficult than the passage of the last bill, primarily for the reason that we have no desire to oppose what is contained in this legislative instrument.
The purpose of this bill is to make minor amendments to the following legislation: Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, Absconding Debtors Act, Associations Act, Interpretation Act, Summary Offences Act, Food Act, Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act, Care and Protection of Children Act, Darwin Port Corporations Act, Liquor Act, Marine Act, Mineral Titles Act, Unit Titles Schemes (Management Modules) Regulations and the Unit Titles (Management Modules) Regulations.
These type of bills are not uncommon in the House. Whilst this bill does more than merely dot some i’s and cross some t’s by inserting whole new sections, it does not offend common sense. Consequently, I am satisfied that the bill should pass through all stages in the House here today.
In relation to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, the new section 10A refers to decisions under section 10 to continue in some circumstances. The bill introduces a new section so an existing ministerial determination can continue, despite the making of a new classification determination by the Administrator.
The existing system required the minister to make a new determination every time a minister made a new classification determination, even if the new determination did not impact on the statutory body. This amendment appears to be a commonsense solution to improve the efficient administration of the system - and so say all of us.
Clause 8 of the bill: the current situation is the Remuneration Tribunal determines entitlements, but occasionally leaves certain details to be decided, endorsed, or approved by another. The amendment expressly follows a determination to specify a person to whom certain functions can be delegated. The new provisions allow that specified person to make decisions on administrative matters and to approve alternative entitlements because of special circumstances to avoid hardships, or as specified in the determination. There is nothing controversial coming out that I can glean and, consequently, the opposition will not be opposing the provisions.
The Interpretation Act amendment is very straightforward: it plays with z’s and s’s; no issues there. In relation to the Food Act, the amendment allows the Chief Health Officer to specify a date when food businesses’ registration expires. Currently, the requirement is 1 July each year.
Having said that, and already bored everyone to the point of tears, the opposition supports this bill and will allow its passage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Speaker, after the previous bill, this looks like a fairly minor bill, but I still have a question about section 83. I thank the department for the briefing. In relation to the sale and disposal of food businesses, it says:
(1) If the proprietor of a registered food business sells or otherwise disposes of the food business or other property used in relation to carrying on the operations of the food business, the proprietor must, in an approved form, notify the Chief Health Officer of the sale or disposal not later than 14 days after the date of sale or disposal.
I understand it is a relatively minor thing, but I believe it needs an explanation, because I would not want to see someone getting pinged 100 penalty units if you decide to sell the frying pan because you had not notified the Chief Health Officer. Otherwise, I do not have any problems with the bill. It is one of those, I suppose some people might call them boring bills, just amending bits and pieces here and there, and replacing z’s with s’s and other exciting things like that, but just in this particular issue, I would like the Chief Minister to give an explanation.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Speaker, this is an omnibus bill to tidy up and sort out various legislation. It is quite common to have these bills before the House. The main reason I have carriage is I am responsible for the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Entitlements) Act. This is a key act being amended.
I thank the opposition for its support for this. The member for Nelson’s essential question was: ‘Does this mean the food business operators will be responsible for monitoring the expiry date of the registration’. The answer is no; this does not mean the food business will be responsible for monitoring the expiry date of their registration. The food business owner will have to have a general idea when the registration renewal is due, just like a car registration, although the Department of Health normally notifies the food business well in advance of the required renewal date to ensure seamless renewal of the registration.
The question you had is, on expiry of that registration, who is going to tell the Chief Health Officer? My understanding is that is the responsibility of the department to send out those renewal notices. I will just get advice on that.
As I thought, member for Nelson, if the operator of the business decides not to renew their licence, then when the licence falls due and has not been renewed, it will be deemed to be no longer operating. There is no requirement for the holder of the licence to advise the Chief Health Officer that they are not going to renew the licence. That is what I am told ...
Mr Wood: That is not what section 83(1) says.
Mr HENDERSON: I am quite happy to have a committee stage discussion about this.
Mr Wood: I think we can do it outside the Chamber.
Mr HENDERSON: We will do it outside. I do not think it goes to the fundamentals of the bill. I am also advised that if someone decides to sell the rotisserie or the fridge, they do not have to tell the Chief Health Officer either. We will meet out the back, member for Nelson.
With those few words, Madam Acting Speaker, this is just tidying up some legislation across the statutes. I thank honourable members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Office of Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Note Paper – Office of Auditor-General - October 2011 Report
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, this report submitted to the Assembly covers matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. The report covers the results of performance management system audits and compliance audits to assess the adequacy of controls over the administration of public money. Our government is committed to open and transparent government and we value the work of the independent Auditor-General in the process of ensuring transparency and accountability.
Of the agency compliance audits where issues were raised by the Auditor-General, agencies have accepted the findings and are taking remedial actions regarding the issues identified. I say this every time I speak of an Auditor-General’s report, but it is always in my memory. When we came to government in 2001, I was on the Public Accounts Committee and we were briefed by the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers. One of his major complaints was that he would make reports to the Legislative Assembly and they would go nowhere. There was no response from agencies and, indeed, agencies were not required to make a response.
He did not overtly say this, but I and members from our side were given the very strong impression from Iain Summers that he felt in some cases agencies were snubbing their nose at him and his findings, and he did not feel his work was valued.
As government, we set about to change that and we require agencies to submit a response, in general, to the reports of the Auditor-General. Agencies might not always agree with the findings of the Auditor-General, and in some cases over the years we found agencies disagreed in some ways, but that disagreement is always put in a polite way, or the agency points to difficulties in what the Auditor-General may be requiring it to do. It is always done with courtesy. I would say in 95% of cases, agencies comply and flag in a response to the Auditor-General’s report that it will address the issues raised by the Auditor-General’s report. It is always open to the Auditor-General and members of this parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, to ask questions of the Auditor-General - whether he believes issues are followed up on. Essentially, it is a way of ensuring honest and accountable government.
As minister for Education, I am the minister responsible for the acts which establish the Charles Darwin University and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. Whilst the Auditor-General had some comments in relation to Charles Darwin University and the Batchelor Institute, he did not put in a qualification in his audit in relation to his findings.
He made comment about the Charles Darwin University Foundation, an organisation I commend. It is a way people with philanthropic intent, or corporations with philanthropic intent, can bestow gifts upon Charles Darwin University to assist the university in its operations, and in being a university. It might sound a silly thing to some people, but universities have many roles in our community. Charles Darwin University is very intent on its art collection, and it has a fantastic collection of art. They are very interested through the various gardens - they have a Chinese garden and an Indonesian garden - in the amenity of the campus. For those of us who are going to school or university, it is good to be able to study and attend somewhere that is uplifting, where it is a pleasure to be, with an amenity conducive to study, community, and the ongoing function of the institution.
The Auditor-General’s key finding was:
- … in previous years, there are instances where in-kind donations are provided to the foundation without supporting evidence to substantiate the donors’ advice as to the value of the donations. However, the risk of misstatement of the financial performance or financial position of the foundation is not considered to be material given that in-kind donations are recorded as income and expense in the same period in which they are received.
This and previous audits have also identified a weakness in the control over the receipt of ‘over the counter’ cash donation. However, as the amounts received by this method occur relatively infrequently, I did not consider it necessary to qualify my audit opinion in relation to the completeness of the revenue.
Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor of the university, will take into account these comments by the Auditor-General. He does make other comment, which I am sure other members will pick up on in relation to Mataranka Station. I think we are all aware of the public issues there. He made the comment:
- While the university conducted a muster and count of animals at the end of 2010, I was not able to satisfy myself that the number of animals recorded was reliable. However, the possible discrepancies in stock numbers were not considered sufficiently material to warrant any adverse comment in my audit opinion on the financial statements as the value of the biological assets represented less than 2% of the total value of the university’s non-current assets at December 2010.
It is difficult to get an exact number of animals counted. Everyone is aware of the varying views of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General on this issue. I understand that conversation is probably ongoing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I digress. There are a number of other ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! What an outrageous insult really. He should correct the record.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: I am not offended, and I am sure it was an oversight.
Dr BURNS: What did I say?
Mr ELFERINK: You said ‘Mr Acting Deputy Speaker’.
Dr BURNS: Oh, my glasses have fogged up. It must be the humidity of the Wet Season. I do apologise. I think he was in the seat when I started. I was very intent on the report of the Auditor-General, which makes riveting reading, and I did not notice, member for Port Darwin, there had been a change of who was in the seat. We are nearly at the end of seven sitting days and extraordinary vagueness on my part, I am sure, will be forgiven by you, Madam Acting Speaker, and all members in this place.
Madam ACTING SPEAKER: No offence taken, minister.
Dr BURNS: The Auditor-General made comment about a performance management system audit in the housing system. He said, in his opinion ‘the department had developed a performance management system for both urban public housing and remote indigenous housing’. He also said the system was still to be extended to include government employee housing.
That is an important element of the audit. I was nearly going to digress into the issue which arose in Question Time about the sale of public housing; the issue originally raised by the member for Sanderson. I hope that if the opposition want to debate it at another time - I do not know how it is particularly relevant here – but I suppose we are talking about audits. The member for Sanderson made an error in his calculations when he talked about the number of public housing properties sold by the government. He simplistically took a number from a report in 2001 and compared it to a number, I think, in 2006-07. What he did not do was see the footnote which said at one time - I think it was at the 2006-07 figures - it did not include government employee housing which number about 1500 properties. If you take the 1500 away from the 2100, or whatever the number was, it comes to the 600 or 700 I am saying government sold in that period.
That is the explanation to you, member for Sanderson. I am more than happy to debate it at any time; I am more than happy to sit down with you with the reports. I always have them in a little file down here beside my desk at the ready. I also have a set of figures compiled by the department. It did take them some time, I have to say - probably a bit longer than I would have liked - but I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Those numbers, by region, etcetera, are very clear about who sold what over what period. As I said in Question Time today, I do not think it is a wholly negative thing, because to some degree, many Territorians got equity in their houses, both under the previous government and this government.
I have a couple of figures when you really ramped up the sales towards the end of the 1990s, when you had quite a few thousand people on the waiting list, so it is bit rich for the opposition to be criticising the government when they were selling houses at an extremely high rate towards the end of the 1990s.
There is a moratorium on the sale of public housing that I put on, and I am going to make some announcements in the next few weeks about plans for the management of our stock over the next 10 years, and I want to remove that moratorium as soon as I can. I want to see people getting equity in their houses. I want to see sales resume, and there will be some parameters around those sales. I digress.
The key findings the Auditor-General made in relation to the department:
- The department has invested significant time and effort in developing a standard performance management system capable of being implemented for each of the department’s output areas in respect of Territory Housing services. At the time of the audit, the system had been implemented for the output areas of urban public housing, and remote Indigenous housing, with government employee housing still to be implemented.
The department commented:
- The development of a robust performance management system for GEH is a priority for the agency in 2011-12.
There are other findings, other audits, and systems audits of other agencies. The Auditor-General raised some issues about compliance issues with procurement directions and procurement policies, weaknesses in the reconciliation of accountable officers’ trust funds, lack of compliance with Treasurer’s Directions, deficiencies in controls over fixed assets, and weaknesses in internal audit procedures. A number of agencies, including the Department of the Legislative Assembly, made comments, and in general, there is an acknowledgement of issues of some weaknesses and a desire, will, plan, and commitment by these agencies to remedy the issues.
What we have to take into account is, whilst we are not the largest jurisdiction in Australia, we certainly have significant expenditure through our budget. I believe our annual budget, and the Treasurer might correct me if I am wrong, is somewhere around the $3bn mark. That is a significant amount of expenditure.
We value the efforts and expertise of the Auditor-General to independently go into systems, have a look, and make recommendations. I commend the work of the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness. He is a very special type of person. He is the type of statutory officer who is very constructive in what he says. He is not destructive. He is not completely critical about things; he recognises difficulties. He works cooperatively with agencies and CEOs to get positive results. I believe that is a better way. If the big stick needs to come out sometimes, I have no doubt the Auditor-General will bring out the big stick. I believe it is better to work cooperatively and collaboratively with agencies, and I know agencies appreciate the way Frank McGuiness operates, the way he raises issues and asks them how they might address those issues. In some cases, he makes positive and constructive suggestions about how they might be addressed. I will leave it there.
I notice some issues in relation to Territory Discoveries’ Calypso system, which is, as I recall, a reservation system. There are risks in that just one person seems to have most of the knowledge about the system. Tourism NT has commented about Calypso, and about how it might remedy the issues. I know the Tourism Minister might also have some comments about it. It is a computer-based system. The Chief Executive of Tourism NT has responded very positively, accepting the findings of the audit, and quickly moving to strengthen user access controls as recommended by the Auditor-General. He has also ensured improvements to the governance through heightened management awareness of the Calypso system, and he has worked to reduce the risk arising from key knowledge of this business system resting with just one person.
We thank the Auditor-General. Territory Discoveries is a very important organisation, a very important element of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. It comes under some criticism sometimes. It is criticised and some of the criticism comes from operators who feel it may present competition to them, and it is unfair competition because government funds it. I heard those complaints when I was minister, and I am sure other ministers have also heard those complaints.
As minister I heard the overwhelming support, particularly by the smaller tourism operators, in relation to Territory Discoveries. I am almost certain the member for Fong Lim, as part of his agenda when he was shadow Tourism minister, wanted to sell Territory Discoveries. I heard him a few times in this House, and I was a bit concerned with what the member for Fong Lim had to say. Interstate, there has been sales of similar entities and, essentially, all those tourism operators who had used the entities similar to Territory Discoveries interstate were left high and dry. The organisation or company that bought the equivalent of Territory Discoveries was not interested in that end of the market.
I do not believe government - any government - in the Northern Territory should consider selling Territory Discoveries. There is much we can do within government - work between Treasury and Territory Discoveries about various aspects. In my view, and it is probably more a personal view I am expressing here, I would not like to see us sell Territory Discoveries.
I am just a bit wary the opposition, obviously – well, not obviously; one would hope they are going to come out with a tourism policy coming into the 2012 election. All they seem to be interested in doing is moving motions on General Business Day and by so doing, they are going to push out any legislative agenda they have had because they will all be up with the easy picking fruit, speak on a motion, etcetera. They will not be putting forward any alternative legislative …
Mr Elferink: I have had three bills.
Dr BURNS: You will be focusing on your little puff pieces of motions. We are going to be inundated by puff pieces of motions. We will have puff pieces coming out of our ears every General Business Day. We will be sick of the puff pastry of the puff pieces because there is no filling – there is no meat inside those puff pieces. It is not very good pastry, it is not very nourishing. Yesterday, we must have seen 15 or 20 motions, all puff pieces. We will see what they do next year; whether they have an important policy on tourism where they put before the tourism industry their intentions for important entities like Territory Discoveries.
I digress, Madam Acting Speaker. I commend the Auditor-General’s October 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly to this House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Speaker, with the exception of the comments directed at the Country Liberals by the Leader of Government Business, pretty much ditto in his observations directly relating to the Auditor-General’s report. When he is not talking politics, he talks sense, and I quite enjoy listening to him and many of his contributions.
I was hoping he was going to touch on the obligation to return unspent grant monies to the Commonwealth from the Batchelor Institute. I was not here for the whole of the Education minister’s response in relation to this. I will check Hansard but did you touch on the return of grant monies by the Batchelor Institute to the Commonwealth?
Dr Burns: No, I did not touch on that.
Mr ELFERINK: I was just wondering about that, and I am not suggesting any wrongdoing. I would be concerned if the Batchelor Institute lost $6m it might otherwise have been entitled to. Perhaps some other mechanism can be found to inform me of that. Perhaps a chat behind the room later on would probably do it.
I note the Auditor-General made comments about the Darwin Port Corporation and the key findings were:
- The audit raised several issues regarding the nature and quality of managerial reporting and these included an absence of performance targets that would enable the corporation to assess the extent to which it was likely to achieve longer-term targets set for the corporation under the NT government’s 2030 strategy.
I note the Darwin Port Corporation has responded positively. I confess I was a little surprised, particularly when the Auditor-General briefed the PAC as to what was occurring at the Darwin Port Corporation - that what was occurring actually was occurring. It did not make for good managerial practices. I note the Auditor-General made those comments in his report and I take comfort that the Darwin Port Corporation has responded to it, and there are improvements at the Darwin Port Corporation. Time will tell in annual reports from the Darwin Port Corporation as to whether these improvements percolate their way into actual results.
In the Department of Health, CareSys, which is their clinical patient management system, the key finding was:
- There was a limited evidence of a formal risk assessment having been performed of the CareSys environment and a number of deficiencies were identified in relation to security policies, procedures, and standards.
It is a Treasurer’s Direction that each department has its own audit committee operating, which must meet on a quarterly basis. I hope the Health Department will pay attention to this, but it is clear the audit processes within the departments are still not picking up all the problems departments face because one would hope the department itself would recognise these issues.
IT security has been an issue for the Auditor-General for some time, and in previous reports, IT security has been criticised across departments. Similarly so, and referred to by the Leader of Government Business, issues in the IT system called Calypso, which is attached to Territory Discoveries, drew notice from the Auditor-General.
I ask the Treasurer to reassure this House that her directions on the performance of these audit committees are being complied with, as I am surprised to continually see negative reports, for lack of better expression, by the Auditor-General in relation to these systems flowing from these departments. One would expect, hope, and pray that the audit committees would be across these issues, particularly with the Auditor-General’s natural penchant for pursing these matters through his office.
Madam Acting Speaker, I also concur with the Leader of Government Business on the performance of the Auditor-General; he is a useful and constructive fellow. I enjoy the briefings he gives and the reports he brings into this House. It offers a useful window by which we in opposition get to press our noses to the glass and look into the operation of government. I place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General for another report.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report covering audits conducted during the six months ending 30 June 2011. The work carried out by Mr McGuiness and his team gives Territorians surety in government agencies’ processes and is an important element of this government’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure was assessed in the Auditor-General’s selected agencies’ compliance audits.
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the Land Development Corporation, and the Darwin Port Corporation were assessed in the selected agencies’ procurement review. I note the audits did not identify significant examples of failures to comply with the procurement framework.
The Auditor-General also conducted a performance management systems audit on managerial reporting at the Darwin Port Corporation. I am pleased to say the Darwin Port Corporation has acted favourably and proactively. In a response to the Auditor-General’s recommendation, the Darwin Port Corporation’s internal reporting to senior management was amended. The amendment moved away from reporting at a very detailed level on activities which occurred for the month to a more concise reporting model which focuses on issues that may have the potential to adversely impact on safety, environment, and reputation; have an unplanned cost or revenue implication; have an impact on relationships with stakeholders; and key operational indicators for each of the business lines.
The monthly financial reports were also amended to focus on high-level financial information only, with the more detailed information now reported on a quarterly basis. The Darwin Port Corporation’s restructured annual reporting highlights key achievements in line with Territory 2030 objectives, including increasing shipping links and supporting the continued contribution of the resources sector.
There is extensive work under way at Darwin Port Corporation and particularly at East Arm. The Eastern Reclaim Area Project and Reclamation of Pond F will both support the port’s growth by providing additional hardstand for bulk mineral stockpiles. In this year’s budget, $3m has been allocated to further improve the bulk loading system, and more than $1.5m has been invested in improving the environmental standards of the existing conveyor belt. This is an exciting time for the Darwin Port Corporation in the strategic growth of the port to support Darwin’s role as the gateway to Asia and the capital of Northern Australia. This government takes the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations very seriously, agencies respond to the reports accordingly, and I thank him for his work.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, through agreement with the opposition and the member for Port Darwin, I move that consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No 4 be postponed until a later hour and that we now consider the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2010-11
Continued from 27 October 2011.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I feel I have to rise. I was expecting the shadow Treasurer to contribute to this debate. He may not be far; he has spent a fair amount of time in the Chamber and we might give him the opportunity to appear shortly. I am not wrapping in this - I am literally ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: I could rise ...
Ms LAWRIE: No, I get a sense that he would not be far. I am not wrapping ...
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Sorry about that, I thought you were still going.
Madam Acting Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her indulgence and for not taking the opportunity she was just offered. Jolly decent of her. Must be Christmas or something ...
Dr Burns: She is waiting for it.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I should have been more cynical. You are quite right, Leader of Government Business, she is obviously waiting for it.
Madam Acting Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read this document and, as the Treasurer noted, we are heading for a cash deficit, or I should say that in the last financial year we received a cash deficit of $387m. That is on the general government sector. Once you incorporate the total government sector, which includes government-owned corporations and GBDs, the figure stretches out to $610m, which is not an insubstantial figure.
I appreciate variations to the GST, in part, have led to this deficit amount, but it is also spending decisions which have led to this deficit amount. I do not feel inclined to revisit the debate, which has now been had on numerous occasions in this House, about the government’s determination to spend the extra money it has spent protecting jobs etcetera. I actually do not take much dispute with that position. My concern has always been that government did not properly use the opportunities the GST provided in the first 10 years of this decade.
If you include Commonwealth expenditure, own-source revenue, GST, all those types of things, our revenue stream since 2001 has more than doubled - substantially more than doubled. In that time, we had an opportunity to reduce our debt to zero. The Treasurer will tell us all the reasons why the decision was not taken: we have reduced debt over time, and now due to the GFC we have to increase debt, etcetera. If this government had shown a modicum of discipline, the figure could have been zero, as was done by Gallop in Western Australia, by Howard in the Commonwealth arena, by other jurisdictions, and could certainly have been done in this jurisdiction.
Do not take the comment I am about to make as any suggestion that I would cut public servants as a matter of policy – not true - if only you had restrained growth of public servants to about half of what you actually allowed the public service to grow in that time. The government itself acknowledges this is a problem. They announced a freeze on growth in public service numbers, have not restrained themselves to it, but announced a freeze in the growth of public service numbers. If they had simply allowed that growth to reach a figure of, let us say, 13 500 or 14 000, rather than the current - what is it, 16 000? Someone help me quickly, 19 000? I have just forgotten the figure; I believe16 000 is correct - if that growth of public servants had been restrained, so the growth of government had been restrained, that extra income could have paid off the Northern Territory’s debt.
When the GFC did come, the Territory would have been supremely well positioned to deal with the GFC, not positioned where it was, already carrying $900m, $1bn worth of nett debt. What a great position to have been in.
It was possible for the new Western Australian Liberal government to borrow under the circumstances of the GFC because of the legacy left by an ALP government that did exactly that. I am not talking about this as an ideological crank; I am talking about this as a matter of good policy. The problem we have with the government currently - and I am not quite sure what position we are in at the moment with the release of the MYEFO out of Canberra last week - is our debt is growing. If you include government-owned corporations, a deficit this year of $610bn is pretty awesome. Even the general government sector, which is just the public service departments, producing a deficit of $385m is of concern.
The question that percolates and resonates its way over the last decade is, how good was government’s management of its money during the good times, and how well did it position itself to deal with its management in the leaner times? Government was warned - if you track back through that period, government was often asked by members on this side of the House: ‘Why are you not putting more away for a rainy day?’ The government’s answer was always: ‘Oh, we put some away, we have reduced nett debt from that level to that level’. That was true, but so much more could have been done with a little restraint in growth.
There are signs in this document as to why government has not shown the restraint hoped for, and taken that once-in-a-century opportunity to reduce our debt to zero. One of the common signs we see, we can find on pages 141, and particularly 142 of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. I know this hoary, old chestnut will have the Treasurer rolling her eyes and sucking air through her teeth, but I am going back to it anyhow.
Every year when we prepare a budget, the Treasurer says: ‘I have prepared the budget, and I would also like $40m extra, in case of those sundry expenses you run into from time to time that you do not expect’. A household budget works on the same principle; it is nice to have a little extra cash aside in case something goes wrong, like the washing machine breaks down. No different for government - a natural disaster will draw down in an unexpected way on a budget. The Treasurer says: ‘I will need $40m for those unforseen occasions’. We say: ‘Yes, that is fine, we will give you $40m’. But also, under the Financial Management Act, the government can then take out more, as much as 5% of the overall appropriation, the overall money taken from Territory coffers, if it needs to, without coming back to the House.
If it is that out of control that once it hits the 5% level, it has to come back to this House, very serious questions have to be asked. It is notable that a couple of budgets ago, it went all the way to the 5% threshold. On this occasion, by my calculation, it went to 2.3%, or in total $124m worth of extra. Not only did it use everything we put in the piggy bank in case of a rainy day, it also needed an extra $84m for expenditure. The government will say: ‘Yes, we had some floods and we had Cyclone Carlos and they required some attention’.
However, if you track through the rest of the document, you come to some interesting figures. I will give you an example. Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services had an extra off-budget expenditure, which is a variation to its budget, to buy a replacement aircraft to support operations. Did the old one crash? I did not see a newspaper report on that. Is it a case of the old one having worn out or something like that? Surely, the Chief Financial Officer of an organisation like that will be keeping asset management under control and saying: ‘All right, we should be able to know that at a certain point we will have to replace our aircraft’. It should not be an off-budget spend. It should be a spend that is budgeted for. That has not been the case; it was an off-budget spend. Unless they crashed the aircraft, I am surprised they did not make allowances for it at the beginning of the financial year. Higher than anticipated employee expenses, including overtime, police housing entitlements, and workers compensation - workers compensation I can understand - but a figure of $10m? You did not know you had to deal with housing entitlements and overtime issues? Overtime can be budgeted for and often is in budgets, so I am surprised to see a figure of that size.
To not know you were going to build a power station in a budget cycle strikes me as surprising. Whilst a power station is necessary - I do not have any argument with the fact that you have to build a power station. But, to not know during your budget planning phase you had to build a power station so that you then, halfway through the year, a third of the way through the year, or whenever the decision was made to buy a power station, you suddenly said: ‘Oh, we have to build that power station’. We get $17.8m and we build that power station. I find that a surprising decision to make off the budget cycle. Halfway through a budget cycle Cabinet makes a decision to build a new power station, which has not been planned for.
That does not leave me with great confidence that the government has been going through an effective planning system when you get variations of that nature. I realise some of these variations are beyond the government’s control, such as payments received through national partnerships and SPPs, and those are clearly noted in these legislative instruments; however, some of these decisions are definitely within the government’s control and it chose to make them anyhow.
How could you not anticipate you were going to build a 12-court squash facility at Marrara? Perhaps a very necessary thing - I daresay, a very necessary thing. I have no great objection that the government is choosing to build a squash court in Marrara, but why would you not plan for it through the normal budgetary process?
That question resonates through these extra variations again, and again, and again - and here is the hint. They knew the squash court issue was going to become pressing before the budget cycle. It became even more pressing after the budget cycle started, so Cabinet made the determination to spend more money. Hence, reach into the piggy bank, take the money out, and cycle it through the departments so you can start construction on your squash court rather than waiting for the next budget cycle, because the budget cycle starts well before the budget starts.
Budget Cabinet, which is held around March, would receive a suggestion by a department that it has to build this $4m set of squash courts. However, there is a problem. If you wait for the Budget Cabinet to make that decision, you are waiting until March next year to make that decision. This would be contrary to the needs of government for other reasons which are it does not want to have the plans on the drawing board in March to proceed down the path of building a set of squash courts because it will take 12 to 14 months to build a set of squash courts. No, they need those plans ratified earlier so they can cut the ribbon in, let us say, August of next year. It would be an extremely cynical exercise, of course, as it would sidestep the stringent fiscal policies of this government to bring an off-budget spend into the Northern Territory budget for the last financial year - to hurry up what will be a popular thing to open just before the next Territory election. Surely not!
It is the same with the power station – a $17.8m power station: ‘Oh, let us have that authorised before we go through the normal budgetary process so rather than starting the process late in terms of the election cycle, we will be able to cut the ribbon by the time the next election rolls around’. That is what is resonating through this document: a determination by government to engage in what I call less than rock solid fiscal practice and more focused on the political decisions it has to make on its expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars. Rather than wait for an appropriate approach in the budget cycle, we have a government which makes an increasing number of political decisions, particularly arising out of its expenditure from the Treasurer’s Advance. It raids the piggy bank year-in, year-out. This year is no exception, but it is particularly bringing forward projects which are going to be vote winners. This document is loaded with them.
I would like to hear what the Treasurer has to say about the $42m write-off from the railway consortium. Clearly, Cabinet would have come to that decision for a reason. I am curious to hear from Treasury how it came to the determination that it was necessary to write off that debt owed to the people of the Northern Territory. Now it is not paying, someone else has to.
I acknowledge grants and subsidies decreased by $132m since May 2010 due to reduced GST revenue of $135.6m and lower national GST collections, offset by a nett increase in specific permit payments and national partnerships payments of about $3.5m. In other words, GST went down by a great deal, NPPs and SPPs went up by a little, and that contributed to the black hole.
Perhaps the Treasurer in her response would care to comment on the modelling currently being used by Treasury in Canberra, and more importantly, in the Northern Territory. The modelling is consistently overstating the fiscal and economic indicators of the Northern Territory. Particularly, growth predictions have not achieved earlier promise; growth predictions in GST have not achieved the anticipated figures. Whilst the Treasurer will insist conservative numbers are generally used, clearly conservative numbers are now not producing reliable figures. The only reason this could be occurring is the modelling is no longer producing conservative numbers and it may well be worth reviewing how the modelling is being done when they are consistently not meeting. I want to hear what the Treasurer has to say about that.
I have a choice at this point to bang on about debt and deficit endlessly, but I have made my point. I cannot see much point in labouring on about it. As far as I am concerned, the government has taken an unfortunate approach to its fiscal management policy over the last 10 years. I have been cautious not to say at any point that debt should not be used as a vehicle in difficult times, but if you look at the Keynesian construct of counter-cyclical spending, it is the old Aesop’s Fable - and I have used it before in this House - of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant squirrels away food for winter, whereas the grasshopper just parties on all the way through summer. When winter comes, the ant is prepared.
That is the fundamental principle of counter-cyclical spending. This government has not practised that principle. At the time of surprising growth in the Northern Territory, in the private sector and in engineering and building, in both domestic and non-domestic areas, government was directly competing with the marketplace for workers in the construction of the Convention Centre. If it had waited for a time where the Convention Centre would have helped the Territory economy by doing what it argues borrowing does now; that is, protecting jobs, that would have been a fair and useful approach. However, it chose to enter the marketplace at a time when growth was strong, and then amplify that growth.
I am surprised government is surprised that because of the contraction in the building industry - through the cyclical situation that has existed since I have lived in the Territory since 1969, and long before; the boom-bust cycle - that it has chosen not to spend during the bad time. Mind you, it is doing it at the moment - but it chose to spend when the times were good. As a consequence, rather than squirreling away cash, its capacity to borrow has been limited, yet it still persists. The problem is that I look for the forecasts, and those forecasts do not give me comfort. The Treasurer’s assertion is that surplus is coming back - not in any forecast I have seen and it will not be in the mid-year report. The reason being that if the mid-year report had good numbers in it, we would not be sitting here on Thursday afternoon, the last day of the sittings year, waiting for the mid-year report to hit the table. The government would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops in Question Time. So the news is not good. We will look at the mid-year report, see how it marries up to the MYEFO, and then see if the answers given by the Treasurer in the last couple of days have any credence.
As for this, it is more Labor, it is more borrowing, spending, spending, borrowing, and no idea as to how it is going to pay it all back.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that was predictable. The member for Port Darwin is on the repeat cycle and he simply does not understand exactly what is required in the Territory. We are a developing jurisdiction. We make no apology that as a government which came to power in 2001 when nett debt to revenue ratios under the CLP were 61%, that after eight budget surpluses in a row we have driven down that nett debt to revenue ratio to 25%, having wiped $582m off Territory debt ratcheted up by the CLP. Having done all that, we delivered improved services at the same time, and started to rebuild the infrastructure of the Territory where the R&M was in a disastrous situation.
Have a look at what our road network was like in 2001; there was not enough cash in the capital program to meet the capital program - growth was at 0%. What we did through tough economic management and strong fiscal measures is build the Territory in service delivery - the provision of services, not just in the urban centres, which is what we saw and what we inherited, but delivering services in the regional and remote areas where they were desperately needed.
Renal dialysis is one clear example. Opening up secondary education in the bush - another example - where they require not only recurrent expenditure for the nurses, teachers, and staff, but also require the infrastructure spend for the physical buildings. For a decade, through tough focused management, we did both.
We built the Territory, improving on and delivering key and critical services to Territorians. It was in dire need. They needed it. We are a developing jurisdiction. We also built the fundamental infrastructure from a shattered base into a robust delivery of improved roads, improved health clinics, improved schools, and improved housing across the Territory, just to name a few areas.
In the debate today, the answer from the member for Port Darwin is we should have squirrelled all the GST revenue increases during that period away and shaved off all debt. The answer to how he would have done that - and it will not add up, but anyway - is he would have constrained growth in the public sector by half. He said they were not about sacking: ‘I am not about sacking, but I would have constrained growth in the public sector by half’. It will be interesting to see how he is going to handle his views in 2012, and explain the plethora of commitments from the CLP spend-o-meter, and how it is going to get that constraint in place in the public service without the sacking platform it ran from the 2008 election on.
If you take his word in today’s debate on face value, he said he would have constrained that expenditure by half. If you accept his view that infrastructure is a positive spend - which we all know it is, but you really have to look at your recurrent, you really need to look at your public sector - let us have a look at what would have occurred.
Instead of 720 nurses employed during that period to help support the 127 extra hospital beds, slash that by half. Instead of 250 extra doctors employed to provide the desperately-needed improved GP and health services across the Territory, slash that by half. They certainly would not have had the funding, the recurrent or capital, to have delivered the first cancer care centre for the Territory, the first palliative care unit, the Barbara James House accommodation for cancer patients, or the first medical school. You would not have seen the major upgrades to Royal Darwin Hospital, the new emergency department. You certainly would not have the birthing centre. You would not have the additional theatres for operations, so you would not be cutting into your waiting lists for elective surgery. You would not have the Rapid Admission Planning Unit to improve the flow through of beds from people in emergency. You would not have the trauma centre, and you would not have the upgrades to other Territory hospitals. That is what the member for Port Darwin is articulating in, ‘we would have constrained expenditure by half’.
What he is also saying is forget about the 407 extra teachers, because you would not have them, and certainly, we know, you would not have the schools in the bush, because that had been their track record - so we can take a good guess at that one. You would not have seen upgrades to every primary school across the Territory. You certainly would not have gone ahead and built nine new schools, including Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary, and Rosebery Middle School, because you would not have wanted to hire the teachers to fill the schools. God knows where those students would have gone, but you would not have done that because you would have wanted to deliver cuts in debt rather than delivering services Territorians quite reasonably expect a government to deliver in a growing, developing jurisdiction.
Let us have a look at police. When we came to government we know they had had a freeze on the recruitment of police for four years. If you follow his logic of constraining expenditure by half, instead of 400 police, there would have only been 200 police. Instead of 60 police in new police stations across remote areas, we probably would have seen none of them, because let us face it, they were not there under their priorities in the past. Forget about the new police stations at Humpty Doo and Casuarina - and we all know what condition Casuarina Police Station was in. You can certainly forget about the Police Beats, because we know that is not their policy; we know they are opposed to Police Beats. Moreover, you would not have seen that 300% increase in infrastructure spending and that 213% increase in the roads.
That is what we did, and at the same time, we cut debt by $582m- eight budget surpluses in a row. We built the Territory in infrastructure, we built up the service delivery, and we made it a place where people wanted to come to live, work, raise a family, and expect they would receive the services Australians expect to receive elsewhere.
The bizarre logic of the member for Port Darwin was that there is a simple solution to this. Do not do all of those things. As a government, you need to understand you have responsibility to deliver core services in education, health, law and order, across transport mechanisms - roads - to build the infrastructure you need to get products to market, training and employment, and housing. We are charged with the responsibility of ensuring our expenditure meets needs. We are also charged with the responsibility that we live within our means, and we have been. We delivered eight budget surpluses in a row so we were well and truly living within our means. We were cutting debt at the same time, and improving services, and we were well positioned to take the blows of the global financial crisis.
We took the blows of the global financial crisis on behalf of our community. If we said: ‘We are going to stay on our pathway of capital expenditure of around $840m’ - which we were in 2008-09 - ‘and we will watch private sector investment dry up’ - because the capital markets had frozen - ‘We will not change that pathway because we want to continue to deliver surpluses’, we would have seen 15 500 Territorians unemployed. That is what that decision would have done. Yes, we would be in surplus and we would be continuing to cut debt, but you would see 15 500 on the unemployment scrap heap. If you look at the 2010-11 actuals and the TAFR results we are debating today, without the public spend increase, instead of delivering 1.6% economic growth in the 2010-11 financial year, we would have been at 0.2%.
Under the CLP’s and the member for Port Darwin’s view of the world we would be flatlining; we would not be in growth. As we saw in 2001 when the CLP flatlined the economy, you would have seen local Territorians, born and raised here, the subbies, packing up, getting in their utes, and heading somewhere to find a job. We saw it in 2001, and you would have seen it again as a result of the GFC, but we took the tough decision to step up and carry the construction sector through the tough times resulting from the prevailing global financial conditions, which continue to prevail.
At the same time, we knew we had to constrain expenditure, because we recognised you have to live within your means. When you are making bold decisions such as doubling your capital program to keep people in jobs and keep the economy in growth, at 1.6% instead of 0.2%, you need to put downward pressure on your recurrent expenditure, so you are living within your means. The only deficit you are carrying, the only add-on to the debt you are doing is through your capital, through your infrastructure, not through your recurrent.
So, what did we do? Tough fiscal decisions were made and implemented, which are delivering savings. We put a staffing cap in place across the public service. We have driven efficiency dividends through the budget process. We have found initiatives through reprioritisation of agency budgets. Tough decisions; measures that achieved $52m in saving in 2010-2011 alone, and by the end of this financial year, will achieve $150m in savings. We are tightening our belts. At the same time we are making the bold, responsible decisions to keep our economy in growth, to keep the construction sector buoyant, and to realise the opportunities for the major projects on our horizon.
The member for Port Darwin likes to think the decisions our government is making are unusual - that we are the only ones in this situation in our nation. He could not be more wrong. If you look at the 2010-11 actuals across the nation, every jurisdiction is in deficit, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory which posted a $10m surplus. Their 2011-12 budget predicts a deficit of $339m, but they scraped through in the 2010-11 actual. Every jurisdiction in Australia, like us, which had been in surplus pre-GFC, plunged into deficit to prop up their economy. The International Monetary Fund said governments needed to spend to stimulate their economies. We have avoided dramatic jobless queues in Australia because governments were strong enough to step up and support their economies. We are the envy of the world in how we have been able to manage through these tough global conditions.
We do have the borrowing capacity. The member for Port Darwin thinks he can say anything and not be brought to account for it. I will bring him to account for it today. I know that when visiting a shire, he said our debt level was like Greece. That is blatantly untrue. There is not a skerrick of truth in that statement. We do not shy away from being scrutinised about whether our debt levels are manageable. In fact, we have just had the rating agency, Moody’s, here to scrutinise whether we can we manage our debt. Its view is that we have a very moderate level of debt; it is manageable, and Moody’s see the savings measures and constraints we are putting in place.
Going to the nett debt as a percentage of GSP, if you want to look at the reality rather than the misleading musings of the member for Port Darwin, the Northern Territory nett debt as a percentage of GSP is 8.8%. Compare the Commonwealth nett debt, which as a percentage of GSP is 8.9% - a very manageable level at 8.8%, the national debt as a percentage of GSP is 8.9% - and Greece. The member for Port Darwin compares our nett debt levels to a nation that has a nett debt as a percentage of GSP of 165.6%. He is saying that nett debt to GSP of 8.8% is the same as nett debt to GSP of 165.6%. I do not know how much more wrong he could be but he peddles that myth; he talks his doom and gloom, says we do not know how to manage our fiscal environment, and we do not understand the economy. Well, I will give him the tip: he does not understand it; he consistently gets it wrong.
I do not know what type of advice he seeks, but I suspect he does not seek advice because he is too arrogant. I seek advice as the Treasurer. I am proud of the Territory’s Treasury officials. I have seen them on the national stage and I will back the officials of the Territory Treasury against any official in any Treasury in our nation. No one is getting the modelling figures perfect right now, not Access Economics, not the Commonwealth Treasury, and not our own. They are getting close, but what we are seeing is consumers who are so conservative in their spending patterns that it is affecting retail, so everyone revises their figures down currently and continues to do so.
We are keeping the Territory in growth to ensure we are well positioned to take advantage of the economic boom times. That is not just what we are saying; independent commentators, Deloitte Access Economics, say we will be the third-fastest growing jurisdiction in our nation for the next five years, just behind Western Australia and Queensland - but not the merchant of doom and gloom over here. He will not have that. He thinks we are stagnant. We are in growth. He thinks we are debt burdened, but we are not – 8.8% is not debt burdened, it is manageable. He thinks we are just on a spending spree; we are not. We have constrained recurrent; we have found savings in recurrent whilst we are deliberately propping up the construction sector through the capital spend.
I could be in surplus today by shaving a quarter off the capital spend and still have it above the pre-GFC levels. If I did that, you could kiss goodbye to 750 jobs straight up; 750 people are not employed because the whimsy of the member for Port Darwin is ‘let us all just stay in surplus land’, despite the fact that every jurisdiction in our nation has gone down the path of heavy lifting their economies when prevailing global economic conditions require them to.
It does not suit his strange musings about the Territory economy to understand those realities. It does not suit him to think the employment of nurses, teachers, doctors, police officers, child protection workers is not the right thing to do. God forbid that man should ever be allowed anywhere near a Treasury decision-making role because he does not listen to advice. He defies the views of all the economic commentators around. Chris Richardson from Access Economics was on television the other day saying not to pursue surplus at the cost of the economy. BIS Shrapnel said the same thing. The temptation is always there for a Treasurer …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: The temptation will always be there for an egomaniac Treasurer to pursue a surplus, to beat their chest, and say: ‘How good am I’, and turn a blind eye to the Territorians who are unemployed and ignore the flatlining growth. The temptation would be there for the member for Port Darwin. The temptation is not there for me. I will do the heavy lifting. I will not take the ridiculous assertions of the member for Port Darwin. I prefer to keep Territorians in jobs, to build legacy infrastructure, to deliver and improve services, and to constrain our own expenditure and find savings, despite the tough global conditions prevailing. I will keep this economy in growth to take advantage of the economic opportunities on our horizon.
On his bizarre musings about the Treasurer’s Advance, I will give him a tip. Have a look at the use of Treasurer’s Advance up to 5% throughout the 1990s growth period; go to the growth period. They drew on Treasurer’s Advance year-in, year-out because they were in growth, and that is where we have been. We are creating growth, and the idea that we decided to spend money on the squash courts simply so we can be cutting a ribbon around election time - you have to be kidding me. We provided capital expenditure for the squash courts because the courts were bulldozed. That is why we did it.
This idea that we are building the power station at Wadeye because we want to cut a ribbon is bizarre. We brought forward capital expenditure on a project, so we could get ahead of the construction pressures during the buildup of those major projects of INPEX, the Marine Supply Base, and the prison. It is smart to bring forward capital expenditure so you can get in and get the construction workforce and keep the construction workforce strong before you are out there competing with the big guys. No, in his strange world, that was all about ribbon cutting. He really does like to go into a strange meandering.
He has previously asked about the railway debt, and previously been advised, so he asked again about the railway debt write-off in this 2010-11. Okay, provided previously with the advice, it is absolutely consistent - we provided for the debt write-off in about 2006, so we accounted for it then. This is bringing the write-off onto the books because the railway was sold. You might have missed that one; Genesee and Wyoming bought it. Nothing unusual there, but in the mind of the bizarre member for Port Darwin, it is all unusual.
I will just recap. Yes, we are in deficit because of our deliberate decision to double our infrastructure spend. We make no apology for keeping our jurisdiction in growth. We are not alone. Every other jurisdiction in our nation did exactly the same thing, and they all came in on deficit in the 2010-11 actuals, except for the ACT which scraped through on a $10m surplus and is predicting a $339m deficit in 2011-12. This bizarre notion that we are debt ridden - we are not - 8.8%, compared to the nation at 8.9%, and his comparison of us with Greece at 165.6%. Go figure, member for Port Darwin. I am going to call you out on your madness.
I will note the industry organisations in the 2010-11 Budget all congratulated the government for making the right decision to go into deficit to support jobs in their industries and to support their industries. That budget was rated an eight out of 10 by all the industry commentators in the Territory. I managed to get an eight out of 10 rating out of Daryl Manzie for the next budget, which was the 2011-12. It is not easy. You have to show fiscal constraint in tough times, and we are doing that through the reprioritisation, the efficiency dividends, and the staffing cap.
There is not a whole lot of joy across the public service about the constraints I have put in place, budget after budget, as Treasurer, but there is a whole lot of understanding in the Territory that we are meeting the key needs of Territorians in health, police, teachers, child protection workers, across those critical areas. We are building the legacy infrastructure the Territory needs to develop. We are keeping us in economic growth at 1.6%. If we had listened to the member for Port Darwin, we would only be scraping through at 0.2%, which would be flatlining.
We will continue to be tough fiscal managers in the worst global economic conditions in a century. We are up to it because we have the experience. We delivered eight budget surpluses in a row to reduce debt. We positioned ourselves to be able to carry the load through the GFC-affected marketplace, and continue to provide Territorians with the services they quite rightly and quite reasonably expect from their government.
I certainly take exception to the snide accusations by the member for Port Darwin that somehow I have been hiding the mid-year report - not true. It is convention to hand down the mid-year report on the Thursday of sittings. I spoke about the mid-year report GST revisions on Tuesday in Question Time. I repeated them yesterday in Question Time. I am not hiding anything. The member for Port Darwin is hiding. He is such a coward that in Question Time today, he had to get one of his mates to ask a question because he was too frightened to ask the Treasurer.
Do not stoop that low, member for Port Darwin. Do not show yourself to be the coward you did today. Bring it on and ask the Treasurer questions. You may not like the answer, it may not fit your fantasy world, but I will give factual answers. The 2010-11 TAFR is fact. The Auditor-General audits it. It shows the fiscal constraints; it shows we met our $1.7bn infrastructure spend. It shows a 1.6% economic growth, not the 0.2% we would have otherwise had. It shows our debt levels are manageable and nett debt to revenue ratio is well below what we inherited in 2001.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12 which provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2011-12
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
The global financial crisis first affected financial markets, economic activity, and government revenues in 2008, and continues to be the dominant influence on the budgets of all governments.
The Territory budget and Territory economy has been affected by the cumulative effects of the GFC, slower growth in the national and local economy, and moderation of the housing market. At the time of the 2011-12 Budget, it was anticipated the national economy was moving into a recovery phase and revenues, most noticeably the GST, would begin to return to more normal growth patterns, albeit from a lower base. However, recent indications are that national economic growth remains subdued and, as a result, GST revenue estimates for the Territory have again been revised downwards. This is consistent with the information released by the Commonwealth on Tuesday in its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report.
The global financial crisis has also contributed to a moderation in the Territory’s residential and commercial property market resulting in lower own-source revenues, particularly stamp duty. In addition to revised revenue estimates, the mid-year report incorporates the flow-on effect of the 2010-11 outcome, and the financial effect of the new Darwin correctional facility. Against this backdrop, the fiscal outlook in the 2011-12 mid-year report includes: an improved nett operating balance in 2011-12, then increased operating deficits from 2012-13; cash deficit of $396m in 2011-12, largely unchanged since budget time with the underlying deficits over the four years consistent with those included in the May budget; and higher ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue due to the effect of the higher 2010-11 cash deficit and the obligations associated with the new Darwin correctional facility.
The mid-year report also includes an update on the Territory’s economic outlook. Economic growth in the Territory is forecast to strengthen to 2.3% in 2011-12, a slight downward revision from that forecast in the budget. Strong growth in international goods exports will contribute to the Territory’s economic growth in 2011-12, reflecting the commencement of production at the Kitan and Montara oil fields, and increased production at a number of Territory mines.
State final demand in the Territory is cyclical and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. SFD is forecast to increase by 0.8% in 2011-12, 0.6% points more than forecast at the time of the 2011-12 budget reflecting updated estimates of public consumption and inclusion of new major projects, most notably, the Darwin correctional facility.
The Territory economy is expected to continue to grow strongly in the coming years, primarily reflecting major private sector investment projects commencing in the Territory. Property markets are expected to remain subdued during 2011-12 with continuing global uncertainties affecting consumer sentiment and credit availability.
The population growth forecast has been revised to 0.6% reflecting current levels of nett overseas migration and interstate migration. Population levels have been influenced by the relocation of Defence personnel movements, the completion of several major projects, and changes in national migration policies. The employment growth forecast for 2011-12 is for growth of 2% compared with 2.8% at budget time, reflecting lower population levels.
Turning back to the fiscal outlook, GST revenue remains the Territory’s most significant revenue source. Historically, GST represented around 60% of the Territory’s revenues; however, since the start of the GFC, this ratio has dropped to around 50%. The further downward revision in the mid-year report means the accumulative reduction in GST revenue to the Territory over the three years to 2011-12 is now $670m less than estimated prior to the GFC.
The Territory’s residential property market has operated at very high levels in the recent past, fuelled by above-average levels of population growth, low interest rates, and the flow-on effect of housing assistance schemes. More recently, there has been a softening in the Territory’s residential and commercial property market resulting in stamp duty collections in 2011-12 being revised down by $13m. These revenue reductions place further stress on the Territory’s fiscal position, notwithstanding, as evidenced by eight consecutive cash surpluses through to 2009-10, the Henderson government remains committed to fiscal responsibility. Accordingly, in response to revenue reductions, the government has reviewed particular elements of funding set aside in forward estimates and reduced the level of future spending.
In recent years, spending on infrastructure has grown substantially to counteract the effects of the lower private sector investment that resulted from the GFC. Infrastructure spending increased from $885m in 2008-09 to $1.7bn in 2010-11, with an estimated $1.5bn in 2011-12. Without this investment, economic data indicates the Territory’s economic growth for 2010-11 would have been 0.2% instead of 1.6% and would have cost Territory jobs.
From 2012-13, private sector investment is expected to increase markedly due to the progress of major resource-related projects. This investment will enable the government to move to a counter-cyclical approach to the capital works program and reduce capital investment over the forward estimates to levels more commensurate with the depreciation in line with the fiscal strategy. This lower infrastructure spending, together with a further commitment to ongoing budget restraint measures, has allowed the cash targets over the forward estimates to be maintained largely in line with those estimated in May 2011.
On an accrual basis, similar to the cash outcome, the fiscal balance and the nett operating balance are projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle. However, consistent with the fiscal strategy, untied expenditure growth remains below untied revenue growth. Nett debt is estimated to increase in 2014-15 to $2.843bn from the May 2011 budget, largely due to the effect of the 2010-11 outcome on the recognition of the debt associated with the Darwin correctional facility in 2013-14, following financial close as indicated at the time of the budget. The Territory will not make any payments until the facility is operational. In accordance with accounting standards, the asset and associated financial lease liability will be recognised once construction of the facility is complete, which is expected to be in the last quarter of 2013-14. This significant capital investment will increase nett capital investment, the underlying cash deficit, and associated nett debt by $495m from 2013-14.
The 2011-12 mid-year report highlights the cumulative effects of the GFC affecting the Territory’s economic and fiscal position. Despite these challenges, the medium-term objective of the government strategy remains the commitment to retire debt and return the budget to a surplus position as soon as it becomes economically prudent to do so. This commitment is evidenced by ongoing budget improvement measures already in place which will result in savings of around $150m by the end of 2011-12.
Madam Acting Speaker, I commend the 2011-12 mid-year report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am tempted to launch into this now because there are some very important figures here. However, before I move to complete my comments at a later date, I point out that the government has historically made much of the issue of the nett debt to revenue ratio and said repeatedly that the 2001-02 figure of 61% was unsustainable and a disaster for the Northern Territory. It sheeted home the blame for that unsustainable and dreadful position to the Country Liberals.
I note the forward projections to the nett debt to revenue ratio now exceed, under this government’s tutelage, in spite of its substantially increased income, the 2001-02 levels. This is an unspeakable disaster for the Northern Territory. If it was unsustainable in 2001, what is happening now, or what will be happening in a couple of years time, is worse. This is a Greco-Roman Treasurer taking us down the road to financial ruin. She missed the chance to fix the Territory’s situation - a chance of a century - and she stuffed it up.
Madam Acting Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation – Government’s Response to Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Council of Territory Cooperation – Government’s Response to Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee – Final Report
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Acting Speaker, I table the government’s response to the Council of Territory Cooperation Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee Final Report.
MOTION
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation – Government’s Response to Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee –
Final Report
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation – Government’s Response to Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee –
Final Report
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Acting Speaker, I will make a short tabling statement. I thank the committee for its report and the recommendations about improving animal welfare governance across the Northern Territory.
I take the opportunity to highlight your role as Chair of that committee, and the member for Arafura; the Independent member for Nelson; the Country Liberals’ member for Port Darwin; and the Country Liberals’ member for Goyder. I thank each and every member of that committee.
I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions over the last 12 to 18 months when we have looked at the horrific incident which occurred at Mataranka regarding the welfare of animals and cattle. I am on the record about the absolute disgrace of what occurred at Mataranka, and I put to the House and to members present that an inquiry was needed to look at the disconnect that concerned me quite deeply, as the Minister for Local Government, and also the disconnect within agencies across government, and those outside of government, regarding their responsibilities and roles.
There are 21 recommendations in this report. I considered whether we should take more time to go into depth with the recommendations, but I chose to put this to the parliament before the end of the year. It was only in the last sittings that this came down. This is an important issue to leave on the table, and I wanted to allow all members of parliament to have a look at this, so we can talk about it in the February 2012 sittings.
I have made a commitment to learn from the events that occurred at Mataranka and to ensure animal welfare is improved through scrutiny and examination through the processes of government and government agencies. I also want to ensure such events never happen again in the Northern Territory. To do that, we needed to see this was an open and transparent process, thoroughly scrutinised by members of this committee, and we certainly wanted members of this committee to question me and my role as the minister; to put everything on the table. This was too critical to the people of the Northern Territory to ensure whatever lessons had to be learned from this were learnt and are learnt, so we can move forward to tighten up those areas. There were certainly many areas lacking throughout this whole process.
The committee has made a significant contribution to animal welfare, and I thank each of you for the work in the four weeks since the committee’s final report was tabled in the House. The response I am tabling today outlines what we have done to address the recommendations made by the committee. Members are aware the government has previously announced additional resource allocations for the Animal Welfare Unit and improvements to across-government operational working arrangements. Enhanced training in investigations and prosecutions has been incorporated into standard operating procedures of animal welfare inspectors and officers. I listened to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution when the CTC report was tabled regarding investigation and his suggestions on ways forward. These have all been taken into consideration by my agency, together with the contributions of other members of the committee.
A memorandum of understanding between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services and the Department of Resources has been put in place to define roles, responsibilities, and procedures in relation to commercial livestock. I believe the committee’s work builds on this work and is a significant contribution to improving animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory.
The committee has made 21 recommendations, and the government is moving immediately to implement the majority of the recommendations. I expect to be saying more about the other recommendations in the new year. The balance of the recommendations require further assessment of the most effective legislative or policy response across government. This will necessarily involve a two-stage process, with some legislative amendments to be made immediately, and other amendments to be introduced at a later stage.
Government will be responding to 11 of the recommendations through legislative amendments to be made immediately. In some cases, government has decided to go beyond the report’s recommendations to further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act and the operational arm of the department. These amendments complement the work of the CTC and significantly increase the coverage and penalties that may be applied under the legislation.
A key recommendation of the report is for government policy to reflect that a single agency is responsible for the Animal Welfare Act by stipulating that all investigations under the Animal Welfare Act are referred to that agency. As an immediate response to this recommendation, standard operating procedures will be implemented across relevant government agencies to ensure clarity regarding the responsibility to refer potential breaches of the act to the animal welfare authority for investigation. In the new year, I hope to be able to add to this recommendation regarding a single agency responsible for the Animal Welfare Act. Given there has only been that month, and I know this is an important part of the concern that many members on the CTC relayed in their speeches to the parliament, I will be taking that on board in further discussions in the new year. Clearly, there are also going to be conversations that need to take place with Cabinet and other relevant agencies.
As highlighted by the committee’s report, animal ethics committees are a crucial aspect of animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory. In addition to responding to the recommendations in the committee’s report, I confirm that I will be making a submission to the current review of the code of practice applying to animal ethics committees that is being conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In that submission, I will be seeking inclusion in the code of practice, a mandatory requirement for an animal welfare advisor on all animal ethics committees, and a requirement that licensees and their respective animal ethics committees must inform themselves of their reporting obligations under state and territory animal welfare legislation.
In relation to the need for increased animal welfare education and enforcement in remote regions of the Territory, allocation of additional resources for animal management and control in remote regions is being actively considered. In addition, the government has provided significant funding to the non-government organisation, Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) to work in partnership with shire councils in addressing animal management issues. The Commonwealth has also directed significant resources to AMRRIC for animal management work in the Northern Territory. Although most shire councils have made progress in this area compared to the pre-reform area of local government, there is still much more to be achieved.
The government is conscious of the need to close the gap in this area and I will be seeking the support of the Commonwealth, as recommended by the committee. I am very conscious, not only from this report, but also from my own travels across the Territory, that as we are embarking across these reforms in local government, animal management is a core service of each of the shires across the regions. There is also a very real difference between the by-laws in the municipal councils, so our government is concerned the issue around animal management raised through the CTC and its recommendations will be taken very seriously.
Recommendation 13 of the subcommittee’s report is that the subcommittee reconvenes in 2012 to scrutinise progress in addressing the recommendations of the final report. I welcome that. I have from the outset, and on the record in parliament and outside parliament, stated this has to be an open and transparent process. I welcome that scrutiny of the monitoring and vigilance of how these 21 recommendations progress.
There is more work to be done, but significant work has been undertaken in that short space of time. I reflected, as did the CEO, Ken Davies, on the evidence given before the committee and the work being done in the Animal Welfare Unit. This is a continuing body of work with actions, including legislative amendments and new policy and procedures. I look forward to providing further information to the House in the future regarding the steps we are taking in this important area.
In closing, I personally thank all those outside this parliament for their work, and that of the parliamentarians and the committee. I also thank all those who came forward to the CTC to provide their reflections and stories of how and what happened at Mataranka. It was very difficult for many people who came before the committee. On behalf of government, I thank them for being a part of this very important report of the committee.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to the hard-working selfless people who frequently give their time to help others. I am referring to the volunteer firefighters and personnel who recently travelled to Central Australia to combat the devastating bush and wildfires that raced across some 200 000 km2 of bushland and desert. This normally dry country experienced record rainfall not long ago. Usually the fuel load in this part of the Territory is, on average, less than one tonne per hectare of sparse clumps of spinifex and native grasses. This year, because of the intense Wet Season, the grasses provided three to four tonnes in a continuous carpet that stretched right up to the tops of ridges and hills, which in normal seasons would form natural firebreaks.
The fire started in and around Alice Springs and many fires were started by lightning strikes. Sadly, many were deliberately lit, which is a great source of concern to everyone. I hope the authorities catch the low-life mongrels who started the fires and throw the whole book at them. People fought the fires around Alice Springs for days and finally got them under control and contained. There was no serious loss of property or injury to people - either the firefighters or residents. There were fires further out in the bush and these fires seemed to pop up like mushrooms and were fought on Bond Springs Station, Yambah, Kings Creek, Erldunda, Ti Tree, Mount Skinner, Stirling, Kurundi, and Muckaty Station, plus other numerous smaller locations.
Some members may know the story about the fire that roared across the landscape, surrounded Banka Banka Station, and very nearly engulfed the homestead and camping grounds, but did not, due to the efforts of the station people and the many tourists who were camping there and pitched in to help. That will be a story they take home with them for sure.
Back to the fires. Because of the sheer size and scope of the problem, it was obvious the resources of existing firefighters and others were stretched and people were suffering fatigue. More help was needed and that is when the Top End people volunteered to help. In the rural area, which I represent, there is a combination of NT Fire Service volunteer brigade people and Bushfire Council volunteer brigades and people went from all units across the rural area.
I pay tribute to the people in my electorate and the rural area for their courage, dedication, and selfless acts. From the Koolpinyah brigade were Lou Cowan, Steve Say, and Fran Say. From the Humpty Doo brigade were Damien Shaw, Bob Burgess - who did three trips to Central Australia, Cameron Burrows, and Doug Burns. From Howard Springs were Steve Gross, Maxine Way, Bronte Way, Lachlan Way, Chris Peberdy, Garry Casey and Stephen Russell - who was a mighty fine volunteer firefighter, who also went three times and happens to be my brother-in-law. From Virginia was Janelle Stewart; and from Jabiru was Tamira Anderson. The Bushfire Council people were Davo McLaughlin from Lambells Lagoon way, and Ralf Koberstein. I know most of these people and I can tell you they are not retired or sitting at home waiting for telephone calls. They work, they have families, children, pets, properties, and people who love and care for them. To volunteer to fight monstrous fires is terrific, and I say well done and we thank you, as I am sure the people of Central Australia do as well.
The rain finally arrived in early October and there was a collective sigh of relief as the danger passed, perhaps for another year.
While I am talking about the volunteer fire people in the rural area, the Humpty Doo volunteer fire brigade has their annual Santa run on Saturday, 10 December, commencing at 1 pm and the Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade has their Santa run the following Saturday, 17 December, commencing at 4 pm. They are wonderful events and bring much happiness to children scattered across the rural area.
In closing, I thank all those firefighters, whether they were in a paid capacity or volunteers. It is a much-needed service to our community and we are all truly grateful.
Madam Acting Speaker, I extend my thanks and appreciation to my electorate staff; Trish O’Hehir, the full-time permanent electorate officer who is a terrific person and a great support to me and my many constituents. Thanks also to the part-time temporary people who come in and help when Trish is away: Jinx Smith, Carol Lynch, Annette Post, and Muskett the Magnificent.
To my electorate office staff, Karen, and all the relief staff - Liz who is there today - and a few others over the course of the year, thank you for your support and help.
Thank you to the staff of the Legislative Assembly. To Ian McNeill, we wish you a speedy recovery. We have missed you in the parliament and look forward to your return next year. To the staff in the Clerk’s office over the course of the year, thank you for your help and a very Merry Christmas. Thank you to the Table Office staff. To the Committee staff, thank you very much. To the Hansard staff, who have done a great job this year, a very Merry Christmas and thank you for your help. To the Building Management staff who keep this place functioning and in tiptop shape, thank you very much. The Parliamentary Services staff are very important – thank you to all those in Parliamentary Services. They are the difference between getting that new car, your mobile phone, your reimbursement, and whether it is at the bottom of the pile or the top of the pile, so to those guys a very Merry Christmas and thank you very much for your help and support. To the catering staff throughout Parliament House, and the ministerial staff who aided me with briefings this year, I have to thank each one of you, and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and holiday season.
The year started pretty badly for the Northern Territory government. It has not been a great year for the Northern Territory government. We started with one of the worst crime waves in Alice Springs’ history and you were floundering from the start; that was in January. The Chief Minister failed to turn up, to show any intestinal fortitude in front of the people of Alice Springs at the regional sittings in March, despite them calling for him to come out and address the crowd. The budget in May essentially saddled every Territorian with $30 000 worth of debt. We had the debacle with the aeromedical tender. We were only up to about June by this stage and, if things could not really get any worse, we had the mother of them all - the live cattle export ban. The Banned Drinker Register is another plank in the government’s fixation of punishing responsible Territorians for the sake of the irresponsible minority. That is what they are all about, dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. Just like the kid in the classroom who misbehaves, we will keep the whole class back. That is what they are all about. The appalling crime statistics were finally released and only confirmed what everyone else knew - the government is just soft on crime; soft, soft, soft. We already knew that, but the crime statistics confirmed what we already knew.
Then we moved on to the appalling statistics surrounding the hospital waiting lists and a minister identified by health care professionals across the Northern Territory, most of whom work for him in his very department, as being sloppy, lazy, and more interested in posting videos on YouTube and Facebook than in the health and wellbeing of Territorians. Thus far, it has not been very good.
To cap it all off, we have a Chief Minister who cannot recall whether he signed a document relating to one of the longest-running, most important land claims in the Northern Territory’s history. He was asleep at the wheel. He walked in here twice to change his position. Have we ever seen it before where a Chief Minister has walked in to make a personal statement to clarify his position, to correct the record twice in one day on the same bill? I do not think so - pretty ordinary stuff. It has not been a great year.
I have to say well done to the opposition for holding this mob to account. It is no mean feat. There is no rest when you have such an incompetent government. The Country Liberals team has done a remarkable job.
I wish the government members a Merry Christmas. I hope you have some rest over the Christmas period and come back with a bit more spring in your step. For you this Christmas I wish some humility, decency, and maybe integrity. Who knows what you will find under the Christmas tree, but it would help if you could find some ability and a little bit of competence. You could deliver that to those Territorians who so desperately need it. You are going to need it if you are going to move on from being the worst government in the nation.
Madam Acting Speaker, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. I thank all those who have supported me during the course of the year. To all my parliamentary colleagues, the staff of the Legislative Assembly, and my staff and family in Alice Springs, thank you very much and Merry Christmas.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Speaker, tonight I thank the many people who supported me and my government throughout the year. It has been a great year, full of high-profile visitors to the Territory. We saw the Oprah Winfrey shows in January; we recently hosted President Obama; and the other day Cadel Evans was here to help promote the Territory. These visits show how the news of our great Territory has gone global. The Lonely Planet named Darwin as one of the top 10 cities to visit in 2012.
We had some challenges - Cyclone Carlos in the Top End and the terrible fires that roared through Central Australia. We have recovered extremely well and my thanks again to the emergency services staff and volunteers who helped with that recovery.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thank you for your support throughout the year. We can be proud of our achievements. Your commitment and dedication to making the Territory an even greater place is outstanding. It is great to be working with such a united team. You all deserve a safe and restful holiday season with your families. To my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you and your families a safe and happy festive season.
The Legislative Assembly staff work very hard all year to make our jobs a little easier. Thank you and enjoy the festive season.
To the drivers who deliver us to our meetings and events, and then ensure we get home safely to our families, I wish you all the best for Christmas and thank you.
Thank you and Merry Christmas to the essential staff in Parliament House, Speaker’s Corner staff, cleaners, and our security team.
To the CEOs of my departments, Mike Burgess and John McRoberts, your support and advice this year has been fantastic. I appreciate all the hours you put in. Happy Christmas to you and your families.
To all the staff in the Department of the Chief Minister: every one of you plays a crucial role. I thank you for your hard work this year and hope I can make it to the DCM Christmas function as it is always a fun afternoon.
A special thank you to the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff. I mentioned Cyclone Carlos and the fires earlier. You all put in such a valiant effort in the management and cleanup; it was terrific. Your work all year round is terrific, and, in the words of the United States Consul General, world-class. I thank you and wish you all a happy and safe holiday season. You certainly deserve it.
To all public servants across the Territory, you keep the Territory moving in the right direction and I thank you for your hard work.
My ministerial staff - despite the fact that we work really long hours and spend more time with each other than we do with our families, we all get on really well. It is a pleasure working with all of you. I would like to thank you for all our achievements this year, have a happy festive season.
To all the members of the Labor Party, in particular the Casuarina Branch, you are a great bunch of people. I look forward to working with you more closely next year. Without you, we would not be here, so I thank you, and Merry Christmas to you all.
To all the residents of the Wanguri electorate, have a great Christmas break. The Wanguri electorate is a fantastic electorate to represent and I am privileged to be able to do so.
To my electorate officer, Jenny, thank you for keeping the office ticking along. I wish I could spend more time out there, but you do a great job. All the best for Christmas, Jenny.
Last, but certainly not least, my wife, Stacey, and my children Alasdair, Liam, and Isobel. I have said it before, but it is so true - I definitely would not be able to do this if it was not for the love and support I receive from them. It is hard not to be able to spend as much time with them as I would like, but Christmas is special and we will make the most of that time we have together.
Finally, to all Territorians, it is an honour to be able to represent you. I hope all Territorians have a safe and happy Christmas.
I also specifically thank the principals, teachers, and staff of the schools in my electorate of Wanguri, and acknowledge the wonderful job they do. To Acting Principal Susan Kilgour from Wanguri Primary School, Principal Bernadette Morris from Holy Spirit, Principal Carolyn Edwards from Henbury Avenue, and Principal Damon Prenzler from St Andrew Lutheran School, thank you and Merry Christmas.
I acknowledge and thank the administration staff, caretakers, students, and parents for a very rewarding and positive year within the schools in the Wanguri electorate, and wish you all a very happy, safe, and relaxing Christmas break.
I make special mention tonight of a person, who as Principal at Leanyer Primary School has become a friend of mine over the 11 years Leanyer has been in the electorate of Wanguri. Henry Gray retires at the end of this year after 36 years of service to education in the Northern Territory, most of that as a Principal. Henry has been an inspiration to me, as the local member, and certainly gave me much good advice as Education minister and as Chief Minister. Henry, I have really enjoyed the opportunities we had to sit and talk about advancing education in the Territory and the challenges we have in doing that.
Henry is a real character. The great thing about Henry Gray is he loves the kids and the kids love him. One of the early things Henry Gray spoke to me about was how he believes in a very simple philosophy regarding being the principal of a school, and that is, schools are for and about children. If children are happy and safe at school, they will learn. Henry really does live by that philosophy. Every time I visit Leanyer Primary School, the kids are always running up and saying hello to Mr Gray. He knows all of them by name. Henry really does believe in a philosophy that teaching is not just about the academic learning of a child. It is also about seeing a child develop as a person, as an individual, and ensuring they develop as an individual to the best of their potential, as well as obviously learning the three Rs and the other academic requirements of school.
Henry certainly is an educational leader. All the teachers who work with him respect him, because he really does believe in team building and is not a person who would ask someone to do something he was not prepared to do himself. He has been fun around the school. There are many photographs around of Henry over the years dressed up in fancy dress as the Wizard of Oz, Merlin, or some other character on theme day at the school. He is well known for sporting carnivals, dying his beard the different house colours, and wearing all the colours of the houses competing at sports day. Henry is going to be missed.
In a couple of farewells we have already had for Henry, he is at pains to point out that Leanyer Primary School is not Henry Gray’s School; it belongs to the community and he has had the privilege and the honour of being the Principal for 20 years.
The great legacy Henry has left is that Leanyer Primary School will go from strength to strength. One of the great traits of a true leader is building a team and an institution around you that not only survives, but also thrives when you move on. That will happen at Leanyer. Whoever takes over at that school, the whole philosophy and culture of Leanyer Primary School is so strong because of Henry’s stewardship over the years. Even though a new principal will bring their own style and personality, the school will continue to go from strength to strength.
The other great lasting legacy for Henry Gray in the 36 years he has been teaching in the Northern Territory, starting in 1975 at Numbulwar with Margot. I asked him the other day if he had ever attempted to calculate how many thousands of kids would have gone through his care as a principal and teacher over the years. It would probably be hundreds of thousands. He has not attempted to do that calculation. Many of those kids will have gone on to become adults and have children themselves and always remember Henry Gray and the great lessons they took from him, as we all do with teachers who touch us. Henry would have touched many thousands of kids for the better over the years with their memories of a fantastic Principal.
Henry, you are going to stay in Leanyer. I will continue to seek your advice on a whole range of things. On behalf of so many people across the Northern Territory, as the Chief Minister, I thank you for a remarkable 36 years of service to Territory education.
We had a farewell in the Education offices and my colleague, the Education minister, was there. Many people waxed lyrical about Henry’s time at Leanyer and Groote Eylandt. Henry is very fond of singing, so a song was penned to the tune of Jamaica Farewell by Harry Belafonte. I am not going to sing it here tonight and I am not going to have time to read it. Dr Burns is the only person I know who has sung in this House and I am not going to attempt to sing it. The words that go to Harry Belafonte’s Jamaica Farewell, ‘Poor Old Henry Gray’ I table in this House for the Parliamentary Record as a cheeky but fun interpretation of Henry and the unique contribution he has made to education in the Territory.
Henry, enjoy your retirement and to Margot, thank you for supporting Henry through his 36 years in education in the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Speaker, I give my very warmest wishes for the holiday season, for Christmas, and for a safe New Year to the people of the Northern Territory. No matter what we do in this House, we must remember we are all here to advance the true welfare of Territorians. Every time I come to this House, every time I get up in the morning and go to work, whether I am working in my electorate office, travelling around the Northern Territory, or preparing for the election in 2012, I have the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory in mind.
I wish everyone, particularly those living in Katherine, in my electorate, the best. I thank them for the past 12 months of support they have given me. There are challenges everywhere in the Northern Territory, and Katherine is no different. There are challenges which arise with being a local member, but I do not resile from those challenges. I grasp them with zest and vigour because this job is about making a difference whether you are making a difference to the whole of the Northern Territory population or to one individual. That is why we are here.
I thank the parliamentary staff, the staff in the Chamber, the Tabled Papers Office, Parliamentary Services, our library, and particularly the Hansard people who are listening tonight and taking all this down. To all of you, and I hope I have not offended anyone if I have missed them, but thanks and a very Merry Christmas.
I thank my Country Liberal colleagues in the parliamentary wing and in the party broader, and particularly the Katherine branch without whose support my job would be nigh on impossible. I know they will be a great support as we move into 2012.
I extend my very warmest wishes, the warmest I can give, to my darling wife and my children - I have two living in Katherine with me and one living in Brisbane and it was nice to hear today that he got through his first year of university studying science and passed all his subjects. I am very pleased with that, Nicholas - well done.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the very hard work of my electorate officer, Pat Witte. Pat is devoted and dedicated to the member for Katherine. She served my predecessor, Fay Miller, very well and continues to serve me to the utmost level of service. Without her, I could not do the job. In fact, I have often described Pat as the glue that holds me together. When you are running an office, an electorate officer is the substance that keeps everything running smoothly. To Pat, I say thank you for the past 12 months of your work.
I specifically mention my colleagues because the guys and girls on this side of the House have worked so very hard in the past 12 months to show the people of the Northern Territory we are a credible alternative government. I particularly mention the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, and the leadership he has shown over the past 12 months. We have had some difficult times, as parties often do, but the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership over that period is unquestioned and I very much look forward to the member for Blain taking us to the next election as the Leader of the Opposition.
I will work my way around the room because we all contribute in many different ways. The member for Port Darwin is a person you cannot sneak anything past. He is sharp, and his ability in the Chamber - I saw it again today, as he gave the Attorney-General the death of a thousand cuts in the debate on the Work Health bills. That was a pleasure watch.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Kezia Purick is doing an absolutely wonderful job of looking after the Primary Industry sector. I commend her for the hard work she does in that arena.
The member for Brennan is doing a wonderful job as shadow Education minister, shadow for the Environment, and also Parks and Wildlife. The intelligence he brings to those portfolios will serve the Territory well should we win government in 2012.
The member for Fong Lim is also a very sharp operator. I know he is not very popular on the other side of the House - and I see the member for Karama raising her eyebrows, as she likes to do. The member for Fong Lim possesses an enormous corporate knowledge, which is of enormous benefit to this side of the House. So Dave, thanks and well done.
To our new member, the member for Macdonnell, welcome aboard. I am looking forward to working with you as we move forward as well. You bring a new depth to the Country Liberals’ parliamentary team.
The member for Drysdale plays an important and integral part in our parliamentary wing. He puts a lot of effort into his portfolio areas. Sitting so close to him, I enjoy his sharp wit. He is probably our most prolific interjector during Question Time.
The member for Sanderson brings other unique properties to the Country Liberals in the way he looks after his portfolios. I know he has an absolute passion for seniors and youth. To Peter and his good wife, Linda, I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
The member for Braitling is probably one of the most energetic politicians I know. That man never stops working. I know he gets up very early every morning and probably survives on about four or five hours sleep. He brings an enormous amount to this Chamber.
The member for Greatorex has this innate ability to come into this House and deliver blow after blow, punch after punch, on this government. He is a fast thinker, and quick on his feet. I have seen him hold this government to account many times and it is a pleasure to watch.
The member for Araluen is a fast learner. She has come along in leaps and bounds in the 12 months she has been in her electorate for the Country Liberals. She is a passionate performer. She has picked up the role of shadow for Child Protection and will continue to make enormous inroads in that portfolio as time moves on.
To all my colleagues over here, a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year! I genuinely wish all members on the other side of the House a safe and happy New Year, a very Merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing you all in 2012.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Speaker, I add my Christmas wishes to everyone. I start with the backbone of my Karama office, my colleague, and someone who has become a very dear friend, Kerry Wetherall. She is a tireless worker for Karama and Malak residents and, with my ministerial responsibilities, I rely significantly on her in the local office to follow up on residents’ concerns and queries. We work as a team and she is an absolute gun regarding her efforts to ensure people get fair treatment. She has been through the national Indigenous Leadership Program, she is a strong role model for the young Indigenous residents of Karama and Malak, a mother of four, but also a foster carer; she has three regular additional foster children. She is an absolute star and one hell of a fun person to be around as well. Her wit and humour keeps much joy happening in my life.
I thank Dee Hona, a dear friend and mother of three beautiful girls, who steps up and does relief work in my Karama office, a local resident, a tireless worker, a women with an enormous heart, and great integrity and ethics.
Thanks also to Ruth Palmer who gets into my Karama office from time to time. She is an incredible workhorse. She is always there when you need someone to step up, and she is very talented and creative. I love watching her blossom professionally and I thoroughly enjoyed watching her get married this year. It has been a special year for our Ruth.
Donna Smith, who is not a constituent; she used to live in the electorate of Sanderson and has moved to the electorate of Wanguri. I got to know her through her time on the school council at Malak Primary School, and then the school council at Sanderson Middle School. We formed a friendship, and I tell you, she will do anything, any time to help and assist me in any fundraising efforts around the community. Donna is an absolute star. She is a lovely mother and a great example of just how fine Territorians are, and incredibly selfless in giving her time, efforts, and energy when it comes to fundraising.
I thank my ministerial staff, who work enormous hours and put in an incredible effort for me. My senior advisor, Sonia Peters, is held in very high regard and respect by all the industry groups, and all the public servants, we work with in relation to our responsibilities. I call her my right-hand woman and she is an absolute gem. She is an incredible woman. She has two beautiful children, and at the same time as being a senior advisor, she manages to be an owner/builder who has built herself and her beautiful children a lovely home. I not only admire and respect her advice, her intelligence, and her work ethic, but also the wonderful nature in which she goes about working with other people. She is always constructive and supportive of people across government and industry.
To my other advisors, Chris Grace, Patrick Hastwell, and Alyson Brown who have been with me through the year, thank you for your tremendous work. You are a great team and I value all your efforts. I enjoy working with you and I know I can fundamentally rely on each of you all of the time, and I genuinely appreciate that.
To Jo Pethick and Jo Martin, who have been Justice advisors for me when I was the Attorney-General, I have been well served by their legal knowledge, their astuteness, and their thoroughness. To the beautiful and wonderful Marita Lunney, I miss you. I lost her in the reshuffle recently, because she has always worked for the Attorney-General. She is a woman of incredible professionalism and I have had three wonderful years being supported by her. To Stephanie Lutzke, my personal assistant, she is an absolutely delightful young woman, just turned 21. She is also a model, and I can tell you, everyone who visits the office of the Deputy Chief Minister appreciates the reception they receive from this gorgeous, pleasant, professional, and hard-working Stephanie who is of great support to me.
To Graeme Kevern and Pompea Sweet who have come across with the DBE portfolio, I am enjoying the early days of working with them. I like their enthusiasm and effort. I have known both of them for quite some time and I value them as staff members.
To Maya and Emily who have stepped into the admin roles on the loss of Marita - I had Emily first and she had to go back to the department, and now I have Maya; thank you for your fresh, bright, young, and enthusiastic effort in my office.
To my schools in the electorate; I am proud of the fact that I have seven schools in the Karama electorate, from Marrara Christian College, O’Loughlin Catholic College, Holy Family School, Sanderson Middle School, Karama Primary School, Malak Primary School, and Manunda Terrace Primary School. The principals of each of those schools and the staff who provide the support to the teachers do a tremendous job. I have enjoyed attending all of those schools throughout the year, attending the assemblies, continuing with the Literacy and Numeracy Awards I provide to the students. Probably the best part of my job is getting out to those schools, mixing it up with the students, having fun, answering their amazing questions, and looking at the inspirational work those teachers, and the principals with their leadership, perform in our education system. Congratulations and Merry Christmas to all of them.
To the Legislative Assembly staff, I do not envy you your jobs, I have to say. You have to put up with all of us and that is a huge effort. From the Clerk’s staff, the Table Office, Hansard, and the parliamentary support teams, everyone who works in this building does so with a great degree of dedication in ensuring that as elected members of parliament we can serve our communities while supported in a professional manner. I say thank you and a Merry Christmas to them.
To the agencies I work closely with and whose advice I rely upon and value. The Under-Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, is outstanding and has an outstanding team of Assistant Under-Treasurers and Treasury staff. I thoroughly enjoy my visits to Treasury. To all of them, thank you for your tremendous efforts throughout the year.
To the CEO of the Department of Justice, Greg Shanahan, and to Micheil Brodie heading up RGL, and all the staff in Justice and Racing, Gaming and Licensing, thank you for your commitment and tremendous efforts through this year, particularly with the alcohol reform program. They have undertaken an enormous task and done so with great integrity and professionalism.
I am getting used to the Department of Business and Employment. I am getting across all the issues and information. They have been diligent in providing me with good and timely advice and information so early in the change. I am enjoying the portfolio enormously of Business, Employment and Training, and the opportunities and importance of Asian Relations and Trade and now with Defence Support.
To all the industry organisations I have the opportunity to work with, I value their support and advice because I believe with the advice from the public service, coupled with the advice from the private sector, you get a very well-rounded view of the needs across the portfolio areas in government.
I sincerely thank my colleagues. I love being a member of the Henderson Labor government. Each of us makes a strong team who enjoy each other’s company. We learn from each other constantly, we support each other because the days are long, the job is not without its challenges, and it often takes us away from our respective families. We have become not just a team, but also a supportive family under the leadership of the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri.
I say thanks to my family, bless them, and my children, Jhenne, now 16 - oh, my goodness! Bronte is now 15, and Zac is now seven. I had Zac in office, poor little guy. He knows nothing different from his mother being a complete workaholic and missing in action because she is at work. That means he values me even more when I do turn up and he is particularly excited when he sees me in daylight, which is not that often. However, he is a champion, and his sisters are incredible; fine young women they are growing into and I am very proud of my three children.
That being said, I have an extra one - a filler - my 21-year-old whom I have taken on. She adds a fabulous dynamic to our household and has done so for a couple of years now. I have watched her mature and grow into a lovely young woman. Just to make things more interesting on the home front, I have Lisa, a German exchange student here for three months. Lisa is having her first taste of life in the tropical Northern Territory and will have her first tropical Christmas - her village is snow laden! To my mum, my sister, my brother, and my whole family, thank you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Speaker, the year has flown; we are in December, two pays to Christmas, and I have not even come close to doing my Christmas shopping yet. I send some early Christmas wishes: Kristy, who is everything; Dawn, who has been a lifesaver this year, and is a joy to be around, full of wisdom, good cheer, and common sense - she has been a boon to me; and to Lindsay, a top young bloke with energy and enthusiasm.
I cannot mention young blokes without thanking of Hamish, a future member in the making. Siobhan, Ruth, and Shaan are legends; I love your work. Wolf is a man with a great name, immeasurable patience and knowledge. He has been a source of consistent and excellent advice just like Mano and the Cass-meister and SP, whose patience I am sure I have tested at times but they have always been there, as have a bevy of brilliant and out-of-the-box minds in Rhyno, Bags, Gracey, Kez, Gino, Kenny, Marty, and Vim, the newly-married Eddie, a fellow Carlton supporter, who always seems to be calm and composed; I love doing events with him. The wise counsel of Ash, Judy, and Fiona, and their fellow historians; Wendy, my fellow physiotherapy patient who is always chipper, her mood is infectious; Helen, with the support of Brian, is a source of inspiration for the local work she does at East Point.
As Whip, I spend a great deal of time working with the member for Nelson and Michelle. Thank you for the laughs, the debates, and the lollies. We receive a lot of great support from ‘Legies’ to do our work as members, and I welcome Russell to the team. It was great to have Gaddy chip in with committees last year; I am sure he agrees it is good to have Russell on board now. We had an Acting Speaker and an Acting Clerk these sittings. They have done well and I am thinking of them. In thinking of them we wish the Clerk and Madam Speaker all the best and look forward to seeing them in the Chamber next year.
I acknowledge the hard work and support of Jenny, Helen, Brero, Brenno, Kate, Carly, and Linda, whether it is at meetings, outside shops, letterboxing or more, especially at this time of year - your efforts are gold.
We have some great schools, the best schools in the Territory, and they all have excellent leadership with their principals and school chairs; Parap Primary School, Stuart Park Primary School, Darwin High, and Darwin Middle School. I enjoy working with them. Recently I had good chats with all the schools about Cash for Containers and preparing for that. I am not sure if they want to think about Day 1, Term 1 as we near the last day of Term 4.
I wish Aderyn and Helen, Bernie and Helen, Marcus and Maxine, Marion and Trevor, and Sue well.
There have been and continue to be a number of big projects around the electorate. Building sites demand constant negotiations and management around issues and Manuel and Toby have been excellent in working through the competing needs of worksites and neighbours.
There are excellent community clubs in Fannie Bay and I am always happy to support them. They are mainly driven by volunteers and the endeavour that keeps our community clubs going is the endeavour that built this place and makes the Territory a great place - Barry and Duncan, Anna and Kane, Tony, and now Len, of course, Brett, Jusso, Chucky, and Phil.
Madam Acting Speaker, finally, to a bunch of friends who I do not get to see much anymore but who always have time when I do: Dave, Borrie, Butler, and Watto. At some stage over Christmas, we will all catch up, and I wish the goodwill we will share on all members.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Acting Speaker, Merry Christmas to you and thank you for a very enduring year. I thank my Country Liberals’ colleagues: Terry Mills, member for Blain and Leader of the Country Liberal Party; Kezia Purick, Deputy Leader and member for Goyder; John Elferink, member for Port Darwin; Robyn Lambley, the new member for Araluen; Matt Conlon, member for Greatorex; Adam Giles, member for Braitling; Peter Styles, member for Sanderson; Alison Anderson, member for Macdonnell; Willem Westra van Holthe, member for Katherine; Dave Tollner, member for Fong Lim; and my fellow Palmerston colleague, Mr Peter Chandler. Thank you to you all.
It is without doubt a challenging job, as the government opposite definitely knows. We wish a Merry Christmas to those members opposite and to the member for Nelson, Gerry ‘Chicka’ Wood. It has been a long year, but somehow it seems to have come so quickly to an end.
I also thank the Opposition Leader’s Office staff: Karen Gutteridge, Bonnie Hageman, Belinda Dukic, Lawson Broad, Mike Delosa, Col Fuller, Francine Tomsen, Cam Smith, Leanne Britton, Paul McLaughlin, and for much of this year, Alison Penfold, and Kylie Sylvie.
To the staff in Hansard upstairs, the magical people who turn spoken words into written ones and type it out, so it is recorded for life. The Table Staff hide for most of the day behind the pillar I cannot see behind. They do a great job, and are there for everyone’s support at any time. The Legislative Assembly staff who so ably help all of us on both sides of this Chamber. They are also the contact point for our electorate officers, sorting out our various travel needs, right down to simple things like today, the hot water boiler in my electorate office, the one in my community room, would not stop boiling. The simple things most people do not consider; there needs to be a contact point and the Legislative Assembly staff help coordinate those things.
The Clerk of the House and his respective Deputy Clerks, and deputy, deputy clerks; it has been great to see so many people taking their role and learning as they go.
The County Liberals as a whole, who, in my opinion, hold the light for the future of the Northern Territory, particularly Sue Fraser-Adams and Peter Allen, the management team as a whole, the members of the Calder Branch, many of whom I call friends and some even family-like. The entire electorate of Drysdale, the people who keep me inspired to continue the fight, to make real change, and bring back some new direction.
All my schools, which make you laugh. The member for Karama mentioned her schools earlier. She is so right, they are the people who make you laugh, and they are a joy to visit. I am lucky to have so many schools: Driver Primary, Durack School, Palmerston Christian School, Palmerston Senior College, and I have adopted Gray Primary School as well. They are on the border of our divide currently and many of the children live in the portion of Gray suburb that I hold within the electorate of Drysdale - I enjoy going there as well.
On Father’s Day this year - those who know me know my daughter, unfortunately, lives overseas so I missed the benefit of having my own Father’s Day. I was able to go to the Gray Primary School and be a pseudo-father at a breakfast they hold where some 98 family members turned up. It was good fun to have some young kids come and sit down at the table because unfortunately their father could not be there. They shared breakfast with me and told jokes and we had a good morning. It was nice to start a day like that, especially being so far from my own daughter.
The three fantastic electorate officers in Palmerston are Tasma, Marlise, and Donna. They create the triangle of strength for the Palmerston people. Donna, you are without doubt the best electorate officer. I know we all say that, but in my opinion, you are the best electorate officer. You support me, and even whilst we are in the Chamber the constant dialogue we have by these great magical black boxes, the computers, continues and we can still do our best to coordinate what is happening in the electorate from the parliament, which is so often disconnected from what is happening in the real world. Donna, you are fantastic. I wish you the best Christmas possible –
To all my friends, there are so many of them. The job of a politician is not always a job people look up to. Sometimes you are seen as the easiest target in the House and having a great bunch of friends in many diverse worlds keeps me grounded. It is easy to come into this place, put on a fancy suit or a fancy set of clothes, and forget you are actually a normal person. As we know on both sides of this House, we are normal people, and it is our friends who keep us grounded and in connection with what is really happening out there. So, thank you to all my friends.
All the sporting clubs I am involved with right down to the Centre of Australia: the Alice Springs Off Road Racing Club, through to Top End Mud Racing Association, drag racing, speedway, karting, and quads. They are all places I love to go when I have a bit of a spare time. Motor sport is my passion and I love getting out and seeing those guys.
We heard the Chief Minister talking of Henry Gray, who is a supporter of athletics, and has been to quite a few events I have been to. He was on the microphone commentating for athletics. Henry is another great Territorian who has taken to retirement. Henry was the principal for my daughter when she first started school at Leanyer. Henry, thank you for the guidance you gave my daughter as a principal in her first years of schooling before she went overseas. She still remembers you, and that is well over five years ago. You have left a mark on her. As far as I am concerned, and many others, she is a fantastic young lady. I am sure, Henry, your influence will have left a mark on many people.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is the season to be jolly. I hope everyone plays safe. Whether you are staying in town or going interstate or overseas, please forget the banter of the floor, have a safe Christmas. I look forward to coming back, engaging, and locking horns for the betterment of the Territory. I will see many of you around the traps leading up to, and after, Christmas. I will be in the office, and at the Palmerston Shopping Centre wrapping presents with Somerville. Somerville Community Services is a place where I spend much of the lead-up to Christmas, I suppose, as part of my artistic flair, wrapping presents and throwing in a good 20 to 30 hours a week there between duties.
Best of luck to all. Have a Merry Christmas, and enjoy your time with your family.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also pass on my thanks and appreciation for the year to the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and all the Legislative Assembly staff. I was listening to the member for Drysdale and wanted to mention those people who pick up those issues in our electorate offices and elsewhere: Vicki Long, Mary-Anne Almond, and Alice Tsang. I cannot thank Alice enough; she is a fantastic person in sorting out some of the issues I have had. To Corinna, Karen, Eva, and Lukas in the Human Resource and Salaries area, sorting out a number of issues over the last year, I thank you for all your assistance and the efficiency with which you provide that service.
To the Table Office, to Gaddy, Steven, and Annette, thank you for all the support. I have done this since 2001. I do not know if people watch that little show just before the news, they have those five minutes of the little flies or the bees. I sometimes wish I could be a little fly on the wall in the Table Office when members are on their feet talking, and the other stuff that is happening in here. And not just the Table Office - I would not mind being in the Hansard area. It would be a fantastic place to be a little fly on the wall just to listen. I thank the Hansard staff. The member for Drysdale is absolutely right, they take what we say, put it into context, and make us sound very intelligent. I thank the Hansard staff for that. They do a fantastic job. It cannot be easy when you have members screaming and booming through the microphones.
To all my colleagues - and what can I say to the Chief Minister - thank you. Your support of me over the last 12 months has been invaluable and I thank you for that. To the Deputy Chief Minister, to all our ministers and colleagues, to the member for Nhulunbuy, with whom I do a lot of travel, and the member for Fannie Bay, on committees. We are the trio who hold up all the committees and I enjoy it. I thank both of you for your camaraderie and friendship. It makes all those long committee meetings worthwhile. The three of us bonded to ensure we hold up the government’s side.
I have to say it before I forget, out of all of the opposition members I want to extend a Merry Christmas to the member for Drysdale. The member for Katherine said he is the most prolific interjector on their side, and from one interjector to another interjector, member for Drysdale, when I call you ‘stupid’, it is a term of endearment. I find you very endearing out of everyone on that side and think you are a decent person. You are trying to do your job and I wish you all the best for Christmas. I hope you have a good Christmas and Happy New Year. I am not crying for you; I have a runny nose. I wish you a good Christmas and a safe New Year.
Back to the members of government: member for Johnston, I am always enthralled listening to your captivating speeches. I was listening to the delusions of grandeur from the member for Katherine when he said certain people cut through and lay blows on the body. No one does it better on this side than the member for Johnson. You do it in a strategic, intelligent, and precise way, and I have enjoyed listening to your speeches over the last year.
To my friend, the Speaker of the Assembly, the member for Nightcliff, I hope you will have a rest with your family. To Simon and your children, I hope you have a restful Christmas and New Year and you take this time to have a rest.
To my colleague, the member for Stuart - out of all of us on this side he, and the member for Barkly travel often and are both constantly on the road. For both families, particularly the member for Stuart with his wife and children in Alice Springs and being the only government member in Alice Springs, it can be hard and we think of you. I hope you, Rebecca, and the kids have a fantastic break over Christmas, and the same for the member for Barkly, who is going to stay in Tennant Creek. I always say this is the best time to stay in the Territory, and for me, Darwin is always the best place to stay. Member for Barkly, to you, Dawn, and your family, all the best over Christmas.
To my sister, the member for Arnhem - Arnhem and Arafura are like sister electorates. I think they are going away for Christmas. I hope you get that rest with your two boys and take time to recharge your batteries. You will do that and come back next year well rested because we have a long year ahead.
To all my colleagues, thank you. It has been a privilege and an honour to work with you and to have your support. It has not been easy and I have appreciated that support.
To my husband, David, we always get to that time of the year and I think of the last 12 months, but I particularly think of the last three months having given up smoking. I always say my husband deserves the biggest medal for all he puts up with. He has put up with the last three months of me not smoking, having smoked since I was 15. To him and my three children, Cherise, Richard, and Helen, and my six grandchildren - being a mother of three older children and having six little grandchildren, Christmas is always a fantastic time. I am looking forward to spending that time with my children and my grandchildren.
Having little grandchildren reinforces how important family, Christmas, and New Year becomes, and how important it is to love and look after family and value the time you have with those individuals. To my family, I am looking forward to spending time with you and with my greater extended family, my eight sisters, one brother, and all my nieces and nephews. We all get together on Christmas Day. There are 10 of us and with all our children it makes about 55; then there are the great-grandchildren, and the great great-grandchildren. It is a great day. I look forward to the one time a year when we see each other because that does not happen for another 12 months.
Member for Nelson, thank you. It has been good to work with you on CTC looking at various issues.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to everyone, stay safe, enjoy your Christmas, and I will see you in 2012.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on the last parliamentary sitting day in 2011 I acknowledge and thank the people I work with as an MLA and minister in the Henderson Labor government.
To the members of the Barkly Sub-branch of the Australian Labor Party, thank you for your support and guidance throughout another busy year, working for the people of the Barkly and the Northern Territory.
The festive season is a time to reflect on what it means to be a true believer in a political movement which has delivered major national, state, and Territory reform, characteristic of policies to protect the environment, create equity, sharing the wealth of this country with the regions, and building lasting social infrastructure which supports future development for the Northern Territory and this great nation.
A special mention to Dawn McCarthy for the tireless membership drive which has continually increased the Barkly Sub-branch membership from 2008 to 2011, including new bush members and Indigenous members. To the Barkly electorate office and Nancy Cowan we had another busy year that involved flood, fire, and, on an occasion, famine. Nancy Cowan, through her work with Barkly constituents and the Tennant Creek Sub-branch of the RSL has become a very popular member of the community, creating an organised and supportive network, listening to and serving the electorate. Best wishes to Nancy and to your partner, Frank, and a Merry Christmas, prosperous New Year, and safe holiday with your family and friends.
A special mention to Lynda Clarke, a relief electorate officer from Tennant - good on you Lynda; you are always ready to step in when needed, you are part of a team, and you provide great support to Nancy and me.
To the constituents of the Barkly and the Territory who, as a local member and minister of the Crown, I seek to serve, whether it be sitting under a shady tree on a remote community talking with an Elder, standing at the big house gate on a station debating with the manager, attending Caucus and Cabinet meetings, developing government policy, performing street theatre at the Tennant Creek Show, as the Master of Ceremonies at a community event, talking at a school assembly, visiting a prison, holding a media event, playing in a band, or in the solitude and solemnity of Mass on Sunday, it is a privilege and honour to serve the community I love and cherish, and to know the diverse and vibrant people of the Barkly and the Northern Territory are providing the guidance and knowledge which influences and delivers good governance for the Northern Territory.
To the Chief Minister, boss, and all my Labor colleagues, thank you for your support, guidance, and inspiration as a united team. You are a united team; you talk the talk, and walk the walk through innovative and major reform as massive public infrastructure steps out of the Territory’s red earth to support innovative and creative industries and endeavours which seek to support social, cultural, and economic development for all Territorians. You are a good mob, Labor Caucus, keep up the good work. Working with ‘Team Hendo’ is best described as a marathon, not a sprint, and is fuelled by the mantra: ‘What it is that we can do for the Territory and what it is we seek to leave for future generations of Territorians’. Not being shy, the tough decisions, premised on equality and a fair go for all.
To Madam Speaker and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the true keepers of democracy in this Parliament House, the people’s house: your professional support here and in the electorate is exemplary and provides the real linkages for serving the community of the Northern Territory.
To the ministerial drivers, I can assure you that getting dropped off in a white car in Mitchell Street in Darwin for a ministerial function for the arts is a big hit for a boy from the bush and a privilege that comes with the job. Thank you for the professional service and the great Territory yarns that come complementary with the job.
The ministerial staff of the parliamentary office, Suite No 1: what a fantastic and diverse bunch of Territorians work in that busy, challenging, and productive work environment for the very complex and sometimes excruciating business of government. You cannot please everyone and nearly everyone in the public arena is an expert, yet, in with true sense of dignity and willingness to serve as the ministerial staff, they deliver day-in and day-out for the people of the Northern Territory, whether they be friend or foe, hostile or polite, young or old, town or country, from every corner of the globe. For that, I am truly thankful; it is a privilege to work with you.
The staff we have seen in Suite No 1 in 2011: Brett Brogan, as a senior advisor, what an incredible young guy he is. He is a great Territorian with a big future and congratulations to Brett and Dee on the birth of their first child. We all celebrated that with great delight. Penny Lyons, what a great DLO in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, has gone back to the department. Thanks for introducing us to Michael, you are a great couple, you are a fun couple, and you are Territorians who have influenced everyone you have come in contact with through your great work. Bernie Ingram, a lady who rides a pink Harley Davidson; she has attitude that girl, and she is a DLO for Transport. Back in the department and I am sure we will be seeing a lot of Bernie with her work in the CPV industry. Brenton Higgins, good on you, mate. A young guy who came across from Queensland, has really helped out in the Corrections area as an advisor, and has gone on to more jobs in working with the government. I look forward to continuing a friendship and working with you, Brenton.
Edwin Edlund, what can you say? A media advisor extraordinaire; it was great to work with Edwin. He has gone on to bigger and better things, but a fine young Territorian and congratulations on your wedding as well. To Kylie Bell, a personal assistant, moved on to bigger and better things as well. It was great fun having you in the office and it is good that you come back and visit us regularly. To Natalie Dinsdale, ministerial assistant, great young woman and back in the department as well with a wealth of experience she takes with her and she brought to us as well. Good on you, Nat, and look forward to seeing you around town.
All these Territorians rose to the challenge and stood shoulder to shoulder as a team delivering in very challenging circumstances that can be intimidating at times, well outside the professional boundaries of the mainstream public sector; however, each and every one thrived on the challenge and made the best use of the job’s extraordinary nature to professionalise and enhance their careers, delivering for the community of the Northern Territory.
The unwritten rule in Suite No 1 is you cannot leave unless it is to enhance your career and, once again, in 2011, each and every one has accepted that challenge and moved forward into new and varied positions. For that, I am proud, as a minister and a de facto dad - after all, they are all my children to foster and nurture as young Territorians.
To the current staff in 2011, what a great bunch; we work as a team. I could not do without you, and we all look after each other. Rebecca Cass, the senior advisor, a smart, intelligent woman who not only influences the work I do, but has a great influence as a senior member of Team Hendo and works tirelessly with her colleagues to do the best for Territorians. Special thank you to Jamie, her husband, and boys, Lachlan and Oliver, for sharing mum with us, because we could not do it without her.
Jasmine Thomson, a DLO for Transport, welcome onboard, Jasmine. She is a very quiet, calm, and confident young woman and I look forward to more of your advice, Jasmine, as we work together in the New Year. Claire March, a media advisor who brought a lot of good experience from New South Wales and now shares it across the floor. She has a good promotion coming up. Thank you for your work in Corrections as well, Claire.
Alan James as an Arts advisor is a born and bred Territorian, very well connected, very sleek, and very smart. Alan, you are very popular and people really like the direction we are taking the Arts, so well done. Wolf Loenneker is the Lands and Planning advisor and Darwin Port Corporation advisor. He is the guy who I am sure Barak Obama would have dropped in on to get some advice. He is truly the old gentleman of the team, and has a wealth of knowledge. I meet some amazing people in this job and everyone compliments Wolf and comments on the privilege it is to work with him.
Tegan Berg is a young woman of fine stock in the Northern Territory. She is a DLO for the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. It is great working with you, Tegan, and it is going to be good on the way forward because you are taking great interest in the job, professionalising your career, and making the opportunity a real one. To Natalie Westley, personal assistant - thank you Natalie, you are fantastic. You are new on board, you fitted into the family really well, and we are looking forward to working together as we go through some more very intense times in our ministerial work.
Rebecca McAlear is the ministerial assistant. What a kid! She is amazing, and what a year she has had. Her team, the Palmerston Raiders beat my team, the Nightcliff Dragons, in the grand final of the Rugby League, and she had a major overseas holiday. What a great kid, and I watch your career take place. Good on you, Rebecca, keep up the good work.
Jan and Cecilia McCarthy; Lynne McCarthy; Tim, Judy, Hanna, Daniel, and Ella Morgan; Robert McCarthy, my big brother; to my wife Dawn; Thomas and Maria, getting married next year; Joey, cheeky as ever; Robert, Abbi, and Reece Josephson, you are the family that keep it all together. You are going to be rallying next year. You certainly have taken up your share of politics and you enjoy every minute of it.
I am going to give 10 seconds to the opposition. What a moribund mob of losers. What a mob of oxygen thieves. What a mob of losers. They need to be detoxed; they need macrobiotics. Hey guys, no hard feelings, it is only a joke!
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is certainly a hard act to follow. My colleague from Central Australia, the member for Barkly, as always, is entertaining; he is a real entertainer. Maybe I should call him Robbie Williams!
It has been a year of action and achievement in Central Australia. Tonight I take the opportunity to acknowledge these achievements and the efforts of many people who make Alice Springs and the Centre such a great place to live. I am proud to live in Alice Springs, to call it home. I take every opportunity to sing the praises of my home town and the great people who come from all over the world to live and visit.
I love the warm weather; I am looking forward to summer this year, and getting around to some of the many holiday activity programs that have been coordinated by the Youth Hub staff. This government has invested an extra $60 000 in these activities over the coming holidays. Centralian Middle School will be opening its doors over summer. The aquatic centre will be running night activities, and extra youth transport services are being run. The police are looking at a great cops and kids program, and organisations like Congress, Tangentyere, the Alice Springs Youth Centre, Gap Youth Centre, InCite, the YMCA and many others are playing their part.
The Youth Action Plan has really been kicking some goals. The Youth Hub is becoming a service centre for families and young people, as well as a place for youth-focused events like dance parties, live bands, performances, workshops - maybe we should get the member for Barkly there with his guitar. The Youth Hub is also becoming a vital cog concerning social services, and I pay tribute to the Youth Services Coordinator, John Adams, and Matty Day, who are doing great work; the Youth Street Outreach Service, and the agencies and organisations that operate from the hub, a big thank you on behalf of government for your work this year.
Police are confident a range of anti-crime initiatives will mean we will not see a repeat of last year’s summer crime wave. That is not to say there will be no crime. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any place in the world that has ever been able to make that claim, but police are confident there will not be a repeat of last summer. I meet with the local police regularly, and Superintendant Michael Murphy and Acting Commander Michael White have been planning all year for the summer months. I thank them, their staff, and the police of Alice Springs for their enduring duties to the community of Alice Springs.
Operation Thresher started today and will continue until the end of January, with a focus on antisocial behaviour and property crime. Police will also implement a number of initiatives designed to combat alcohol-related crime, violence, and drink-driving.
Police have praised this government’s alcohol reforms. It gives them a strong tool to combat grog-related crime. This is something members opposite fail to grasp. They are soft on grog and soft on crime. Together with high-visibility policing on foot, bikes, motor bikes, horseback and more covert operations, police will be concentrating on making our community in Alice Springs safer over summer. I thank all members of the Alice Springs police again for the dedication and commitment to our community. While many of us will be enjoying our holidays, they will be hard at work.
As well as police and youth agencies, the Northern Territory government is working with the Alice Springs community to tackle issues of crime and antisocial behaviour. Earlier this year, the community identified the need for a locally-driven action plan at a series of meeting convened by me, the Chief Minister, the town council, and other agencies. Our local committee, co-chaired by Mayor Damien Ryan and local lady, Catherine Liddle, was formed in August. The committee has driven development of the plan which outlines the community’s goals, aspirations, and roles in creating a better community in Alice Springs. They have released their first regular e-newsletter to share progress with the community and to continue to receive feedback about key issues.
I thank other members of the committee, but particularly our Mayor, Damien Ryan. Damien does a fantastic job in Alice Springs. He is a local born and bred man and a great asset for our town. Thanks, Damien, for all your support over the past 12 months.
Catherine Liddle is a local Arrernte lady from a large extended family in Alice Springs. Thanks to Catherine for getting on board. She also works in education and does a fantastic job. It is great to see local Aboriginal women becoming strong leaders in our community.
To the other members, Brad Bellette, Neil Ross, Liz Martin, Harold Furber, Jenny Nixon, Eva Lawler from the Northern Territory government, and Mark Coffey from the Australian government, thanks for your huge commitments to the committee. They will continue to work with agencies and service providers to ensure the community has a strong voice in determining future priorities, and I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 2011 has been a year of huge achievements under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. All 196 rebuilds and refurbishments of existing town camp houses are complete, and we are days away from handing over the last of the 85 new houses which have been built. A very happy Christmas to many town camp families in their new and refurbished houses. We know they treasure them and, in many cases, are very excited to have their own bedrooms.
This year saw 500 extra beds come online in Alice Springs. What a huge achievement for the town of Alice Springs. Again, I thank the Australian government and minister Macklin for their ongoing support for such a successful program. I was very proud to join the Prime Minister at the opening of the Percy Court complex and minister Macklin at the opening of the new visitor park in Alice Springs. The Lodge is now open, accommodating renal patients. Akangkentye Hostel is offering short-term accommodation on South Terrace, and extra beds are online at the Salvation Army. It has been a huge year for Alice Springs in addressing homelessness and the housing shortage, particularly in our town camps.
A huge range of social support services is helping people across the community tackle alcohol issues, violence, school attendance, health, and dog control programs. The services are making a real impact on people's lives and are something the Labor government in the Territory certainly values.
I acknowledge the work of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan team: Tracey Brand, Eva Lawler, Jodie Methel, Leonore Hargraves, Kathleen Burgen, Sarah Furgood, and Karine Mendes. I also acknowledge the work put in by the members of the joint steering committee, the Alice Springs Town Council, Lhere Artepe, Tangentyere, and the Northern Territory and Australian governments. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan is a $150m partnership with the federal government and a model of what can be achieved when we work together. Thanks must also go to Dave Chalmers and Mark Coffey and his team in Alice Springs. The ASTP has made a dramatic improvement on living conditions on town camps. It does not solve all the issues. Remember, we were starting from a point of significant arrears in housing and services. However, when you get out, see the work, and talk to the families, I have no doubt this is an enormous achievement.
It has been a big year for staff in my departments and I record my appreciation for their advice, support, and professionalism. In particular, I recognise the work undertaken by Jim Grant the Chief Executive of NRETAS, and his team including, Diana Leeder, Graham Phelps, Alaric Fisher, Susan Kirkman, Matt Darcey, and Steve Rossingh. 2011 has been a busy year for environmental reform and delivery of better sports facilities and events. My departmental staff have been crucial in delivering this government’s priorities.
In my other portfolio areas, in the Department of the Chief Minister, I acknowledge Mike Burgess and his team in the Climate Change Unit who have supported us through a tough period regarding the economy worldwide and at the national level. I thank Mike and the Climate Change Unit for their work over the last 12 months. Kathleen Robinson and her team in the Department of Business and Employment have supported us as the Commonwealth delivers the National Broadband Network.
Turning to my ministerial staff on the fifth floor - we call them Team Hampton. We have had a bit of turnover this year but I thank Kieran Condillo - my thoughts are always with you - Jade, Sheena, Patrick, Vanessa, Joaquim, and Anne – staff who have left us over the last 12 months. The current members, David, my senior advisor; Ken, one of my sports advisors; Martin, ICT; Eddie, my media advisor, what a great guy Eddie is, pity he is a Carlton supporter; Jodie, Carol, Cathy and all the members of Team Hampton in 2011, thank you for your support and friendship. It has been great working with you and I know we all enjoy a great Territory lifestyle on the fifth floor in Team Hampton.
To all the other staff on the fifth floor; they are a fantastic team. I know the opposition despises them, but they are a great bunch of workers. They work tirelessly; I do not know where we would be without them. To all the drivers, Hansard staff, Legislative Assembly staff, Madam Speaker, the Clerk, security, Karen Sheldon and her staff at Speaker’s Corner, thank you very much.
To Des, Andre, Jess, and Mandy the backbone of the office in Alice Springs, whom I rely on enormously, thank you for your work. To Vicky and Gavin, Mary-Lou and Charles, Jo and Sam, and Mary-Lou in Katherine. Thank you very much to the branch members of Alice Springs and Katherine Labor parties.
To my wife, Rebecca, and my sons Josh, Curtly, and Jamie, thank you for your ongoing support. To my father Robert, my brother Vaughan, sisters Pauline and Vanya, thank you very much. To the in-laws, the out-laws, and to the family from Yuendumu - what more can I say? Merry Christmas.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I start by acknowledging the brilliant work Arafura Dance Association does and has done for many years in teaching young people to dance and perform. It would be one of the largest dance schools in the Northern Territory and can boast some fantastic achievements. I went to their matinee concert on Sunday afternoon. It was absolutely stunning; the program listed 31 performances which were done across a number of different genres - brilliant choreography, wonderful music, exceptional talent, and amazing costumes.
I acknowledge Rachael Wallis, the principal dance teacher who is incredibly talented. I am sure she has been with a number of dance companies but I know she has been with Bangarra Dance. What she brings to Arafura Dance with classical, contemporary, and the mix of music is absolutely fantastic, and we all hope she never leaves. Rachael is well supported by Sharlene Cardilini, who teaches Highland and tap dancing, Melissa Kennedy who teaches jazz and hip-hop, and Ineke Wallis, Rachael’s daughter, who teaches the Boyz Rock class. I think there is a name missing off that list amongst the dance teachers but, no, that must be it. Well done to everyone.
I have been involved with Arafura Dance for a number of years. My daughter, Zoe, danced for nearly 10 years. I worked on the committee for a year and it is quite pleasant to go to these concerts, sit back and enjoy it all, knowing you have not had to slave over costumes and whatnot. My contribution this year, as it was last year, was to sponsor prizes. I sponsored the outstanding achievement prizes for 2011 and the prize is the first-term fees for each of those dancers in 2012.
I offer congratulations to Eliza Jovicic, who received the Ballet Junior Award; Tayla Miegel, Ballet Senior Award; Leila Dunn, Contemporary Junior Outstanding Achievement Award; Milly McDonald, Contemporary Senior Outstanding Achievement Award; Lucy Laverack, Jazz Junior Award; Georgette Birch, Jazz Senior Award; Siena Stubbs, Tap Junior Award; Zoe Farnsworth, Tap Senior Award; Lachlan Frick, Hip-Hop Junior Award; Ineke Wallis, Hip-Hop Senior Award; Sean Laverack, Boyz Rock Class Award; in the Highland Junior class – Yllana Waller; in the Highland Senior class, Megan Donovan; and Most Outstanding Dance Student of 2011, Emily Tankard.
There were many other awards presented as well. Congratulations to all those dancers who performed extremely well, and the support from their teachers, parents, and the wider community. Well done, everyone.
I start by looking to my electorate and acknowledging the amazing people I am honoured to represent in Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala, Elcho Island, the Marthakal Homelands, and the Lanhupuy Homelands. There is much we have to be proud of and thankful for. When I think of some of the achievements across a range of areas, it makes me very proud to be the local member and work with the people I do.
In so many of our communities, it is the schools that are at the heart of communities, so I want to acknowledge each of the schools in my electorate, the principals, the students, the very hard-working staff, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous and the school communities that support those schools, along with families: Nhulunbuy Primary School – Principal, Matt Watson; Nhulunbuy High School – Principal, Julie Perry; Nhulunbuy Christian School – Steve Venour; Yirrkala School – Geoff Perry; Yirrkala Homeland School – Haidee Dentith; Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Elcho Island – Bryan Hughes; Gawa Christian School, a beautiful school right up the top of Elcho Island – Principal, Lara Hvala, and I also acknowledge the incredible support she has from Gotha or Guthadjaka in running that school and running an Indigenous languages program for those kids; and Baniyala at Blue Mud Bay – Pat Ellis and the fantastic work that he and his wife Wendy do out there, working so well with the community. I know Djambawa Marawili, the traditional owner, is really happy with what is happening at that little school which government built last year. I went out with the Education Minister a few months ago over the Garma Festival weekend to open that school.
I acknowledge my small but hard-working branch in Nhulunbuy. They are a very stoic mob. Some of them who are senior site delegates at Rio Tinto Alcan would have been shocked to hear the debate today on the national uniform legislation for occupational health and safety in workplaces, and to hear some of the stuff coming out of the mouths of the opposition. It was just staggering. I acknowledge my branch members at Nhulunbuy; they are hard-working and supportive and gearing up for another election next year.
I acknowledge and thank my electorate officer, Karen Cislowski. Karen is incredibly reliable, dependable, mature, and empathetic. She works incredibly well with people, and she is so supportive of me. I can leave the office in her hands and be confident that anyone who steps through the door, or if something comes through on the phone, she can always handle it very capably. Karen has her family in Nhulunbuy. Her youngest daughter, Erin, had her engagement party the Saturday before last. Congratulations to Erin and Matt. Karen had a little grandson born about six weeks ago. Welcome to little Benjamin Angus Dwyer. It is lovely when Karen’s kids and grandkids visit our office and keep us entertained and grounded as well.
I acknowledge the support and friendship I find through my book club. I have been a member of a book club for about 10 years in Nhulunbuy. The membership has turned over considerably. I am the only person who remains in that book club from the original group. I acknowledge Lyn Percic, Lyn Whitford, Sue Hemsworth, Nikki Jovicic, Louise McKinnon, Theresa Holdsworth, Terry Kieley, who has just left but we hope she will return, and Jenny Laverty. It is one of those book clubs where you are forgiven if you have not actually read the book when you turn up to book club. It is all about having a social evening. Sometimes we talk for an hour about the book and sometimes it might be for about 15 minutes. The next book club is at my place on 21 December, and I am looking forward to the girls coming around for an evening of catch up and a chat, and hopefully a little literary talk as well.
I want to mention my Christmas card this year. I was thrilled Shepherdson College students did the artwork for the card. I acknowledge Michele Swanborough, the art teacher who does incredible work in an arts program with the kids. Knowing the work she has done over the last couple of years, I made an approach to her earlier this year with a proposal to commission a work from students. Michele worked with one particular class of students and asked them to produce something around a Christmas theme; it was very broad. I received works from Sherilyn, Cardo, Trisha, Katelyn, Libby, Earnest, Judy, and Solomon, and forgive me, I do not have all of those kids’ surnames. They were the kids who produced artwork, and some of them did more than one.
When they arrived in my office, it must have been in the October sittings, and I received a message from my electorate officer to say: ‘The artwork has arrived, and you are going to find it hard to pick something, because everything here is just so beautiful’. I picked this one in the end. It is by Judy Gawunu Dhurrkay, a Year 8 student, who has worked collaboratively with Solomon Rrumaliny Gumbula in Year 7. That little picture is Christmas at Galiwinku, and that is kind of what Galiwinku looks like. I will be up there on 13 and 14 December on an overnight visit, so I will present awards to those students who participated, and I am looking forward to catching up with the good people at Elcho Island.
I offer my thanks and Christmas wishes to all the members on this side. I enjoy working with you all and hope to continue to grow in that enjoyment of working with people. Bush Caucus colleagues, we obviously spend a lot of time together. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you said we are a very small group on the backbench trying to cover all the committees so we spend a lot of time together in those committees. That is where we will be tomorrow morning - at Howard Springs for the Youth Suicide Committee. All of it is important work and I enjoy it. I certainly enjoy the collegiality and the friendship I share with members on this side.
I also acknowledge the members on the other side and wish them and their families a very Merry Christmas.
I also acknowledge and thank all the staff on the fifth floor, advisors, through to personal assistants, through to media advisors who I call upon frequently and who are always very helpful and supportive.
I thank Legislative Assembly staff for all their support.
Last but not least I thank my family. Without them, I could not do this. My husband, Lawrence, my daughter, Zoe, my sons, Harry and Patrick - my boys are up in the gallery today. For the benefit of my boys, I want to mention the newest member of our family, a little miniature Dachshund called Pippa, who came into our lives in May. We absolutely adore this little dog. His name is actually Pippa von Kransky. We have resisted being a dog owner for years, but we finally caved in, and that little dog is very much a part of our family as well.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on this final night of the parliamentary year 2011 to acknowledge it has been our centenary year. It has been an amazing year for the Northern Territory, 100 years for the Northern Territory and over 50 000 years of stories has been a very important theme. It has been a privilege in this centenary year to be responsible for calling on all Territorians to reflect on our history, both good and bad, and to ask ourselves what direction we are going as the people of the Northern Territory, black, white, young, old, male, female; those who were born here, those who have come here. As we look to the future of the Northern Territory, it is very exciting to see the incredible opportunities that are beginning to open up.
I thank those people who have been very much a part of working with me throughout this year, beginning with the Legislative Assembly staff. Thank you, each and every one of you, for the work you do in this Assembly keeping us all focused on the processes of the Westminster system. It is vital in our debates and upholding the tools of democracy.
I acknowledge the Clerk and wish him all the best with his recovery. It has been quite a medically-challenging time for him and our prayers and thoughts have been with him throughout these last few months. I wish you and your family all the best.
Best wishes also to Madam Speaker, who gave everything in the debate towards the Statehood Constitutional Convention. She put her heart and soul into that and I wish her well over these next few days and Christmas.
To the Statehood Secretariat team, very warm Christmas wishes to each of you. Stay strong: we are going to have a good year next year, and I am confident about how the future looks for the Northern Territory becoming the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
To our Hansard team, lovely to spend a very quick time with you this morning as the Chief Minister and I walked through. Helen, and the team there, you are just amazing. Thank you so much for what you endure. I wish you and your team a very happy and safe Christmas.
To the drivers, what can I say? Always there and getting us from A to B and B to C, and everywhere else in between. Thank you. To Speaker’s Corner and all the staff, always an absolute pleasure going there to see the welcome smiles we get when we come in.
To the security staff at Parliament House, and the cleaning staff, I love chatting with you guys. You know what is going on everywhere and it is good to be able to stop and have a chat and hear the latest about what might be happening.
To the library staff, thank you for the work you do. Each of us relies on the knowledge that comes from our history. It was wonderful, earlier in the year, to have some special exhibits as part of the centenary year in our library in the great hall. As we look forward to some amazing things in 2012, I look forward to working with you.
A very special wish to each family across my electorate of Arnhem. It is an absolute privilege to represent you in the Northern Territory Assembly. I reflect on my first couple of months in the position, and as I travel through Arnhem and see the improvements we are making and the investment in capital - the schools, the clinics, the airstrips, and the access to and from these places is becoming better and better. We have a way to go, but I wish my constituents across Arnhem a happy and safe Christmas.
Of course, we always watch the Wet Season, and I will be watching it vigilantly as I know my bush colleagues will be in their electorates, especially in the Top End. We know it is a precarious time and you know my office, the Arnhem electorate office, is always available to you whatever happens, especially in those desperate situations of flooding and when there are concerns about food and access in and out of our region. Know that we are there, and the Arnhem office is always there for you, particularly through this difficult time, as we all want to celebrate with our families. We are mindful of the weather and the change in weather patterns across the Top End.
I wish all the students well, especially those who are graduating from Year 12. I take great pleasure as the member for Arnhem to put the graduates in my Christmas newsletter, and each year those graduates are increasing in number. It is wonderful to see these young men and women graduating in places that never had graduates. That is quite an amazing exception that should never be an exception. It is going to be something very normal for all Northern Territory students and something I am incredibly proud of in Labor’s commitment to education and Labor’s total commitment to education in the bush. To be able to put out those Christmas newsletters with those men and women graduating from their community, from the growth towns, from their homelands, or from boarding schools, says much about the emphasis our government is placing on the importance of education. It is not only the importance of these young men and women graduating, but also about them going into jobs.
I take great pleasure as I reflect on the Christmas newsletters to look at those graduates and ask where these young men and women are now because we have to ensure we are not losing them once they finish Year 12. I enjoy being able to, especially around Christmas, look again at where these young men and women are, keep them in touch with each other, and keep mentoring them through to good jobs and looking after themselves and their families.
I pay special attention to the agencies I am responsible for. Ken Davies and the team in Local Government and Indigenous policy - thank you, Ken, for the terrific support you provide to me and to the ministerial staff. You expect it should be a given, but at this time of the year, it is good to mention the people who help, try to improve, and work for and on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory.
We have had a tough year. Without a doubt, the inquiry into Mataranka stands out in my mind as a vital one for our agency to work on and improve animal welfare. In addition, Local Government, the reforms in the shires and the work we need to do to ensure there is a stronger connection for people on the ground, and their relationship with the shires. I thank you, Ken, and all the team in the agency for the work you do, day in and day out, with the historic reforms we have carriage of, not only with the shires, but also with A Working Future.
To the Tourism NT team, John Fitzgerald - a pretty amazing first year on the job, John, and we are going ahead in leaps and bounds. It has been an incredibly challenging year for tourism, but I am very proud of the team in Tourism NT. Under your leadership, it is exciting to see the directions we are heading in for 2012. To you and the team, not only in the Northern Territory but also across Australia and around the world, it was an exceptional visit to China. I am encouraged by the direction we are heading with the eastern Asian market and I know 2012 will be a good one.
To Ben Scambury and the team at AAPA, thank you for the work you do. To our new Coordinator-General, Olga Havnen, and to our former Coordinator-General, Bob Beadman, wishing you all a very happy and safe Christmas. To my ministerial staff: Pete, you are a legend, thank you for always being there; to Charlie in the electorate office, you are another legend, it is a privilege to work beside you; to Ammo, Freya, Ursula, Scott, and Soraya, and to those who worked with me this year, Lucy and Andrew, Eddie and Tania, thank you so much team.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank my family for being with me. I wish every member of this Assembly a happy and safe Christmas with your families. I look forward to seeing you all in 2012.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I give thanks and Christmas cheer to all the people who helped me: Bella in my electorate office, Nicole in my ministerial office, and all the people who work there. I will thank every one of you personally, as we approach Christmas. To my colleagues, thank you also. To my family, Elizabeth and the kids, thank you so much, and thank you to all the people in the departments.
As the member for Barkly remarked earlier, this is a marathon, not a sprint, and ever so the job of Leader of Government Business. I am here until the end of business every night and tonight I have a serious matter on which to adjourn.
Sunday night was the Walkley Awards and three Territory people received awards, some in the photographic field. Congratulations to Katrina Bolton on receiving a gong for her very important story on alcohol in Alice Springs. To Russell Skelton, whose book I have had for some time, King Brown Country: The Betrayal of Papunya, published in 2010. I have read it carefully, as members will see, and I have alluded to it in this House previously in Alice Springs. I said it was probably a very important book about cataloguing and analysing, and putting perspectives on various policies in Indigenous affairs over the last 40 years in Australia.
I carefully avoided reference to personalities in the book, but the fact Russell Skelton now has a Walkley Award for this book, I will just read the press about the book. It is for Long Form Journalism. It says:
- Skelton spares no one in his painstaking examination. At the centre of the story is the powerful Anderson clan and the formidable and mercurial figure of Alison Anderson, who went from being town clerk to the Northern Territory’s most outspoken Indigenous member of parliament.
Skelton dissects difficult issues of the use and misuse of community and government funds, and the interaction between the community and the white establishment. He uncovers examples of dysfunction, of financial mismanagement, allegations of corruption, power plays, and unspeakable neglect.
He also reveals how the failure of Indigenous policy over many years has betrayed this once secure community.
The judges said, and these are formidable judges:
- Skelton writes beautifully, employing an authoritative narrative style. He avoids the common pitfall in reporting Indigenous affairs of exaggeration or sensationalism. Instead, he weaves a compelling story, building fact on fact, incident on incident, impression on impression, to produce a cool forceful account that has considerable impact. The result is a thoroughly impressive achievement.
In a news story by Emma Masters on 28 November, there is a quote from Russell Skelton. He was talking about the people of Papunya who helped him. He said: ‘I cannot mention them by name because they would not thank me for that …’. Why is that? It does not take long to get into this book to find out why. There is so much in this book; there is much to say about it.
Before I launch into this book, I want to say a couple of things about the member for Macdonnell. When she came to us in 2005, she was shrouded in controversy. There were investigations and allegations, principally by members opposite, about her activities. She kept assuring us, and particularly then Chief Minister Clare Martin: ‘It is all made up. It is not true. I have had a disagreement with my husband. There are all these things they are saying and they are not true’. We believed her on face value. We believed her; we supported her. Chief Minister, Clare Martin, stood in here many times, and protected her, and spoke for her on many occasions. As we all know, the member for Macdonnell went to the crossbenches and now she has gone to the CLP. We took her at face value, we took her assurances at face value, and I understand none of those investigations were conclusive.
However, this book is conclusive. This book is conclusive in a political sense now, and I have decided to speak out now because the Leader of the Opposition has made her shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs and Arts and Museums.
There is much in here, but there is one particular part about price gouging in the local store at Papunya. This is talking about a Mr Verek, who was the store manager. Verek said he once tried to get Vroom, the clerk of the place, to lower store prices, but Anderson flatly rejected the idea, saying it was not what the majority of councillors wanted. Alison and Handley, who is Anderson’s husband, avoided the store, doing most of their shopping in Alice Springs, yet Verek said they benefited from the profits via, amongst other prizes, a $35 000 Toyota Land Cruiser. So, here is someone who was not only aware of price gouging in their local store, but actually required it - actually ordered them to price gouge the most disadvantaged people living in a remote area, and rip them off of funds so she and her family could buy a car. What sort of cynical person is that? What sort of person who clothes themselves in this place as being some champion of Indigenous people would do that to her own people? It is catalogued throughout this book. He calls it motorcar dreaming. He not only catalogues that, but he also catalogues, in other ways, about a store owner in a particular store. The book says he held a position for several years until he was sacked. Before his dismissal by an extraordinary vote of council, he clashed with Anderson over store trading hours. Brially said Anderson wanted him to close the store on weekends so it did not interfere with a small business she operated from her house. He refused, arguing the residents were entitled to buy food and vegetables over the weekend, and he was contractually obliged to reverse the substantial losses he had inherited.
Here we have bullying, and there is a catalogue of bullying in this book. There is the bullying that went on with the school principal, one Dianne DeVere, who had taken the school from near disaster to one of the most successful bush schools in Central Australia. Here is a successful Principal who had raised attendance, who had raised standards, but it says a former Education Department official who asked not to be named said DeVere’s problem was she had achieved too much. The man said Anderson, her brother Syd and others felt DeVere had become too big for her boots. She had become a threat to the authority of the member for Macdonnell so she had her sacked. She had her moved out of the community; she hunted her out like so many people.
Here is my question to the Leader of the Opposition. You are pushing a line about the Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory, and education is part and parcel of that. Part and parcel of that is ensuring proper governance in remote stores; that there is not this type of rorting and price gouging going on. Yet, his shadow parliamentary secretary is front and centre, insisting on price gouging, part and parcel of it, profiting from it for her own benefit.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to remove Alison Anderson as the shadow parliamentary secretary. He should be giving an assurance to all Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, that that person will never ever be an Indigenous affairs minister within the Northern Territory, given the history of this book, and this book has now been validated through the Walkley Awards, through peer review, a book that now has status in this place and in Australia. The allegations made in here are very serious. At a political level, she cannot sustain it, and he cannot sustain it. I call on him to remove her from that portfolio, and I will be continuing extracts from this book and arguing this when we resume parliament next year, when we resume debate on Stronger Futures, and the measures there.
I do not want to hear such rubbish as was put forward by the member for Macdonnell. She talks about people, she says, because they are the beneficiaries. She is attacking Fran Kilgariff and Tony Tapsell. She says they are the beneficiaries of the poverty and the misery these people live in. You were the beneficiary of that misery, member for Macdonnell.
Shame on you, and shame on the Opposition Leader if he does not remove you, the same as he did with the member for Katherine. He cannot sustain these political arguments in this place. I call on him to remove the member for Macdonnell from her position as shadow parliamentary secretary for Indigenous affairs.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016