2010-02-25
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise honourable members of the death, on 31 December 2009, of Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of friends and colleagues of the late Frans Seda AM. In particular, I acknowledge the Consul of the Republic of Indonesia, Mr Harbangan Napitupulu and staff from the Consulate; former Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Barry Coulter; former member for Jingili, Mr Rick Setter; and many colleagues and senior public servants from across the Northern Territory.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members on completion of the debate I will ask members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
(a) express its deep regret at the death of Frans Seda AM, a passionate and tireless advocate for intergovernment relationships between the Territory and Indonesia; and
I, too, would like to acknowledge and welcome the Indonesian Consul, Mr Harbangan Napitupulu, his colleagues, and all the distinguished guests in the gallery today. It really does demonstrate the depth of friendships Pak Frans had here in the Northern Territory.
I wish today to acknowledge the passing of Frans Seda who was affectionately known as the Territory’s Man in Indonesia. The Northern Territory has a very special relationship with Indonesia. It is a relationship born from hundreds of years of contact between our people, our Indigenous people across the coast with the Macassan traders and, most particularly, in the last two decades as we forge closer trade, economic and social ties. Of course, our Indonesian community is a valued part of our community in the Northern Territory; but equally the Northern Territory is valued in Indonesia. Frans Seda has been the architect and father of that over much of the last two decades.
Frans was born in late 1926 on the island of Flores. He had a very exciting, interesting and rewarding life, and made an enormous contribution. I am told as a young man he fought against the Dutch occupying forces using bamboo spears against the tanks. For his part in Indonesia’s struggle for independence he was honoured with an Independence Medal – a great honour in Indonesia.
Frans Seda was a valued adviser to every post-independence President. Understanding post-colonial era Indonesian history, for Frans to have been a key adviser to every post-independence president was a remarkable achievement and really demonstrated the enormous regard in which he was held in Indonesia.
In 1964, he joined the Sukarno Cabinet as Minister for Plantations, and in Indonesia’s history those early years of government were quite dark days. Frans survived those dark days of the mid-1960s and the turmoil that occurred and went on to fill the roles of Minister for Finance, Transport and Agriculture in the later Suharto government. He was adviser to Presidents B J Habibie and Megawati Sukarnoputri. Such was his stature, the value of his advice, and diplomatic skills that he continued to serve the changes in government in Indonesia.
Following his ministerial career, Frans was appointed Ambassador to the Benelux countries as Indonesia’s chief representative to the European Union in Brussels. This placed him at the heart of Indonesia’s relationship with Europe and the emerging European Union.
On many occasions, I had the privilege of visiting Jakarta and meeting with Frans Seda in his office in Jakarta, with all the Northern Territory memorabilia he had collected over the years. He had great delight in showing me photographs of his meetings with heads of state in Europe during that time.
As well as the great contribution he made at the heart of government in Indonesia and representations overseas in Europe, he was a passionate advocate of the development of his home region, the eastern provinces of Indonesia. Through that passion he saw the benefit of an alliance with the Northern Territory. He was convinced this relationship would help the provinces grow and develop, and would provide long-term benefit to the Territory, as well.
In 1992, he began a 15-year relationship with the Northern Territory; and I pay tribute to former Chief Ministers, Steve Hatton, Marshall Perron, Shane Stone, and Clare Martin, for their work in developing a close, personal relationship with Frans, and in pursuing the mutual aspirations of a close relationship between us all. Every Chief Minister, including me, continues to develop that relationship with Indonesia. Frans Seda has been at the heart, the soul, the core of that relationship over the years, under all the previous Chief Ministers I have mentioned.
Frans was uniquely placed to make such a contribution and, for over a decade, was engaged as a Northern Territory representative in Jakarta. Frans Seda and his team was a dynamic trio, and included Dr Joseph Halim, and Budi Haliman. They not only worked hard, they worked smart in fostering links which continue to benefit today. They were a team. They were all fantastic - and still are - people and, as a team, did amazing things in developing that relationship. I send my condolences to Joseph and Budi as well.
For instance, Frans and his team focused on the live cattle trade, education and tourism, all of which continue to be strong elements in the current relationship within Indonesia. Frans was the man to open doors, and we could not have found a better advocate for the Territory. In fact, successive Commonwealth governments were always amazed at the level of access Northern Territory chief ministers and ministers had in Jakarta. It was a level of access which, quite often, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta could not provide. Frans was the man to open those doors.
He was involved in developing shipping routes, setting up primary industry programs, growing exports and imports, and promoting education and health interaction. During his time as the Northern Territory government’s representative in Indonesia, Frans attracted enormous respect from all sides of politics. In fact, Frans Seda was above politics. With the change of government in 2001, the relationship Frans had built up with CLP administrations continued with the new Labor government.
I recall being sworn in as the Labor government’s first Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, and one of the first congratulatory messages I received was a letter from Frans Seda. In October 2001, I conducted my first trip as Minister for Asian Relations and Trade to Indonesia, leading a Territory delegation to the Australia/Indonesia development area. I remember getting off the plane at Jakarta airport and the unique smell of clove cigarettes wafting through the corridors, and being greeted by Frans, Joseph and Budi; being ushered through Immigration and Customs, and being welcomed like an old family friend to Jakarta. It was certainly a very warm welcome and one I will never forget.
I made a number of trips in 2001 and, in January 2002, former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and I went to Indonesia and met with the then President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Frans was a senior economic adviser to President Megawati and we had a very relaxed, cordial, friendly meeting at the Indonesian palace in Jakarta, and Frans just breezed through the corridors, knew everyone and, obviously, was held in high respect.
Former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and I also met with the current President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, here in Darwin - I believe it was in 2005. Again, Frans facilitated that meeting, and the relationship with the Northern Territory and Indonesia continues to be very strong.
In subsequent travels, I met with many members of various governments and ministers and, at all times, Frans Seda was an important advisor to me; and not only to me but to other ministers here, ministers Kon Vatskalis, Chris Burns and other ministers. Whenever Northern Territory government ministers travelled to Indonesia, Frans was always there helping us have access to ministers in the Indonesian government to continue to build that relationship.
Frans retired from the position in 2007. His legacy has been a well-established set of networks we continue to use to develop our strong relationship. Frans’ efforts to promote the Territory and broader Australian trade and investment opportunities, and educational, sporting and cultural links, were rewarded with an Order of Australia in 1999. I know he was very proud to receive that order. Frans also made many friends during his very valuable time as our man in Indonesia, many of whom are here today.
As well as my own personal recollections, Frans was a very funny man. He always had a joke or two. One of the standing jokes: Frans was a fairly short man in stature and, me being very tall, he always ribbed me about our difference in height, and we had a lot of fun in that regard. He loved to talk about the history of Indonesia under various presidents, and his depth of knowledge was unsurpassed.
Frans Seda was a very devout Catholic, and he was the head of the Indonesian Catholic Party from 1961 to 1968. He was also the founder and Dean of the Economic Faculty of Atmajaya University between 1960 and 1964. He was much loved across all political parties, and very well respected in Indonesia.
Your Excellency, Frans Seda did so much to bring our people together, the people of the Northern Territory and the people of Indonesia, particularly the people of eastern Indonesia. We ask that you convey to His Excellency in Jakarta and the government, and to all Frans’ family and friends, our sincere thanks and appreciation for the wonderful contribution that Pak Frans made; the love many people in the Northern Territory have for a wonderful gentleman and human being; and our sincere condolences on his passing.
He led a remarkable life, and all of us in public life, wherever we may be and whichever country we may operate from, we do it because we want to make a difference. Pak Frans certainly made a difference. He was a wonderful man. He was a friend of mine, and I deeply mourn his passing. I extend my condolences to you and to the people of Indonesia.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Bapak Harbangan, and the staff of the Consul representing the Republic of Indonesia, selamat datang. Welcome to former Deputy Chief Minister and member for Blain, Mr Barry Coulter; Mr Rick Setter, the former member for Jingili, and guests who have come to be a part of this very special acknowledgement of a very special man.
The establishment of Asian Relations and Trade could not have occurred - the objective being trade - without a cornerstone, being relationship. This man was the neighbour, the building block upon which relationship could be built. It has often been said, if one is to look back on their life, what must be left behind? A legacy greater than one’s self.
This man, Frans Seda, has left a legacy. He has laid a cornerstone upon which relationship can be built. I direct members to what has been written about this man and to the words the Chief Minister used this morning to describe an extraordinary man, a man who is regarded as the gatekeeper. It is an extraordinary situation that this great nation of Australia, by no coincidence, is next door to Indonesia. It so happens between this nation and Indonesia the closest points are the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory.
Frans Seda had an illustrious career as a youth activist fighting for independence for Indonesia, having an extraordinary relationship with two ministers, providing leadership for his nation, having connections and that level of respect, and then having a career as a diplomat at the heart of the development, formation and strengthening of the nation of Indonesia in Europe, as an acknowledged economist steering Indonesia through the first economic crisis. He was credited as the one who had the capacity to manage, by his ability to negotiate, win trust and communicate, to steer the nation through a very important period in the formation of Indonesia.
He won that respect wherever he went as a writer, as a political leader, as a mentor to political leaders, both in this nation and in Indonesia, and as an entrepreneur. All this has been established. He then recognises having had that career, each part of which is sufficient to allow anyone to rest, he feels it necessary to do something extra special: to bring about a stronger connection between these neighbours - Australia and Indonesia - and, more specifically, between the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory.
It was recognised by Frans Seda, and recognised by political leaders in this parliament at the time, that there is something very special in building a relationship between Australia and Indonesia, between the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory, and that still exists today.
I acknowledge the foresight of Frans Seda in building on that idea. I acknowledge, too, the foresight of the former Chief Minister Steve Hatton, and Barry Coulter, to respond to that challenge, that vision, that opportunity to establish the relationship with Frans Seda upon which would be built an extraordinary relationship; for Marshall Perron to then form the very first ministry of Asian Relations and Trade on that cornerstone, with that gatekeeper, with the Northern Territory being the gateway to Asia. That is the idea. We had the best man to establish that and leave that legacy which led to the establishment of that first ministry with Shane Stone.
There is a legacy we must respond to, not just with words spoken here; it is still there and has been serviced as we have moved through. As the relationship between our two nations is maturing and developing, that which was established in the Northern Territory, in the eastern provinces, through the foresight, the leadership, the vision and the passion of certain individuals, the cornerstone being Frans Seda, we have an obligation to continue in the interest of two nations and the people of those great nations - Australia and Indonesia. The lines have fallen in very interesting places; we are placed in a very unique position, and we must continue to build upon this legacy.
On a personal note, I cannot say I have enjoyed a relationship with Frans Seda. I have had the opportunity to shake his hand on two occasions. There is a magic about the man. That magic is shown when you meet others who know him and share that same passion. Spending time over the Christmas and New Year period in Jakarta with Joseph Halim and hearing the stories, it excites you once again, and you recognise the value of the relationship which was established and the obligations we have to maintain and strengthen the relationship. We cannot neglect that.
At that time in Indonesia, over the New Year period, there was the passing of Gus Dur, and the nation paused, and about the same time the news came through that Frans Seda had passed, with regret. I was on a plane on my way to Bali and was unable to be at the funeral service, which was a very significant event for the people of Indonesia; a man of such great stature was recognised by the Indonesian nation.
I am very pleased to report that we were represented with personal condolences being passed directly to the family through Joseph Halim and Nicko Doriarto; the passing of messages from here which were circulated in the Northern Territory media to the family and, at that funeral service, we were represented by a former member of this Chamber, Mr Rick Setter. So there was that connection there. I am pleased to report that respect was there and that recognition was afforded from the people of the Northern Territory.
There has been a cornerstone laid, a gatekeeper has opened gates, relationships have been established and, in order to honour the memory of this great man, we must continue to develop our understanding of our neighbour, ensure wherever we can we advance and build upon this great legacy which has been established by the foresight of great men, particularly and principally by Frans Seda. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend my condolences to the family and friends of Frans Seda.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask members to observe one minute silence.
Thank you, honourable members. I thank all members for their contributions, and I invite guests here today to join members for morning tea in the main hall.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly disallows Subordinate Legislation No 2 of 2010 relating to costs of freedom of information applications.
The reason I move this disallowance motion is the instrument which has reached this House does not reflect the instrument we were promised by the Northern Territory government.
It is no small surprise I find myself on my feet today, when yesterday I heard the Chief Minister waxing lyrical and passionately about the openness of his government and what a wonderful job he had done, personally, to open up the government of the Northern Territory to scrutiny. Of course, he was responding to the arrangement between himself and Mr Wood. But, in the process of that, he started talking about whistleblowers legislation, freedom of information legislation, and those types of things.
I remind honourable members in August last year, the member for Drysdale, I believe it was, brought into this House an information amendment bill. In the process of that bill being defeated, the minister, feeling the pressure of the bill’s intent, decided and determined to defeat the bill and said: ‘No, we are not going to amend the freedom of information act. But, trust us, we will come in here and give you something that is better, brighter, and sparklier’.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the Attorney-General’s speech on 29 April 2009, where she was promising better, brighter and sparklier freedom of information legislation. She said:
That is fine. The fact is, there is now a reference to the agreement and, essentially, a promise that: ‘We will do this and we will do this better and cheaper, and we will find a way to ensure members of parliament who use FOI will not be charged for it.’ That is, essentially, the promise. The problem we have is this regulation does not reflect that promise.
For people unaware of how this process works, you pay $30 at the front gate, which gets you into the FOI process; you fill out a form: ‘I would like to see this piece of paper or that document over here’ and that costs $30, unless you are doing a personal search for yourself.
Then what happens is the report - or whatever you are looking for - is discovered and it is given to you. If you are lucky, all it is going to cost you is $30. However, if it is a complicated report, or if you are trying to track things like e-mails between ministers and staff, or other details of that nature, or it is a comprehensive FOI application which provides a great deal of information and takes time for public servants to pull the information, you are billed for it. Those bills can exceed $10 000 very quickly. Therefore, in this great new age of freedom of information, if you actually want to do a complicated freedom of information search, you are going to pay - and you are going to pay through the nose. You are going to pay thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. So much for freedom of information!
We rely on the promises made by the government when they come into this House and defeat bills and say: ‘We are going to make it bigger, brighter, and sparklier; we will make it free.’ However, what this instrument proposes will not make it free, and does not fulfil the promise made by the government and the Attorney-General last year. Essentially, the problem is outlined in section 5 of the regulatory instrument, which says:
What we were promised and what is actually being delivered are two different things. Bearing in mind what I have just described regarding the process, the $30 is waived – that is fine and good. Then, what is also waived is obtaining a report. If you want to know what the contents of a report are through freedom of information legislation, and they condescend to give it to you through that process, what happens is the public servant goes to the filing cabinet, pulls out the report, and then sends it to you, and they will not charge you for that. Well, essentially they do not charge you for that, now.
I table an example of the types of reports governments like to sit on: the review report of the NTFC intake service from June 2009. That is all you are going to get for free. So, it is not the promise made by the Attorney-General last year. All you are going to get for free is the public servant’s processing fee - that is your $30 fee up-front - and all you are going to get free is when someone grabs the report out of the filing cabinet. If, however, you want to discover what was in the contents of correspondence between a public servant and a minister, or between public servants, you will still have to pay for that; so the bills continue to pile up.
I have been present whilst we sought some information, not long ago, about the process of local government reform, and I believe the bill finally came to over $10 000 for the Leader of the Opposition’s office. What we ended up getting back were large sheets of paper with black ink all over them. So, you pay $10 000 for a product which is, essentially, valueless in terms of what you are seeking from it. That is very frustrating.
For that reason, we move this disallowance motion. It is for that reason we seek to have this disallowed, sent back to the drafter, and the promise of the Attorney-General to be fulfilled. It is for that reason we believe this is, once again, an exercise in freedom from information than freedom of information. What we see from this government in this instance is what we see so often - we see the contents of the media release and think: oh, that is fine - we see the contents of the promise, but when the actual does not meet the promise, then we find ourselves finally having to challenge this government and saying: ‘Keep your promises’. This is one of those instances.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour, because I have just been advised there is some other information I need to be aware of in relation this.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from his Honour the Administrator Message No 16 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act to amend the Mining Act; one of the purposes of which is to authorise the Territory to pay to the Commonwealth from public monies received by the Territory an amount for particular mineral royalty payments to be refunded by the Commonwealth.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Justice Legislation (Penalties) Amendment Act 2009, the 2009 act, and to amend penalty provisions in most of the acts administered by the Department of Justice.
The 2009 act was assented to on 29 December 2009, but it has not commenced operation. Following the parliamentary debate of the 2009 act in October 2009, the Department of Justice had cause to review some of its provisions. The review resulted in the drafting of this present bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill 2010, which replaces the 2009 act with a new one.
The main difference between the two is the 2010 act limits increases in penalties to 15%. Members will recall in July 2009 the value of the penalty unit, under Northern Territory legislation, increased from $110 to $130 through the commencement of the Penalty Units Act 2009. This is an increase of approximately 18% from the time when the $110 figure was set in 2001.
It also provided for a formula whereby the penalty unit value would, by 1 July each year commencing 2010, automatically be increased to conform to any inflation over the 12 months ending the previous 31 December. The combined effect of converting penalties from dollar amounts to penalty units, and this formula, will ensure penalties in justice legislation remain in step with inflation and, in turn, retain their relevance and deterrent value.
The main purpose of this bill is to apply the generality of the increase in maximum penalties made by the Penalty Units Act 2009 to most other justice legislation. In due course, the remaining justice legislation, and other Northern Territory legislation, will be reformed so most penalties are expressed in penalty units.
In determining the increase in monetary penalties is limited to 15%, the government has chosen a conservative approach having regard to the fact some monetary penalties may have been set after 2001. The application of the 15% increase is also consistent with the cap of 15% on increases of fees in the Fees and Charges Amendment Regulations which came into force on 14 December 2009. It represents a rounded down equivalent of the CPI increase in the value of the penalty unit from 2001, when it was set at $110, to $130 set in 2009 by the Penalty Units Act 2009. Penalties set in 2001 which are presently expressed in dollar amounts will thus be increased by roughly the same amount as the increase in value of the penalty unit. This means penalties set prior to 2001 will not be indexed in the same way. However, government’s priority was to convert penalties into dollar amounts as quickly as possible in order to make the formula in the Penalties Unit Act 2009 effective across the statute book.
The line had to be drawn somewhere, and that was the preferred approach. The rationalisation of penalties originally set prior to 2001 could instead occur on a case by case basis with reference to government’s policy on penalties.
The apparently simple task of a 15% increase has the potential to produce some odd outcomes. To limit such outcomes, a number of rules have been developed. For penalties of a significant size the process is the current monetary penalty is increased by 15%. This amount is converted to the nearest whole number of penalty units, and the outcome is then rounded down to the nearest five penalty units.
Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied. First, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest whole penalty unit it was closest to, but not more than the 15% increased value; for example, the current penalty of $2000 increased by 15% to $2300 becomes 17 penalty units, that is $2210. See section 66 of the Co-operatives Act.
Second, where the rounding to the nearest whole number would result in an actually decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty unit; for example, the current penalty of $400 increased by 15% to $460, becomes 3.5 penalty units, that is $455. See section 18(4) of the Cullen Bay Marina Regulations.
Third, where the penalty rounded to the nearest 0.5 of a penalty unit would result in actual decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the nearest one tenth of a penalty unit, but greater than 0.5 penalty unit; for example, the current penalty of $100 increased by 15%, $115, becomes 0.8 of a penalty unit, $104. See section 43(2)(c) of the Justices Act.
Apart from the application of a 15% increase, this bill is different to the 2009 act in the following ways:
An important exception to the 15% increase is with respect to the offence of perverting the course of justice. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory brought to my attention that the penalty for perverting the course of justice and conspiring to pervert the course of justice, in section 109 and 286 of the Criminal Code, were very low, and pointed out that it did not match the seriousness of some of the cases which had been before the court. Therefore, the penalty for that offence was amended from two years to 15 years imprisonment for section 109, and seven years to 15 years imprisonment for section 286 of the Criminal Code. No other imprisonment terms have been changed by this bill.
This bill provides for the conversion of penalties expressed in dollar amounts to penalty units for some 69 Department of Justice acts and regulations. The balance of the department’s legislation is expected to be reviewed by the end of 2010. The balance of the legislation of the Northern Territory across all government agencies is expected to be reviewed by 2013. The offences in the Summary Offences Act will be dealt with as part of a review of all the provisions of that act.
This change of approach to bring in penalty units brings with it its own problems. For example, it does not fix up differentials across the statute book concerning like offences. The differences are maintained until such time as each offence can be individually reviewed.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Charles Darwin University from the following countries: Burma, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Germany, Pakistan, Somalia, Cambodia, and the Congo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our guests.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act, following the passing by the Commonwealth parliament of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Act 2009. The bill repeals provisions dealing with: licensing and reporting requirements; fees that may be charged; duties of officers and employees; restrictions on ownership and control; minimum capital requirements, and common funds. The bill inserts savings, transitional and other provisions as well as provisions, including exemption from Territory tax, dealing with ‘compulsory transfer determinations’ made by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) under Division 2 of part 5D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Traditionally, only a natural person could discharge the role of a personal trustee. Trustees owe judiciary duties in respect of the assets they administer, and can be personally liable for default. For this reason, a body corporate having limited liability, could not act as a personal trustee. In the 1890s and the early 1900s, the South Australian parliament, and other Australian parliaments, enacted legislation committing the establishment of trustee companies to provide an alternative to natural person trustees. Like the other jurisdictions, the South Australian legislation took the former private acts, which permitted named companies to provide executor and trustee services. Three such acts were enacted, and any other company wishing to provide such services would have had to convince the relevant legislature to pass another private act.
In 1981, the Northern Territory passed the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act. The act repealed the three South Australian private acts in their ongoing operation in the Territory, and provided for any company to apply to the minister to be authorised to operate as a trustee company providing executor and trustee services. Four companies are currently authorised to operate as trustee companies under the act.
Part III of the act also introduced what appear to be unique provisions in Australia allowing for virtually any company to be an executor of a will. The reasons for the inclusion of these provisions is not clear, although the Parliamentary Record of debates on the bill of 22 November 1978 and 26 February 1981 suggested it was to overcome a problem ‘chasing executives who have left the Territory’ and perhaps to allow a ‘family company’ to be an executor. Anecdotally, it appears these provisions have rarely been utilised.
In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed that the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies. In October 2009, the Commonwealth parliament passed the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Act of 2009 which provides that ASIC will be the single licensing and regulation authority for trustee companies in Australia. Having a single licensing and regulation authority will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden on trustee companies, remove barriers to entry, and improve competition in the trustee company market. There will be a single set of requirements dealing with conduct, disclosure, advice, dispute resolution, and compensation for consumers.
States and territories will amend their respective legislation to recognise the ASIC licensed trustee companies in their legislation dealing with those companies’ rights to act as executors and trustees. Effectively, each state and territory will need to amend their relevant legislation to remove all provisions dealing with licensing and regulation of trustee companies, leaving those provisions which allow a licensed company to act as a trustee, be appointed as executor, apply for administration, act under a power of attorney, etcetera – the latter matters being state/territory responsibilities.
The Commonwealth has identified that state and territories legislation will also have to make provision for the transport of a trustee company’s business to another licensed trustee if its trustee company licence is cancelled. This will require an exemption from the state/territory tax of the transfer of trust assets in these circumstances. As the Commonwealth act will not - unlike current Part III of the act - allow any company other than a licensed trustee company to be an executor of a will, a savings provision is included to deal with any estates currently being administered by such a non-licensed company.
As I mentioned earlier, the enactment of the Commonwealth act and the amendment of the act is in line with COAG agreements. All states and territories will be amending their respective legislation similarly.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
On 15 February this year, I announced a major, new initiative in the fight against alcohol-fuelled violence in our community. That package mooted this bill and a substantial new effort to communicate with young people about these issues. Fifty-nine percent of all assaults in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. Attendances at hospital emergency departments rise on Friday and Saturday nights. Most people want to have an enjoyable social experience when using the services and facilities available from the hospitality industry, and we want to ensure they can do this.
This government is determined to follow two basic policy pathways. The first is about eliminating people who cannot behave themselves from licensed premises and the precincts in which they operate. This will enable people to go out, enjoy themselves over a few drinks with their mates and have a good time without being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence and unacceptable behaviour.
The second is a concerted attempt to change the way young people think about this type of behaviour and violence.
Continual media reports clearly demonstrate the cost of alcohol-fuelled violence to our friends, family and community. Fights, glassings and attacks of all kinds are a blight on our community and are unacceptable. The government is pleased to be working hand–in-glove with the Australian Hotels Association, clubsNT and the Northern Territory News to deliver this message.
This bill delivers substantial new powers to the police, the liquor regulators and licensees. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act to assist licensees, police, liquor regulators and the courts in the reduction of antisocial behaviour associated with licensed premises and the consumption of alcohol. The amendments fall into five main categories.
First, section 121 of the act is amended so is to permit police officers to remove intoxicated, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly persons from licensed premises without request from the licensee. This overcomes what would appear to be a technical oversight in the current wording of this section. Section 121 is also amended to make it clear that a member of an association can be removed from licensed premises under this section, even if the association is the licence holder.
A new section 121A is inserted. This makes it an offence for a person who has been removed from licensed premises under section 121 to re-enter, or attempt to re-enter, the premises within 12 hours of being removed. The regulations are amended to provide for the issuing of an infringement notice to a person who fails to leave premises when requested to do so under section 121, or who enters or attempts to re-enter premises after being removed.
The government’s clear intent is to ensure the police, liquor regulator and licensee have an unambiguous and unfettered right to remove and ban people who do not behave in an acceptable way from licensed premises.
The second category of amendments relate to false identifications. Ever since the liquor industry has existed, young people have sought its services and products. But it is very important that minors do not consume alcohol without the guiding hand of their parents. From time to time, minors seek to enter licensed premises. These amendments make it clear that they risk prosecution in doing so. Furthermore, those who aid them, by providing false ID, face the same risks.
Currently, under section 106BA of the act, it is an offence where a person who has not attained the age of 18 misrepresents their age in order to access licensed premises, either by spoken statements or by presented written Identification which is fictitious, false, or relates to some other person. However, there is no current power for a licensing inspector, licensee or private security officer acting on behalf of the licensee to retain or confiscate any suspected false identification. As such, in the event that the identification is returned to the presenter, they may then attempt to use it at other premises, or even destroy the identification, making any prosecution difficult. Most other states and territories of Australia allow for the seizure and retention of any documentation suspected of being false.
These and related issues are dealt with in proposed new sections 106BB to 106BD. Proposed new section 106BB provides for it to be an offence for a person to assist a person under the age of 18-years to obtain a false identification for the purpose of entering licensed premises. It is also an offence to misrepresent to an agency, for example, the Motor Vehicle Registry, a person is over 18-years old to obtain a false identification for the purpose of a person under the age of 18 to enter licensed premises.
Proposed new section 106BC makes it an offence to lend someone a genuine identification for the purposes of the other person, being under 18, entering licensed premises, or to deface a genuine identification so as to misrepresent the age of a person under 18.
Proposed new section 106BD provides suspected fake identification can be seized by licensees, inspectors, security, or police officers. Seized identification must be handed to the Director of Licensing within 72 hours. There are provisions dealing with the return of legitimate identification that may have been seized under these provisions.
The third category of amendments deals with liquor accords. Liquor accords are where one or more licensees work together with each other, and community stakeholders, to affect the supply of liquor, trading hours, or other aspects of the management and conduct of the business at the premises. These activities are undertaken in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related violence, antisocial behaviour, or other alcohol-related harm. In essence, accords see licensees actively taking some responsibility for the harm that comes from the sale of their products, and sees them working collaboratively with police and other stakeholders to address the issues.
Such arrangements between licensees, even with the aim of reducing harm from alcohol, have been viewed as anti-competitive behaviour under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974 by the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission. As a result, most licensees are unwilling to participate in accords for fear of breaching the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Section 51 of the Trade Practices Act provides for state or territory legislation to specifically authorise behaviour that would otherwise breach the anti-competitive behaviour provisions of that act. Proposed new Part XA of the Liquor Act provides for liquor accords and for their authorisation for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act.
The fourth category of amendments deals with banning notices and exclusion orders which are set out in the proposed new Part XAB of the act. These amendments are based on similar provisions in the Victorian Liquor Control Reform Act. Under these provisions, the minister may declare an area to be a ‘designated area’. Police are then able to ban individuals who commit specified offences from the licensed premises in that designated area, or the entire designated area, for up to 48 hours. The offences specified in the bill include both violent and some social disorder offences. Specified offences may also be provided for in the regulations.
The courts will also have powers to exclude certain individuals for up to one year, including anyone found guilty of a specified offence within a designated area. There are various appeal provisions, and also protections for persons who live or work in designated areas. The Commissioner of Police is to report, on an annual basis, to the minister for Police on the operation of these provisions, including the provision of statistical information.
The fifth category of amendment is to section 75 of the act. Section 74 of the act permits the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to declare areas of land to be a ‘general restricted area’. There are approximately 100 general restricted areas located in predominantly Indigenous communities. Section 75 (1) makes it an offence for a person to bring, possess, control, consume, sell or otherwise dispose of liquor in a general restricted area. However, it is relatively common for there to be licensed premises within a general restricted area; examples include recreation clubs, dining messes and canteens.
Currently, the issuing of a licence within a general restricted area involves a time consuming administrative process to exclude the licensed premises from the general restricted area boundaries, otherwise the offence provisions of Section 75 would still apply. This process can cause significant inconvenience and delay to licence holders with no perceivable benefit.
Section 75 is proposed to be amended by providing for it to be a defence to prosecution for a breach of the section if the behaviour complained of was done in accordance with a license issued under the act. This will alleviate the need to amend the general restricted area boundaries when a licence is issued or amended. This will avoid considerable administrative inconvenience and delay in issuing or amending licences in general restricted areas, and assist in the administration and management of general restricted areas.
Other amendments of a statute law revision nature as identified by Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Justice have been made.
The opportunity has also been taken to change the prescribed penalty for an infringement notice from $100 to one penalty unit, currently $130.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Rail Safety Bill (Serial 79) on. This bill is part of a long story of harmonisation of rail safety laws pursued by the Howard government in COAG since 2004.
The Howard government, through its long tenure, went through many reforms and different approaches to the national interest. One of those interests was the introduction of the GST, which brought a wealth of gold to the Northern Territory, and has been squandered for many years.
It would be remiss of me not to mention particular failures of this Northern Territory government in following the harmonisation process or the reform of the agenda of the Howard government, particularly in regard to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, a program, in particular, which brought rivers of gold to the Northern Territory for the purpose of building housing for Territorians, particularly in the bush. Unfortunately, the government has failed reprehensively in regard to following the interests of the Howard government and the agenda they set; and this can be seen across a broad range of areas.
The interstate rail sector dislikes having to deal with seven different rail regulators. The Productivity Commission in its draft research report entitled the Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Social and Economic Infrastructure Services dated June 2009, page 245, cites the cost of multiple rail safety regulators as $42m per year. This is a cost on a sector which is already struggling to become competitive with road freight. Hence, the Howard government, in its tenure, developed a model law now termed the Model Consolidated Rail Safety Bill 2007. As part of the harmonisation process, COAG, on 7 December 2009 agreed to the establishment of a National Rail Safety Regulator. As part of the Transport Regulations, I will quote:
They went on to say:
The Country Liberals will not be standing in the way of the government moving forward with this Rail Safety Bill as it does bring about uniform legislation. I note this bill is almost a duplicate of the South Australian legislation, which does not surprise me considering the member for Barkly is a minister, that it is copied straight from the South Australia legislation.
In particular, it is interesting to see in the bill to be passed today we have included monorails in the Northern Territory. That is probably a direct copy of South Australian legislation. I am not sure if there are any monorails in the Territory, but I look forward to the day there is, and it will be a great tourist attraction. However, I believe that is just a component of the nationalisation process of the regulatory reform.
Speaking on this, it is important to contextualise the current debate about nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, because I believe this is going to have an impact on the rail safety network. I understand several years ago a review was conducted by the Northern Territory government, the results of which have not been made public, about the transportation of hazardous materials. I call on the government to release that report so we can see exactly what is in it, and what the risks are for the Northern Territory, and the residents of the Northern Territory.
We have recently heard that legislation has been repealed for the storage of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. However, new legislation has been introduced which would appear to override current Northern Territory legislation; so rail safety and the transportation of hazardous materials is important and we need to know where that waste will be coming from. Will it be coming from South Australia? Will it be coming across the sinking Darwin port? Will it be travelling across the rail in the Northern Territory to get to Muckaty Station? These are important questions and it is important to release the transportation of hazardous materials report so we are better informed as legislators, and the community is informed of exactly where we are heading with that nuclear waste.
The debate that is happening federally, or the fight between Labor and Labor where we have the Chief Minister beating his breast and not wanting nuclear waste in the Northern Territory - after he has had a recent meeting with the federal Resources minister, Martin Ferguson; the President of the ALP in the Northern Territory, Senator Trish Crossin, has supported the new legislation; the member for Lingiari has been very silent on this matter after campaigning heavily in 2004 and 2007; and the member for Solomon, Damian Hale – well, I cannot repeat his comments for fear of having to withdraw my comments. However, we need to ensure there is appropriate protection in place in the Northern Territory for the transportation of this hazardous material, and this bill does not go into that area.
I would like the government to release that report on the transportation of hazardous material so we know how much low, medium and high level radiation will be coming across the sinking Darwin port and moving through the areas of Darwin, Palmerston and the future Weddell. What will be the impact of hazardous materials going through Katherine and down to Muckaty Station? Also, from the other direction, if it comes up from South Australia from Port Augusta, coming through the Territory, through Alice Springs, right through the middle of our town - what protections do we have in place?
I am not speaking against or for nuclear waste, or against or for uranium oxide or copper concentrate, what I am talking about is making sure we have the appropriate legislation and safety regulations in place to protect the environment and the Territory from any potential disaster. We have seen many disasters over a number of years in the Northern Territory regarding hazardous spills, and there has not been a 100% response to those spills ensuring adequate community safety. This legislation does not cover that.
I would like the minister to respond by confirming that he will release the report into the transport of hazardous materials in the Northern Territory so the public can be fully aware. I would like him to talk about the impact Labor’s nuclear waste dump will have on the Northern Territory with regard to rail safety and the regulations. I would like the minister to explain the core competencies rail safety workers will have in responding to hazardous material emergencies; in particular, how they would respond to nuclear waste emergencies because, let us not forget, it is Labor who is bringing in the nuclear waste. It is Labor who is transporting nuclear waste through the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston, Weddell, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. It is Labor that does not have any principles or backbone, unlike this side, where we say what we think and we abide by our principles and follow them through. We do not run election campaigns for political populist support; we do not support it one day, and not support it another day.
We saw in the federal election in 2007, the Territory government spend millions of taxpayers’ dollars campaigning against this; we saw the federal Labor candidates campaigning against it; and now we see they have rolled over and been tickled on the belly, or tickled somewhere else according to the member for Solomon, in his language.
I would like the minister to come out and talk about nuclear waste. I heard him say that he does not support it; I believe it was on Tuesday he said as the member for Barkly, he does not support it. Once again, this a Labor Party that follows the line of do as I say, not as I do, because what they say can be one thing, but what they actually do is another. The flip-flopping approach on this nuclear waste is just another example of how the Northern Territory government has lost the hearts and minds of Territorians, because nobody can trust them.
I am going to stand aside and let this legislation go through. We are putting trust in the Northern Territory government, not necessarily because the Northern Territory government have any runs on the board for getting things right. You only have to look at the 35 kids at Hermannsburg School who turned up and had no classroom. You only have to look at the bridge at Palumpa, the minister for Construction does not know where the bridge is; but he is in control.
We are putting faith in the Howard government reforms, the Howard government was supported by a party that basis its decisions on principles and stick by their principles, and do not flip. And we can hear the nodding dogs in the corner over here laughing away quite jovially, perhaps he would like to tell the constituents in his electorate in Palumpa, who have not had their bridge built and kids are still swimming across the river, avoiding the crocodiles.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: It is quite interesting, because the construction of the bridge at Palumpa was transferred to SIHIP - transferred to be managed by SIHIP. Now, if ever something got a bullet, it was the bridge at Palumpa. What was worse was that the member for Daly was the minister at the time; in his own electorate he could not build a bridge. How can you trust the transportation of Labor’s nuclear waste over rail and over a sinking port? How can you trust them? What have they got right? I asked my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, what have they got right? It is not education, I can tell you that. It is not housing - it is not SIHIP housing. They have not got FACS right.
I am listening in silence trying to hear something they got right. The funny thing is, even the government has not yelled out anything they have got right! I was a little worried my colleagues had not said anything, but I am more concerned that the government sat there silent. They know they have done nothing right. The passing of the Rail Safety Bill 2009 Serial 79 – it gives me confidence the Howard government put it in the national reform agenda, but it does not give me confidence in these goons.
When I go back to Alice Springs, to the seat of Braitling, and talk to my constituents and they ask me: ‘How safe is it going to be for Labor’s nuclear waste coming through the town?’ I will tell them I am not really sure; the Howard government introduced reform, but Labor is running it. We know the litany of failures by Labor.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr GILES: It is hard to hear myself think when the nodding dog over there is chirping away.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr GILES: If CLP Air was operating, I would not have this man running it; the planes would fall out of the sky. It reminds me of the Wicking cartoon a week or so ago about Jetstar flights being grounded. What did the Wicking cartoon say? ‘Do not tell me Rob Knight is in charge again’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, I remind you this is a bill about rail safety; if you could address the legislation please.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is an interesting interjection, but the reality is he is talking about rail safety and the people who are going to be charged with maintaining safety; he is giving examples of their failure in a range of other areas.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you will have an opportunity.
Member for Braitling, if you could remember Standing Order 67; it is a bill, which is used for interpretation.
Mr GILES: It is important to talk about air when it comes to this matter, because the transportation of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory is presumed to come by rail, but the Northern Territory currently has legislation which says it cannot be transported in that way; so the only way it can get here is by air. We hope it is not coming on Jetstar or CLP Air, managed by the member for Daly. It is important to talk about air services because, at the moment, it looks like it might be coming by air. Then again, federal Labor, the president of the ALP in the Northern Territory, Senator Trish Crossin, has just supported nuclear waste for the Northern Territory; rolled over and tickled on the belly to bring nuclear waste.
It is Labor’s nuclear waste; everyone knows where we stand, because we have principles. We put our line in the sand and say that is where we stand. They know where we stand.
The Chief Minister likes to get into the media and say: ‘It is a CLP problem. It is not our problem.’ As I said yesterday, we have popcorn, and we are sitting on the sidelines watching this movie unfold. I would like to see a bit of a rumble in the jungle, to be honest. I would like to see the Chief Minister and Martin Ferguson get down and dirty, or the Chief Minister and Trish Crossin get down and dirty, and really fight this one out; because we will be sitting on the sidelines. They try to draw us into this argument, but it is not our argument. Nuclear waste will be coming across the sinking Darwin port and by rail in the Northern Territory on its way to Muckaty Station, if Labor gets its way. If Labor gets its way, Labor’s nuclear waste will be coming by rail right through Alice Springs, or right through Darwin and Palmerston.
There is nothing in this legislation that talks about the safety of people, the safety of Territorians, when it comes to nuclear waste. I know that nuclear waste, and uranium, if you want to put the two in the same basket, have a large number of safety regulations and safety mechanisms in place, and that is very positive. But when the Northern Territory government commissions a report about the transportation of hazardous materials in the Northern Territory and does not release the report, that is keeping us blind and in the dark. We, on this side of the Chamber and other Territorians, are mushrooms, and these are the guys feeding us in the dark. This is what we are being fed - Labor lies; Labor no principles.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows he cannot accuse us of lies unless by substantive motion.
Mr GILES: I did not accuse you of telling lies.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling did not mention any individual whatsoever. He talked about Labor.
Dr Burns: There has been a ruling on that before.
Mr TOLLNER: You can make up rulings as you see them, but the reality is he was not talking about an individual. He was talking about Labor.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Member for Braitling, were you referring to the government?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I believe I said ‘Labor lies’.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you referring to the government?
Mr GILES: I am referring to Labor, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you referring to the government, member for Braitling?
Mr GILES: Yes, the Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Then I ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr GILES: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GILES: The Labor Party lies, Madam Speaker. It is the Labor Party that is bringing nuclear waste to the Northern Territory; it is the Labor Party which has gone against its words; it is the Labor Party which is putting Territorians at risk by not producing reports to show what the impacts of transportation of hazardous materials are. It is the Labor Party, through the Northern Territory Labor government, that has made allowances for drink-driving at 0.02% for people involved in the rail sector industry; it is the Labor Party and the Labor government which has introduced legislation about monorails in the Northern Territory. I cannot imagine them building a monorail when they cannot build a bridge at Palumpa.
But, as I said, we will not be standing in the way of this legislation because this is coalition legislation, and there is one thing about coalition legislation reform - you can trust it - you can trust the Liberals. You can not trust Labor. You can not trust Labor’s nuclear waste dump; you cannot trust Labor to build a house; you cannot trust Labor to build a school; you cannot trust Labor to protect children.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, originally, I was not going to speak on this bill, because I believe it is quite straightforward; but there are some issues the member for Braitling raised which I believe need some clarification.
I say to everyone in this House, before you start talking about nuclear waste visit Lucas Heights Research Station and then you can talk from an educated point of view about what the waste actually is; then you will know that it is not quite what many people claim it to be.
We do have national standards for the transportation of radioactive material. People should know there is a flight once a week from Sydney to Darwin with a small esky full of meridium, which is a radioactive isotope - far more hazardous, in theory or in practice, than the low-level active waste in Lucas Heights.
So, there are transport guidelines which are adhered to. The member for Goyder would know that there are isotopes moved around in the mining industry, and they are transported safely because there are strict guidelines which are not only national standards but, as far as I know, international standards.
Can some one tell me the last time they heard of a radioactive waste transport issue in relation to that type of material being carried on the sea? You will really be pushing hard to find it, because the control over movement of those types of materials are strict, and they should be strict.
We also carry many hazardous materials on trains; trains carry petrol and diesel, the same types of material you see on the road are carried by rail, and they have to have strict guidelines. So, if we concentrate just on the waste from Lucas Heights that might travel on our railway, I suggest we also look carefully at what hazardous materials, which might be far more dangerous, that travel through our towns. If we happen to have a train full of petrol going past Weddell or Palmerston, does anyone make any noise over it? Yet, if it all went up, half of Palmerston would disappear. But we have rules and regulations on the way materials are carried whether it is on rail or by road.
I believe you have to step back from much of this debate on the Muckaty issue and other issues in the Chamber at the present time. Whether the Australian nuclear waste site is at Muckaty or some other site, if you are talking about the transportation of radioactive material, we do have strict guidelines in relation to that; you can look them up on the website. No one would want any hazardous material carried around Australia unless there were guidelines and regulations in force to ensure it was safe. Radioactive waste is not the only material we carry on our rail.
Once again I say: please go to Lucas Heights. It was the Howard government that set up the new Lucas Heights Research Station. I visited the research station in its previous form, and I went to the opening of the new research station. I believe it is one of the greatest contributions to science Australia has ever made. It is one of our largest research stations; it deals with very important issues; it deals with what we call molecular science. What happens in this debate, we wrap it all into radioactive/nuclear and that makes people: ooh, ooh, scary, scary, when we are actually studying molecules, studying materials, isotopes, and those types of things.
We do get waste out of a place like Lucas Heights, and we will get a small amount of intermediate waste coming back from France - grams. The member for Braitling mentioned high level. We will not get high level from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor; there will be a small amount of plutonium, in grams, which will be encased in glass. If you want to find out more about what that material is made of, it is …
Mr Tollner: Synroc.
Mr WOOD: In this case, I do not think it is synroc that is coming back from France, but it is practically indestructible, and it will be brought by sea. It can be dropped, it can be belted, but it is stable because it is solid. People also forget the low-level radioactive waste material from Lucas Heights does not have any liquid - it is solid waste. All the liquid is taken out of it - it is compressed and compressed - and that is the way it is stored.
I do not want to get into the nuclear waste debate at the present time; it is just that the member for Braitling raised it in relation to rail safety. Whilst that is important, some of the comments he made might actually scare people, and scaring is not good for the debate because you need to look at the science, what is being transported, and what the regulations are. If this debate is not looked at in totality, then the wrong message is sent. That has been one of the biggest problems with the whole debate about nuclear material - whether it is nuclear power, nuclear waste, or whatever.
The area I want to speak on is developing uniform legislation on rail safety, and that is fine. I believe we should put more effort into finding out why we cannot get uniform railway lines built. I travelled from Melbourne to Mt Isa recently by rail. You go from Melbourne to Brisbane on the standard gauge, and, then from Brisbane to Townsville and from Townsville to Mt Isa on the wobbly narrow gauge. In the Territory, we are looking at developing a phosphate industry in the Barkly, and there has been talk about whether we should join Tennant Creek up with Mt Isa. That is fine, but what is the point? At Mt Isa there is a different size railway line.
While we are promoting the idea we should have uniform rail safety regulations, which is very good, that should be going hand-in-hand with having a uniform rail gauge around Australia. Rail is a great form of transportation, especially for heavy industry, and it takes many materials off our roads which, in many cases, cause a lot of wear and tear to our roads. If anyone has been across the Barkly recently, they will know that the first 40 km when you cross the Territory border is still suffering from severe road damage caused by, I understand, extremely cold weather plus very heavy mining equipment that went across at the same time.
It would be great if we could use rail to cart some of that heavy equipment and take it off our roads. However, you cannot do it if rail gauges change from Queensland to the Northern Territory. I make the point; it is fine to have a uniform legislation. The Territory is part of Australia and we need that type of legislation and we are moving that way in many things; trains travel from South Australia to the Territory, and what is the point in having a different set of rules once you cross the border? It is like having different rules for crocodiles; a crocodile does not know it has crossed the border either, but we have not sorted that out yet.
When it comes to trains travelling across borders, having similar legislation makes a great deal of sense. Until we get a system where our main interstate rail connections are all on the same gauge - I believe the main area is the differences between New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland - once that is connected the whole idea of uniformity in regulations makes much more sense and is also beneficial to economy of Australia. And it is the same with uniform legislation, which is also beneficial.
If we are to develop industries in the Northern Territory, like the phosphate industry on the Barkly then, as well as promoting uniform legislation, we should also promote a uniform rail gauge so we can move materials, and people and cattle across this country, which would be great for the economy.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the bill, despite the empty vessel contribution from the member for Braitling. This legislation is about harmonising rail safety regulation across the jurisdictions and it is an initiative supported by industry that commonly works across borders, and it delivers on a COAG commitment under the National Partnership Agreement for a seamless national economy.
The National Transport Commission developed the model legislation in consultation with the jurisdictions and industry, and it was subsequently approved by the Australian Transport Council. The focus of the legislation harmonises accreditation procedures and administration, rail risk, and safety measures. It is a practical step towards aligning regulatory practice and the different arrangements that currently exist in the states and territories.
Harmonisation of accreditation and regulation will reduce cost for Territory businesses, in particular, and will reduce red tape for the operators who work across the Territory and South Australia. For example, with these changes, we will be able to consider interstate gained accreditation when assessing applicants locally.
The model provisions within this bill have been applied following consultation with the industry as to what works best in the Territory context. We have chosen to more closely align our legislation with South Australia, given our rail system links to South Australia. Like South Australia, we have chosen to depart from the model provisions by allowing an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator. This takes into account the challenges in a small jurisdiction in resourcing what can be complicated investigations in the case of rail accidents. This bill also strengthens auditing of railway operations and provides a wider range of sanctions for safety breaches.
While we have had two major level crossing accidents since 2006, we have been fortunate that no one was killed in either incident. One involved The Ghan, and the other a freight train. Both led to convictions against motor vehicle drivers for multiple traffic offences. I well remember, as the former Transport minister, heading out to the horrific site of The Ghan derailing, viewing the wreckage and being amazed there were no fatalities. The structure of The Ghan itself was sound; if it had been a lesser train, it would have torn apart and cost lives. The Ghan structure itself saved lives in that horrendous derailment.
We responded with a package of measures to address railway crossing safety, including education, sanctions, increased enforcement, assessment, and industry awareness, and I want to take the opportunity to thank the Australian Trucking Association, who worked hand-in-hand with the government at the time to respond to this blitz to bring about a greater awareness of level crossings.
Extra advertising was put in place focusing on the themes: always expect a train at a level crossing; and Stop, Look, Listen, Think, when approaching a level crossing. We increased fines for non-compliance with traffic signals at level crossings, and applied demerit points. Interestingly, people have been seen driving around boom gates to get across a level crossing, despite the boom gates being down and the warning signals flashing.
Police continue their increased enforcement activities at level crossings, and we assessed all rail level crossings across the Territory - 61 public crossings, and 161 occupational crossings. The assessment process was rigorous using the nationally agreed ALCAM model and, at the time, the Territory was the only jurisdiction to have assessed all its level crossings using the nationally agreed ALCAM model. The model considers a large number of variables, including up to 12 different site distances, speed of train, and number of vehicles using the level crossing etcetera to assign a risk score to the level crossing which is used to consider whether the crossing requires modification.
The NT Level Crossing Assessment Team included FreightLink, the AustralAsian Railway Corporation and the Australian Trucking Association of the NT. While all our crossings complied with Australian standards, we identified safety improvements which could be made, and delivered a $6.4m two-year package to upgrade these crossings. These works will be complete this financial year.
The upgrades will include more crossing signals, boom gates, bells, advance warning signs, and vegetation management. The Federal government stimulus program announced last year included a boom gates for rail crossings initiative which provided a further $2.52m to the Territory.
The empty vessel member for Braitling might be interested to know, because he likes to think nothing happens anywhere under this government, that of the 12 crossings identified for safety upgrades, five were located in the Alice Springs region.
I will go through some of the safety upgrades. The Ilparpa Road level crossing has been upgraded from a passive crossing - signs only - to active crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. The Bradshaw Drive level crossing infrastructure has been upgraded and boom gates have been added. Works in the Top End have commenced with several sites being completed, while the remaining sites have works well advanced. The Elizabeth River boat ramp level crossing has been upgraded from a passive crossing - signs only - to an active crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. The Leonino Road level crossing has been upgraded to an active level crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. Both those level crossings are the first in the Territory where axle counting technology has been used. This technology uses axle counters instead of traditionally used track circuits to detect the movement of trains. Axle counting technology had not been applied to level crossing protection in Australia until very recently. Apart from the two Territory crossings, there are two crossings in Victoria, and two in South Australia using this technology, with another five to follow.
Works have also commenced to establish active advance warning signs on Wishart Road, Cox Peninsula Road and Kakadu Highway. In order to maximise the benefit of available funding sources, one project from the Territory program has been moved to the federal program. This is on the basis that other level crossing works have brought forward on the Territory program to take advantage of the available stimulus funding.
The level crossings to be upgraded by the federal program are Larapinta Drive, Lovegrove Drive and Espie Street, all in Alice Springs. The crossing at Larapinta Drive will be the first in the Territory to be equipped with quadrant boom gates. Works have commenced at the three sites, and are expected to be completed at the end of next month.
The empty vessel opposite would think nothing happens anywhere, ever. Facts tell us otherwise.
There are increased safety obligations where rail transport operators are required to have specific safety plans in place to deal with emergencies, rail safety worker fatigue, and other issues. These obligations are consistent with the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The bill also provides the Workplace Health and Safety Act will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency to ensure any breaches of safety are not prosecuted twice under both acts.
The railway has a role in transporting dangerous goods, and the legislative regulation of dangerous goods transportation is also in the process of being harmonised with other states. We are drafting new legislation which will synchronise the requirements for the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail into one set of regulations, making allowance for the variation in roles and responsibilities. With the adoption of that legislation later this year, the Territory will align with the current best practice in Australia and overseas. The objective is to reduce the regulatory constraints on industry engaged in the transport of dangerous goods, thereby improving efficiency and reducing costs.
I know the work that is gone into the development of this harmonised approach to the Rail Safety Legislation. An enormous effort has been undertaken by all the states and territories working through the National Transport Commission in developing the model legislation; extensive consultations have occurred; transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council have turned their minds to this time and time again. It is interesting the member opposite said they are only supporting this because it was a John Howard initiative. I can say genuinely, having been a member of the Australian Transport Council under the former government, and a member of the Australian Transport Council under the current federal government - what a world of difference that change in federal government made. The clogged wheels of a tired Howard do-not-care, lets-go-in-have-a-fight-with-states government were removed. Instead, federal minister Albanese came in, rolled up his sleeves and got stuck into the work required to get the national reforms up and happening.
Previously, it was just a sit down and let us see which state or territory the federal government can have a bit of a biffo over; so everyone kept walking away from collaborative reforms because they turned into bunfight after bunfight. It got to the stage at the ATC, where you wondered how many years it was going to take good reforms to get through because of the bogged down in-fighting the federal government caused in their attitude towards the states and territories.
It was a breath of fresh air attending the ATC, when minister Albanese was heading it. Finally, there was a cooperative approach where the federal government genuinely knew they needed to work cooperatively with the states and territories, regardless of political colours, to get these important national reforms through. I really felt for the officers who had been on the ground doing the work of these reforms, because they would do the work and see it collapse at ATC level, because of the bunfights the Howard government would cause amongst the states and territories just for a political biffo. So frustrating! Years of reforms sitting there, jammed in the system because of the attitude of the Howard government to use ministerial councils for some strange political biffo and bunfights with the states and territories.
What a breath of fresh air it was when the federal government ministers stepped to the table, showed true leadership, allowed for the genuine views of the states and territories to be heard in the fine, detailed issues supporting these important reforms; allowed them to be worked through, and that is why we have harmonised Rail Safety Regulation coming across the jurisdictions. There was an attitude of cooperation - sitting down, working together, allowing the issues and differences to be accommodated. We have an example of that with the opportunity to pick up the South Australian approach. We are still in the harmonised umbrella, but because of the particular needs of our jurisdiction; we are allowing an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator.
Those types of details would have become the bunfight, the crunching points in the past which clogged the wheels of reform, but a cooperative federal government understood that broader reform was more important than some nuances within the harmonised regime, and allowed each jurisdiction to deal with its particular circumstances. I sit on the ministerial councils dealing with reform processes - whether it is Treasurers, where we finally crunched 100-plus SPPs down into core SPPs - I sit and look at the pace of the occupational health and safety harmonisation reforms …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Now that the minister has made the same point five times I draw your attention to Standing Order 70 about tedious repetition. She should be instructed to discontinue her speech unless she has something more to offer.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. He does not like to hear the reality of it.
Mr Elferink: I have heard it six times.
Ms LAWRIE: No. He was only allowed to be a backbencher under the CLP government; they would not let him near the Cabinet room. He was only ever allowed to be a backbencher. They chose Lim over him - how embarrassing.
I digress. If you look at the pace of occupational health and safety reforms occurring with a cooperative approach, we are now achieving the national, seamless, economic, regulatory changes which have been long overdue and long worked on by officials from all jurisdictions, because of the attitude of cooperation from the federal government, which is starting to genuinely address the issues of the states and territories through those discussions, instead of using them as a battering ram ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is now the seventh time I have heard that same comment. I draw your attention to Standing Order 70. A member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition may be told to sit down by you. I urge you to ask the minister to sit down, or introduce something new.
Mr KNIGHT: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! We had repetition from other speakers in this debate; it is common practice in here, so …
Ms Lawrie: I am not being repetitious! I am talking about reforms.
Mr Elferink: You have said the same thing seven times.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, there has been significant digression from the topic in this debate, particularly by the member for Braitling, and also by the member for Nelson. The minister has the same right as those other two members, who were not pulled up.
Minister, please continue, but if you can stay as close as possible to the legislation, that would be good.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. What I am talking about goes to the heart of why this legislation is before the Chamber today, because I am aware of how long these reforms of rail safety regulations being harmonised were stuck at the ATC after the National Transport Commission had tried, at officer level, to work it through, and how important it is for governments, in harmony, to be at the table working together to drive through the reform process ...
Mr Elferink: You have said that, too.
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting. The member for Port Darwin plays by his own set of rules. He likes to do and say whatever he likes, and champions the importance of speech in this Chamber, yet spends his entire time trying to interrupt, despite Standing Order 51, a contribution to the debate I am making as the former Transport minister, the Attorney-General, and the Treasurer, who understands what occurs in national reform processes of which this legislation is a critical part.
Getting the national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy through COAG and really setting the reform agenda for all the work sitting at National Transport Commission level through the processes which have been clogged at ATC, is critical reform
I am delighted our Transport minister deals with harmonised models - particularly fatigue regime in trucking - and is able to achieve results which deal with the unique Territory circumstances; what we need to do to apply the broader harmonised changes into a model that works and fits the Territory. We have unique challenges and circumstances; that is why we have lined up with South Australia to look at our approach and ensuring we can have an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator.
I commend that minister for this legislation; it has been a long time coming. I commend the officers of the department of Transport for all the hard work they have done to get to this point.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all the participants in this debate. There is no doubt we can improve upon the current rail safety legislative framework in order to achieve better safety outcomes, and I thank the honourable members for their contributions towards that.
The concept of ensuring the safety of railway operations involves the elimination of risks to safety, or reducing the known risks. This bill aims to improve the conduct of railway operations through the management of risks and making special provision for the control of particular risks arising from railway operations.
Before rail operators and infrastructure managers can operate in a stable Territory, they are required to gain accreditation from the relevant state or territory rail safety regulator. Different regulatory requirements in different jurisdictions mean that people who operate across state and territory borders are subjected to a host of different rules and, because the requirements of each jurisdiction differ, accreditation gained in one jurisdiction may not assist operators to gain accreditation for the same type of operation in a neighbouring jurisdiction.
This bill requires rail safety regulators to consult with one another when someone seeks accreditation in more than one jurisdiction, and it will allow the Northern Territory to take into account an applicant’s accreditation elsewhere when determining their competence and ability to carry out the operations proposed for which accreditation is sought. This will reduce the amount of red tape, and industry is very supportive of that. The system of accreditation is designed to ensure that rail transport operators have the confidence and capacity to operate safely before they are permitted to operate. All accredited rail transport operators will need a safety management system suitable for the rail transport operator’s railway operations.
Contractors will no longer be required to become accredited rail transport operators, but they will be subject to the same general safety duty that applies to the accredited rail transport operator, and they will be required to comply with the accredited rail transport operator’s safety management system. This will clarify and simplify the chain of responsibility for all.
The Director of Safety will be equipped with the powers and sanctions required to monitor and enforce compliance with the legislation. It will also ensure that rail infrastructure managers and rail transport operators take responsibility for, and are in the best position to identify, assess and manage the risks. The Director of Rail Safety will continue with the current cooperative approach to achieving compliance by educating and informing rail transport operators and by issuing warnings when safety breaches are detected.
Enforcement action is appropriate for people who persistently fail or refuse to address safety concerns raised by the Director of Rail Safety. The intent is that there will be a proportionate response to any detected non-compliance with the act or regulations. In the case of recidivous, or where the non-compliance has resulted in a serious accident, this may involve prosecution.
The bill also provides that the Workplace Health and Safety Act will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency, and that an offender is not liable to be punished twice under both acts for the same act or omission.
The bill does vary from some national model provisions in order to comply with the Territory’s legislative drafting practice. The offence provisions have been restructured to meet the requirements of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code, and some interpretive provisions have been omitted because they are dealt with in our Interpretation Act.
This bill will also provide rail transport operators with a national regulatory framework which is consistent with the rules they will be operating under in other jurisdictions, in particular, South Australia.
I thank the member for Karama, a former Transport minister, for her contribution to this debate and for outlining this government’s investment in rail infrastructure upgrades at rail crossings. It demonstrates, once again, the government’s commitment to continuing to improve safety on our rail line.
It was great to hear that powerful message: ‘Stop, Look, Listen, Think’, which was a big part of the Barkly education system when the new northern Australian rail line went through. We took time and put energy into educating all rural residents about this new rail infrastructure, and rail operation which would cross our region, and cross the Territory for a greater good, and the bottom line was rail safety. It was also interesting to hear the former Transport minister provide real substance to the debate about the Australian Transport Council, and how the national regulation has moved forward and the real players behind the scene, and the real politics behind the scene; that is an education for all of us; someone who has been there and done that.
To the member for Braitling, I would like to address a couple of important points: one was the member for Braitling’s understanding and agreement on this Rail Safety Bill which relates to common sense and best industry practice. This is national model legislation; this is national harmonisation, this is improving rail safety outcomes by managing risks. And industry supports this legislation.
I will make a comment on the member for Braitling’s concern about drink-driving. I would rephrase that for the member and say this law applies to all NT rail workers in rail infrastructure and also rail operation, and the alcohol level of 0.02% relates to scientific-based evidence and allows for normal lifestyle practices such as nutritional supplements, and things like mouthwash. There is no real concern there, but I thank the member for raising his concern
In relation to the member’s comment on monorail, that is a national model. The Territory has no plans for monorail at this stage, but who knows what the future holds. Going on the unprecedented growth we are experiencing under the Henderson government, these other opportunities in great, safe, efficient and green public transport are definitely worth thinking about on the way forward.
In relation to the carriage of dangerous goods, I would like to say very clearly, once again, this legislation is about improving rail safety outcomes and managing risks. The legislation improves rail safety outcomes simply by managing the risks - it is the old prevention is better than cure. The carriage of dangerous goods is already regulated through the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act.
In relation to the member for Braitling’s wonderful opportunity to raise the debate about the proposed nuclear waste facility at Muckaty; I stand here as the local member opposed to the imposition of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory; and I stand here as a member of the Henderson government. There will be much work as the local member in my electorate working with constituents on this issue, educating, and making people aware.
Member for Braitling, come to the Barkly and meet the people, come and be part of the debate and declare your position. Let us know where you stand, and talk to the people about what you propose; keep that debate going. I have no problem with that being raised today but, let us talk about the real issue. Let us talk about your position in this, and let us talk about the people of the Barkly being able to hear you articulate that.
The member for Braitling made the comment that he will stand aside and let this legislation go through, and he then went on to talk about mushrooms. I thank the member for Braitling because this has been a good process; the member for Braitling was briefed on the bill by the department officials, and I want to thank him for taking an interest and being an active participant in moving good legislation through for the Northern Territory. I understand the briefing was extensive; the member for Braitling and his staff asked very relevant questions, and left the briefing session with a good understanding of the purpose and intent of this legislation.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution; a good, solid, rational debate, and always challenging. The member for Nelson is always challenging, always thinking about the future, thinking about better ways of doing things but, most of all, thinking about the Territory. That is what this transport legislation is all about.
In conclusion, our train industry supports the passage of this bill as it will improve their compliance with rail safety requirements, here and across the border in South Australia. We all know the north-south rail link is an extremely important link for the Northern Territory, it makes great sense to align with South Australia; the industry wants this, and these outcomes will benefit rail organisations and the community alike.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I wish to provide some comments today on the Mining Amendment Bill (Serial 60) and, whilst the bill is mostly procedural, I believe it is important for this parliament to have an understanding of its history, and some understanding of the uranium industry in the Territory and Australia.
I am probably the only person in this House who was involved from the beginning with the development of this legislation and the uranium industry framework which was set up by the then minister for Resources, Ian Macfarlane, who was committed to creating a policy framework to expand Australia’s resource base and increase international competitiveness of Australia’s resource sector. Additionally, through the uranium industry framework, Mr Macfarlane sought to improve the regulatory regime for the uranium industry consistent with the principles of environmental responsibilities and sustainable development. It was from this framework the legislation before us today had its origins.
The Uranium Industry Framework Group was set up around January 2005, and it involved representatives from industry, the companies in particular; Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern Territory governments; and Indigenous groups, namely, the land councils. Interestingly, the Northern Territory government was not keen at that time to participate, and did so begrudgingly. I know that to be factual as I was there and spoke to the people who represented the government. However, they were there and that was good.
Western Australia and other states, at the time, declined to participate. However, Western Australia has now changed its government and there is great hope for the future of the uranium industry in that state; new projects are online, including the Kintyre Project in the north of the state. The framework, despite any politics, went onwards regardless of which government was on board or not, mostly driven by the Commonwealth and with the support of industry, as there was a bigger picture than the politics of the Labor party and its antiquated policy regarding uranium exploration and mining.
Four working groups were set up under this framework to establish and implement recommendations. The first being a regulation which included a sub-group of royalties; one for transport; one for skills; and one for Indigenous engagement. The royalties subcommittee had representatives from the land councils, Northern Territory Treasury, industry representatives, industry associations and the Commonwealth government. It met regularly and thrashed out the issues to establish a royalty regime for the new mines in the Northern Territory; not the other states of Australia, just the Northern Territory.
The reason for addressing royalties separately for the Northern Territory was because ownership of uranium in Northern Territory is vested with the Commonwealth government under the Atomic Energy Act. But no resource charges generally applied to uranium in the NT, on both Aboriginal and other land tenure. To date, royalty arrangements have been determined for each mine taking into account a range of relevant considerations, including the world market for uranium ore; any previously negotiated non-statutory payments to Aboriginal communities; the loss or damage likely to be suffered by Aboriginal communities effected by the proposed grant of the mining tenure; and the royalty rates paid by other mining projects in the Territory.
For example, the Narbarlek mine which was in Arnhem Land, and has since ceased, had one rate of royalty; and the Ranger Mine developed another rate. It was agreed, at the time, through the framework and the royalty subcommittee, with future prospects and the growth of the industries, that separate royalty arrangements for different projects would be inappropriate.
Another aspect was there might be polymetallic projects, such as those we have in the Northern Territory at Batchelor with the Brown’s project and the Nolan’s Bore project north of Alice Springs, where the situation of dual royalty systems could exist - one royalty for the uranium product, and another for other minerals in the project. This would lead to administrative complexity and tax-driven investment decisions.
An application of royalty arrangements through uranium development was on a project-by-project basis. As I said, Nabarlek had a particular arrangement which was ad valorem of 3.75%. In the short time that mine was operating - about three years, and they milled for six or seven years - $13m of royalties went to the Aboriginal people in that area.
Ranger had another arrangement, which I understand is still in force, was 5.5% ad valorem which comprised three components. The first was 2.5% royalty applicable on the Aboriginal land under the NT Mining Ordinance; the second was 1.75% notional, which was negotiated for the traditional owners, and the Commonwealth pays these two together - 4.25% - which goes to the Aboriginal Benefits Account. The third component is 1.25% which the Commonwealth pays to the Northern Territory in accordance with a memorandum of understanding signed in 1978. To date - and I do not have an exact figure - the Ranger mine has contributed in excess of $250m in royalties to Aboriginal people in the area.
The royalties subcommittee considered alternative options: the profit-based royalty which we have in the Northern Territory of 18% profit based on the minerals or an ad valorem. There were arguments from both sides - industry and some governments favoured the profit-based; the land councils favoured ad valorem - and they gave their reasons strongly and consistently. However, at the end of the day, the Commonwealth was convinced a profit-based royalty of 18% was the way to go They believed it would give certainty and clarity to the industry, not only here in the Territory, but also to Australia, and it would assist projects to do their financial and investment planning.
As I said, it is procedural legislation; it is good it has happened; it will give clarity to some of our projects in the Territory, such as the one I mentioned and, possibly, other new projects, I encourage the government to support the uranium side of the resource industry as much as they can, because it can generate, and will generate, many benefits to the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the Mining Amendment Bill. I agree with the member opposite that the mining industry is significant for the Northern Territory; it contributes nearly 25% of GDP and employs 4000 to 5000 people and, despite the global downturn in economics, this has not happened in the Northern Territory. On the contrary, in the Northern Territory we have increased mining activity. In yesterday’s newspaper, you will find two pages full of mining exploration applications. Currently, in Tennant Creek there are 14 exploration drills, and you cannot find a driller to come to the Territory unless you book well in advance.
The Territory is well endowed with ore bodies of significant size: polymetallic, iron ore, and diamonds. Yesterday, I read an announcement from Merlin Diamonds that they actually increased their estimate of how many million carats from two million to six million. What we are currently seeing in the Northern Territory is an increase in mining activity, and consequently, an increase in employment, and an increase in royalties.
With regard to some of my Commonwealth colleagues, Ian Macfarlane was very good minister but, unfortunately, he had no idea about the uranium regime. He admitted to me later: ‘I took the uranium off the Territory.’ He rang me, very sheepishly, and told me he did not know the Commonwealth actually owns the uranium in the Territory under the agreement we have. As a matter of fact, it is the Commonwealth which has the final word whether a uranium mine will operate in the Territory. By law, a minister of the Territory has to obey the ruling of the minister of the Commonwealth. If he says yes, I have the power to say yes. If he says no, I have to say no.
At the same time, the Commonwealth government has (inaudible) somehow the Territory to provide the regulatory framework, the direct regulation, and to administer the mines of the Territory, providing a fee for service. What we see know is the federal government changing the royalty regime for new Territory uranium mines, if they open, when they open. Now, we have exactly the same royalty regime we have in the Northern Territory at the lowest - 18%, so when the mine gets up and makes a profit, it then starts paying royalties. I believe this is significant because it brings into parity all the royalty regimes throughout the Territory for all mines.
As to support of the uranium industry, uranium is a mineral, we address it the same way as other mines, but not without undertaking a significant environmental review to asses socio-environmental economic input; and we have said again and again, should a uranium mine compromise the safety of the environment or the community, we will oppose it. However, again I repeat, the final word on uranium mines rests with the Commonwealth.
I welcome this new action by the government, and I certainly support my colleague, the Treasurer, who is trying now to ensure there is a consistency when it comes to royalties with the laws of the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise only one issue today. It arises out of a comment by the minister in the second reading speech.
We will not be objecting to this bill. We will be supporting it because it deals with arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory over the payment of royalties to the Northern Territory; under the rather unique circumstances in the Northern Territory where uranium royalties remain within the scope of the Commonwealth. It deals with the arrangements pertaining to the collection of royalties for uranium extraction by the Commonwealth, and clearly, there is a legislative instrument at the Commonwealth level which does not quite match because of amendments, at the Commonwealth level, to the instrument here in the Northern Territory. The purpose of this legislation is fundamentally to recreate that alignment; and we have no problems with that. The perfect situation would be that the Northern Territory retained, or was granted by the Commonwealth, the royalty collection rights over uranium; however, that is a debate for another day.
I pick up on one particular comment in the second reading speech by the Treasurer in relation to this, and that was the comment about the inconsistency of legislation; the Treasurer was concerned, because the legislation was inconsistent, that the Northern Territory legislation would not operate.
This raises an issue which is not really on foot with this particular amendment, but it does give me an opportunity, as it was in the second reading speech, to address the issue. In recent times, I had cause to do some homework in relation to the status of Northern Territory legislation as it resided within our federal structure, compared to other legislation. I do not have my notes in front of me but I believe it is section 109 of the Australian Constitution, which carries an inconsistency clause. I could be corrected on the section number of the Constitution, but in any instance, the thrust of the section is that where there is an inconsistency between state and Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation would be null to the extent of the inconsistency.
I have always assumed, as the Treasurer has assumed, that is actually the case in the Northern Territory. However, there was a Senate committee in relation to the Territory’s euthanasia bill some time ago. I believe Bob Brown brought into the Senate an attempt to readjust the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to enable the resurrection, for lack of a better word, of the Territory’s euthanasia bill. Without entering into the debate of euthanasia, some professorial work was done, and I spoke to one of the professors who made a submission to the Senate - his name escapes me. They asserted it is possible and, even likely, that arrangement in the Australian Constitution does not apply to the Northern Territory. It does apply in the case of the Australian Capital Territory, because of the way the self-government act of the Australian Capital Territory is drafted. However, no similar laws exist in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and the constitutional clause in the Australian Constitution does not apply as far as the Northern Territory is concerned.
Consequently, the issue is what happens next. It resurrects an old common law doctrine called the ‘doctrine of repugnancy’. To over-simplify the doctrine, the theory underlining the doctrine goes back to the old imperial days where there was one superior parliament in the Empire, and that superior parliament was the Palace of Westminster, which governed the Empire and did have other parliamentary organisations in it of different shapes. For example, the original colonies of Australia prior to Federation - in fact subsequent to Federation - all had their own parliamentary systems.
To ensure the integrity of the whole system, as is the case with the Australian Constitution, the integrity of the system was protected by a similar clause, or doctrine, which is the ‘doctrine of repugnancy’ as captured by the Australian Constitution. However, there is one fundamental difference between the two approaches. The Australian Constitution uses the approach that the inconsistency is the extent of the nullification. The doctrine of repugnancy has the effect of rendering redundant and void ab initio the legislative instrument of the subordinate parliament. As we are a subordinate parliament to the Commonwealth parliament, we are constituted by its will in the same way the Australian parliament was constituted by an act passed in the British parliament.
The old common law doctrine would actually be resurrected in our case, which means it is conceivable and probable, even, that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, even if the federal law was changed, would not have survived. It is conceivable the legislation in relation to the carriage of nuclear material through our borders would not have survived to this day. It is conceivable, under such a doctrine, if there was an inconsistency between the Territory legislation and the federal legislation in relation to the royalty arrangements here, that doctrine may have actually come into play and, if a court was asked to adjudicate, it may well determine the original Northern Territory legislation was essentially nullified in toto.
I ask the Treasurer to seek advice on this and advise the House on the situation with this legislation because, it is my understanding, this is an amendment bill and if it is an amendment to legislation that may have been affected or in someway touched by the doctrine of repugnancy then, I suspect, if it is ever challenged the Treasurer would want to know about it. Consequently, I have raised this in a briefing with the Treasurer’s staff, and I hope the homework and research has been done and the Treasurer will be in a position to address this issue, because there are two law professors who made a submission to a Senate committee on Territory legislation. If those law professors are correct, then I am concerned that doctrine may have touched Northern Territory legislation, and we need to know what the effect of that is, and what the extent of that influence is.
It also gives me the opportunity to make one last observation, and the observation is simply this: if it turns out those two law professors are correct, the Chief Minister also is correct. Not only are we second class citizens in this country because the quality of our legislation does not enjoy the constitutional protection of the states but, on top of that, it appears we might even be third class citizens because out legislative instruments do not even have the legislative strength of legislation passed by the Australian Capital Territory.
I wait eagerly for the Treasurer’s comments.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I can indicate the opposition will be supporting this bill. It is a bill that does not require a lengthy debate, so I will keep my comments relatively brief.
Last year, the Commonwealth enacted the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009 to provide for a consistent and regulated framework for the imposition of a royalty on uranium and certain other designated substances recovered in the Northern Territory. It did this simply by applying the Mineral Royalty Act of the Northern Territory as a law of the Commonwealth, and making amendments to that act through new Commonwealth legislation.
Under the new Commonwealth act, royalties are to be applied to designated substances which, in the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act, are defined as prescribed substances under the Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act 1953. This further goes on to describe those substances as uranium, thorium, any elements having an atomic number greater than 92, or other substance declared by the regulations to be capable of or being used for the production of atomic energy, or for research into matters connected with atomic energy and a derivative or compound of those substances.
Under the previous royalty scheme for uranium, royalties were derived from our only existing uranium mine, the Ranger Mine operated by ERA, on the basis of 5.5% ad valorem. Under this scheme, royalties were payable on the value of the mineral extracted at a rate of 5.5%, broken up into a 2.5% royalty applicable to Aboriginal reserves, 1.75% royalty negotiated payment to traditional owners, both of which were paid into the Aboriginal Benefits Account; and a further 1.25% on-paid to the NT government by the Commonwealth. I see from the legislation and from the Treasurer’s second reading speech that this royalty arrangement will be grandfathered.
Looking further into the history of uranium mining in the NT, the Nabarlek and Jabiluka mines paid royalties at the rate of 3.75% and 5.25% ad valorem, respectively. Effectively, then, only new miners of those designated substances will be subject to the new royalty regime. Of course, in the new regime, royalties are now calculated on the same basis as other minerals mined in the Northern Territory - basically on a profit basis - that is a scheme where 18% tariff is applied to the gross realisation, which is turn-over, for want of another word, less the operating cost, less the capital recognition deduction, less eligible exploration expenditure, and any additional deductions allowed by the minister. This is enacted under the Mineral Royalty Act of the Northern Territory.
Clearly the new regime will be a far more equitable and fairer system for producers of these types of elements, making the royalty regime consistent for all minerals removed from the ground in the Northern Territory, which makes sense. However, I hope this new royalty regime for uranium and, for that matter, the existing regime for all minerals extracted from our land is not short lived. I am referring here to some details of the early indications and implications of the Henry Tax Review. I note, with some concern, that The Australian in an article dated 24 August 2009, and the Business Spectator in an article on 22 January 2010, reported that the Henry review of taxation may recommend a scrapping of a state-based royalty payment scheme for mining activities, to be replaced with a federally-controlled resource rent or rent tax.
Those articles contended another alternative being considered would be to leave the state-based royalties in place and heave an additional Commonwealth royalty payment on top. Either way, the Henry Tax Review’s first paper indicates its preference for a resource rent tax to be levied federally. If the federal government were to adopt this approach and bring that new tax into line with, for example, the existing petroleum resources rent tax of 40% - that is 40% - this may prove to be an absolute disaster for the mining sector, not only in the Northern Territory, but right across Australia. According to the articles, Treasury estimates mining royalty fell 20% based on mining profits between 2002 and 2007, and it seems Henry would like the Commonwealth to get a much larger slice of that pie.
I note one of those articles refers to submissions from various interested groups, including the Minerals Council of Australia, and a number of Australian states including Western Australia and Queensland. Both Western Australia and Queensland indicated their support for a state-based royalty regime. This left me wondering what the Northern Territory’s submission to the Henry Tax Review said. I visited the review’s website and was able to find hundreds of submissions to the review from a number of Australian state governments and many other stakeholders; yet, I was unable to locate a public submission from the Northern Territory.
Perhaps the Treasurer, in closing debate, might make mention of the Northern Territory’s submission and the thrust of what was contained therein.
The question I have for the Treasurer is: did the Northern Territory lodge a submission to the Henry Tax Review? Naturally, an offer by the Treasurer to provide a copy of the NT submission to the tax review to the opposition would be most welcome.
I put on record, while we are on this topic, that the Country Liberals would vehemently oppose any moves by the federal government to wrest away from the Northern Territory our royalty regime. I ask the Treasurer to affirm or reaffirm this government’s commitment to keeping the NT-based royalty scheme intact and within the purview of the Northern Territory.
I am worried; we have seen in the past two days how the Commonwealth government can exercise its will over the Northern Territory with new laws, introduced at the federal level, in respect to the nuclear waste dump. This is certainly not the only time the Commonwealth has interfered in matters in the Northern Territory; mentioned earlier today by the Chief Minister in Question Time, was the overturning of euthanasia laws. I also mention the implementation of welfare quarantine right across the Territory where, effectively, the Commonwealth is using the Northern Territory as a guinea pig to test that particular regime.
In a similar vein, I am worried the federal government will use the Northern Territory again as a guinea pig to roll-out some form of a new, federally-based mineral royalties scheme. Any scheme such as this would have serious implications for the bottom line of the NT budget. This form of federal intervention in the Northern Territory already has a base through the very Commonwealth legislation that has brought about the legislation changes we are debating today; that is, the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009.
Will the Treasurer, and the minister for Resources, give the people of the Northern Territory, and the mining companies which are operating here, as well as the companies which have Northern Territory mineral riches on their radar, some assurances it will fight any move by the federal government to uproot the Territory-based royalty regime we have here for all our minerals?
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support of this legislation. I will go to the concerns raised, first of all, by the member for Port Darwin regarding the issue of repugnancy. I can advise we sought advice from the Solicitor-General. The member for Port Darwin suggested paragraph 5 of the second reading speech is incorrect because it refers to ‘inconsistency’ between Territory and Commonwealth legislation …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is required. A quorum is present.
Ms LAWRIE: … because it refers to inconsistency between Territory and Commonwealth legislation rather than repugnancy. The advice is clear. There is nothing of substance in the point raised by the member for Port Darwin. The term that has been historically used to describe the situation where Commonwealth legislation prevails over state and territory legislation is that of ‘inconsistency’. So the second reading speech is very accurate.
In a 1987 case, the High Court told us that ‘inconsistency’ in this context, means ‘repugnancy’. Whether one uses the term inconsistency or repugnancy, the principle is that state and territory legislation cannot affect the operation of a law of the Commonwealth, or detract from a right conferred by a Commonwealth law unless the Commonwealth law allows for this. The member for Port Darwin has identified a distinction without a difference.
In relation to the strange contribution from the member for Katherine, he clearly does not understand the Henry Tax Review. He clearly has not read any of the debate about the various royalty regimes around our nation and the view of the federal Treasury Secretary in relation to which is the better type of system. Certainly, we are very confident that our profit-based system is seen as a highly competitive and attractive system to have. The fact that, after all of the industry work done in achieving consistency which we have before us today in terms of this legislation shows the industry was very keen on ensuring the royalty scheme which applies in the Northern Territory applies as well to the uranium mines, which this legislation reflects. So, to go on with some strange ramblings of some potential threats in terms of royalty regimes, was curious.
Part of the Henry Tax Review will be looking at all these matters. The Territory has provided a submission. I can say it is confidential, as it should be, and states followed suit with confidential submissions. I will not get into the politics of scaremongering that the member for Katherine chose to use in this debate. What I will say is, we have ensured the protection of the Territory revenue base, and the arguments around that and how taxation regimes could provide protections for revenue bases for states and territories, have been put forward very strongly in the Territory submission.
I have every confidence that whatever results from the Henry Tax Review, there will certainly be much public debate about that. It will not be an easy task for the federal Treasurer to get to a landing on that, and I have no doubt all state and territory Treasurers will be in discussions about it, as will all Treasury officials. We are some way off, but the work has been significantly done. I have been privy to briefings from Ken Henry himself, and also from the federal Treasurer.
This legislation before us simply provides for consistency, provides for arrangements between ourselves and the Commonwealth, who are the operators of uranium mines. On 9 September last year, the Australian Senate passed a new Uniform Uranium Royalty Scheme, adopting the Territory’s existing royalty regime in the Territory’s Mineral Royalty Act, which is applying an 18% profit-based royalty regime to new - I emphasise new - uranium mines in the Territory. This provides a consistent framework for the assessment and payment of royalties on the mining of uranium and other minerals in the Territory. It is a good outcome for the industry.
It is a particular benefit that will allow a single royalty scheme to apply where a mine produces both uranium and other minerals, as the member for Goyder pointed out. This change provides the industry with certainty that, should any future uranium mines be developed, it steps away from the previous project-by-project royalty arrangements where uncertainty could affect investment decisions.
The reforms are in response to industry concerns about royalty arrangements that had previously been determined on a project-by-project basis. It is not retrospective legislation; it will not apply to the Ranger Uranium Mine, which will continue to operate under its pre-existing royalty agreement.
Under the Commonwealth’s Uranium Royalty Scheme, royalties for new uranium mines are to be collected by the Northern Territory on behalf of the Commonwealth. In turn, amounts equivalent to the royalties collected by Treasury are to be paid by the Commonwealth to the Territory. The consequential amendments to the Mining Act proposed by the bill are necessary to facilitate the new Commonwealth scheme.
I recommend and commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, continuing from my remarks earlier, I would like to point out the member for Drysdale brought forward a bill which, in the second part, removed the changes for an FOI application for members of parliament. This bill was voted down last year by those opposite when this was done, and they set out that this part of the bill would be covered by a mechanism which they would enact; and I touched on all those issues earlier in relation to how they have not enacted that mechanism which has attracted, if you like, this particular response from the opposition.
It does not cover the costs of getting material in respect of how Parliament House has dangerously high levels of legionnaires’ disease in its cooling towers. It does not cover the costs of getting material around minister Lawrie’s instructions to public servants. It does not cover the cost of obtaining ministerial diaries, such as that of then minister Scrymgour, and her famous incident of being at the beauty parlour when a well respected educator was being sacked. Interestingly, when we got that diary it did not reflect that incident of the beauty parlour, and we still harbour suspicions in relation to why it did not; and we harbour suspicions it may well have been changed.
Under the new mini-fee law and, again, it is good you have made the $30 free, I move to the issue of Darwin prison. For the department of Planning and Infrastructure - a favourite of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader and myself - the changes do not cover the request for information about community consultation undertaken with respect to the prison. Such as documentation in respect to the location of the prison, documentation between the department and the minister’s office on this matter, all costings, work which had been undertaken - then again, is this so much of a problem? I suppose not. I guess the department does not deem itself required to provide this material.
At the moment the Leader of the Opposition is in the midst of a complaint with the department and, I believe, off to formal mediation which, if successful, will lead to a hearing on the matter. It is not the only one.
Let us look at what is going on, because this government said it is interested in freedom of information. But this government is not about freedom of information; it is about not allowing departments to release information.
This is a government about secrecy and silence. This is a government whose ministers come into this place and simply do not keep their word. Even if it is on the public record, this is a government that does not want the opposition or anyone, for that matter, to have access to material that lifts the bar of scrutiny. This is a government that has said it will go so far and no further, and removed the $30 lodgement fee and the report fees. What about all of the other work, the correspondence, the e-mails, the community consultation documents, the costings that ministers quote from, or statistics or data, or surveys, and so on? Oh, no, not these, Madam Speaker, not these at all, just the reports.
Returning to the Planning and Infrastructure matter; this process began on 21 November 2008, today it is 25 February 2010, some 16 months later, and here we are off to mediation on Monday. Here we have a department using whatever means possible to prevent the flow of information. We suspect the minister will be found wanting, just as then minister Scrymgour was found wanting when, by some miracle, two diaries were different, yet she managed to keep her appointment. Amazing! I would really like a lesson from the member for Arafura on how she manages to be in two places at once. I thought that was the stuff of science fiction. I am sure there are many in the science community who would want the same lesson from the member for Arafura.
Or was the diary changed? Maybe this is a question your ministerial colleagues - no wait, we have voted on that, so the member for Arafura could not be held to be lying in parliament, nor any other member of the Labor Party, or any former or current minister, because they are accountable, open and honest - just not with reports or releasing things under FOI, or taking ministerial responsibility, or doing what you say you will do.
But, according to the member for Karama, the member for Arafura, the Chief Minister, the member for Nelson, and those in the Labor Party, this government is open, honest and accountable. Such openness is seen by what they do, rather than what they say. These are the actual words of the member for Karama: ‘All fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to FOI applications should be waived, is within the agreement’.
Ms Lawrie: Quote the entire paragraph.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yet, somehow, it did not make its way into the regulation - our open, honest and accountable Labor government - I said it this morning and I say it again now, but I will come back to that. In the long line of things that show how unwilling this government is to release information, the financial impost remains.
Returning to the matter of diaries; I understand ministers are now even trying to hide their diaries saying that they are not freedom of information material. In recent correspondence with the Chief Minister’s Department, diaries have been excluded because, according to the department, they do not fall into the definition of what is a record. The department considers the diaries are discretionary, are not maintained by everyone in similar circumstances, and may be deleted by anyone at anytime, and they are not required to be kept.
There is no doubt we have run into that before, because we have diaries mysteriously disappear in all sorts of matters, not least of which was the movements of people and records kept by people around the time Bob Collins engaged in his first suicide attempt.
The work ministers do in this government is discretionary and tends to be done to different standards, if at all, and is often forgotten when it suits them. To claim that diaries are not records of what ministers do and how they spend their time is a complete and utter untruth; they are public figures, they have statutory obligations and they are accountable, or should be, not just under the stewardship of one member for Wanguri.
I know of instances where ministers have lost their ministries, lost their jobs, because of their diaries. Ministerial diaries are, in every way, a record of activities identifying the date, time and location of meetings, discussions and events and their subject matter. By their very presence they record the operations of a minister at any point in time. Diaries are a means by which ministers account for their day–to-day activities and performing their functions as ministers of the Crown. In essence, a minister’s diary is a record of their accountability - but not under this government.
If a minister claims they did, or did not, go to a meeting when someone is embroiled in some controversy and we want to check the veracity of such a claim, then apparently this is not possible; departments have been instructed that diaries are not available under FOI because they are not a record. Well, here is a diary of the then minister for Education, the member for Arafura, which we did obtain under FOI. It looks like a record to me - tastes like a record, smells like a record, feels like a record underfoot – lucky I did not step in it! It is a record of the minister’s movements and meetings - a publicly accountable person making decisions of Territory laws, and spending Territory money; and it looks like a record of the minister’s activities to me. As to the integrity of its accuracy, well, that is a matter for members opposite. However, they were not prepared to test the accuracy of that diary; they were prepared to assume innocence without any form of examination.
I well recall the now Leader of Government Business climbing to his feet saying: ‘It looks like the opposition has made up their minds already, and they are biased’. I thought to myself: at least I was prepared to test my so-called biased position by sending it to a trial of the member for Arafura’s peers. I also know they had a biased position, because they voted against it. They did not want to send it to Privileges; they were never prepared to test their bias. What a surprise!
Section 17(2) of the Information Act specifically states public sector organisations are not to be concerned about, or to take into consideration the reasons access is being sought. I suspect the government’s views on opposition access to diaries goes very much to the heart of section 17(2) - if we use FOI information to embarrass the government and highlight their inactions or mistruths. Mind you, we have some very busy FOI applications and some fairly short diaries being returned.
We used the member for Arafura’s diary to show the skulduggery and smell that surrounded the diary of the then minister for Education. However, getting access to that diary was a mistake - we should never have received it - then, I guess, it never would have needed to be changed. Anyway, we are no longer to get them because the Attorney-General has made a ruling: no diaries, not allowed to have them; not allowed to have any form of openness, honesty and accountability in government - we will say we have it. But, my goodness gracious me, let us put the acid test on it and, all of a sudden, the marshmallow disappears in the blast furnace.
What were those words of the Attorney-General? Oh, that is right: ‘It is within the agreement’.
Member for Nelson, I am interested in your views. You wanted more openness and transparency. Does the denial of access to diaries, which are part of the government’s accountability, deliver this? Not only to the member for Nelson, but to all members of this House, and to all Territorians? I have concerns with the direction this government is heading with the freedom of information, and I trust the member for Nelson will oblige in assisting me, and the opposition, with this task.
I wonder whether the deal done between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson equals one set of freedom of information rules for some MLAs and a different set for others. Does the member for Nelson still lodge FOI applications, or does he now just knock on the door of the Chief Minister and say: ‘Hey comrade, give me A, B, C, D, E – whatever?
I wonder what would be the circumstances if both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson were to ask for exactly the same information - be they reports or other forms of record-keeping. Would the same rules apply to the Leader of the Opposition as, I suspect, they do for the member for Nelson? The member for Nelson will not be trapped by Cabinet solidarity, but one must wonder, to get information under FOI, how much the member for Nelson gets by picking up the telephone. That would be the Westminster system in operation. Or, was that the party system desperate to cling to power? Or, was it that our side was not looking to hold the government and, for that matter, the member for Nelson, to account?
Instead, in the words of the member for Nelson: we are simply in it for the power. Member for Nelson, thank you for making it clear why I turn up to work every day. Sadly, you do have it wrong - very, very wrong.
Irrespective of any deal that has been struck between them, when it comes to freedom of information, one MLA should be treated in exactly the same way, and by exactly the same standards, as any other.
Let us look at the context of an issue I know is of interest to the member for Nelson, as it has been for the opposition, for many years.
On 21 October 2008, the Leader of the Opposition lodged an FOI application asking for the following: documentation relating to the assessment and sustainability, including the results of any community consultation, of all sites in the Darwin region that have been identified for potential location of the new prison. What is the status of that submission 16 months later? Well, it started with the application being transferred from the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then refused to take the application, and returned it to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Planning and Infrastructure denied access to the information, and the matter was submitted for a section 38 review. The Department of Justice then took over the review and, after consideration, the request was denied. We then submitted the matter to the Information Commissioner under section 103, who has ruled that there was, and I quote:
The Information Commissioner required the department to release the information by 8 February. Surprise, surprise! They refused and the matter will proceed to mediation next week.
Now I ask: what information has been provided to the member for Nelson? Has the government provided documentation relating to the assessment and suitability, including results of any community consultation, of all sites in the Darwin region that have been identified as the potential location of the new prison? Under the regulation agreed to by the member for Nelson within the agreement, even if we do eventually get this information, we will have to pay for it. I call upon the member for Nelson to table any information he has received from the government since 16 August 2009 that relates to the new Darwin prison.
Let us see how one set of FOI rules apply to us, and another to the member for Nelson. Has the government denied us information using provisions of the Information Act, and yet provided information to the member for Nelson? What does this do for the equity of access and the whole principle of openness and transparency of the government governing for all, rather than special interest groups who help you cling to power?
The government had an opportunity to deliver on its openness and transparency mantra yesterday, when it could have supported the committee to look at $2bn of Territory finances and why there is so little improvement for it. They could have put in place a book to show where the Indigenous expenditure was going. But no, they called it a racist committee. That is disgraceful. Whenever the call for openness and accountability is heard, whenever they are tested, they run, they hide from the truth, and the culture of cover-up continues. No wonder, it is ably led by an Attorney-General who, herself, is a past master of the culture of cover-up. Just go back again to what she said: ‘All fees payable by the members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived ...
Ms Lawrie: Read the rest of the quote.
Mr ELFERINK: … it is within the agreement’. It should have followed the opposition’s lead and said …
Ms Lawrie: Read the rest of the quote about the strange and bizarre witch-hunt we have seen by the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … I will assist you in your task of the responsible and professional scrutinisation of our government.
I would love to hear the member for Karama say: ‘We have nothing to hide …
Ms Lawrie: Who brought an echo up?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We do not hear these words from her, or any other member from that side. We have a set of regulations that are close to meaningless. They add nothing to government accountability except a one line item in an obscure part of the Territory’s budget books.
This is, yet again, a government which is economical with the truth. When the Treasurer walks into this place and speaks of economy, she absolutely speaks of economy, but it is with the truth that she is economical, not with taxpayers’ funds.
When it comes to actually finding out, through this open, honest, and accountable government, what on earth is going on in so many areas of this government, we find freedom of information lives up to the other moniker attached to it: freedom from information. That really is what is going on here. It is deplorable that the arrangements between the member for Nelson and government continue to be employed in such a way. In this room of equals clearly, in the government’s eye, he is a favoured equal indeed.
The example of yesterday, when government had clearly colluded with the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: He says rubbish, but the fact was …
Mr Wood: You told me the member for Macdonnell had not discussed it with me. You did not know what you were talking about.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson made no attempt to advise this side of the House …
Mr Wood: I did not advise anyone.
Mr ELFERINK: … that he was going to do this type of thing, yet we heard, by way of interjection from the government, they had been spoken to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This sweet little deal between the two sides is not the equitable arrangement the member for Nelson promises to the people of the Northern Territory. What the member for Nelson promised was a system and a standard and benchmark of conduct he himself is failing to meet. That is the problem.
Clearly, the government knew exactly what was going to come from the member for Nelson. Why? Because we heard by way of interjection that they had been speaking to him. There was the Treasurer - nod, nod - we have spoken to him. Well, we have not been spoken to. I read in the paper today the member for Nelson believes we are picking on him. It is not about the member for Nelson …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What it is about is the good governance of the Northern Territory, and the good governance which is denied the people of Northern Territory by his decision. I do not care what the member for Nelson does or does not believe, or whether he feels he is being picked on or whether he is not being picked on. What I can tell you is some of his approaches and attitudes, which have been denied by government repeatedly in this House, suddenly become flavour of the month in spite of the fact they are based on inconsistent and fuzzy logic. That is an outcome which really affects people’s lives. The problem is the member for Nelson still cannot separate what is happening here.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Port Darwin be give a further 10 minutes to complete his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson still believes we are picking on him. This is not about the member for Port Darwin; it is not about the member for Nelson; it is not about the Minister for Local Government; it is not about the Chief Minister. It is about what happens out there.
Today in Question Time, we saw one of the people affected by the decisions of this government - a robust economy is the answer said the Chief Minister. No, the real cause of that lady’s plight was that two years ago the Treasurer said we only needed to release 300 blocks per year. That is the real cause of that lady’s plight - bad planning. The fact the member for Nelson who, in the past repeatedly attacked government on its poor planning outcomes, continues to support them and say they are confident government, does not present as consistent. That is what I care about. It is about the lady who was in the gallery during Question Time. It is all about Territorians who suffer the consequences of decisions taken in this House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the interjections: ‘It is all about you.’ No! If you believe that you have missed the point of why I am here and why you should be here. It is not about the member for Port Darwin; it is about results for Territorians. Where are the houses you promised? They were taken from you because you could not run the show. Where are the 300 houses the Treasurer said they were going to release in April 2007? She said 700 blocks would be released in Bellamack over the next two years - that was the solution. She has just started releasing those blocks, and not one person has yet moved into a house in the Bellamack area.
It is a failure to plan; a failure to plan that the member for Nelson criticised them for. If there is one person in the Northern Territory right now who can change and effect the way the Northern Territory is governed, it is only the member for Nelson, and he can walk into this place and send it back to the true sovereign …
A member: The king maker!
Mr ELFERINK: … the king maker who is not a king maker. Nonsense! In an attempt to avoid responsibility and be answerable, he avoids taking up the one duty which would truly put responsibility on his shoulders, and that is to become a minister of the Crown; and he could organise that with that lot opposite by simply saying: ‘I want it’. But, he would be tied to Cabinet responsibility, he would be tied to the collective agreements made by Cabinet, and he would be unable to be all care and no responsibility.
This is about responsibility; it is all about responsibility for the member for Nelson, and we know that he does not want the job. He said: ‘I do not want this to happen. I do not want to be responsible.’ The point is that he has no choice. He has been thrust into that situation and all he is doing at the moment is taking decisions to avoid that responsibility; and that is the critique I have of the member for Nelson. I am not picking on him. I want him to take advantage of the job he has and apply that position to the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory - not his own best interests, which is the avoidance of the responsibility he sought to bring upon himself by the decisions he has taken. That is what it is about, that very clear distinction.
I could not care less what motivates the member for Nelson, but the way he is discharging the responsibility he has thrust upon his shoulders is not working out for the people of the Northern Territory. That is the crux of what underlies this whole argument in this place.
The people of the Northern Territory have a right to make a decision. It has been made abundantly clear to me by people who come up to me in the streets, talk to me in the malls, and come up to me at my van that they were annoyed they were not given a chance to sort this out. It is clearly the decision the people out there want, and the member for Nelson continues to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, there is a common theme in debates being led in this Chamber by the member for Port Darwin and it is his obsession with the member for Nelson, and it reeks of hypocrisy.
This notice by the member for Port Darwin to disallow Subordinate Legislation No 2 of 2010 will not be supported by the government. We will be voting against the disallowance.
It is interesting the member for Port Darwin talks about freedom of speech. He was a member of the CLP government which refused to introduce FOI legislation. Hypocrisy reeking from the member for Port Darwin. It simply did not exist under the CLP.
Mr Mills: You are unbelievable.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand to hear the facts, and he is trying to talk over me. They refused to introduce it. It simply did not exist, and the member for Port Darwin, who was a member of the CLP government of the day, stands there and reeks of hypocrisy in this debate. He is an embarrassment. We do not take him seriously. We know it is his obsession with being in opposition, with being frustrated at the lack of leadership from the member for Blain, being frustrated with the challenge coming on from the member for Fong Lim, being frustrated that no one seems to be putting the vote behind the member for Port Darwin. This is a purely political stunt by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr Mills: What kind of books do you read, science fiction?
Ms LAWRIE: When we came to government there was no estimates process, no freedom of information legislation, the Electoral Commission sat …
Mr Mills: Not a single school anywhere.
Ms LAWRIE: He does not want to hear it. … the Electoral Commission sat in the Department of Chief Minister. There was no whistleblower legislation and it was the Labor government that introduced ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Glass jaws over there. It was the Labor government that introduced freedom of information legislation after decades of refusal by the CLP.
These regulations were made under the Information Act, and gazetted on 17 February of this year. Section 156(4) of the Information Act allows for regulations to prescribe different fees for different types of information. These regulations amended the current regulations made under the Information Act, and made certain specified government information available, free of charge, to members of the Legislative Assembly making applications.
Under the Information Act, any individual may apply to a public service organisation for access to government information held by the organisation. Under the regulations, those organisations are entitled to charge an application fee and a processing fee. The amendments made now mean public sector organisations - except for a government business organisation, a local authority, or a higher education institution - cannot charge an application fee or a processing fee if:
The act also currently provides for a waiver or reduction of fees if the circumstances, including financial hardship of the applicant and the objects of the act, warrant it.
On 29 April 2009, the member for Drysdale introduced the Information Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 20), into the Legislative Assembly. The bill sought to amend the Information Act to restrict the existing exemption for Cabinet and executive council documents, and also to abolish fees for members of the Legislative Assembly where they make applications for information or complaints.
The Department of Justice recommended the bill not be supported as its exemption from fees was too broad, and its changes to the Cabinet exemption provisions were inappropriate. The bill was debated during the August 2009 sittings of the Assembly, but was not passed.
The member for Port Darwin refers to the parliamentary agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. This agreement contains a term under the subheading Parliamentary and Other Reforms, to allow government reports – it is very clear, reports - available under FOI to be free of charge to MLAs. The term of the agreement is met by way of these changes made to the information regulations. These regulations enable government reports available under FOI to be available free of charge to MLAs. Despite what the member for Port Darwin claims, it was never intended, and never stated, that applications for access to documents generally available under FOI, be available free of charge to MLAs. This is clearly reflected in the terms of the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. The agreement specifically refers to government reports; it does not refer to all documents available under FOI.
The member for Port Darwin referred to comments I made in regard to the opposition’s Information Bill. The member for Port Darwin says he wants all fees payable by MLAs in relation to an FOI application to be waived. This Assembly has already dealt with this issue. This is exactly what the opposition sought when it introduced its own Information Amendment Bill. For good reason, that bill was not passed.
During debate, I explained why the opposition’s bill completely compromised the capacity of the public service to provide government with frank and fearless advice. I reiterate: protecting the integrity of government decision-making is important, and this is why we could not, and would not, and still will not, support the opposition’s bill.
The member for Port Darwin has been selectively quoting from my comments during that debate, not distinguishing between a comma and a full stop. At that time, I said, and I will quote from Hansard:
During this debate of the opposition’s flawed Information Amendment Bill, I said that the government will hold true to its commitment to the member for Nelson in waiving fees for MLAs for government reports sought under the FOI process. We have done this with these regulations. Now the opposition is seeking that these regulations be disallowed. This will mean that no longer will fees be waived for MLAs for government reports sought under the FOI process. This would simply be a loss; a loss to opposition members, a loss to any MLA wanting to access these reports.
The opposition, in seeking to have these regulations disallowed, is repeating themselves, and so I am forced to repeat myself. This government will not support any bill or any regulations that provides all fees payable by MLAs in relation to an FOI application to be waived - and for very good reasons. We will not grind down the ordinary business of government; we will not fetter fearless and frank advice coming to government through the decision-making process. The government will be opposing this motion of disallowance.
In closing, I note the member for Drysdale again, yesterday, introduced the Information Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 83). Again, it seeks to waive or reduce the fees payable. In fact, he goes one step further; he was bold enough to seek the bill also amend the act to waive fees for certain applications by MLAs, being applications amounting to less than 3000 revenue units - $390 000. The opposition is becoming increasingly ludicrous.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak on this motion. Some of the criticism I have received about lack of cooperation does surprise me then, out of the blue this morning comes this particular motion which, I gather, is rarely ever used. It is under the heading Assembly Notice, I believe. It does not really allow much time, considering we had a fair amount of other work today, to look at what was behind this but, on the surface, it actually seems silly.
Regardless of whether people might have an argument with the government over what they can and cannot get through freedom of information, I would have thought that to repeal a regulation which actually allows members of parliament to obtain reports free of charge, would be working against the very thing the member for Port Darwin is trying to advocate.
In the agreement it states that the government would allow reports to be given free to MLAs. The minister might remember that I actually applied for a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Glyde Point which, I must admit, the minister seemed to be somewhat hazy about whether it had been delivered, but eventually we found it did exist and when I put an FOI in for it they told me: ‘If you have $990, or something, you can have it.’ I said: ‘I do not want the appendix and I do not want this, and I do not want that; how much for the Executive Summary?’ That brought it down to about $100, so I paid the $100 and I thought to myself: ‘Is this actually right?’ Reports are put forward by government so governments can study those reports and come up with policy, but also members of parliament sometimes need those reports to give good responses. That is why that was part of the report.
Also in the Information Regulations under application fee. it clearly states:
The idea of repealing this legislation works against something that, whilst it might not satisfy the opposition, at least allows for some access to government documents free of charge, and that is simply all the agreement was about.
In relation to the member for Port Darwin saying I get special privileges to information on the prison; part of the agreement is about the prison, which involves the siting of that prison - which has always been a concern - and naturally I have had a number of meetings with a range of people which involving the site, the construction costs, the architectural design, those types of things.
With regard to information on matters outside of the agreement, I do not recall getting any information which no one else would be allowed to have. If I have, I do not recall it, and I would not expect it. But in relation to matters involved with the agreement, I certainly would expect to have some discussion, whether it is about a bicycle path or a sewerage line, etcetera. I would expect some type of briefing on those matters because they are part of the agreement. Without having knowledge of that, it is very hard for me to discuss those issues with the community or with the various bodies that deal with it.
Today is Thursday. I thought it was going to be a quiet day. It is obviously the same old tactic - they do not like the agreement and they will keep harping on it. Of course, if the CLP had the same agreement …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: They just love it. If they can go for me they will go for me, and they will go for me time and time again. So, the issue here really is …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I had a sock here, I know who I would give it to.
The issue is this particular notice on the paper today is a vehicle. It is not a vehicle to have a decent discussion about FOI; it is a vehicle to attack the agreement, and to attack me. You can do it until the cows come home; but I am disappointed. Regardless of whether you like the agreement or not, we did get some improvement in the agreement so people can get reports free of charge. That was something I believe was wrong: MLAs should be able to get hold of reports from the government, because how can they debate those issues if they cannot get hold of the reports?
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Glyde Point is a classic example. The minister made some rulings on rezoning land there, which stopped the possibility of industrial development. The minister then made some decisions about Middle Point Arm, and I simply wanted to get more background details on whether the minister’s arguments for closing that area down were valid; and if there was a report paid for by the taxpayer then I believe that report, unless there were national security issues or whatever, should be available to the public.
I do not support this motion. I believe it defeats the purpose. I do not want reports being charged for, because that is what this motion would mean; and that is a silly idea. If we can get access to reports it helps us as members of parliament. If people have issues about the definition of a report, then that is a reasonable area we could look at. Otherwise, I believe the regulation as it is, is okay, and I will not be supporting this.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, unlike the member for Nelson, I do not agree. I believe these regulations are an absolute con job by the minister on the people of the Northern Territory.
These regulations provide free access for MLAs to government reports; it is more about the government’s hallmark of spin rather than substance. It is an indictment this government will do or say anything to stay in power; they will hide the truth from Territorians to protect their own neck. Freedom of information was founded on the principle of open government. Freedom of information is consistent with the accountability of the Executive to the parliament and to the people of the Northern Territory.
Freedom of information is intended to expose information held by government to direct public scrutiny; it can break through the cycle of control and spin which has been the hallmark of this government - the culture of cover-up. The government would have you believe that today’s regulation will have a genuine impact on providing greater disclosure of government information to all members of this parliament; information that, in the ordinary course of a member of parliament’s work, would allow access for the closer scrutiny of government actions; and nothing could be further from the truth with these regulations.
It is interesting these regulations come on top of the government’s vote against the member for Macdonnell’s motion yesterday for an Indigenous funding watchdog; a committee that really sought a simple mandate to scrutinise government expenditure on Indigenous people. As the member for Macdonnell said, to iron out the kinks in the hose, real time freedom of information - it had teeth.
There is no denying the opposition actively seeks freedom of information from government through these FOIs, and we do not apologise for that. The Country Liberals currently have 44 FOI applications in the pipeline; 44 applications on a wide range of important matters mentioned in previous comments by the member for Port Darwin. Examination of those applications demonstrate these regulations are really just a faade - all spin and no substance.
On 9 April 2009, the opposition lodged an FOI seeking a full copy of the Cornish Report into NT Aeromedical Services. That report contains important information about aeromedical retrieval services for the NT, which have experienced a number of adverse events in recent years. The report would have provided advice to the department on ways to improve the practices and coordination of these aeromedical services for members of the public in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The government has refused to release the report and the matter is now before the Information Commissioner, almost a year after the application was first lodged, and Territorians are still none the wiser about the state of their aeromedical services. How do you think people in remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory feel about that? I can inform the House the government has continually made differing claims as to why the opposition is denied access to the report, and we await the decision from the Information Commissioner.
Another example: in March 2009, we sought information relating to the presence of Legionella in the cooling towers of Parliament House, and the member for Port Darwin touched on this. The information and documentation sought included reports detailing microbial contamination in the cooling towers. We sought this information based on conflicting information from the government and information provided to us from unnamed sources; and after the appalling responses we received to our inquiries in this parliament. After a payment of some $1184.61, we are still waiting for the delivery of this information which will only be released in part, again, almost a year after the initial application.
The question has to be asked: are staff in Parliament House aware of what is happening? Have they been exposed to dangerous levels of Legionella, and has the government actively covered this up? Again, a year later we still await the information.
Another example: on 27 October 2009, we applied for the full version of the 2007 Bath Report into FACS. The department lost that application, and we have subsequently reapplied to gain access to the report.
The latest advice from the department is information will be released to us in part. What part is released, we will have to wait and see. The department has claimed secrecy provisions prevent the department from releasing the report in full to us. In the meantime, we have been provided a copy of the report from an unnamed source, and it makes for interesting reading. On page 1 of the report it clearly states that names have been changed in the report to protect confidentiality. Our examination of the report has only identified a handful of pages which could be considered to come under secrecy provisions. So, what does this say about how this government uses freedom of information laws? It does not say much at all; or, in fact, it probably says a great deal.
We accept when it comes to personal information there should be appropriate provisions to protect that information. But this government uses those provisions to deny access to the entire report - in this case a report that, in 2007, shows the child protection system is in crisis and, two years later, this government has done nothing to implement the report’s recommendations - absolutely nothing - two years on.
Several other applications for reports are before the government - but these are more recent – and we will wait and see how much information, if any, we receive.
What this shows is, while fees may be waived, access is still denied; access to important information that is crucial to the good governance of the Northern Territory is denied. Access will continue to be denied to documents which inform Territorians what is really happening behind Labor’s spin - spin and no substance. The government does not want the opposition, or anyone else for that matter - anyone in the public gallery, anyone listening to this broadcast - to have any access to material that lifts the bar on scrutiny. It is as simple as that.
These regulations do not provide freedom of information in the Northern Territory. These regulations are nothing more than what may be called a Clayton’s improvement on the faade of openness, accountability and transparency - an appeasement to the member for Nelson. If the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson were to hold true to their commitment outlined in their parliamentary agreement from August last year to provide greater involvement in the oversight of important initiatives across the Northern Territory, then we would have access to the information this House previously proposed.
The question has to be asked: what is the government afraid of? I believe it is an open-ended question. If the last eight years are anything to go by, this government is absolutely up to its neck in mess. The fact that the opposition will continue to pay for its FOI applications is because, more often than not, we are digging deeper into the information and decision-making process of the government; reports do not tell the full story.
The majority of opposition FOI applications do not seek copies of government reports. We, more regularly than this government would like, seek information in the form of correspondence, handwritten notes, e-mails, legislative briefs, ministerial advice and other forms of briefing material, including urgent flashes; internal departmental information briefs, communications, statistical, empirical evidence, tests and other scientific evidence, minutes of meetings, and photographic or electronic imagery.
This information will not be free under these regulations. In fact, these regulations have no impact on the vast majority of the opposition’s FOI applications. Again, it is just spin and no substance. Information contained in the forms listed is vital to the opposition’s role in scrutinising government and the general public’s role in scrutinising the government and holding them to account.
We have sought e-mails and documentation relating to staffing issues at Royal Darwin Hospital. At the time of our FOI application, the NT Coroner had released a finding that was highly critical of the recruitment and allocation of nursing staff at RDH - that application cost the opposition some $60 000. We requested e-mails relating to documentation, minutes and e-mails from hospital management and meetings of the RDH Hospital Board for a specific period of time in 2006. This was prompted by a report by the Health Complaints Commissioner into the sexual assault on an infant in Ward 5B. The Health Complaints Commissioner made a comment in her report that she had requested the minutes of the board meeting since the assault but she had not received them. The Health Complaints Commissioner had requested those minutes and she had not received them. The fact that these minutes were not released to the Health Complaints Commissioner, or through the FOI process, demonstrates that either the government is actively trying to hide something, or they are completely incompetent. My guess is a bit of both.
Let me raise more serious and damning examples, particularly one, of the opposition’s access to information through FOI and why it is so critical. The example we all know too well, and it saddens us all. Too often we have spoken of the crisis that is the Territory’s child protection system, and how that crisis has failed too many young and innocent Territorians. The sad case of 12-year-old Deborah Melville is just one example. That young girl died a horrendous, agonising death on 12 July 2007. On 17 July, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, the member for Karama and the person responsible for bringing these regulations to the parliament, said on ABC that it took her department four days to inform her about the death of Deborah Melville.
I need to remind members that, at the time, the Community Welfare Act imposed on the minister the same obligations as the parent of that child. As the coroner said, those obligations included the obligation to provide Deborah the necessities of life, including accommodation, and the obligation to provide medical and health care for the child. She had been in the minister’s care since 2000, and the minister had authorised her foster carer. The minister was central to Deborah’s placement, her care and her welfare.
At the time, and for years before and after, the Department of Health provided portfolio ministers with what are called health flashes - urgent briefs about a range of issues, including staffing issues, service delivery, public health concerns, suicides of people in care, and child protection matters. Health flashes. We sought, after much struggle and cost under freedom of information, and obtained Department of Health and Families’ health flashes from 2003 and 2007. Here is one set of health flashes we obtained, and it makes very interesting reading indeed.
What is interesting, in this case, it is not what they contain but what has been admitted under secrecy provisions of the FOI legislation. As part of this set of health flashes we obtained this piece of paper. Innocuous as it is, we were told this piece of paper refers to a health flash dated 13 July 2007 and that disclosure of its information would be an unreasonable interference with the person’s privacy. This piece of paper.
Such provisions of the Information Act have been consistently used to prevent the opposition gaining access to child protection case information. We have the death of a young girl in the minister’s care on 12 July and, one day later, we have on this piece of paper what any reasonable person would consider to be the most likely scenario a health flash to the minister about the death of that child while in her care. But the minister expects us to believe it took the department four days to brief her about the death of that young child.
Minister, the department was communicating with you much sooner than the four days you claim. Any reasonable person, having seen this material could not, and would not, believe her. Here is the evidence, obtained under FOI, that the minister spoke mistruths. These health flashes contain very important information that any reasonable minister would demand be put before them as soon as they arrived in their office.
Responsible child protection ministers would ensure that any health flash pertaining to the death of a child in her care would be given to her immediately. She had responsibility; she should have demanded her staff provide her with that information. She should have cared.
Ms Lawrie: You are a grub.
Mr CONLAN: It is right here.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Treasurer knows that is completely unparliamentary language, and she should withdraw it as such.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw, but he is making it up as he goes along.
Mr CONLAN: I know it hurts when the member for Karama is exposed in such a way. She is exposed as a cold and heartless Child Protection minister. If we make a stretch, a very long stretch, and take her word that she did not see the health flash delivered to her office on 13 July for some four days, there are some serious questions about what she is doing as a minister. Some serious questions hanging over her head, indeed.
This was not a brief about a very small matter. This was about the death of a child in the care of the Minister for Child Protection. It was about a child in her care who died in the most horrific circumstances.
This case highlights the very reason the opposition pursues information through FOI - not just reports - which, more often than not, are influenced by ministerial advisors and spin masters rewriting the truth. It happens all the time, and it is very easy to provide them free of charge because you do not care if that information gets out. But the information that informs government, briefs government and shows government’s responses to various situations, circumstances and issues, is the information that we seek.
We currently have an FOI application before the same department seeking access to a more recent set of health flashes. That application has been denied at this point, and now you can see why. It has been denied because it will embarrass the minister, and this government, even further.
A major concern of the opposition when it comes to FOI is the storage of information by this government. We live in an age of electronic communications; e-mails have replaced written communications, but this government’s focus on recordkeeping and storage of electronic information has not kept up with the times. We have all had e-mails and overflowing inboxes and if you can not find an e-mail there are multiple options which allow you to search by key words, etcetera, provided you have not deleted the e-mail. Even then, I believe, there is an underlying assumption they are all stored in an archive somewhere in the bowels of a government building.
The former Attorney-General said the Information Act, and I quote:
Yet, in a response provided by the Department of Health and Families the process appears to be nowhere near as simple. DHF made inquiries regarding the storage of e-mails to the government IT provider, CSG, and the department of Business’ IT manager, and the following was returned. It said:
This is an appalling situation in this day and age, given the electronic nature of today’s workplace. Decisions are made, agreements are reached, conditions are negotiated - the whole gamut - documents are circulated electronically by e-mail, and backup files are only kept for 12 months. It is bad enough that essential public interest information is not permanently archived and is unable to be accessed for FOI applications, but this is the same system which would have to respond to inquiries and investigations into serious misconduct such as corruption, fraud and criminal matters.
Freedom of information laws were born out of the massive increase and encroachment of government in the 1970s. The laws were always intended to, and I will list a few: improve the quality of decision-making by government agencies in both policy and administrative matters by removing unnecessary secrecy; enable groups and individuals to be kept informed of the functioning of the decision-making process as it affects them; develop further quality of political democracy by giving the opportunity for all Australians to participate fully in the political process; enable individuals, except in very limited and exceptional circumstances, to have access to information about them held on government files so they may know on what basis decisions are being made and have the opportunity of correcting information that is untrue or misleading.
This government has lost touched with the origins of freedom of information. Clearly, it is because they are up to their eyeballs in so much mess. The government says it is open and accountable, but it is nothing of the sort; it is all spin and no substance. This government uses and abuses the freedom of information laws like a beauty salon makeover, having a pretty package all dressed up to hide the real face of what is going on. This government has bungled the job of running the Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: I move an extension of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is too late; the time had expired, member for Port Darwin.
Mr CONLAN: It is all right. I only had one line to go, and that is: you are a bunch of incompetent idiots.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, your time has expired.
Ms Lawrie: You are so incompetent, your time expired, and your mates did not even notice.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Karama cannot help herself. She fires up any time she is caught out. That is the way she tries to cover things up, and it is no different in this whole government. This whole government stinks badly of a culture of cover-up. Everything they do, everything they try is about withholding information; trying to hide their own shortcomings; keeping information from the public; keeping information from those people who should be able to access information.
The member for Nelson made a good point: what is a report? There seems to be no definition of a report. We know of reports that no amount of freedom of information will allow opposition members to access. It is just wrong.
I have been involved in committees of this parliament and I have been involved in many committees in the federal parliament, but this joint absolutely takes the cake. In the federal parliament the committee system is very robust. It is a large parliament, many resources are put into committees and it is about informing members as best they possibly can. It is not about withholding information, it is exactly the opposite. It is about getting information to members of parliament whether they are government members or opposition members.
I have often said probably the best university in this country is the federal parliament; in particular, the committee system in the federal parliament. You have experts from all over the country, all over the world, coming to give information to committees and treating everyone on those committees like an idiot by trying to put information across to members in the simplest terms, in a great effort to bring them up to speed on a range of subjects.
The committees, however, in this parliament seem to be completely the opposite. It is about: ‘How can we manage to stop members getting information?’ It is an exercise in obfuscation, deceit, and withholding information. The best committee members in this place, as far as the government is concerned, are those who manage to obfuscate and withhold information and cause public servants not to offer information better than anyone else. That is the way this government sees it.
I have been involved in a committee here and when I asked a simple question of a witness I had a government member jump down my throat saying: ‘You cannot ask that question. You are asking for a personal opinion’. Of course I was asking for a personal opinion. No, that is a complete abrogation of standing orders; you cannot ask public servants for opinions. Goodness me, it would be absolutely dreadful if a public servant gave an opinion. No, you cannot ask these types of questions at all.
Question Time is a complete farce. In federal parliament, Kevin Rudd is a past master at not answering questions, and these guys here have picked up on it incredibly well. This last Question Time we heard the member for Macdonnell ask the Indigenous Affairs minister: ‘Why are you not paying your lease payments on a lease you have on the Tiwi Islands?’ A simple question. Do you think the minister would answer that question? Did we hear a reason at all why the government failed to pay a couple of hundred thousand dollars in lease payments?
Members: No!
Mr TOLLNER: Not a cracker! It is not about informing the public, telling people why they are not paying their bills. It is about rattling on about deals negotiated with the Commonwealth by Mal Brough …
Ms Scrymgour: Did the CLP make any lease payments?
Mr TOLLNER: We hate Mal Brough, don’t we, member for Arafura? You hated that decision to have an intervention …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Continue, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We see another example here – a pointless point of order. The Leader of Government Business jumps up and down when I made the point about the member for Arafura and the reasons she so hates the idea there should be private home ownership on Aboriginal land. Why does she hate …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have never said I have been against private home ownership. If the member for Fong Lim will constantly stand here and lie – actually lie …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that comment. If you wish to make an explanation …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw that comment, Madam Speaker, and I will certainly write a letter to you to seek a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw his comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the member for Arafura is absolutely incensed with the federal intervention. She trotted off to Sydney, she talked about a black kids’ Tampa, ignoring completely what was in the Little Children are Sacred report. Now, she hates the idea there are leases on the Tiwi Islands …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not true. I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, if you wish to make a personal explanation, you can approach me later.
Ms Scrymgour: I will.
Mr TOLLNER: … she talked about the black kids’ Tampa …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you come to the point, please? This is a disallowance motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am speaking on that. I am talking about the culture of cover-up that exists in this government and the fact we cannot get an answer to why this government is not paying their lease obligations on the Tiwi Islands. For some reason or other, the member for Arafura is taking offence to that …
Ms Scrymgour: I take offence at lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … she was the one who raced off to Sydney as soon as the intervention happened and started giving speeches about the black kids’ Tampa. It is on the record, we know she does not like it.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67 - relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, if the Minister for Indigenous Development and the member for Arafura were so incensed about the intervention and everything that came with it, why could they not stand up and say the reason the Northern Territory government is not making lease payments on the land it is leasing on the Tiwi Islands is because it does not agree with it.
Ms Lawrie: You are a clown.
Mr TOLLNER: Why do they just not say that? And here we get these futile interjections and points of order from the Treasurer.
Ms Scrymgour: He is an idiot.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Has he ever heard of the Office of Territory Leasing?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: Have you ever heard of it?
Mr TOLLNER: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: The Office of Territory Leasing. Have you ever heard of it?
Mr TOLLNER: Office of Territory Leasing? Well, why do you not explain why the Office of Territory Leasing is not paying their lease payments, if that is what you are suggesting? I would have thought it was quite a simple question to answer. Why are you not making your payments? A couple of hundred thousand dollars to a bunch of people on the Tiwi Islands, the Tiwi Land Council, from what I can gather. Why are you not paying them? Goodness me, you do not pay rent on …
Ms Scrymgour: Understand the process; it is not to the Tiwi people, it is paying the Executive Director of Township Leasing, you dropkick.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I would like you to withdraw that last comment.
Ms Scrymgour: I withdraw that comment, Madam Speaker. I believe that, but I withdraw it.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, we have just had it confirmed; they are not paying the Director of Township Leasing. So why are you not paying the Director of Township Leasing? In any case, I have to ask the question: are the traditional owners getting paid? No, we cannot get an answer to that in Question Time.
As I say, it is a culture of cover-up that exists in this government. The member for Port Darwin outlines in his dissenting report on the CTC a conversation he had with the Under Treasurer. All of a sudden, he is abused because he has the audacity to ask a question three times - has to ask a question three times, and the Treasurer comes in here on her high horse, preened up, carrying on like a poor martyr about us belting up public servants. We cannot ask a public servant a question now because we might be accused of belting them up - they are picking on public servants again.
Like the member for Nelson, you cannot ask him anything because it is picking on him. Everyone is picking on the member for Nelson; it is not just in this term of government, it was the previous term of government; everyone on that side of the House was picking on the member for Nelson then. It is interesting, a bloke who goes through life constantly being picked on, I do not know whether politics is a good job for him. But I do digress.
Madam Speaker, we are now informed at the eleventh hour that, through regulation, government is going to withhold information. This is just appalling. This is part of an agreement they cooked up with the member for Nelson. In their dreadful desperation to hang on to government they will do and agree with anything. Then they trundle in here and, in some sneaky, underhanded way will add fees and charges, and all types of other reasons why they are not prepared to part with information.
Everywhere you look in this government, in every nook and cranny, there is some tactic, some effort to cover up and conceal information. That is what they are all about, all the time. There is not a single good story for this government to tell, and if people start to dig to try to get information, this government is obsessed with making sure they cannot get the information they should rightfully be entitled to; it is absolutely ridiculous.
I was listening intently to what the member for Greatorex had to say and he had a litany of failures of government to be up-front and provide information. I thought it was a well-worded, well-crafted dissection of the way this government acts. He had some very good anecdotes and lessons about how this government operates. I believe he did a fantastic job of pulling that speech together. He dissected this government’s modus operandi very well and he demonstrated it with some very good examples …
Ms Lawrie: Deputy or whip?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go; here is another example for how the member for Karama operates: run some interference, start off on a complete tangent and try to whip up a controversy somewhere else. We come into this place, we make some ground in opposition, which is almost impossible at times because of the way this government covers up and conceals information, but every now and again the opposition has a win in this place. The government despises it so much and the next day you open the newspaper and see some puerile story that takes away from it completely.
Yesterday, it was about the fact that I called for someone to gag the Treasurer. All of a sudden, the member for Greatorex makes a sarcastic comment beside me, and it is in the newspapers everywhere. I wonder where that came from. You have a whole unit up there on the fifth floor working overtime, running interference, trying to find nasty little stories to run about members of the opposition in the media. That is how this works, that is how this government works. They are a nasty, evil bunch of deceptive …
Mr Elferink: And they eat babies!
Mr TOLLNER: Well, let us not get too carried away …
Mr Elferink: Sorry. It was a joke!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know they are used to being offensive, but can they just pull back every now and again?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please continue, but perhaps less of the flowery language.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought the Treasurer was upset at what the member for Port Darwin said. I do not for a second believe government members eat babies, but I do believe that they are deceptive; they are extraordinarily sensitive about anything which could impact on them negatively in the real world; and they will go to any lengths to cover up and hide the truth.
Almost every time we come into this place, every Question Time, there are a dozen points of order on relevance. Why? Because ministers fail to even go close to answering the questions. It amazes me in this day and age of openness and accountability around the world where everyone is striving to be more open and accountable, here in the back blocks of Australia we have a government that is working overtime to hide things, to not be accountable, to not be transparent.
Some things they try to hide and cover up are just ridiculous; you have to scratch you head and wonder: why would they try to hide this? Why are they not telling us about this? Some of it does not necessarily reflect badly, it is just the principle of the matter - you are not to know. That is what irks me the most. This culture of cover-up started and turned into an art form and a profession by this government. They are a sinister mob who is prepared to do and say anything to stop the truth coming out, which is a terrible shame and reflects badly on all Territorians that we have such a government here. We talk about getting investment and so forth into the Northern Territory, we talk about getting businesses here; but businesses like to operate in places of openness and accountability.
It was mentioned to me the other day about the corruption and the lack of accountability in China. I was in Shanghai last year, and I can tell you, there are no people keener to get rid of corruption and cover-ups than the people of Shanghai because they want to be a global financial services centre, and there is no way known that will happen while a shroud of secrecy, or even a perception of secrecy and non-transparency, hangs over them.
People around the world recognise this. It is how you develop industries, how you develop an economy, but here in the Northern Territory, it seems all that is out the window. It is cover-up, it is hiding things, obfuscating facts, twisting stories, twisting words, selectively quoting - you name it. These guys have done everything they possibly can to make sure the public and the people of the Territory are not informed.
It is a dreadful shame. Madam Speaker, I believe this government has passed their use-by date, and they have to go.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this debate has surprised me with the passion it has aroused in members.
The motion is a disallowance motion for a regulation, but what has become clearly apparent is the disallowance motion has highlighted grave shortcomings in the way this government conducts itself, the promises it makes, the arrangements it has, and the assertions of what it is.
In terms of the promises it makes, we hear the Treasurer doing back-flips and squirming and doing the little Treasury dance she does on the hot plate of having to back away from the promises she makes; dancing a little two-step number and saying: ‘You have to read the whole quote, you have to do this, you have to do that.’ The fact is, she made a promise and now she is backing away from it.
I was also interested to hear in her response to the motion it was, apparently, the opinion of the Department of Justice to put this together and how to respond to FOI legislation. Since when did the Department of Justice form the elected government of the Northern Territory?
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a fair call, is it not? Because the Department of Justice is actually a servant of the people of the Northern Territory as expressed through the people who hold the majority - albeit only just - in this House; so a minority government is formed, which has the member for Nelson as its 13th member and, whilst he continues to argue he has not the joined the government and is simply supporting them in certain circumstances, I am seeing less and less evidence of it. I thank the member for Nelson for confirming he has received information from the government in relation to the prison.
I ask him, again, to come into this place and table this information, make it available because, if he does not, he is obviously dealing with that information in a privileged fashion, and it has been given to him on some confidential level, or whatever. Well, the government can supply the opposition members with the same information.
The member for Nelson says he is not a member of government yet, interestingly, he is elected to this place in the same fashion. There is a group of people in this room who have taken an oath of office in relation to ministering on behalf of Her Majesty, and taken an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty to that effect. They, then, have a special position in this House; but the reason they are drawn from this House to fulfil that role – and technically, there is no reason why a minister needs to be in this House other than they are responsible to this House and the people in this House. They have no privileges in this place bar one or two rights in tabling matters and dealing with questions put to them in relation to their roles.
In this place, the lowliest and most remote backbencher has the same voting rights and the same legitimacy as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; the only exception to that rule, Madam Speaker, is you, being the first amongst equals. The concern I have is this non-member of the Australian Labor Party who has no affiliation with their government, other than having this arrangement in place, is provided with information only available to him. In the eyes of government he has a privileged position which ensures he is provided with certain information no one else receives. Clearly, he has set himself apart, and the government continues to set him apart.
The member for Nelson said he is not a member of government, yet he is being treated as such. Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the Information Act says information is exempt from release if it:
Why, when we want certain information, we have to argue and plead for 16 months with the department, and jump through all the hoops, where the member for Nelson is simply granted that information?
Let us have a look at some of the documents the Information Commissioner has ruled should be provided to the opposition. This is from the Deputy Information Commissioner, Zoe Marcham. We have various information applications before the Information Commissioner and we sought information from the Prison Master Plan. On page 12 of the letter she provided to us on 18 January 2010, the Deputy Information Commissioner had this to say:
Well, hell, government does. Government does not want us to see it and their own Deputy Information Commissioner disagrees with them. What about the aerial map we sought? The answer from the Deputy Information Commissioner:
Madam Speaker, we sought information in relation to the alternative site, the determination by the Deputy Information Commissioner: ‘I do not believe that this document is exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a) of the act’. We also sought maps and, again, the finding from the Information Commissioner was: ‘I do not believe that these documents are exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a)(i) of the act’. Each and every occasion, the Deputy Information Commissioner has said, no, this stuff is not exempt. Clearly, the government agrees with the Deputy Information Commissioner as far as the member for Nelson is concerned, but not the opposition.
This is the problem with the way this government conducts itself, and that is the problem, ultimately, with what the government is trying to do with its Information Act; by denying members of this House, who are the elected representatives and the occupiers of the superior body of government in the Northern Territory, have to subordinate ourselves to a government whose own appointed Deputy Information Commissioner disagrees with them, and still they dig their heels in and withhold. If we seek information we pay.
This government does not like opposition. It does not like examination. Nor should it like opposition or examination because it would very quickly be found wanting if information of this nature was released, I presume. I suspect information has been changed before being passed onto us in the past, particularly in relation to diary entries. This also does not bode well for the governance of the Northern Territory, and is one reason this system of government, as a whole, works so well. Whilst people who have their noses pressed up to the glass looking into the rarefied atmosphere of this place see people constantly in positions of combat and at odds with each other, the fact is the system actually works to improve the quality of governance, because ministers who go into a room where everyone agrees with them and tells them they are doing a great job, will actually not be as careful in terms of how they do that job, and that is why the system works.
To enable the system to work in that fashion, a truly free freedom of information system is required, and that is what is being withheld and that is why this disallowance motion is before this House.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, if members vote to defeat this motion and support the regulatory instrument as it currently stands, they will have taken up membership of the freedom of information death squad which this government represents.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker. I thank all members, and others, for their contribution to the first report on the CTC. There is no doubt the government, including the Commonwealth, needs to show it does take the recommendations seriously, and the CTC will be monitoring the response.
I should reiterate some of the important recommendations made, especially in relation to SIHIP houses. I know we have been over the reduction in funding from $150 000 to $75 000 for refurbishments. I believe it is important that be re-established and, from a personal point of view, I wonder whether putting a specific amount for every house is sensible in the first place, because each house is different.
I wonder if there should have been a more global fund even if that meant not quite the same number of houses were up to scratch, but the houses that were up to scratch would be complete and available to be handed over to NT Housing; but that is just a personal aside.
In the case of Tennant Creek where most of the money is going for refurbishment of houses, the money set aside for infrastructure should be used for more new houses, especially as people in Tennant Creek need 280 houses to catch up. That is certainly an issue.
We have all been concerned about the cost of these houses. The idea of when a house is handed over to Territory Housing there is a publicly available final cost which includes the administrative component; and, also recommendation 9 when SIHIP comes to completion, I believe it is really important there be an independent audit which looks at the usefulness of the alliance model, because that model was, to some extent, costed onto the NT government by the Commonwealth. Some people claim the system is good, so when the program is finished we need to see if those who believe the alliance model is the best process for building houses can argue their case against the scheme or the standard contract we have for building houses elsewhere. That is an area we certainly need to look at.
There are many issues in relation to the shires. The shires do not have the money to maintain the services they have to provide and the government needs to be looking at that urgently. It cannot leave these councils to flounder. The issue of roads is very important, and the government has to get back to us about why there has not been road funding under a similar scheme which applied to Pitjantjatjara Council. I was part of a discussion about local government reform and one of the areas continually used as bait to allow reform to occur was that bucket of money. The federal government was happy with the idea of amalgamating councils, and we always got the message there would be more money. That money has not been received, and we need to know why. If there is some doubt on behalf of the Commonwealth to supply that money, then we need to put much more pressure on the Commonwealth.
There is also the dissenting report from the CLP in relation to the report covering the time between November and December, and discussions which were held in relation to the timing of the report which finished at the end of December. Within the dissenting report the CLP included reports on places we visited since the time the report was completed; and also on a meeting we had in Darwin with Power and Water, the Department of Justice, and the Police
In relation to work done on the dissenting report, we spent approximately five hours going through the CLP’s position, page by page, recommendation by recommendation in a collaborative way. Some recommendations were outside the scope because of the report time frame; some were about administrative issues; and some, I thought, were more political than the scope of the CTC covers, and they were not agreed on.
There were issues such as local government functions and it was suggested LGANT, or a similar body, should take over from the department. I do not recall any local government saying this was a good idea. I am not saying it is not a good idea, but I have always felt the department of Local Government could be much smaller; but that has to come from local government, not from the CTC. If the CTC hears local government believes there should be another body to run or oversee their sphere of government, then that is where it should come from.
There will always be differences, which is why we have a dissenting report. However, some issues raised by the CLP will come back in the next report and cover issues raised by Power and Water, the Department of Justice and the Police department. We also had trips to Nguiu and Wadeye, and issues raised at those places will be raised in the next report.
I do my best, and I become disappointed at times when the CTC is attacked. I do not mind people disagreeing or not being happy with the agreement because, of course, the CTC was born out of that agreement, but there is an opportunity here to work cooperatively, regardless of the criticism. The member for Katherine said it educates him as a politician about places and areas he has never been to. It gives us a better understanding.
I have never seen the CTC as having a focus on one particular facet; we come with many recommendations and cover a range of topics. The member for Port Darwin and I disagree on some things, and I do not agree with his conclusions on many things in this dissenting report. But, had it not been for our meeting with Power and Water, we would not have had a day of questions regarding the issue of gas supply in this House; and that is a good thing. Talking to the Chief Minister, he realises there is a risk with the CTC because all members can be on that committee and they can gain information they would probably not be able to otherwise; and that gives them the ability to question government more. I appreciate the member for Port Darwin used information he obtained from that meeting to question government the other day. I find that a good thing, but we have more work to do.
However, underneath all that good, I feel a niggling effect all the time - some of which is personal and some about the CTC - and that is unfortunate. I say that because there are omissions in the report; there is a sense I have not worked hard enough or I have done this or that. I do not mind constructive criticism, but I have tried.
For instance, we cancelled the meeting to Groote Eylandt so the members for Katherine and Port Darwin could attend. I did not have to do that, I could have said: ‘Too bad’. But I tried. We had a meeting with the Department of Justice and police, and the member for Port Darwin was late; I held the floor for 15 to 20 minutes to ensure people did not feel they had been snubbed. I did it because I believe that was my job. The member for Port Darwin had asked for the Department of Justice and the police to come to discuss domestic violence matters, and I knew it was important, so I held the floor. I did not complain, and I did not write it in my report. If you read the dissenting report, you would believe I was the world’s worst chairman. There is a range of things in the report which are factual, but the conclusions are not fair - they are definitely not fair.
All I want to do is focus on the positives, and there are positives out of it. I am learning many things: I am learning how to chair a new type of committee I have never chaired before; I am learning about places, people and issues I have not had much to do with over the last few years. I believe it is a good program; it will continue to be criticised, but we can work our way through it.
As a council, we have to sift out the rhetoric and the politics and look at the facts which, no doubt, will be a challenge because, as we know from comments and e-mails, any issue can be turned into World War III, or can be looked at as a negative which needs to be turned into a positive. Governments can hide behind spin to cover their mistakes, and we need to dig through that spin. That is why it is important we talk to the backbenchers rather than the ministers, because if you are going to get spin, you will get it from the ministers.
The Chief Minister made a statement yesterday that should they retain government at the next election, they will retain the Council of Territory Cooperation. Yes, it is uncomfortable for the government of the day to lose control of the flow of information into the public arena; however, it certainly makes for a more robust, transparent and accountable system. And I am all for that. He went on to ask if the opposition would commit to maintaining this council if they came to government. I also asked the opposition if they would do that; if they would actually bring ministers before the CTC, because that certainly has been one of the issues; and would it be open to intense scrutiny by crossbenches.
The CTC is in uncharted waters in the Northern Territory, and a number of difficulties have been identified in how it operates, and getting information from government. The CLP is not unique in recognising that; in fact, we are working on a list of discussion papers with members now. This is a learning experience and we will continue to work in a cooperative way to come up with solutions.
Regardless of whether people agree with setting up this council, the benefits of this council far outweigh the negatives, and I believe we should keep working to do good. Because I do not stamp my feet and get over-agitated about issues, does not mean I do not have a passion for what I do. That happens to be my style; other people have a different style. That is my style of doing things and I do not intend to, necessarily, copy other people’s styles. I have said I did not get into politics to end up like a politician; I got into politics because I thought I could do some good. That is the reason I believe the CTC is important - it can do good.
I will finish with a philosophical, or maybe a strange quote, because I always feel we can have lots of argy bargy in here, but I am still the same bloke whether I am the member for Nelson, or Gerry the chicken farmer, or whatever. It is still me. I found this quote the other night from John Wesley, who founded the Methodists. I thought, to some extent, it sums up why we should be in this House. It says:
That sums it up very well.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this important statement of climate change. I commend the minister and the department for bringing in a framework which will assist, not just the broader community, but also across government agencies. It has always been felt, as the minister said, that government must lead by example, and it is fantastic to see this strategy and to see the percentage government will work towards - 10% - to reduce its carbon footprint.
When you think what you can do, as an individual, about climate change to reduce your carbon footprint, and look at your own home - light globes, air-conditioning - all those things that, as an individual, can make a difference. That is the important thing. We will go a long way in dealing with climate change if everyone did their bit as individuals and families to make this work.
This policy is fantastic to look at particularly from the perspective of my electorate. I have often talked about land management and the successful WAFMA project in my electorate, the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project (WALFA). This project was started by a significant man for whom we had a condolence motion in this House when he passed away, Wamud Namok. He did significant work as the founding member of the project and the testimonials we talked about touched on his encyclopaedic knowledge of country, his impressive body of artistic work and his contribution to scientific research and understanding.
Wamud Namok’s status was well-known in traditional arts and culture. He received a Medal of the Order of Australia, the OAM, for services to the preservation of Indigenous culture as a senior traditional man and significant artist whose work included the relationship of the land and its ancestral past with the Mimi spirits of rock art. That old man had achieved prominence for his critical role in the success of the West Arnhem Land fire abatement project which is an innovative strategy and now the model for adoption elsewhere.
I remember going down to an environment meeting a few years ago when the Warddeken Rangers and the land council were developing this proposal and putting it to the then federal agencies to look at as a model for a carbon offset program, a carbon trading program. People were sceptical about how savannah burning could actually offset carbon and become a project that would be the model for elsewhere.
As local member, I saw this project evolve over the last seven or eight years, and I see it today used as a model to be adopted elsewhere. Its impetus started when the ABC Catalyst program documented the progress which had been made by the team at Kabulwarnamyo, in Western Arnhem Land. As that program said, it was late May and Arnhem Land was still drying out after the big wet and Aboriginal people start burning Arnhem Land soon after the rain, as they have done for millennia, to regenerate useful plants and animals.
But, over the last 50 years this early burning was interrupted as people started to move into townships. As a result, approximately half of the landscape is incinerated by uncontrolled wild fires late in the dry season. The carbon trading offers an elegant win/win solution for a company needing greenhouse credits and for Aboriginal people wanting to restore traditional burning on a grand scale. This was something ConocoPhillips, or Darwin LNG, worked on with the Warddeken Rangers and Wamud who always said he wanted a place where both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal scientists, and people, could come together and combine both laws and cultures.
So he established Kabulwarnamyo and whilst, many people might call it an outstation, that old man and the Warddeken Rangers see Kabulwarnamyo as the regional fire station for all of Western Arnhem Land. I am looking forward to this Dry Season to invite the minister for the Environment to come with me to have a look. And it is not just Kabulwarnamyo, because another area in my electorate which is very fragile and needs to be looked after and nurtured starts at the Mary River, which is not in my electorate but is in parts of the electorate of Goyder, but the Mary River goes right back to Kakadu and the fragility of those wetlands and the encroachment of salination, or the salt water intrusion into those wetlands, is certainly something we need to be mindful about.
The Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments do have a partnership and some funding which has been put towards looking at the salinisation or the salt water intrusion into the Mary River wetlands, but more certainly needs to be done and a keen eye should be kept on the progress of what is happening with salt water intrusion into those very fragile areas. The fragility and biodiversity of Kakadu a place all the documents point to as one of the areas which will become a hotspot in Australia where we will see the first indications of climate change in the Northern Territory.
Already that landscape has changed. Just over from Jabiru is a little community called Gunbalanya. It was only two years ago that community suffered the worst floods it has ever seen. Many old people and locals who grew up in that region, not just Binninj or Aboriginal people, but many of the non-Indigenous rangers who have worked in Kakadu for a long time, 20 or 30 years, were quite shocked at the level of the salt water that has intruded around Gunbalanya. That is a worry because the environment, not just Gunbalanya but throughout Kakadu, has the escarpment where there are paintings which hold the history of Western Arnhem Land from colonisation and it needs to be preserved and looked after.
Climate change is here, it is real. We have to be serious locally, nationally and globally to recognise the challenge, part of which is recognising it as individuals within our own families and within our own groups; understand what it means for us and to be smart in managing the change because it does mean having to change how we do things. Territorians are good at doing that: working together, developing local solutions to apparently huge challenges, working together and being smart and creative in problem-solving. Our challenge is to capitalise and further develop our collective skills and knowledge, and there is a great deal of skill and knowledge in the many groups around the Northern Territory. The Landcare groups have done and do fantastic work. The ranger groups, not just in the Top End; we have many ranger groups in Central Australia such as the Ntaria Rangers, and many groups that work in land management programs.
The Environment minister oversees a fantastic grants program for schools. Education on our environment starts in our schools, and it is important that young people in our schools participate at that level with the environment. It is about what is there for our future. The important thing is to recognise the important job we have to deal with, and to have a supportive management framework that fosters collaboration, partnership and innovation - an adaptive management plan we can work on and modify as new knowledge comes to hand.
Going through the Northern Territory’s Climate Change Policy - and I commend the minister and his department – it is very important to have a framework which can be adapted as things change, and will change, and this Climate Change Policy provides that framework.
I thank the minister and all the people in his department and throughout the Territory; the ranger groups, as I said, but also a group we often do not think about; the North Australian Aboriginal Land and Sea Management Alliance. One of the key areas these groups look at is the issue of water. Water sustainability in the Northern Territory should be a key component of land management because water is a vital ingredient in protecting the country.
It is a fantastic policy, it mentions wetlands which are really important; I have huge wetlands in my area and the issue of water sustainability and the future of water in the Northern Territory needs to be also treated with much seriousness.
Minister, thank you for providing a policy for action to respond to climate change in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a couple of comments on this matter
Clearly there is concern in the community that a response to environmental issues be made. At the time we began to develop a strong interest as a community, and became aware people demanded leadership on this issue, political parties started to respond because the community was becoming increasingly aware. Having been involved in education for many years we know, as young people go through the system they become more aware of environmental issues than the older generation – the Xs and the Ys and so on. We knew it was coming.
As community leaders we need to ensure that we provide the right kind of leadership. There is a great temptation to play with issues such as this, because you are playing with the fears, the uncertainty, the anxieties of people, and you can craft policy responses to create impressions and trade off that feeling in the community. You do your polling and get a sense the green sensitivities out there, and respond accordingly. However, the response must be something very honest. We have seen in recent times, through lack of leadership, an increased confusion and cynicism as to whether these methods, practices, responses and statements are, in fact, a response to a problem we agree on, or is it a response to a general feeling in the community which can be used to advance a political position and not actually take us anywhere.
I believe that idea is growing, particularly after Copenhagen, and after the last federal campaign. There is now a greater level of confusion, cynicism and uncertainty about this matter than there was going back 24 months. Now is the time for a clear response. That is why the response from the federal Coalition is something I am attracted to, because of the direct action. People are aware there is a problem; it is an abstract problem in many respects, but they want a practical response, something they can actually do. Everyone wants to do something, so, what can I do to make sure I give the benefit of the doubt to the planet, something practical I know has meaning? Now is the time for a practical response.
The practical elements described in the statement must be backed up with recognising there is a desire in the community to respond, to give the benefit of the doubt to the planet, but in such a way that is practical and the hard questions are honestly answered.
I was at the Property Council’s 4 o’clock Forum, where Mr Mike Moon got up and spoke. He asked what I thought was a ripper question, he said:
That a good and honest question.
We get confusion about driving a Prius - and we have the issue now with Prius - and people say the cost of making one balanced against the savings you make whilst you are driving one does not quite work. I do not really know. I am not a scientist. It is that type of cynicism that is starting to crank up in the community, particularly after Copenhagen, and we are wondering what is what. Then we have science, and now we question science.
I am saying let us just make sure what we do is practical, and measurable, and meaningful; that is where we should head. There are a number of things in here that nearly head in that direction and that is where I am comfortable. But grand, abstract proposals, I am not drawn too.
I will put on the record something I am particularly interested in which comes from my own observations as a local member. I would like to see something practical like this take place, and I am going to advance this and I have already had some conversations. Every second or third weekend, I take palm fronds to the Palmerston dump - using this as a practical illustration. You know the story: as soon as you load your trailer up and think you have loaded the last palm frond, another four fall down. I took four loads to the dump last weekend and I felt good about that, but when I got to the dump I got to thinking, as I have done this a number of times, I am going to respond practically.
How is it we take palm fronds from the garden, put fertiliser on the garden, drive the palm fronds to the dump, and then put them in a big skip? A big truck filled with diesel comes along, belching smoke, hoists the great big skip, which does really contain much - just palm fronds and they do not take up a lot of space as anyone knows; you can winch down a pile of palm fronds on a trailer to about nothing - but you have these skips loaded with palm fronds, lugged by a big truck all the way to Shoal Bay. That whole exercise, if you are really serious, something has to happen there. That is a local response, and that is direct action.
I believe the direction we need to be looking at is: you need to mulch that there, have it on-site so the council can take that and put it on the verges; people can buy it and put it on their garden; it conserves water, enriches the soil, stays in Palmerston and you do not have trucks lugging light loads, high bulk, low volume loads from Palmerston to Shoal Bay. Even if no one wants it, even if the council does not want it, even if residents do not want it to enrich their soil, at least you have bulk to take and make greater use of the diesel and the truck to take it there. I believe we need to get down to those practical things; and there are some here.
That said, anything that is a practical response to an abstract problem, such as climate change, I am with you. There are questions that come up; we have the contest and the debate over the Arafura proposal - it is a proposal - but one argument I have not heard properly addressed is if you are passionately concerned about climate change resulting in sea level rise, then that is one response. Put the emotions aside, put the poll research aside; as a community leader you need to weigh that up honestly, and see whether it is a genuine concern that may require a practical response one way or another. I am not spinning it one way or another, and we may have some clever people up on the 5th floor thinking: ‘Oh, ripper, we can now do something! Forget that, I am saying you have to make sure those types of ideas are brought into the debate to pay due respect to the process of discussion within a community.
Finally, I come to a character I was reminded of not long ago when watching the show The Best of Paul Hogan, Part 3. It was not very good. This character’s name was ‘The Dodgy Magician, Luigi the Unbelievable’. He was a fantastic character; a hopeless magician, full of hype and bluster; he was quite serious about his work, and he thought he was very good. It reminds me, in a curious way, of the Chief Minister - ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ - when it comes to the matter of trying to distract attention from a conflict taking place within the Labor government in power, and has been in power for some time and has sucked the political value of this to its max; and has done all types of things and devised clever responses to advance its political interest. I believe there has been an absence of honest engagement in this, of practical, genuine, honest, engagement on this
Perhaps it is the problem of government, but they are now in the position where they think: Oh god, there is an election coming up and where is Howard when you need him? Oh god, it’s Kevin Rudd. The truth is that the conflict is now with our own comrades in Canberra’. But ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is going to try to conjure up this show which creates the impression the conflict is actually elsewhere; it is as dodgy as ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ to try to create this illusion that somehow there is a problem in existence which we are responsible for.
I can tell you quite plainly, Territorians, to their great credit, can see through this just as anyone in the audience can see that ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is not a fair dinkum magician. What we have here, regardless of how cleverly you attempt to spin your lines, we have taken an honest position all the way through this. We have done the assessment. If you are honest about statehood, stick to your digs if that is what it is really about. If you are serious about that then we will see the same concerted campaign mounted and perhaps even increased, because it is now moving to the end game. We will see it by evidence, or do we see the flamboyant, dodgy manoeuvrings of ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’? I wait to see whether genuine leadership will be shown here.
We know the science has indicated quite plainly for all to see it should be in South Australia. They have an election coming up, but that should not change the fact that is where it should be; but do you honestly believe, given that and that preservation of political capital is a consideration here, that it will not come here? We have to weigh that up and say: ‘Our position has always been if it does come here, then we must make sure we get the best deal possible; if it does.’ It not like screaming you do not want something to happen when you know you have to prepare for the next stage.
While we have this conjuring act going on creating some kind of distraction, I am not wearing it. Territorians, to their credit, will see right through it. We will see the true nature of this so-called passionate opposition by their actions; whether those same glossy petitions will circulate with hyped-up anxiety exhibited by members of government running right through the public service, as it did before, through the Royal Show. I recall very clearly and widely, at considerable expense, full page advertisements. I have already checked a number of media releases issued by Warren Snowdon when it was dear old former prime minister there, he was frothing at the mouth; he was writing a media release a week, a day, perhaps; there is a whole bundle of them.
Someone said: ‘On one hand you have, say, 30 to 40 media releases issued when this issue was of such profound concern that media releases needed to be issued to attack those evil characters in Canberra who are going to do something shocking to the Northern Territory; and, on the other hand, are all the media releases that have been issued since the other bloke attempted to do the same thing.’ You have 30-odd this side. Zero on that side. Well, here is a big opportunity to show that you are going to provide genuine leadership because I reckon our community is a bit more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
I do not believe ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is a real magician, nor do I believe real leadership has been shown. I believe a con job has tried to be conjured up here to distract attention from the fact that the real battle is between this Chief Minister and Kevin Rudd.
We are watching this. Play it out and show us if you are fair dinkum.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber for some time now listening to the Chief Minister accuse all of us on this side of being climate change sceptics. I wonder what he means by a sceptic. If that means one challenges theories that are put before all of us in the community, then I do not know whether that is actually scepticism; I suggest it is actually part of the scientific process.
I listened to the Chief Minister yesterday tell us about the scientific evidence in relation to the location of the uranium waste deposit facility. He said this should all be based on the science and the geological facts should be considered by all of us; and I agree, perhaps it should.
However, that suits that particular argument, but it may not suit his argument when he comes to calling people climate change sceptics. I recall at school when I was taught science; I had a particular interest in science and did very well at it; it was something that fascinated me and I was taught the art of science is about challenging theories and trying to prove what is and what is not; and theories that were unable to be proved were still, in fact, theories. One should always challenge the theories of the day, as people in the past have.
Columbus challenged the theory the earth was flat. If he had believed everything everyone was telling him, he would not have sailed off into the sunset and discovered what was called the new world. It behoves all of us, especially those in leadership positions in the community, to challenge the theories put up by all people.
As member for Sanderson, I receive in my office numerous books, journals, articles, and e-mails on a range of subjects. In relation to this ministerial statement, I will speak about some of the information I received in relation to climate change. What I see in the papers appears, to one who has an interest in science, a one-sided argument where - and there is a new term from some of the information I have read - the eco-journalist; people who specialise in climate change and, in particular, climate change articles in newspapers, journals and other publications. What I see in newspapers are people saying the climate is changing; and I do not disagree with that. They then go on to say what they insist are the causes of the climate change and, if you do not believe them, too bad, you are labelled a climate change sceptic.
I have looked at some of the DVDs which have come into my office. There are DVDs which are for the current theories being espoused claiming they have all the evidence and suggest we are responsible for it and everything is doom and gloom. Then, there are other DVDs which present a different argument, a different set of facts. On both sides, there are people of eminent standing in the scientific world who are saying it is this or that, and both sides have arguments; both sides have charts to back up their particular arguments. The people who are for are saying carbon dioxide is terrible and is a pollutant, which is interesting because when I was doing science and biology, carbon dioxide was something we all are made of. We are made of carbon, and carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is actually part of the life cycle of the Earth. How much is it going up by? I am very interested to see figures from both sides, and it behoves us to do just that - look at both sides and consider all the experts who are giving us both sides of the argument.
I am really trying to get my head around some of this, so I watched An Inconvenient Truth, one of Al Gore’s DVDs. It was fascinating because he said in 20 years time there will be a 20 foot sea level rise if we continue the way we are. I think he said it was 20 years. I have since seen evidence to suggest that is actually not the case and there are figures available, which I do not have with me at the moment. However, the DVD goes on to say many things: if we do not do exactly what Al Gore says, we are all in trouble.
I then got another DVD called Earth 2100, which is almost farcical. I do not know exactly who put it out, but I found it fascinating because it basically says if you continue to do this, then it is doomsday, there will be no water on the earth, there will be nothing left, and everyone is going to die; and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion. It went on to say if we do exactly what they say, and it showed some pictures, artists’ impressions and computer-generated pictures, of plentiful food, plentiful water; the earth is a great place, everyone has a wind generator on their house, the lawns are green, everything is fabulous and there are no problems at all; not discounting population increase and some of the problems that will come with that.
So, here we have a DVD that starts off saying it is doom and gloom, like the Doomsday Book. Then, at the end, if you do what we say, which are the things perhaps some of the eco-journalists are suggesting we have to do, then the world will be a land of milk and honey.
I do not know whether I believe everything in that DVD Earth 2100, but I have looked at it, and another couple DVDs that present the other side of the argument, again, by eminent scientists who put up evidence to say that it is not actually CO2 that is causing global warming, it is actually sunspot activity. It has to do with clouds and water vapour, and the amount of radiation that clouds deflect from the earth. There are charts which suggest when industrialisation came to the western world, CO2 went up but, in fact, the climate temperature was going down, so there were massive increases in CO2; and temperatures were still going down in about 1970. Now they have reversed, and are going up.
There are graphs in Al Gore’s movie where they disregard the mini ice age in the 1500s; yet other DVDs say they conveniently forget about that because the Thames used to regularly freeze up, and they have drawings and paintings of the Thames in the 16th century showing it frozen over in winter. It does not do that these days. It is hotter; it is colder. Things change, and I am not supporting one side or another; what I am supporting is we should really take a close look at both sides, not just one. To be labelled a climate change sceptic by the Chief Minister is quite unusual, when we should all, especially in this House and in the scientific world, look at both sides.
There is a climate scientist in the United Kingdom who, for some years, has made himself quite wealthy by betting on the weather. I am not suggesting we should go out and bet on the weather, but one of the DVDs I watched interviewed this particular scientist and he places bets on a weekly basis with a betting agency in the United Kingdom. He bases his information on sunspot activity and what it is going to do. Over a period of 20-odd years he has, without blemish, almost a perfect record of predicting the weather. His resources are very finite and quite small compared with the resources of the United Kingdom’s Department of Meteorology. Apparently, they cannot get it right, but he can.
So, having bet a lot of money, and made a lot of money, they show photos from the newspaper of this guy who actually predicts the weather with far more accuracy than the United Kingdom’s Meteorology department. After 20 years, the department now goes to him to get much of their information about predicting the weather. The Danish State Department of Meteorology also spoke to him and are now looking at his type of research. They have gone back to look at sunspot activity for at least the last 400 years and the rises and falls in the earth’s temperature seem to almost exactly match the graph of sunspot activity piece for piece. I was stunned at how closely that actually follows it and I wonder whether it is actually carbon dioxide, or is it sunspots, or is it something else.
I do agree that whatever we do in this world we should reduce pollution. Whether that is causing climate change or not I would rather put that aside for the time being. I look at the statement the Minister for Climate Change has made and the things he is talking about. He talks about Mr Rudd’s big, new tax on everything, and about Copenhagen and the targets they set. On page 6 of the minister’s statement:
I applaud that, it is great that we put targets on it, irrespective of whether the earth is warming or not. I believe, as a species on this earth, we should not pollute anymore than we have to and if we can reduce it, we should make every effort do so. On page 7 of the statement, the third paragraph says:
It goes on to say:
They have installed a highly secure video networking system called Telepresence, which will be used by Territory government staff instead of travelling interstate for inter-governmental meetings. It goes on to say how fantastic this new technology is: saves costs, less greenhouse emissions, improves productivity, less travel time, increased work/life balance, and many other things.
I wonder if this will also apply to ministers of the government who shoot off all the time to do this, that and everything else. They too could save an enormous amount of time and cost, greenhouse emissions, improve ministers’ productivity through less travel time and increase work/life balance for them. It says here this is all right for Territory government staff, but it does not mention anything about ministerial travel, of which, we understand, there is a substantial amount; and up to this point in time they need to do that, they need to go to meetings and have face-to-face contact with people sometimes.
Quite often - and I am sure government would put up a similar argument - many things at these meetings happen outside; it is not necessarily about what happens in the meeting room. We know from our own experiences in this Chamber that discussions go on between the government; the opposition; between the Independents and government; Independents and the opposition, and a whole raft of things occur that cannot occur with video linking.
I am sure the government will say of course ministers have to go; ministers have to do this, ministers are important, ministers have to be seen to be there to do all the social things that go along with cordial and friendly relationships. Quite often, I believe that will be the case with government staff; they will have to go down and do those things that occur outside the room and build relationships.
On that subject, we heard the Chief Minister this morning during the condolence motion for Frans Seda saying how important those relationships are. I wonder how it would have worked for the Chief Minister to have built a relationship with Frans Seda over a video link - I do not know whether it is quite the same. I suggest there will still be a considerable need for people to travel, and if they do restrict people travelling, then perhaps they should say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and restrain their own travel.
Further in the report, on page 15, paragraph 2, and I quote:
I might read that again so members on the other side can hear it, and the Minister for Essential Services might be able to hear it as well. I quote again from the report:
I saw some documents recently, and I stand to be corrected, but I thought the document said in the last calendar year, or it might have been the last financial year, the Northern Territory government burnt 121 million litres of diesel in the Channel Island Power Station. That is interesting because we were supposed to have a gas-fired power station last I heard, which was just recently. You hear about it, you see it in the paper, the government is on about gas and how wonderful it is. We hear the Chief Minister, on a regular basis, talk about 2030 and about gas and how we need gas, our power plants will be run on gas, our remote power stations are going to be converted to gas.
I turn the page of the ministerial statement and on page 16; I will quote this because it is quite interesting:
And it goes on to say there is a tender process, etcetera, with 20 regional communities. I find that quite amazing, we have a capital city that was gas going back to diesel; and remote communities where they have diesel going to gas. I wonder when the government is going to get it right.
I recently read in the paper, and I have heard members in this House talk about it, we actually ran out of gas at the Channel Island Power Station about three months ago when the gas was shut off. We have had many troubles with the power supply in the greater Darwin area and at Katherine, which is on the same grid; and we have a huge problem with gas flowing into the power station. I was here just last week when the question was asked of the Minister for Essential Services …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; and thank you, members. So the gas is shut off and we start trucking more diesel down there. I have had reports of road trains full of diesel heading down to the Channel Island Power Station on a regular basis. So, what has happened to the gas? Why, in a capital city, are we going back to diesel-fired power stations when we are supposed to have gas? That would be a good question the Minister for Essential Services might like to inform the House about in one of these mini statements, if he ever gets around to getting them back to the House.
So, we have all types of things contributing to our greenhouse footprint up here. I believe the department of the Environment still has the highest carbon footprint of all government departments. We have eminent people giving us information from both sides and, what I find quite unusual is the government seems, on many occasions, not to want to discuss any of these issues; they do not want to go through the process. I would like to reiterate something I started with: in a scientific process all theories should be looked at and given equal weight until someone can definitively prove one side or the other.
We have a very interesting conundrum with climate change. I do not believe there is a person on this side of the House who believes the climate is not changing - the climate has been changing for millions of years - it goes up, it goes down, it goes here, it goes there, it is different all the time. The experts from both sides need to be heard so we can make decisions. The problem, at the moment is there is equal weight of evidence which suggests different things cause climate change, other than carbon dioxide; and both sides have evidence to put forward.
However, the Chief Minister has decided we, as a group of people, should not do that; we should just believe what he is saying and believe the people who are telling him various things and giving him information, and we should not even consider anyone else. Why does he continue to do that? He talks about process, discussions, and going out into the community and consulting with the community on everything; in fact, sometimes people in the Northern Territory are consulted to death - and have been for some years - we have a report on this, and we have a report on that. If that is the case, why is it the moment we disagree with the Chief Minister, he labels you as a climate change sceptic. I put onto the record: I am not a climate change sceptic, and I do not believe my colleagues are climate change sceptics. We accept the climate is changing. The question is: what causes that change?
People are saying, and have all the glossy pictures: the ice sheet is melting. I saw some figures recently which suggested there is 720 000 km2 extra ice this year than there was two years ago - which demonstrates the Earth is creating more ice in some places and not in others. I read some interesting information in relation to the Himalayan glaciers melting. Given the member for Barkly is watching, I will ensure I quote the reference of this Internet document. It comes from an article in The Sunday Times, London, on 17 January this year titled World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown. It is interesting when one researches; one learns something new every day. It says the west Himalayan range includes 15 000 glaciers. I did not know there were that many glaciers in the world, let alone on the west side of the Himalayan ranges.
Mr Elferink: I am not taking you to a Trivial Pursuit night.
Mr STYLES: I love all this stuff. The article says:
It also says:
So, the IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1990 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. It goes on to explain the size of these glaciers and how long it would take for them to melt.
There are pages on this which I have looked at, and I am certainly not convinced by the eco-journalists it is actually CO2. What I am aware of is that we, as a species on the Earth, need to be very considerate of the Earth and the other species we share the Earth with and, whether there is global warming or not, we should be mindful of the pollution we create, and we should decrease the amount of pollution in any way we possibly can. But, listening to the doomsday people, I am yet to be convinced it is all gloom and doom.
I believe we should perhaps look at the possibility of nuclear energy, and we should look at thawing; we should examine, discuss and allow those arguments to go through the process. The problem we have, of course, is the Rudd Labor government will not even entertain the fact of an alternative base load power supply, and they just want to keep putting up renewable energy. I do not mind renewable energy, but I believe we should invest in research and development and we should go down that path with whatever vigour we can.
However, I do not know if we should be penalising ourselves and sending hard-earned money we make in taxes in this country overseas, just yet, when other countries are not going to play the same game. I believe the rules should be the same for all, and we should negotiate with the other players. Of course, we are only a bit player, producing 1.2% of the world’s emissions.
There are figures here from 2006 which say China produces 21.5%. I believe that is slightly more now with at least one coal-fired power station commissioned every week in China. India is the same. I believe China is going into next generation nuclear energy for power generation and will bring that online as soon as they can; which brings us back to where we take the waste and what we do with it and, of course, the Muckaty Station location of our uranium and waste storage facility.
It says Chinese emissions will increase by at least 11% per annum, and it will take only 12 days for these increased emissions to equal the reductions proposed by the Australian government. That will come at a huge cost to our community in Australia, and they will increase what we save in 12 days. It hardly seems like it is a fair argument, but I would encourage those on the other side to talk to their colleagues in Canberra, and ask them to negotiate with these countries so that we are all playing on a fair and equal footing, and the rules are the same for all.
I would like to say again, I am not a climate sceptic. If the Chief Minister wants to continue the claim we are all climate sceptics, then perhaps he should entertain the thought that one should allow it to go through the process; which is what this place is all about, what politics is about - ensuring the process is fair and equal for all.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions over this week of parliamentary sittings. The majority of members in the House have talked to this important statement, which demonstrates that, while we have differences of opinion, and political parties differ on issues such as climate change, we all agree on one thing in terms of climate change: we can take small, practical actions in response to this issue, and we all believe we have to change behaviour. We need to change the way we do things, whether it be in our own households as individuals, or as parliamentarians, or as members of the broader Northern Territory and Australian community, and the global community.
So, I truly do thank all members of the House who have contributed to this climate change statement during the sittings this week.
I thank the member for Arafura for her contribution and her knowledge on the background of the West Arnhem fire abatement scheme in her electorate. As we know, unchecked wild fires create approximately 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory. The savannah burns we experience at the beginning and right through the Dry Season is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory.
Listening to the member for Arnhem really did reinforce for me that climate change is something which can unite the Northern Territory community; whether it be scientists within my agency, whether it be the business community such as multinational companies like ConocoPhillips, or countrymen on their homelands, working in a united way with scientists across the board, sharing contemporary knowledge of climate change and carbon emissions with the elders that the member for Arafura talked about, and their traditional knowledge.
We are very fortunate in the Northern Territory to have traditional Indigenous people who are scientists in their own right, who have extraordinary knowledge of country, extraordinary knowledge of the biodiversity of the land they have walked for thousand of years, working together with scientists to deal with the issues of carbon greenhouse gas emissions.
I thank the member for Arafura for sharing her insights and her knowledge as the local member there for many years, uniting Territorians from all walks of life to deal with the issue of climate change in the Northern Territory. She raised the important issue of water, and the member for Goyder also raised the issue of water. We are certainly aware that with climate change we focus on the more global issues in terms of becoming carbon neutral and those types of issues.
I take on board the issue of water. We are signatories to the National Water Initiative signed by COAG that particularly focuses on the need for better ways to manage our water in the Northern Territory through to 2011, and there are many areas my department has worked on regarding water. We have the Katherine Water Advisory Committee which has overseen the Tindal Water Management Plan monitoring water throughout the Northern Territory. We are very keen to see these water management plans roll-out across the Northern Territory to achieve better results and how we can be smarter in our use of water. It is there for everyone, for all users, and we need to look at how much water we extract from this very important resource.
The announcement of the moratorium on land clearing in the Daly expiring next week is a very important part of that, and it is not just the land clearing guidelines they will introduce, but also the Katherine/Tindal aquifer, a complete water allocation plan for that region which will give everyone certainty on this important commodity. Without the science, without better planning in place, things like the moratorium may have to continue. But, it is a very positive story; once again science is working with people on the ground who rely on the natural resource. I believe the whole Daly River example is one we can roll out across the Territory in regard to our water management.
Member for Port Darwin, I am glad to hear you got rid of that little bus you had …
Mr Elferink: No, I still have that.
Mr HAMPTON: You have not got rid of it?
Mr Elferink: No, I still have the bus, but I drive a Prius.
Mr HAMPTON: I thought you got rid of it. I was going to congratulate you because I have seen it a couple of times and there was a great deal of smoke coming out of it. I was worried what sort of impact that might have …
Mr Elferink: That is misleading parliament, surely.
Mr HAMPTON: In all seriousness, that is one example. We should be looking at hybrid vehicles. I have driven one on occasions down to Katherine and you hardly notice any difference to a standard vehicle. A hybrid vehicle is certainly the way to go, no doubt about it. I suppose it is hard being a bush member, as you would know in your previous time as a member for Macdonnell, it is difficult to get one of those hybrid vehicles out on the Tanami. I acknowledge that, but it is a great initiative and, in terms of greening our fleet, it is a path we should continue to go down.
In the contributions this week everyone agreed we all have a role to play whether it is in the family home, or as parliamentarians. We are all members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and at their last conference there was an agreement to be part of a wider Commonwealth initiative to press for more effective global responses to climate change issues.
There has been a task force established looking into this through the CPA, and in their latest newsletter one particular point has come out from a statement made at the 15th Conference of Parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is a role we all play that comes to us as parliamentarians. The first point I would like to put on the parliamentary record, and it states:
So, we do have a role to play as individuals, as parents, but also as parliamentarians and it is refreshing for me to have so many parliamentary colleagues contribute to this important statement. But in terms of the CPA, they have also taken a keen interest in the issue of climate change and I look forward to the work coming out of the task force which has just been established from the association meeting last year.
I thank those business involved in leasing commercial buildings in Darwin, and the grants that were awarded under the Oz Industry Green Building Fund to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. Everyone has a role to play and it is great to see the business community get on board, and they include: Paspalis Centrepoint, 9-11 Cavenagh Street, Harbour View Plaza, and the RCG Centre, all in Darwin. So, through the Oz Industry Green Building Fund they have taken on the challenge to improve the energy efficiency in their buildings.
As a householder, as a parent in Alice Springs, I try to do my bit to change the way I do things at home and in my garden; simple things such as native plants, having timers on your drip systems, appropriate shade around the house, protection during the summer months so you can cut back on the use of air conditioners. I do not use my air-conditioner at all during summer, with the help of ceiling fans. They are the small things, and the Leader of the Opposition said it as well, they are the small, practical responses we can do as individuals which all goes towards climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also like to clear up a few misconceptions regarding my agency and clarify that my department is not the biggest greenhouse emitter; plain common sense would tell most of the opposition this would be impossible given the size of my department. Comparative information on greenhouse emissions is publicly available on the Northern Territory government website, and I would urge parliamentarians to have a look.
The website compares agency emissions from energy used in buildings. This shows the Department of Health and Families clearly has the largest emissions from energy use - four times the emissions from my department ...
Mr Elferink: Until you count the number of people in your department.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Unfortunately, members of the opposition have drawn their conclusions from figures reported by my department during estimates debate last year, which I am happy to clarify. At that time, my department gave an estimate using a different methodology to the standardised approach, which had the effect of bumping up their figures. The publicly available report I have referred to already, is available on the website, and has all agencies using the same methodology. I encourage members opposite to look at this report which is publicly available.
It clearly shows those agencies supporting high levels of infrastructure have the highest emissions, as you would expect. It is there I acknowledge the great program, the Government Energy Efficiency Program, or GEEP, has a large role to play in cutting these emissions. As I said in my opening statement to the House, an example of the GEEP program in action is the energy efficiency lighting upgrades at the Royal Darwin Hospital, valued at approximately $0.5m, and will save 450 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and up to 60% of the energy used by the old light fittings. Also, $0.5m through the GEEP program is about to be invested into energy efficiency upgrades at the Alice Springs Hospital. As I said, the Health and Family agency is the biggest emitter, and the GEEP program will go a long way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
So, $0.5m going into the Alice Springs Hospital very soon in energy efficiency upgrades, which is predicted to save, again, 440 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. These upgrades range from optimising air-conditioning and heating controls, light sensors, and low-flow shower headsets which save water, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
The project is funded through the Northern Territory government with contributions to the Alice Springs Solar City Project. With a pay-back period of less then four years, this project should save 6% of the hospital’s energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the Katherine Hospital will be undertaking similar energy efficiency upgrades. I hope this clarifies for those people opposite who is the biggest emitter of the government departments.
There was a great deal of support from members for the fantastic work occurring in the Western Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project. Again, I thank the member for Arafura for her comments and sharing her journey as a local member, with the countrymen, the traditional owners, and the elders. It is great to see the issue of climate change bringing together all this knowledge, both scientists and the Indigenous traditional scientists and their knowledge of country and how we can reduce those emissions. We need to get more projects like this up and running. With the North Tanami Indigenous Protected Area Scheme, they are keen to look at the carbon offsets available through that region, and are working with the private sector in that offset scheme.
I also listened carefully to the member for Nelson’s comments on land clearing. This week I announced a comprehensive new land and water management regime in the Daly area. Let me reassure you, member for Nelson, under the Climate Change Policy we are committed to be a low land-clearing jurisdiction. It is one of the key actions of our Climate Change Policy. However, that does not mean no land clearing at all. Land clearing will be necessary to support infrastructure in our primary industries, and I acknowledge that.
There is a process land-clearing applicants have to go through, and I encourage them - actually put the onus on them - to ensure they get those applications in according to the land clearing guidelines. In saying that, we need to ensure, when land is cleared, it is in the right places and we keep the rate of clearing in check, because it does lead to substantial emissions from what can seem like small decisions.
The member for Nelson also raised some queries about whether land clearing really does lead to these emissions, and I am advised by my department that the benefits of carbon uptake by, for example, growing a crop, are taken into account in the calculations. As to whether exclusion of fire from cleared land somehow negate the impact of the clearing, I am advised this is not the case.
Land clearing is the big carbon event, and will not be offset by what happens afterwards. Of course, if others have scientific information to the contrary, then they should present it and we will look at it.
Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing this planet, and the future of our kids and our kids’ kids. As I said before, during one of my trips through my electorate I came across a fantastic quote at the school at Pigeon Hole which is: ‘We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children’, and it is so true.
It is a serious issue which deserves a serious response and that is what this government has done. Government’s policy embraces the new carbon economy of the future which will see the Northern Territory Government become carbon neutral and a global leader in remote, renewable power; real land management projects to offset four million tonnes of carbon each year; become a low land clearing jurisdiction protecting the carbon banks stored in our landscape, and real action to protect our priceless wetlands from sea level rises. The CLP’s policy does none of this.
This government acknowledges climate change is real, it is human induced, and we need to deal with it in an economically responsible manner. Every single member on this side of the House is absolutely committed to responding to this challenge for our economic and social wellbeing, and for the future of our planet as well.
The CLP, on the other hand, deny the science; they are not serious and have no credibility. It is a real disappointment, at this most important time, the opposition are playing politics on this issue. It is really unfortunate, because I believe the member for Brennan has had a decent, honest crack at getting his side of politics to see some sense. Let us not fool ourselves; he has absolutely no chance of convincing his colleagues, they are just playing him along, and the member for Fong Lim has already pulled the rug from under him. The member for Fong Lim cannot even bring himself to acknowledge they have a climate change policy. Within a day of its release, he was out in the media telling everyone it was a pollution reduction policy, not a climate change policy. Why should we be surprised?
This is the same man, when he was member for Solomon, who introduced a report into the federal parliament denying that climate change was manmade. What can you say about the sincerity of the member who now says he is open to climate change action, but is opposed to the federal CPRS? This is the same man who went to the 2007 election knowing that John Howard would implement an emissions trading scheme, but raised no objections at all. The opposition need to come clean; they pulled their policy together to support Tony Abbott because it was politically expedient. They did not consult with Territorians as we did over two years.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members. As I said, they did not consult Territorians as we did over two years; it was policy on the run to score a cheap political point and climate change is too serious for those games. I come back to the member for Brennan: good luck, if you can keep your mob together on this issue, I very much doubt you can. We have already seen what the conservative side of politics does to those who believe in strong action on climate change - just ask Malcolm Turnbull - he will tell you, member for Brennan. They savage those who understand that sort of action is required.
We know the opposition are not serious. The member for Goyder spent much of her contribution bagging renewable energy. Maybe she needs to look at her own policy. She then went on to talk about not lumping various initiatives under climate change. That says it all, and really exposes the mindset at play here.
We know the opposition is not serious, because every one of them supports taking money from mums and dads and giving it to the big polluters. This government supports solutions that make the polluters pay and compensates mums and dads. The opposition’s proposed emissions reduction fund does not include any detail on how they will fund it, but it is clear it will be from the mums and dads, from the strugglers.
The CLP purports to be the party of free market solutions, the party of individual choice and the party of small government, but it has thrown it all out the window at the first serious test. Instead, it is in favour of the big government solutions and picking winners. I am sure the member for Brennan knows the only way to move to a low carbon future is to put a price on carbon. The CLP can make all the big claims they like, but if they oppose putting a price on carbon, then they cannot deliver a low carbon future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the opposition’s head in the sand approach, this government will get on with the business of pushing hard to make the changes necessary to respond to climate change for our kids and the planet.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to report to the Chamber on matters currently before the Public Accounts Committee.
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I call a division, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You cannot have a division on seeking leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I am simply seeking leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to report on matters before the Public Accounts Committee, and we hear a single voice over there, and all of a sudden we have a decision.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Seeking leave is not a motion; it is merely seeking leave.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: It is a tragedy, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you well know.
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the First Progress Report 2008-2010 of the Department of Health and Families, Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012.
Today, I present the First Progress Report on Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory. The women’s policy identifies five key priority areas for women: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. This report looks at the progress and achievements made by the Northern Territory government for Territory women under each key area for action since 2008.
Notable achievements for Northern Territory women’s health and wellbeing include major investments in women’s sport, such as the new $6.2m home for Territory netball at Marrara Stadium; the implementation of a family partnership model of child and family health care; and a focus on an integrated approach to maternal and antenatal care, to name a few.
We have established a number of projects which contribute to women’s economic security, providing continued funding to the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre, and the initiation of the Girls at the Centre Program as part of the Alice Springs Indigenous Education Strategy. The Chief Minister’s Study Scholarships for Women and the Indigenous Business Development Program also support Northern Territory women to be economically independent. This government has made a significant commitment to domestic and family violence services in the last two years, establishing a dedicated domestic and family violence policy team.
There has been a major focus on investing in local services and in partnerships with the Australian government in this area. We have also implemented mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, upgraded sexual assault services, and developed a new social marketing campaign aimed at increasing public action in regard to domestic violence.
Increasing the participation of women in leadership roles is important in bringing diversity, new voices and experience to decision-making bodies. To achieve this, the Northern Territory government has created a new online board registration website, and we have funded forums in all regions for women to inform government on issues of importance to them.
This progress report also highlights current major projects being undertaken by the Office of Women’s Policy, such as an indicator project on the status of Territory women, a feasibility study for the provision of micro-credit to remote Indigenous women for enterprise development, and an inquiry into pay equity.
Underpinning the Building on Our Strengths framework is the use of gender analysis in the development and reporting of public policy and programs, delivering services and when reporting outcomes for women.
This government supports women in overcoming the significant social and economic barriers to enjoying equal opportunities and participation. The Northern Territory aspires to be a place where women can balance work, family and lifestyle. This framework clearly articulates the government’s agenda for change and a commitment to working for better quality of life for all Territory women and their families.
In conclusion, I advise the parliament that next month is International Women’s Day on 8 March. This year the particular focus and theme is Celebrating Women in Local Government.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I table a report titled Towards Northern Territory Statehood - Issues for Consideration.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
In the lead up to the Constitution Convention in 2011, the campaign for statehood in the Northern Territory is entering its next phase with public forums being held throughout the Territory in 2010. It is timely therefore that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee conclude its inquiries into a bill of rights for the Northern Territory and customary law. For ease of reference both reports are contained in one volume.
First, let us turn to the Bill of Rights Inquiry. Strong rights protection is important in any modern democracy. Over the years civil, political, social and economic rights have extended to include new rights not previously articulated, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment. Rights protection can take any forms; the Bill of Rights is one form of legal protection. Would a Bill of Rights in the Northern Territory improve and extend our existing rights protection? This is a question Territorians should be asked. Whether the answer is to be sought at the same time the statehood question is considered is a separate matter entirely. The two questions are not mutually dependent; a bill of rights could be written to the constitutional document of the state of the Northern Territory, or be enacted as a separate statute now or when statehood is achieved.
Would tackling both questions at the same time do a disservice to one or both? Should we consider a Bill of Rights for the Northern Territory while statehood, which would give Territorians a more constitutionally secure place in Australia, is yet to be achieved?
The committee believes that priority must be given to the attainment of statehood. It is also noted that the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, led by Fr Frank Brennan SJ, handed down its final report in September 2009. The committee recommended the enactment of the federal Human Rights Act as well as a range of other measures, including increased and improved education to all Australians on human rights
That committee also recommended that all measures occur within the National Framework of Human Rights Protection containing a stated of lists of rights and responsibilities to be protected. Given the current status of the Northern Territory constitutionally, it would be prudent to wait for the federal government’s response to see how the Northern Territory can best respond within the national thinking, either before or at statehood.
This Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report reflects the research and considerations undertaken and how the Committee arrived at its recommendations through consideration of issues in international, national and local contexts.
The question of the Bill of Rights for the Northern Territory is a debate which the community must have in earnest, without the issues being entangled in or impeding our progress towards statehood. Achieving statehood first would make clearer the way for a state-wide debate on a Bill of Rights.
Turning to the inquiry into customary law, the committee acknowledges the continued existence and practice of customary law in many Northern Territory communities is a reflection of the strength and will of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and cultures. It calls for greater recognition of customary law have largely risen in reference to criminal justice. However, in the context of the current move to statehood the question before the committee was: to what degree customary law could be acknowledged in the Northern Territory. There are positive and negative arguments for this. The many legal questions which arose during the inquiry reflect the level of complexity of the issues for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and the Northern Territory as a whole. Underlying the considerations were the different forms of recognition that are possible, and which form would be best for the Northern Territory.
The committee believes a collaborative and pragmatic approach needs to be taken to further recognise customary law, and any approach must not create uncertainties for either customary law or the general law; any aspects of customary law which might be recognised, and the form in which that recognition can take place in our legal system, needs to be driven by societal changes from time to time. The recognition of Indigenous Australians within the Australian Constitution is being considered, and this may be a step worth considering for the Northern Territory as it walks towards statehood.
The statehood forums in 2010, and subsequent Statehood Constitutional Convention, will be significant steps towards statehood and the future of the Northern Territory. It is inevitable that topics of whether the Northern Territory should have a Bill of Rights and issues associated with further acknowledgment of customary law will emerge during the statehood forums and the constitutional convention. However, it is important these issues not detract from, or take precedence over, the important goal of achieving statehood.
I thank the members of the committee. This is, in fact, a bipartisan report and I make particular comment on the friendly and professional way in which these issues, which are quite difficult ones, were dealt with by the committee. I thank the members on the committee: the members for Goyder, Arafura, Fannie Bay, and Brennan. It was a pleasure working with members on the committee.
I thank the committee Secretariat: Patricia Hancock, Maria Viegas, Eva Scott, Kim Cowcher, and Kay Moorhead. I also acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, Mr Michael Grant QC, and the Crown Counsel for the Northern Territory, Sonia Brownhill, and Dr Jan Whitehead, a former committee research officer.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the report which has been tabled and echo the sentiments of the member for Nightcliff. Both these issues contained in the report - the Bill of Rights and customary law - were considered in the context of statehood for the Northern Territory, leading up to the community fora we are currently holding across the Northern Territory and, of course, the constitutional convention which will be held in 2011.
They are both very complex and complicated areas, but we must not lose sight of the fact we are trying to attain statehood. Whilst they are important, we believe they should be tabled and noted and we can discuss them at a later date and include them in discussions with regard to our new state.
I also thank the members of the committee and the secretariat staff for their hard work. Let us just get on and attain statehood for the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about my visit, as Tourism minister, to Malaysia and Singapore.
I recently went to continue to strengthen our tourism and business links with Asia, a key responsibility in my role as Minister for Tourism. Since receiving the Tourism portfolio responsibility from the Chief Minister in December last year, I wanted to ensure the good work of my predecessor, the member for Casuarina - who also visited Malaysia towards the end of last year - was not lost.
This means engaging with the key stakeholders - local, national, and international - to properly understand the views, issues, and opportunities of the industry; and that is what I have been doing. Much work has been undertaken in engaging with and building a strong relationship with Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian Tourism minister, and the opportunity of a short visit came up during February.
In Kuala Lumpur, I had a very productive meeting with the Malaysian Minister for Tourism Dato’ Seri Dr Ang and her key staff. We discussed a range of topics and, during our meeting, Dr Ang accepted my invitation to visit the Northern Territory so she can see firsthand what we have to offer. The only problem will be which parts of the Territory we can get her to in the short space of time she will have for her visit. A great deal of work is going on at the moment looking at locations across the Territory in preparation for Dr Ang’s visit. Already, there is a delegation here from Western Australia on behalf of the Malaysian Tourism minister.
Singapore and Malaysia are major gateways to Australia, and the Northern Territory government has an active interest in these markets, and we want to make it easier for international visitors to come here. Malaysia is one of the top 10 international source markets for Darwin, with approximately 2200 Malaysians visiting annually. We also know here in Darwin city, and across the Northern Territory, we have a significant population of Malaysians, so it is important we maintain those links, not only from a government-to-government perspective, but also family relationships that are ongoing. The Territory has more than 500 Malaysian-born Territorians who make a huge contribution to our diverse and vibrant community.
I also had a constructive meeting with Tengku Dato' Azmil Zahruddin CEO, Malaysia Airlines, whom I encouraged to consider re-establishing its links with Darwin, and again operating a direct service between Kuala Lumpur and the Northern Territory. Through Tourism NT, we have been working very closely with Malaysia Airlines in recent times and hope for a very positive outcome in the near future. Attracting a full service international airline such as Malaysia Airlines to Darwin is a priority for the Northern Territory government. Malaysia Airlines operates to a number of key tourism source markets for the Northern Territory, and our European tourist markets continue to grow. I am confident this growth would be even stronger if we had increased airline access, and I will continue to work hard to secure the appropriate services we need.
I also took an opportunity to meet with Ms Rosalynn Tay, Managing Director, Tiger Airways Singapore, to better understand their future plans for growth in the region. Tourism NT has developed very good working relationships with these key stakeholders, and I am certainly encouraged by the positive responses I received during my brief visit.
This visit, my first to Malaysia and Singapore as Minister for Tourism, was a success and important in understanding just how close we are to the region. It was also an important trip on a personal level, not having left Australian shores for nearly 20 years. The first time I left Australia I went to the Philippines to spend some time working with the Indigenous peoples in Mindanao and spent some time in Cebu.
It was an important trip in understanding our relationships with overseas connections, and I look forward to the visit of the Malaysian Tourism minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Council of Territory Cooperation has confirmed that the scandal-ridden Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is heading for a cost blowout, or another reduction in what will be delivered for $672m. Recommendation 2 from the Council of Territory Cooperation states:
Not downgraded. That recommendation says plainly that there is not enough money to do what was promised, and that the refurbishments and rebuilds will not be up to scratch without either an injection of more money or the delivery of substandard work.
It must be remembered that SIHIP has already been gutted to make it fit the $670m budget. Originally, the SIHIP budget was going to pay for the infrastructure needed to support additional housing; it was going to pay for the roads, the power, the water, the public amenities these communities desperately need.
I say the Territory’s original budget was $0.5bn short, going by the management of this Territory government. Having stripped infrastructure out of the budget, we were assured the remaining $672m would deliver 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds of existing houses, and 2500 refurbishments across 73 remote Indigenous communities. Clearly, that is not going to happen.
Everywhere, the program is being further gutted. Housing is shrinking in size, four-bedroom houses becoming three, three-bedroom becoming two, two-bedroom becoming a duplex; and one-bedroom units are now being built and classified as housing. How can a one-bedroom unit be classified as a house just to make the 750 target? Houses are now being built in the bush without verandahs, something that is clearly culturally inappropriate, and was identified through the consultation phase in developing the design standards. The story relates to rebuilds and refurbishments as well.
The Australian has reported that one total refurbishment consisted of a new stove, a new family kitchen, new tiling in the bathroom, and painting of interior walls. It also found kitchen benches were not replaced, windows were still broken, floors were bare concrete, and the outside of the house was not painted.
This goes to Recommendation 3 of the CTC report:
Not in the report in The Australian. How can SIHIP houses meet Territory Housing standards without a further injection of money? The member for Fannie Bay indicated yesterday, they may need more money to actually get the work done.
That is an indication, or a vindication, of the failure of the Northern Territory government in the management of the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. It is all very well to read a report which has been produced under the guidance of the Chairman, the member for Nelson. A report means absolutely nothing. I read the report in full again today, and I went through Hansard discussions from yesterday, and understood exactly where things are at. We now have refurbishments downgraded from what could be spent of $150 000 down to $75 000, according to the words of the member for Nelson, the Chairperson of the CTC. We hear anything over $100 000 for refurbishment is now called a rebuild. Let us get to the point: 230 houses not fit for people to live in were supposed to be knocked down and 230 houses rebuilt. Now you are telling me you can do repairs and call them a rebuilt house.
This is a clear sign of the failures of the Northern Territory government. You have 750 new houses, which incorporate one-bedroom units. That is not going to solve the overcrowding crisis. You are doing repairs on property and calling it a brand new house. This is an absolute failure of a program!
Where in Australia would anyone, apart from a millionaire, spend $450 000 on the construction of a house? Let us not forget that does not include the infrastructure or the land. This government is pilfering money. That is why the member for Macdonnell made a recommendation yesterday, through a motion, that we should have an Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee to oversight where the money is going on Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory.
People want to see the issue of Indigenous affairs fixed. People do not mind money being spent if it is fixing the problem, but, this is clearly not fixing the problem. This is a fraudulent program mal-administered by the Northern Territory government and is not delivering outcomes. $450 000 for a house is an average price - that takes in the bottom end, the one-bedroom units which might cost $150 000 to build, to the million dollar tin-sheds being built in these communities. It is fraud!
One of the recommendations in the report says the Northern Territory government is the most fit and able government to deliver this program. I have reached the point where I believe the program should be taken away from the Northern Territory government and given to the federal government to run. This never happened when the federal government ran Housing. I have moved to a position where I feel it is so important that the government has fraudulently managed this program, with their snouts in the trough, that the program should be taken away from them and given to the federal government.
There is absolutely no way the Northern Territory government can run this program. Millions of dollars have been spent trying to get the program up and running, spent on design consultants and, here we are now, seeing the old designs rolled out everywhere. We see money squandered on countless, dozens - I believe up to 75 - public servants running this program, and we have two houses built three years after it was announced. It was announced in 2007; it is now 2010 and we have two houses built; and the houses that have been repaired or refurbished have smashed windows. I believe there is something in the report that says they have not enough money to take graffiti off the internal walls of a house. I do not know how you cannot have enough money when you have $672m.
This comes down to the absolute bottom line management of this government and its incompetence to manage. It has been unable to manage Family and Children’s Services to look after children; it has been unable to manage Education with the educational standards of the Northern Territory; it has been unable to build the roads and bridges it promised it would build in the Northern Territory. It cannot deliver on the housing and planning requirements to release land in the Northern Territory to address the worst housing crisis the Northern Territory has ever had. Nothing in this government is working, and you have virtually put against the wall $672m worth of important, emergency funding announced by Mal Brough as part of the intervention. This money was for an emergency, and you have wasted it.
We hear about Peter Garrett and the pink batt scandal and the mismanagement of funds that have gone on with that, and the tragedies that have come out of that program; well, this program is worse - the Strategic and Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is worse - it is not about a measly amount of pink batts in a house, this is houses costing anywhere up to and over $1m to build, not including the land, not including the headworks.
The member for Johnston, the new Housing minister after many reshuffles, likes to hold up what Aboriginal people in Alice Springs call banana splits: the yellow shirts with the blue part down the bottom that all the workers wear. I liked it when the member for Daly, the previous minister for Housing went to Tennant Creek and said: ‘The media coming; we need some Aboriginal people in those high visibility shirts. Can you get them out?’ Roll them out and get all the photos’.
It is the same thing the member for Johnston is rolling out. Yesterday, on a housing site in Santa Teresa there were all these people building $850 000 worth to replace two houses that blew down in a windstorm 18 months ago, well overdue, and there is not one Aboriginal person working on them. Who is going to do the work in the yard after the house is constructed? We have no Aboriginal people - none. Who is going to do the work in the back yard? ‘Oh, we have asked the CDEP to come in and do the work out the back’. CDEP labour to come out and do the fences and do the driveway and do the landscaping of this house. Not even a real job for Aboriginal people.
How can you stand here on your morals? You will not support the Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee; you will not support our offers to help you improve this program. The member for Nelson stands here, as the Chairman of the CTC, and says: ‘Oh, it is costing $450 000.’ He has not even got the guts to make a decision to can this government that is wasting this money; wasting Aboriginal people’s money that should be improving their livelihoods out in the bush. The member for Nelson has completely rolled over on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory; and this government does not deserve to manage this program.
This government does not deserve to have their snouts in the trough managing this program. This government should be handing this program back to the Commonwealth and saying: ‘We’ve stuffed it like we’ve stuffed everything else.’
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not even going to bother to respond to the rubbish and drivel that emanated from the member for Braitling. It was nothing other than rubbish, dribble, bile and vitriol.
In the adjournment debate this evening I wish to speak about the late Mr Arsenio de Guzman.
Mr de Guzman passed away on 2 January this year and was an outstanding and well respected leader in our Filipino community. I am aware that the member for Johnston took the opportunity to speak about Arsenio in adjournment debate in parliament last week, but I really wanted to take the opportunity of inviting Arsenio’s family here this evening to be able to listen and share in the celebration of the life of their father, grandfather and great-grandfather.
I want to welcome Arsenio’s family here tonight in the gallery and, particularly, I understand that his son, Ross, his daughter, Maryanne, and his niece, Alice Gomez, are here along with other members of the family. You are very welcome, and it is great to see you here tonight in the gallery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Welcome to all of Arsenio’s family including grandchildren and great grandchildren. I was so proud to be able to invite Arsenio’s family and friends to Parliament House in December 2008, around the time of his 71st birthday, and to present Arsenio with a plaque in recognition of his service to the Territory community. It was a very special evening, and it was great so many family and friends could be here to see Arsenio’s contribution to the Territory recognised formally by the Chief Minister on behalf of all Territorians.
Arsenio de Guzman was born on 9 December 1937, and passed away peacefully on 2 January 2010. Arsenio is survived by three sons, Joe, Ross and Bob (known as Arsenio IV) and his daughter, Maryanne. Sadly, Arsenio’s dearly loved wife passed away a few years ago, and subsequently Arsenio’s health continued to decline from that time. I thank Arsenio’s family for all of their efforts in supporting him during the years of declining health.
As I said previously, Arsenio was an outstanding, well-respected and loved leader in our Filipino community for over 30 years. Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, migrated from the Philippines to Australia in 1972. They originally settled and worked as teachers in New South Wales but, shortly after, they relocated to the Northern Territory, teaching in Katherine and, later, in Darwin. Arsenio also worked voluntarily with the Territory’s Filipino community, welcoming newcomers to Darwin, assisting with the difficulties of language and bureaucracy, and generally helping new Filipinos settle comfortably here in Darwin and other regional towns of the Northern Territory.
In July 1973, Arsenio was co-founder of the first Filipino association in Darwin - the Filipino/Australian Association of the Northern Territory. FAANT continues on today as an active group in Darwin, following on from the strong foundation established by Arsenio as a co-founder all those years ago.
In 1990, Arsenio established a new Filipino association, the Pinoy Aussie Society which focused on Arsenio’s desire to assist Filipinos to integrate into the Territory community. Many members of this House have really enjoyed many social events with the Pinoy Aussie Society over years. They were always great nights – with lots of fun and laughter, and the Filipino community’s love of singing and dancing; they were always wonderful nights …
Dr Burns: And food!
Mr HENDERSON: And fantastic food; thank you, member for Johnston. They were always great nights, and I have many fond memories of Arsenio on those nights with the Pinoy Aussie Society.
On behalf of all Territorians, I take this opportunity to say to Arsenio’s family: thank you to Arsenio for his untiring work with the Filipino community and his commitment to community service. One of the other great attributes of Arsenio was his commitment as a dedicated teacher. This was a commitment shared with Arsenio’s wife, Ricarda, as they both had teaching careers. Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, started their teaching careers in the Philippines and continued here in the Northern Territory until their retirement. Arsenio’s teaching career was broken only by Cyclone Tracy.
In Darwin, I understand Arsenio taught at Casuarina, Darwin, Dripstone and Sanderson High Schools and, later, at Kormilda College. As I mentioned previously, Arsenio also taught at Katherine High School. Throughout Arsenio’s teaching career, he certainly touched the lives of so many Territorians.
One of the great things about being a teacher - and I know many of Arsenio’s former pupils - over all those years, Arsenio probably taught thousands of students in the Territory, which is a really big number. Many teachers inspire kids to go on and lead great lives, and we can all remember teachers with enormous affection who made a huge contribution to our lives personally. The greatest tribute which can be paid to Arsenio de Guzman, and to Ricarda as well, is the thousands of people in the Northern Territory who will remember Arsenio with great fondness. He would have left a real mark in many students’ lives, inspiring those students to reach great heights in their maths. He made a difference and, if you can look back and say you did make a difference, you led a good life - what more can you ask? He made an enormous difference to thousands of students here in the Territory. Similarly, Arsenio’s wife, Ricarda, taught at Ludmilla and later at Kormilda College.
Again, on behalf of all Territorians, I say thank you to Arsenio and Ricarda de Guzman for their commitment and dedication to teaching here in the Northern Territory. Arsenio and his wife are sadly missed by their family, and by so many people in Darwin and other centres throughout the Northern Territory. I am glad I had the opportunity to thank and congratulate Arsenio in person in 2008 for his service to our wonderful community in the Territory.
I take this opportunity again, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, to recognise the commitment and dedication of Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, to serving others in our community.
I pass on my sincere condolences to Arsenio’s family and friends. I am absolutely confident, and you will be sure, that his work and his memory in our community live on for many future generations. So, Arsenio, farewell. You lived a full and wonderful life, and you did make a difference. I thank the family for coming to the Assembly this evening.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also extend my condolences to the family, and say I have attended many functions of the Pinoy Aussie Society - and what a wonderful group it is. You will miss your father and grandfather.
Tonight I congratulate and thank incoming, ongoing and outgoing members of the Nightcliff Primary School Council. The 2009 Council Chairperson, Simon Cruickshank, was thanked for his input and leadership at the Annual General Meeting of the Nightcliff Primary School Council held earlier this month. Simon will stay on as an ordinary member of the school council, while members Jo Politis Dunne, Tim Cross and Debbie Wilkinson have retired from the council, either stepping down or in line with the council’s three-year term policy, after making valuable contributions.
Heading the 2010 School Council is Liz Hendry, who will be ably assisted by Vice Chair Sue Walsh who, after a year away from the school council, is keen to be again involved. Peter Bailey stays on as minute and correspondence secretary, and Zelia Bailey is again Treasurer.
Teacher representatives are Athena Hammond and Teresa Montague, and Bronwyn Wilkins, Jody Maguire, Judy Morgan, Frances Perrett, Marg Dorman, Simon Cruickshank and Lisa McMurray make up the remainder of the school council, along with the school Principal, Liz Veel.
Nightcliff Primary School is one of the largest primary schools in the northern suburbs, and having a functional, hard-working school council is fundamental to the school’s wellbeing and success. I congratulate and thank all the people who have put up their hands for this task in the coming year.
I also acknowledge tonight the contribution of the Royal Darwin Hospital Auxiliary, which held its final meeting on 4 February after 29 years of fundraising and voluntary service to the Royal Darwin Hospital. It is difficult to quantify the work of a volunteer committee such as this. As an example, over the past five years, the group has fundraised and given donations totalling more than $63 000 to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The range of goods and medical equipment this band of women has provided for our hospital is staggering. Recent items include medication pumps, an orthopaedic Transair mattress, a podiatry chair, a $5000 Power Lift chair, a bath chair, toys, lounges, televisions, washing machines, dryers, a dishwasher for the hospice, a garden seat, and contributions towards a fence. In recent years, the committee has refurbished and furnished a parent’s room at the hospital, providing parents of gravely ill children with a comfortable and private area.
I acknowledge by name the present day members of the committee: President, Rosemary Burkitt; Pat Venturin; Mary Woodrow; Kay Oates; Pauline Plummer; Joan Orr; Maralyne Glover; Beryl Lynas; Mary May; Miriam Chamberlain; and Margaret Stehouwer. I pay tribute to all those committee members who went before, some of whom served for over 10 years.
Nightcliff constituent and widow of the late Dr Alan Walker, Anne Walker, served on the committee for over 17 years, and recalled for me some of the earlier fundraising activities of the committee, including open days at the hospital campus, cocktail parties and fashion parades at Government House, Melbourne Cup lunches and regular cake stalls. Anne said the Darwin community embraced these events, resulting in thousands of dollars raised for the purchase of surgical equipment, furniture, furnishings, electrical goods, and other items for the hospital.
While the decision to bring the fundraising activities of the auxiliary to a close was difficult, the efforts of the members will not be forgotten. At the final meeting, members allocated the auxiliary’s balance of funds to four facilities: The Alan Walker Oncology Unit, the Renal Unit, Camp Quality’s proposed children’s rooms, and the Cowdy Ward.
Camp Quality are establishing children’s rooms in the hospice, which will be known as the Camp Quality Auxiliary Children’s Rooms, thereby acknowledging the contribution of the auxiliary and creating a lasting legacy. It is expected the children’s rooms will be functioning by the end of March. The Alan Walker Oncology Unit will use the donated funds to buy a covered golf buggy for patient transport between the hospital and the Oncology Unit.
Darwin Hospital’s Cowdy Ward plans to use the auxiliary’s contribution to purchase a Nintendo Wii Game console and exercise equipment for its clients. The renal unit plans to improve the patient waiting area and ward area to make both more relaxing and welcoming. This will include new lounges and a storage unit, art work and framed prints, lamps, a plasma television and DVD player. Enhanced facilities should serve as an encouragement to patients to attend the clinic, thus adding to the beneficial health outcomes.
While it is regrettable that the Royal Darwin Hospital Auxiliary has ceased, those involved at any stage of its almost 30-year history are to be congratulated on their significant efforts of providing resources to the Royal Darwin Hospital for the use and comfort of their fellow Territorians. I commend and thank all members, past and present, for their efforts.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about NAPLAN which was debated in parliament, in a form. Unfortunately, it was debated in a Censure Motion which can be exciting for those participating, but sometimes you do not get a chance to debate it fully in the calm light of day, or the evening, in this case.
I am not against schools having some form of categorisation, but if that is the only thing people see and the only thing people have to judge a school on, then that is rather unfair on schools, and also unfair on parents because they need to know more about schools than something in the newspaper.
There was a table in the newspaper of the top 10 schools and bottom 10 schools, but there is no analysis of that. For instance, were there any learning difficulties a child may have who was involved in exams on that day? Did a child have difficulty at home? We know some children do have problems at home, for whatever reasons, and that can affect their ability to cope with things such as doing NAPLAN. Families can have illnesses, so there are a range of reasons why even one child might not be working very well.
More importantly, the league table does not show the individual student’s improvement. That is the one criticism I have received. I met five school principals in the rural area – four government schools, and two private schools - and none of them expressed the idea the NAPLAN results, or what was in the paper, or even what the Leader of the Opposition put forward, was the way to go.
They all agreed there is no problem in examining children; but one thing I felt was missed in this debate was we are actually caring for kids. What we need to be doing is seeing if each child is improving, because the danger of just saying: ‘That school is no good’, is you are not digging down to find out why that school might be below the average. At one school where they have the RAD software to analyse data for each student, they found girls in Year 9 had results well above the national average, and the data for boys in Year 9 maths were well above the national average, but the overall average might have been down. So, it is not just a simple case of pulling out a figure and saying a school is below the national average.
If you have a student, for instance, with low reading skills, then just doing the NAPLAN maths test in itself will be a problem; so a problem in one skill may compound a problem in another skill. Of course, language and content could also be a problem. My understanding is teachers and principals do not necessarily have a problem with actual exams, but sometimes the wording of exams does not suit the clientele it is trying to address. For instance, I was told one exam question said: ‘Draw a loop around a series of numbers’. I do not believe my kids would know what a loop is; they know I can be a bit loopy, but that is not the same thing. To draw a circle around those numbers they would have understood what was meant.
There was a class that studied, as part of its curriculum, dinosaurs, and the NAPLAN test used the universe to test students in Years 3 and 5. So it can be an issue that children are brought up with a certain scope which differs from what is in the NAPLAN test.
I have copies of a Victorian government draft document titled Proposed Framework for Delivery of NAPLAN 2010. One of the proposed strategies for a teacher is to explicitly teach NAPLAN by including the genre of NAPLAN, commonly used terms, and a daily NAPLAN item in the program of instruction. So there is the danger teachers will teach for the program rather than teaching overall. We need to be careful of that as well.
Schools are much more than a test taken by students in May. Consider a child who has been in Year 3 for just over three months, having to sit an exam for 45 minutes to one hour, without any assistance from their teacher. It is disappointing if the selection of schools for children is done on just NAPLAN results; and principals, whilst speaking with parents, ask them to consider a range of programs at the school and the feeling of the school, and this is often done by asking parents to go into the schoolyard during recess or lunch. One principal said to us: ‘Go into the playground and talk to the kids, and you will get a feel whether this is a good school.’
It is not just simply about the maths and the English, and the grammar. There is no doubt they are important, but it is also about those other things which make a school. It is not only its values; it is the feeling you get, how kids react with the teachers, and how they get on with one another. That will not come out in NAPLAN results. So, when we are considering the figures that have been published, we need to take more into account than just the figures.
Schools I have contacted report four times to parents during the year, twice in parent/teacher interviews, and twice by written reports which some schools relate to the student portfolio. The biggest impact on the NAPLAN results was the lack of value placed on education by the community as a whole, so there are issues which need to be addressed. It is not saying these figures cannot be used, but we need to understand why a school might be below average, and we need to analyse that. It could be teachers; there could be two teachers in a school not achieving the standard required, and in their classes the results might be down. So you might have 90% of the school above the average, but two classes are enough to pull it down below the average.
The challenge is how to deal with those teachers, and there are only a very few, a minority, I believe. Most teachers I have met are hard-working and dedicated because I have many schools I go to in my area. If some teachers are not up to the necessary standard required, how do you change that? If you cannot change it, is there a way to move them somewhere else? If it is affecting the schools’ results, then that is going to be real issue, and a bad teacher is something no school would want. As I said, all the teachers I see are really dedicated to their work and are proud of the work they do, and they want the children they teach to succeed.
We found at one school there had been an influx of kids who were not of a high socioeconomic order and their education was behind, so when those kids come into the school it took a couple of years before they came up to the standard of the other children in their class. So, that needs to be taken into account. Also, where large numbers of students have English as a second language; or a mobile school where many Defence force families send their children and move every two years, that can also have an effect on the results of a school.
I do thank the principals I met; they gave us a very important insight into what they thought of the NAPLAN results, and the results shown in the NT News, and the results the Leader of the Opposition has shown. I would say they definitely do not like those results as they are because they do not necessarily achieve anything as they are and they put some schools down. I take a case in the paper which put down the Thamarrurr Catholic School at Port Keats. When we visited there with the CTC, we realised there are good reasons; things are not good there, and to turn it around is not easy. To see it in a paper, you think: what a terrible school, until you go there and find the reasons kids are not attending, then you realise it is not quite as simple as people might think.
There are good teachers and principals out there, and they are part of our community, and we should support them. We should support our schools and, if change needs to happen, let us do it sensibly, not based on figures published in a newspaper.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I inform the House of another sad event which occurred in our community; the funeral I went to last Monday 22 February 2010, at the Thorak Regional Cemetery. It was the funeral of one Robert John Garrett. Unfortunately, Robert, who was a Vietnam veteran, did not have any family in Darwin, and a number of people who were trying to track down his family could not find any family members. So, it was with a great deal of pride that I and a number of other people went to the funeral of this man who had served his country.
Before I speak about Robert, I pay respect to the Northern Territory branch of the TPIA – that is the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association – which looks after all returned servicemen and women who are totally and permanently incapacitated. I will say more on that later.
I put on the public record some of the things that occurred at this funeral so that, should his family ever go looking for him, one would hope the search engines would bring up the Legislative Assembly Hansard fairly early, and they would be able to find out some of the nice things said about Robert John Garrett at his funeral. I will quote from the funeral service document that was prepared by the celebrant, Mr David Hart known as Digby Hart:
I could not agree more with the words David Hart put together for this service at Thorak. There were a number of tributes spoken by a number of people, the first of which was Jack Hamilton OAM. Jack is well-known in the Darwin community for his unstinting time helping Vietnam War veterans, youth, and the disabled amongst the Darwin community. He is the manager of Coral House, which is a facility on Bagot Road most members of this House would be aware of. Jack spoke only a little about what was known of our friend, Robert, who was a very private person and very rarely did he discuss his personal life or anything about his relatives or his past.
What we do know is Robert was born on 30 July 1945. Mr McKendrick, who was at the funeral, gave a brief outline of his service history, and I quote from the document:
I put on the record for Robert’s family what was said by Bob Johnston who is the President of the TPI Northern Territory branch, and I quote:
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that Robert had a wife. There were a number of documents that we located in his possession, but the marriage was annulled at some stage; and we know he had a family somewhere. We only hope one day when the family or someone goes looking, they may be able to find this on the public record and know that he did not die alone, that there were friends, that there were comrades with him, and there were people who told stories, like Stephen Ellis, who works at Pearl Marine Engineering, formerly known as the Frances Bay Shipyard.
Stephen came to the funeral and spoke very highly of Robert, more commonly known as Bob and, in fact, in that establishment known as Two Bob. He spoke of what a dedicated worker he was, his skills and what he did, he fixed everything around Frances Bay Marine Shipyard, a very handy guy with his hands, and a very quiet man, but enjoyed the friendship of a few down at the Buff Club and a number of other clubs around town. Stephen spoke of the wonderful contribution Bob Garrett made to the company he worked for through most the 1990s; and we do not know much more about him.
I also put on the record the parting words said by Mr Mr McKendrick at the funeral, the Infantry Farewell. I quote from the service document:
The funeral completed, and we all stood around and had a chat about things, and the support that Robert got, and the people who supported him in those final years.
That brings me to talk of Coral House and the fantastic work that the people there do for veterans. We all know that people of both sexes go away to fight wars, to serve our country and to protect the lifestyle we have, and when they come back, some of them have troubles readjusting. Many people have readjusting problems from many things they do in life, but none more so those who put themselves in the front line and in danger.
I quote from an Internet document about Coral House:
Shared kitchen facilities
Madam Speaker, you can only admire the people like Jack and people like Robert Johnston ably assisted by his secretary, Alf Kennedy, who look after these people who, from time to time find themselves troubled and in need of a hand up.
There are many people in this world who need a hand up and sometimes it is very nice to be able to give them a hand up and get them back on their feet. I know a number of people who have been through that particular establishment and, because they got that hand up they were able to get back on their feet and get on with their lives and become very productive members of this community again.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM –
Death of
Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM –
Death of
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise honourable members of the death, on 31 December 2009, of Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of friends and colleagues of the late Frans Seda AM. In particular, I acknowledge the Consul of the Republic of Indonesia, Mr Harbangan Napitupulu and staff from the Consulate; former Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Barry Coulter; former member for Jingili, Mr Rick Setter; and many colleagues and senior public servants from across the Northern Territory.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members on completion of the debate I will ask members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM
Franciscus Xaverius (Frans) Seda AM
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
(a) express its deep regret at the death of Frans Seda AM, a passionate and tireless advocate for intergovernment relationships between the Territory and Indonesia; and
I, too, would like to acknowledge and welcome the Indonesian Consul, Mr Harbangan Napitupulu, his colleagues, and all the distinguished guests in the gallery today. It really does demonstrate the depth of friendships Pak Frans had here in the Northern Territory.
I wish today to acknowledge the passing of Frans Seda who was affectionately known as the Territory’s Man in Indonesia. The Northern Territory has a very special relationship with Indonesia. It is a relationship born from hundreds of years of contact between our people, our Indigenous people across the coast with the Macassan traders and, most particularly, in the last two decades as we forge closer trade, economic and social ties. Of course, our Indonesian community is a valued part of our community in the Northern Territory; but equally the Northern Territory is valued in Indonesia. Frans Seda has been the architect and father of that over much of the last two decades.
Frans was born in late 1926 on the island of Flores. He had a very exciting, interesting and rewarding life, and made an enormous contribution. I am told as a young man he fought against the Dutch occupying forces using bamboo spears against the tanks. For his part in Indonesia’s struggle for independence he was honoured with an Independence Medal – a great honour in Indonesia.
Frans Seda was a valued adviser to every post-independence President. Understanding post-colonial era Indonesian history, for Frans to have been a key adviser to every post-independence president was a remarkable achievement and really demonstrated the enormous regard in which he was held in Indonesia.
In 1964, he joined the Sukarno Cabinet as Minister for Plantations, and in Indonesia’s history those early years of government were quite dark days. Frans survived those dark days of the mid-1960s and the turmoil that occurred and went on to fill the roles of Minister for Finance, Transport and Agriculture in the later Suharto government. He was adviser to Presidents B J Habibie and Megawati Sukarnoputri. Such was his stature, the value of his advice, and diplomatic skills that he continued to serve the changes in government in Indonesia.
Following his ministerial career, Frans was appointed Ambassador to the Benelux countries as Indonesia’s chief representative to the European Union in Brussels. This placed him at the heart of Indonesia’s relationship with Europe and the emerging European Union.
On many occasions, I had the privilege of visiting Jakarta and meeting with Frans Seda in his office in Jakarta, with all the Northern Territory memorabilia he had collected over the years. He had great delight in showing me photographs of his meetings with heads of state in Europe during that time.
As well as the great contribution he made at the heart of government in Indonesia and representations overseas in Europe, he was a passionate advocate of the development of his home region, the eastern provinces of Indonesia. Through that passion he saw the benefit of an alliance with the Northern Territory. He was convinced this relationship would help the provinces grow and develop, and would provide long-term benefit to the Territory, as well.
In 1992, he began a 15-year relationship with the Northern Territory; and I pay tribute to former Chief Ministers, Steve Hatton, Marshall Perron, Shane Stone, and Clare Martin, for their work in developing a close, personal relationship with Frans, and in pursuing the mutual aspirations of a close relationship between us all. Every Chief Minister, including me, continues to develop that relationship with Indonesia. Frans Seda has been at the heart, the soul, the core of that relationship over the years, under all the previous Chief Ministers I have mentioned.
Frans was uniquely placed to make such a contribution and, for over a decade, was engaged as a Northern Territory representative in Jakarta. Frans Seda and his team was a dynamic trio, and included Dr Joseph Halim, and Budi Haliman. They not only worked hard, they worked smart in fostering links which continue to benefit today. They were a team. They were all fantastic - and still are - people and, as a team, did amazing things in developing that relationship. I send my condolences to Joseph and Budi as well.
For instance, Frans and his team focused on the live cattle trade, education and tourism, all of which continue to be strong elements in the current relationship within Indonesia. Frans was the man to open doors, and we could not have found a better advocate for the Territory. In fact, successive Commonwealth governments were always amazed at the level of access Northern Territory chief ministers and ministers had in Jakarta. It was a level of access which, quite often, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta could not provide. Frans was the man to open those doors.
He was involved in developing shipping routes, setting up primary industry programs, growing exports and imports, and promoting education and health interaction. During his time as the Northern Territory government’s representative in Indonesia, Frans attracted enormous respect from all sides of politics. In fact, Frans Seda was above politics. With the change of government in 2001, the relationship Frans had built up with CLP administrations continued with the new Labor government.
I recall being sworn in as the Labor government’s first Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, and one of the first congratulatory messages I received was a letter from Frans Seda. In October 2001, I conducted my first trip as Minister for Asian Relations and Trade to Indonesia, leading a Territory delegation to the Australia/Indonesia development area. I remember getting off the plane at Jakarta airport and the unique smell of clove cigarettes wafting through the corridors, and being greeted by Frans, Joseph and Budi; being ushered through Immigration and Customs, and being welcomed like an old family friend to Jakarta. It was certainly a very warm welcome and one I will never forget.
I made a number of trips in 2001 and, in January 2002, former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and I went to Indonesia and met with the then President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Frans was a senior economic adviser to President Megawati and we had a very relaxed, cordial, friendly meeting at the Indonesian palace in Jakarta, and Frans just breezed through the corridors, knew everyone and, obviously, was held in high respect.
Former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and I also met with the current President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, here in Darwin - I believe it was in 2005. Again, Frans facilitated that meeting, and the relationship with the Northern Territory and Indonesia continues to be very strong.
In subsequent travels, I met with many members of various governments and ministers and, at all times, Frans Seda was an important advisor to me; and not only to me but to other ministers here, ministers Kon Vatskalis, Chris Burns and other ministers. Whenever Northern Territory government ministers travelled to Indonesia, Frans was always there helping us have access to ministers in the Indonesian government to continue to build that relationship.
Frans retired from the position in 2007. His legacy has been a well-established set of networks we continue to use to develop our strong relationship. Frans’ efforts to promote the Territory and broader Australian trade and investment opportunities, and educational, sporting and cultural links, were rewarded with an Order of Australia in 1999. I know he was very proud to receive that order. Frans also made many friends during his very valuable time as our man in Indonesia, many of whom are here today.
As well as my own personal recollections, Frans was a very funny man. He always had a joke or two. One of the standing jokes: Frans was a fairly short man in stature and, me being very tall, he always ribbed me about our difference in height, and we had a lot of fun in that regard. He loved to talk about the history of Indonesia under various presidents, and his depth of knowledge was unsurpassed.
Frans Seda was a very devout Catholic, and he was the head of the Indonesian Catholic Party from 1961 to 1968. He was also the founder and Dean of the Economic Faculty of Atmajaya University between 1960 and 1964. He was much loved across all political parties, and very well respected in Indonesia.
Your Excellency, Frans Seda did so much to bring our people together, the people of the Northern Territory and the people of Indonesia, particularly the people of eastern Indonesia. We ask that you convey to His Excellency in Jakarta and the government, and to all Frans’ family and friends, our sincere thanks and appreciation for the wonderful contribution that Pak Frans made; the love many people in the Northern Territory have for a wonderful gentleman and human being; and our sincere condolences on his passing.
He led a remarkable life, and all of us in public life, wherever we may be and whichever country we may operate from, we do it because we want to make a difference. Pak Frans certainly made a difference. He was a wonderful man. He was a friend of mine, and I deeply mourn his passing. I extend my condolences to you and to the people of Indonesia.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Bapak Harbangan, and the staff of the Consul representing the Republic of Indonesia, selamat datang. Welcome to former Deputy Chief Minister and member for Blain, Mr Barry Coulter; Mr Rick Setter, the former member for Jingili, and guests who have come to be a part of this very special acknowledgement of a very special man.
The establishment of Asian Relations and Trade could not have occurred - the objective being trade - without a cornerstone, being relationship. This man was the neighbour, the building block upon which relationship could be built. It has often been said, if one is to look back on their life, what must be left behind? A legacy greater than one’s self.
This man, Frans Seda, has left a legacy. He has laid a cornerstone upon which relationship can be built. I direct members to what has been written about this man and to the words the Chief Minister used this morning to describe an extraordinary man, a man who is regarded as the gatekeeper. It is an extraordinary situation that this great nation of Australia, by no coincidence, is next door to Indonesia. It so happens between this nation and Indonesia the closest points are the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory.
Frans Seda had an illustrious career as a youth activist fighting for independence for Indonesia, having an extraordinary relationship with two ministers, providing leadership for his nation, having connections and that level of respect, and then having a career as a diplomat at the heart of the development, formation and strengthening of the nation of Indonesia in Europe, as an acknowledged economist steering Indonesia through the first economic crisis. He was credited as the one who had the capacity to manage, by his ability to negotiate, win trust and communicate, to steer the nation through a very important period in the formation of Indonesia.
He won that respect wherever he went as a writer, as a political leader, as a mentor to political leaders, both in this nation and in Indonesia, and as an entrepreneur. All this has been established. He then recognises having had that career, each part of which is sufficient to allow anyone to rest, he feels it necessary to do something extra special: to bring about a stronger connection between these neighbours - Australia and Indonesia - and, more specifically, between the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory.
It was recognised by Frans Seda, and recognised by political leaders in this parliament at the time, that there is something very special in building a relationship between Australia and Indonesia, between the eastern provinces and the Northern Territory, and that still exists today.
I acknowledge the foresight of Frans Seda in building on that idea. I acknowledge, too, the foresight of the former Chief Minister Steve Hatton, and Barry Coulter, to respond to that challenge, that vision, that opportunity to establish the relationship with Frans Seda upon which would be built an extraordinary relationship; for Marshall Perron to then form the very first ministry of Asian Relations and Trade on that cornerstone, with that gatekeeper, with the Northern Territory being the gateway to Asia. That is the idea. We had the best man to establish that and leave that legacy which led to the establishment of that first ministry with Shane Stone.
There is a legacy we must respond to, not just with words spoken here; it is still there and has been serviced as we have moved through. As the relationship between our two nations is maturing and developing, that which was established in the Northern Territory, in the eastern provinces, through the foresight, the leadership, the vision and the passion of certain individuals, the cornerstone being Frans Seda, we have an obligation to continue in the interest of two nations and the people of those great nations - Australia and Indonesia. The lines have fallen in very interesting places; we are placed in a very unique position, and we must continue to build upon this legacy.
On a personal note, I cannot say I have enjoyed a relationship with Frans Seda. I have had the opportunity to shake his hand on two occasions. There is a magic about the man. That magic is shown when you meet others who know him and share that same passion. Spending time over the Christmas and New Year period in Jakarta with Joseph Halim and hearing the stories, it excites you once again, and you recognise the value of the relationship which was established and the obligations we have to maintain and strengthen the relationship. We cannot neglect that.
At that time in Indonesia, over the New Year period, there was the passing of Gus Dur, and the nation paused, and about the same time the news came through that Frans Seda had passed, with regret. I was on a plane on my way to Bali and was unable to be at the funeral service, which was a very significant event for the people of Indonesia; a man of such great stature was recognised by the Indonesian nation.
I am very pleased to report that we were represented with personal condolences being passed directly to the family through Joseph Halim and Nicko Doriarto; the passing of messages from here which were circulated in the Northern Territory media to the family and, at that funeral service, we were represented by a former member of this Chamber, Mr Rick Setter. So there was that connection there. I am pleased to report that respect was there and that recognition was afforded from the people of the Northern Territory.
There has been a cornerstone laid, a gatekeeper has opened gates, relationships have been established and, in order to honour the memory of this great man, we must continue to develop our understanding of our neighbour, ensure wherever we can we advance and build upon this great legacy which has been established by the foresight of great men, particularly and principally by Frans Seda. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend my condolences to the family and friends of Frans Seda.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask members to observe one minute silence.
Thank you, honourable members. I thank all members for their contributions, and I invite guests here today to join members for morning tea in the main hall.
MOTION
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
No 2 of 2010 Relating to Freedom of Information Applications
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
No 2 of 2010 Relating to Freedom of Information Applications
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly disallows Subordinate Legislation No 2 of 2010 relating to costs of freedom of information applications.
The reason I move this disallowance motion is the instrument which has reached this House does not reflect the instrument we were promised by the Northern Territory government.
It is no small surprise I find myself on my feet today, when yesterday I heard the Chief Minister waxing lyrical and passionately about the openness of his government and what a wonderful job he had done, personally, to open up the government of the Northern Territory to scrutiny. Of course, he was responding to the arrangement between himself and Mr Wood. But, in the process of that, he started talking about whistleblowers legislation, freedom of information legislation, and those types of things.
I remind honourable members in August last year, the member for Drysdale, I believe it was, brought into this House an information amendment bill. In the process of that bill being defeated, the minister, feeling the pressure of the bill’s intent, decided and determined to defeat the bill and said: ‘No, we are not going to amend the freedom of information act. But, trust us, we will come in here and give you something that is better, brighter, and sparklier’.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the Attorney-General’s speech on 29 April 2009, where she was promising better, brighter and sparklier freedom of information legislation. She said:
- The second proposal contained in the bill is all fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived. As members are aware, this is within the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. So, while we agree with the intent of the member for Drysdale’s amendment, in this case the government will not go through the process in terms of developing a bill to enact this agreement.
That is fine. The fact is, there is now a reference to the agreement and, essentially, a promise that: ‘We will do this and we will do this better and cheaper, and we will find a way to ensure members of parliament who use FOI will not be charged for it.’ That is, essentially, the promise. The problem we have is this regulation does not reflect that promise.
For people unaware of how this process works, you pay $30 at the front gate, which gets you into the FOI process; you fill out a form: ‘I would like to see this piece of paper or that document over here’ and that costs $30, unless you are doing a personal search for yourself.
Then what happens is the report - or whatever you are looking for - is discovered and it is given to you. If you are lucky, all it is going to cost you is $30. However, if it is a complicated report, or if you are trying to track things like e-mails between ministers and staff, or other details of that nature, or it is a comprehensive FOI application which provides a great deal of information and takes time for public servants to pull the information, you are billed for it. Those bills can exceed $10 000 very quickly. Therefore, in this great new age of freedom of information, if you actually want to do a complicated freedom of information search, you are going to pay - and you are going to pay through the nose. You are going to pay thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. So much for freedom of information!
We rely on the promises made by the government when they come into this House and defeat bills and say: ‘We are going to make it bigger, brighter, and sparklier; we will make it free.’ However, what this instrument proposes will not make it free, and does not fulfil the promise made by the government and the Attorney-General last year. Essentially, the problem is outlined in section 5 of the regulatory instrument, which says:
- (2) A prescribed PSO may not charge an application fee as mentioned in subregulation (1) if :
What we were promised and what is actually being delivered are two different things. Bearing in mind what I have just described regarding the process, the $30 is waived – that is fine and good. Then, what is also waived is obtaining a report. If you want to know what the contents of a report are through freedom of information legislation, and they condescend to give it to you through that process, what happens is the public servant goes to the filing cabinet, pulls out the report, and then sends it to you, and they will not charge you for that. Well, essentially they do not charge you for that, now.
I table an example of the types of reports governments like to sit on: the review report of the NTFC intake service from June 2009. That is all you are going to get for free. So, it is not the promise made by the Attorney-General last year. All you are going to get for free is the public servant’s processing fee - that is your $30 fee up-front - and all you are going to get free is when someone grabs the report out of the filing cabinet. If, however, you want to discover what was in the contents of correspondence between a public servant and a minister, or between public servants, you will still have to pay for that; so the bills continue to pile up.
I have been present whilst we sought some information, not long ago, about the process of local government reform, and I believe the bill finally came to over $10 000 for the Leader of the Opposition’s office. What we ended up getting back were large sheets of paper with black ink all over them. So, you pay $10 000 for a product which is, essentially, valueless in terms of what you are seeking from it. That is very frustrating.
For that reason, we move this disallowance motion. It is for that reason we seek to have this disallowed, sent back to the drafter, and the promise of the Attorney-General to be fulfilled. It is for that reason we believe this is, once again, an exercise in freedom from information than freedom of information. What we see from this government in this instance is what we see so often - we see the contents of the media release and think: oh, that is fine - we see the contents of the promise, but when the actual does not meet the promise, then we find ourselves finally having to challenge this government and saying: ‘Keep your promises’. This is one of those instances.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour, because I have just been advised there is some other information I need to be aware of in relation this.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 16
Message No 16
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from his Honour the Administrator Message No 16 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act to amend the Mining Act; one of the purposes of which is to authorise the Territory to pay to the Commonwealth from public monies received by the Territory an amount for particular mineral royalty payments to be refunded by the Commonwealth.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PENALTIES) BILL
(Serial 95)
(Serial 95)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Justice Legislation (Penalties) Amendment Act 2009, the 2009 act, and to amend penalty provisions in most of the acts administered by the Department of Justice.
The 2009 act was assented to on 29 December 2009, but it has not commenced operation. Following the parliamentary debate of the 2009 act in October 2009, the Department of Justice had cause to review some of its provisions. The review resulted in the drafting of this present bill, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill 2010, which replaces the 2009 act with a new one.
The main difference between the two is the 2010 act limits increases in penalties to 15%. Members will recall in July 2009 the value of the penalty unit, under Northern Territory legislation, increased from $110 to $130 through the commencement of the Penalty Units Act 2009. This is an increase of approximately 18% from the time when the $110 figure was set in 2001.
It also provided for a formula whereby the penalty unit value would, by 1 July each year commencing 2010, automatically be increased to conform to any inflation over the 12 months ending the previous 31 December. The combined effect of converting penalties from dollar amounts to penalty units, and this formula, will ensure penalties in justice legislation remain in step with inflation and, in turn, retain their relevance and deterrent value.
The main purpose of this bill is to apply the generality of the increase in maximum penalties made by the Penalty Units Act 2009 to most other justice legislation. In due course, the remaining justice legislation, and other Northern Territory legislation, will be reformed so most penalties are expressed in penalty units.
In determining the increase in monetary penalties is limited to 15%, the government has chosen a conservative approach having regard to the fact some monetary penalties may have been set after 2001. The application of the 15% increase is also consistent with the cap of 15% on increases of fees in the Fees and Charges Amendment Regulations which came into force on 14 December 2009. It represents a rounded down equivalent of the CPI increase in the value of the penalty unit from 2001, when it was set at $110, to $130 set in 2009 by the Penalty Units Act 2009. Penalties set in 2001 which are presently expressed in dollar amounts will thus be increased by roughly the same amount as the increase in value of the penalty unit. This means penalties set prior to 2001 will not be indexed in the same way. However, government’s priority was to convert penalties into dollar amounts as quickly as possible in order to make the formula in the Penalties Unit Act 2009 effective across the statute book.
The line had to be drawn somewhere, and that was the preferred approach. The rationalisation of penalties originally set prior to 2001 could instead occur on a case by case basis with reference to government’s policy on penalties.
The apparently simple task of a 15% increase has the potential to produce some odd outcomes. To limit such outcomes, a number of rules have been developed. For penalties of a significant size the process is the current monetary penalty is increased by 15%. This amount is converted to the nearest whole number of penalty units, and the outcome is then rounded down to the nearest five penalty units.
Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied. First, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest whole penalty unit it was closest to, but not more than the 15% increased value; for example, the current penalty of $2000 increased by 15% to $2300 becomes 17 penalty units, that is $2210. See section 66 of the Co-operatives Act.
Second, where the rounding to the nearest whole number would result in an actually decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty unit; for example, the current penalty of $400 increased by 15% to $460, becomes 3.5 penalty units, that is $455. See section 18(4) of the Cullen Bay Marina Regulations.
Third, where the penalty rounded to the nearest 0.5 of a penalty unit would result in actual decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the nearest one tenth of a penalty unit, but greater than 0.5 penalty unit; for example, the current penalty of $100 increased by 15%, $115, becomes 0.8 of a penalty unit, $104. See section 43(2)(c) of the Justices Act.
Apart from the application of a 15% increase, this bill is different to the 2009 act in the following ways:
- (a) excluding from amendment penalties where the rounding down process would result in a penalty unit lower than the 0.5 penalty units because the dollar value was so low. The penalty provision will still be amended to include ‘maximum penalty’, unless it is not necessary to provide the provision in this bill because it already contains that expression. After the passage of this bill, these penalties will remain unchanged. For example, a penalty of $4 will remain $4, rather than become 0.03 units.
(b) making some statute law corrections to language as recommended by Parliamentary Counsel. For example, inserting the words ‘maximum penalty’ into further provisions, including penalties at the end of each subsection, and deleting penalties mentioned in the forms in the Prostitution Regulations.
An important exception to the 15% increase is with respect to the offence of perverting the course of justice. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory brought to my attention that the penalty for perverting the course of justice and conspiring to pervert the course of justice, in section 109 and 286 of the Criminal Code, were very low, and pointed out that it did not match the seriousness of some of the cases which had been before the court. Therefore, the penalty for that offence was amended from two years to 15 years imprisonment for section 109, and seven years to 15 years imprisonment for section 286 of the Criminal Code. No other imprisonment terms have been changed by this bill.
This bill provides for the conversion of penalties expressed in dollar amounts to penalty units for some 69 Department of Justice acts and regulations. The balance of the department’s legislation is expected to be reviewed by the end of 2010. The balance of the legislation of the Northern Territory across all government agencies is expected to be reviewed by 2013. The offences in the Summary Offences Act will be dealt with as part of a review of all the provisions of that act.
This change of approach to bring in penalty units brings with it its own problems. For example, it does not fix up differentials across the statute book concerning like offences. The differences are maintained until such time as each offence can be individually reviewed.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Charles Darwin University from the following countries: Burma, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Germany, Pakistan, Somalia, Cambodia, and the Congo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our guests.
Members: Hear, hear!
COMPANIES (TRUSTEES AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES) (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 92)
(Serial 92)
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act, following the passing by the Commonwealth parliament of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Act 2009. The bill repeals provisions dealing with: licensing and reporting requirements; fees that may be charged; duties of officers and employees; restrictions on ownership and control; minimum capital requirements, and common funds. The bill inserts savings, transitional and other provisions as well as provisions, including exemption from Territory tax, dealing with ‘compulsory transfer determinations’ made by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) under Division 2 of part 5D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Traditionally, only a natural person could discharge the role of a personal trustee. Trustees owe judiciary duties in respect of the assets they administer, and can be personally liable for default. For this reason, a body corporate having limited liability, could not act as a personal trustee. In the 1890s and the early 1900s, the South Australian parliament, and other Australian parliaments, enacted legislation committing the establishment of trustee companies to provide an alternative to natural person trustees. Like the other jurisdictions, the South Australian legislation took the former private acts, which permitted named companies to provide executor and trustee services. Three such acts were enacted, and any other company wishing to provide such services would have had to convince the relevant legislature to pass another private act.
In 1981, the Northern Territory passed the Companies (Trustees and Personal Representatives) Act. The act repealed the three South Australian private acts in their ongoing operation in the Territory, and provided for any company to apply to the minister to be authorised to operate as a trustee company providing executor and trustee services. Four companies are currently authorised to operate as trustee companies under the act.
Part III of the act also introduced what appear to be unique provisions in Australia allowing for virtually any company to be an executor of a will. The reasons for the inclusion of these provisions is not clear, although the Parliamentary Record of debates on the bill of 22 November 1978 and 26 February 1981 suggested it was to overcome a problem ‘chasing executives who have left the Territory’ and perhaps to allow a ‘family company’ to be an executor. Anecdotally, it appears these provisions have rarely been utilised.
In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed that the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies. In October 2009, the Commonwealth parliament passed the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Act of 2009 which provides that ASIC will be the single licensing and regulation authority for trustee companies in Australia. Having a single licensing and regulation authority will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden on trustee companies, remove barriers to entry, and improve competition in the trustee company market. There will be a single set of requirements dealing with conduct, disclosure, advice, dispute resolution, and compensation for consumers.
States and territories will amend their respective legislation to recognise the ASIC licensed trustee companies in their legislation dealing with those companies’ rights to act as executors and trustees. Effectively, each state and territory will need to amend their relevant legislation to remove all provisions dealing with licensing and regulation of trustee companies, leaving those provisions which allow a licensed company to act as a trustee, be appointed as executor, apply for administration, act under a power of attorney, etcetera – the latter matters being state/territory responsibilities.
The Commonwealth has identified that state and territories legislation will also have to make provision for the transport of a trustee company’s business to another licensed trustee if its trustee company licence is cancelled. This will require an exemption from the state/territory tax of the transfer of trust assets in these circumstances. As the Commonwealth act will not - unlike current Part III of the act - allow any company other than a licensed trustee company to be an executor of a will, a savings provision is included to deal with any estates currently being administered by such a non-licensed company.
As I mentioned earlier, the enactment of the Commonwealth act and the amendment of the act is in line with COAG agreements. All states and territories will be amending their respective legislation similarly.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
On 15 February this year, I announced a major, new initiative in the fight against alcohol-fuelled violence in our community. That package mooted this bill and a substantial new effort to communicate with young people about these issues. Fifty-nine percent of all assaults in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. Attendances at hospital emergency departments rise on Friday and Saturday nights. Most people want to have an enjoyable social experience when using the services and facilities available from the hospitality industry, and we want to ensure they can do this.
This government is determined to follow two basic policy pathways. The first is about eliminating people who cannot behave themselves from licensed premises and the precincts in which they operate. This will enable people to go out, enjoy themselves over a few drinks with their mates and have a good time without being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence and unacceptable behaviour.
The second is a concerted attempt to change the way young people think about this type of behaviour and violence.
Continual media reports clearly demonstrate the cost of alcohol-fuelled violence to our friends, family and community. Fights, glassings and attacks of all kinds are a blight on our community and are unacceptable. The government is pleased to be working hand–in-glove with the Australian Hotels Association, clubsNT and the Northern Territory News to deliver this message.
This bill delivers substantial new powers to the police, the liquor regulators and licensees. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act to assist licensees, police, liquor regulators and the courts in the reduction of antisocial behaviour associated with licensed premises and the consumption of alcohol. The amendments fall into five main categories.
First, section 121 of the act is amended so is to permit police officers to remove intoxicated, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly persons from licensed premises without request from the licensee. This overcomes what would appear to be a technical oversight in the current wording of this section. Section 121 is also amended to make it clear that a member of an association can be removed from licensed premises under this section, even if the association is the licence holder.
A new section 121A is inserted. This makes it an offence for a person who has been removed from licensed premises under section 121 to re-enter, or attempt to re-enter, the premises within 12 hours of being removed. The regulations are amended to provide for the issuing of an infringement notice to a person who fails to leave premises when requested to do so under section 121, or who enters or attempts to re-enter premises after being removed.
The government’s clear intent is to ensure the police, liquor regulator and licensee have an unambiguous and unfettered right to remove and ban people who do not behave in an acceptable way from licensed premises.
The second category of amendments relate to false identifications. Ever since the liquor industry has existed, young people have sought its services and products. But it is very important that minors do not consume alcohol without the guiding hand of their parents. From time to time, minors seek to enter licensed premises. These amendments make it clear that they risk prosecution in doing so. Furthermore, those who aid them, by providing false ID, face the same risks.
Currently, under section 106BA of the act, it is an offence where a person who has not attained the age of 18 misrepresents their age in order to access licensed premises, either by spoken statements or by presented written Identification which is fictitious, false, or relates to some other person. However, there is no current power for a licensing inspector, licensee or private security officer acting on behalf of the licensee to retain or confiscate any suspected false identification. As such, in the event that the identification is returned to the presenter, they may then attempt to use it at other premises, or even destroy the identification, making any prosecution difficult. Most other states and territories of Australia allow for the seizure and retention of any documentation suspected of being false.
These and related issues are dealt with in proposed new sections 106BB to 106BD. Proposed new section 106BB provides for it to be an offence for a person to assist a person under the age of 18-years to obtain a false identification for the purpose of entering licensed premises. It is also an offence to misrepresent to an agency, for example, the Motor Vehicle Registry, a person is over 18-years old to obtain a false identification for the purpose of a person under the age of 18 to enter licensed premises.
Proposed new section 106BC makes it an offence to lend someone a genuine identification for the purposes of the other person, being under 18, entering licensed premises, or to deface a genuine identification so as to misrepresent the age of a person under 18.
Proposed new section 106BD provides suspected fake identification can be seized by licensees, inspectors, security, or police officers. Seized identification must be handed to the Director of Licensing within 72 hours. There are provisions dealing with the return of legitimate identification that may have been seized under these provisions.
The third category of amendments deals with liquor accords. Liquor accords are where one or more licensees work together with each other, and community stakeholders, to affect the supply of liquor, trading hours, or other aspects of the management and conduct of the business at the premises. These activities are undertaken in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related violence, antisocial behaviour, or other alcohol-related harm. In essence, accords see licensees actively taking some responsibility for the harm that comes from the sale of their products, and sees them working collaboratively with police and other stakeholders to address the issues.
Such arrangements between licensees, even with the aim of reducing harm from alcohol, have been viewed as anti-competitive behaviour under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974 by the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission. As a result, most licensees are unwilling to participate in accords for fear of breaching the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Section 51 of the Trade Practices Act provides for state or territory legislation to specifically authorise behaviour that would otherwise breach the anti-competitive behaviour provisions of that act. Proposed new Part XA of the Liquor Act provides for liquor accords and for their authorisation for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act.
The fourth category of amendments deals with banning notices and exclusion orders which are set out in the proposed new Part XAB of the act. These amendments are based on similar provisions in the Victorian Liquor Control Reform Act. Under these provisions, the minister may declare an area to be a ‘designated area’. Police are then able to ban individuals who commit specified offences from the licensed premises in that designated area, or the entire designated area, for up to 48 hours. The offences specified in the bill include both violent and some social disorder offences. Specified offences may also be provided for in the regulations.
The courts will also have powers to exclude certain individuals for up to one year, including anyone found guilty of a specified offence within a designated area. There are various appeal provisions, and also protections for persons who live or work in designated areas. The Commissioner of Police is to report, on an annual basis, to the minister for Police on the operation of these provisions, including the provision of statistical information.
The fifth category of amendment is to section 75 of the act. Section 74 of the act permits the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to declare areas of land to be a ‘general restricted area’. There are approximately 100 general restricted areas located in predominantly Indigenous communities. Section 75 (1) makes it an offence for a person to bring, possess, control, consume, sell or otherwise dispose of liquor in a general restricted area. However, it is relatively common for there to be licensed premises within a general restricted area; examples include recreation clubs, dining messes and canteens.
Currently, the issuing of a licence within a general restricted area involves a time consuming administrative process to exclude the licensed premises from the general restricted area boundaries, otherwise the offence provisions of Section 75 would still apply. This process can cause significant inconvenience and delay to licence holders with no perceivable benefit.
Section 75 is proposed to be amended by providing for it to be a defence to prosecution for a breach of the section if the behaviour complained of was done in accordance with a license issued under the act. This will alleviate the need to amend the general restricted area boundaries when a licence is issued or amended. This will avoid considerable administrative inconvenience and delay in issuing or amending licences in general restricted areas, and assist in the administration and management of general restricted areas.
Other amendments of a statute law revision nature as identified by Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Justice have been made.
The opportunity has also been taken to change the prescribed penalty for an infringement notice from $100 to one penalty unit, currently $130.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
RAIL SAFETY BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the Rail Safety Bill (Serial 79) on. This bill is part of a long story of harmonisation of rail safety laws pursued by the Howard government in COAG since 2004.
The Howard government, through its long tenure, went through many reforms and different approaches to the national interest. One of those interests was the introduction of the GST, which brought a wealth of gold to the Northern Territory, and has been squandered for many years.
It would be remiss of me not to mention particular failures of this Northern Territory government in following the harmonisation process or the reform of the agenda of the Howard government, particularly in regard to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, a program, in particular, which brought rivers of gold to the Northern Territory for the purpose of building housing for Territorians, particularly in the bush. Unfortunately, the government has failed reprehensively in regard to following the interests of the Howard government and the agenda they set; and this can be seen across a broad range of areas.
The interstate rail sector dislikes having to deal with seven different rail regulators. The Productivity Commission in its draft research report entitled the Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Social and Economic Infrastructure Services dated June 2009, page 245, cites the cost of multiple rail safety regulators as $42m per year. This is a cost on a sector which is already struggling to become competitive with road freight. Hence, the Howard government, in its tenure, developed a model law now termed the Model Consolidated Rail Safety Bill 2007. As part of the harmonisation process, COAG, on 7 December 2009 agreed to the establishment of a National Rail Safety Regulator. As part of the Transport Regulations, I will quote:
- COAG has taken several further steps towards a truly national transport system that will reduce transport costs and help lift national productivity without compromising safety.
They went on to say:
- COAG agreed that South Australia will host a national rail safety regulator. This follows COAG’s agreement in July that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will be the national regulator for maritime safety. It will continue to be headquartered in Canberra.
The Country Liberals will not be standing in the way of the government moving forward with this Rail Safety Bill as it does bring about uniform legislation. I note this bill is almost a duplicate of the South Australian legislation, which does not surprise me considering the member for Barkly is a minister, that it is copied straight from the South Australia legislation.
In particular, it is interesting to see in the bill to be passed today we have included monorails in the Northern Territory. That is probably a direct copy of South Australian legislation. I am not sure if there are any monorails in the Territory, but I look forward to the day there is, and it will be a great tourist attraction. However, I believe that is just a component of the nationalisation process of the regulatory reform.
Speaking on this, it is important to contextualise the current debate about nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, because I believe this is going to have an impact on the rail safety network. I understand several years ago a review was conducted by the Northern Territory government, the results of which have not been made public, about the transportation of hazardous materials. I call on the government to release that report so we can see exactly what is in it, and what the risks are for the Northern Territory, and the residents of the Northern Territory.
We have recently heard that legislation has been repealed for the storage of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. However, new legislation has been introduced which would appear to override current Northern Territory legislation; so rail safety and the transportation of hazardous materials is important and we need to know where that waste will be coming from. Will it be coming from South Australia? Will it be coming across the sinking Darwin port? Will it be travelling across the rail in the Northern Territory to get to Muckaty Station? These are important questions and it is important to release the transportation of hazardous materials report so we are better informed as legislators, and the community is informed of exactly where we are heading with that nuclear waste.
The debate that is happening federally, or the fight between Labor and Labor where we have the Chief Minister beating his breast and not wanting nuclear waste in the Northern Territory - after he has had a recent meeting with the federal Resources minister, Martin Ferguson; the President of the ALP in the Northern Territory, Senator Trish Crossin, has supported the new legislation; the member for Lingiari has been very silent on this matter after campaigning heavily in 2004 and 2007; and the member for Solomon, Damian Hale – well, I cannot repeat his comments for fear of having to withdraw my comments. However, we need to ensure there is appropriate protection in place in the Northern Territory for the transportation of this hazardous material, and this bill does not go into that area.
I would like the government to release that report on the transportation of hazardous material so we know how much low, medium and high level radiation will be coming across the sinking Darwin port and moving through the areas of Darwin, Palmerston and the future Weddell. What will be the impact of hazardous materials going through Katherine and down to Muckaty Station? Also, from the other direction, if it comes up from South Australia from Port Augusta, coming through the Territory, through Alice Springs, right through the middle of our town - what protections do we have in place?
I am not speaking against or for nuclear waste, or against or for uranium oxide or copper concentrate, what I am talking about is making sure we have the appropriate legislation and safety regulations in place to protect the environment and the Territory from any potential disaster. We have seen many disasters over a number of years in the Northern Territory regarding hazardous spills, and there has not been a 100% response to those spills ensuring adequate community safety. This legislation does not cover that.
I would like the minister to respond by confirming that he will release the report into the transport of hazardous materials in the Northern Territory so the public can be fully aware. I would like him to talk about the impact Labor’s nuclear waste dump will have on the Northern Territory with regard to rail safety and the regulations. I would like the minister to explain the core competencies rail safety workers will have in responding to hazardous material emergencies; in particular, how they would respond to nuclear waste emergencies because, let us not forget, it is Labor who is bringing in the nuclear waste. It is Labor who is transporting nuclear waste through the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston, Weddell, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. It is Labor that does not have any principles or backbone, unlike this side, where we say what we think and we abide by our principles and follow them through. We do not run election campaigns for political populist support; we do not support it one day, and not support it another day.
We saw in the federal election in 2007, the Territory government spend millions of taxpayers’ dollars campaigning against this; we saw the federal Labor candidates campaigning against it; and now we see they have rolled over and been tickled on the belly, or tickled somewhere else according to the member for Solomon, in his language.
I would like the minister to come out and talk about nuclear waste. I heard him say that he does not support it; I believe it was on Tuesday he said as the member for Barkly, he does not support it. Once again, this a Labor Party that follows the line of do as I say, not as I do, because what they say can be one thing, but what they actually do is another. The flip-flopping approach on this nuclear waste is just another example of how the Northern Territory government has lost the hearts and minds of Territorians, because nobody can trust them.
I am going to stand aside and let this legislation go through. We are putting trust in the Northern Territory government, not necessarily because the Northern Territory government have any runs on the board for getting things right. You only have to look at the 35 kids at Hermannsburg School who turned up and had no classroom. You only have to look at the bridge at Palumpa, the minister for Construction does not know where the bridge is; but he is in control.
We are putting faith in the Howard government reforms, the Howard government was supported by a party that basis its decisions on principles and stick by their principles, and do not flip. And we can hear the nodding dogs in the corner over here laughing away quite jovially, perhaps he would like to tell the constituents in his electorate in Palumpa, who have not had their bridge built and kids are still swimming across the river, avoiding the crocodiles.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: It is quite interesting, because the construction of the bridge at Palumpa was transferred to SIHIP - transferred to be managed by SIHIP. Now, if ever something got a bullet, it was the bridge at Palumpa. What was worse was that the member for Daly was the minister at the time; in his own electorate he could not build a bridge. How can you trust the transportation of Labor’s nuclear waste over rail and over a sinking port? How can you trust them? What have they got right? I asked my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, what have they got right? It is not education, I can tell you that. It is not housing - it is not SIHIP housing. They have not got FACS right.
I am listening in silence trying to hear something they got right. The funny thing is, even the government has not yelled out anything they have got right! I was a little worried my colleagues had not said anything, but I am more concerned that the government sat there silent. They know they have done nothing right. The passing of the Rail Safety Bill 2009 Serial 79 – it gives me confidence the Howard government put it in the national reform agenda, but it does not give me confidence in these goons.
When I go back to Alice Springs, to the seat of Braitling, and talk to my constituents and they ask me: ‘How safe is it going to be for Labor’s nuclear waste coming through the town?’ I will tell them I am not really sure; the Howard government introduced reform, but Labor is running it. We know the litany of failures by Labor.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr GILES: It is hard to hear myself think when the nodding dog over there is chirping away.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr GILES: If CLP Air was operating, I would not have this man running it; the planes would fall out of the sky. It reminds me of the Wicking cartoon a week or so ago about Jetstar flights being grounded. What did the Wicking cartoon say? ‘Do not tell me Rob Knight is in charge again’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, I remind you this is a bill about rail safety; if you could address the legislation please.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is an interesting interjection, but the reality is he is talking about rail safety and the people who are going to be charged with maintaining safety; he is giving examples of their failure in a range of other areas.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you will have an opportunity.
Member for Braitling, if you could remember Standing Order 67; it is a bill, which is used for interpretation.
Mr GILES: It is important to talk about air when it comes to this matter, because the transportation of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory is presumed to come by rail, but the Northern Territory currently has legislation which says it cannot be transported in that way; so the only way it can get here is by air. We hope it is not coming on Jetstar or CLP Air, managed by the member for Daly. It is important to talk about air services because, at the moment, it looks like it might be coming by air. Then again, federal Labor, the president of the ALP in the Northern Territory, Senator Trish Crossin, has just supported nuclear waste for the Northern Territory; rolled over and tickled on the belly to bring nuclear waste.
It is Labor’s nuclear waste; everyone knows where we stand, because we have principles. We put our line in the sand and say that is where we stand. They know where we stand.
The Chief Minister likes to get into the media and say: ‘It is a CLP problem. It is not our problem.’ As I said yesterday, we have popcorn, and we are sitting on the sidelines watching this movie unfold. I would like to see a bit of a rumble in the jungle, to be honest. I would like to see the Chief Minister and Martin Ferguson get down and dirty, or the Chief Minister and Trish Crossin get down and dirty, and really fight this one out; because we will be sitting on the sidelines. They try to draw us into this argument, but it is not our argument. Nuclear waste will be coming across the sinking Darwin port and by rail in the Northern Territory on its way to Muckaty Station, if Labor gets its way. If Labor gets its way, Labor’s nuclear waste will be coming by rail right through Alice Springs, or right through Darwin and Palmerston.
There is nothing in this legislation that talks about the safety of people, the safety of Territorians, when it comes to nuclear waste. I know that nuclear waste, and uranium, if you want to put the two in the same basket, have a large number of safety regulations and safety mechanisms in place, and that is very positive. But when the Northern Territory government commissions a report about the transportation of hazardous materials in the Northern Territory and does not release the report, that is keeping us blind and in the dark. We, on this side of the Chamber and other Territorians, are mushrooms, and these are the guys feeding us in the dark. This is what we are being fed - Labor lies; Labor no principles.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows he cannot accuse us of lies unless by substantive motion.
Mr GILES: I did not accuse you of telling lies.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Braitling did not mention any individual whatsoever. He talked about Labor.
Dr Burns: There has been a ruling on that before.
Mr TOLLNER: You can make up rulings as you see them, but the reality is he was not talking about an individual. He was talking about Labor.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Member for Braitling, were you referring to the government?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I believe I said ‘Labor lies’.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you referring to the government?
Mr GILES: I am referring to Labor, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you referring to the government, member for Braitling?
Mr GILES: Yes, the Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Then I ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr GILES: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GILES: The Labor Party lies, Madam Speaker. It is the Labor Party that is bringing nuclear waste to the Northern Territory; it is the Labor Party which has gone against its words; it is the Labor Party which is putting Territorians at risk by not producing reports to show what the impacts of transportation of hazardous materials are. It is the Labor Party, through the Northern Territory Labor government, that has made allowances for drink-driving at 0.02% for people involved in the rail sector industry; it is the Labor Party and the Labor government which has introduced legislation about monorails in the Northern Territory. I cannot imagine them building a monorail when they cannot build a bridge at Palumpa.
But, as I said, we will not be standing in the way of this legislation because this is coalition legislation, and there is one thing about coalition legislation reform - you can trust it - you can trust the Liberals. You can not trust Labor. You can not trust Labor’s nuclear waste dump; you cannot trust Labor to build a house; you cannot trust Labor to build a school; you cannot trust Labor to protect children.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, originally, I was not going to speak on this bill, because I believe it is quite straightforward; but there are some issues the member for Braitling raised which I believe need some clarification.
I say to everyone in this House, before you start talking about nuclear waste visit Lucas Heights Research Station and then you can talk from an educated point of view about what the waste actually is; then you will know that it is not quite what many people claim it to be.
We do have national standards for the transportation of radioactive material. People should know there is a flight once a week from Sydney to Darwin with a small esky full of meridium, which is a radioactive isotope - far more hazardous, in theory or in practice, than the low-level active waste in Lucas Heights.
So, there are transport guidelines which are adhered to. The member for Goyder would know that there are isotopes moved around in the mining industry, and they are transported safely because there are strict guidelines which are not only national standards but, as far as I know, international standards.
Can some one tell me the last time they heard of a radioactive waste transport issue in relation to that type of material being carried on the sea? You will really be pushing hard to find it, because the control over movement of those types of materials are strict, and they should be strict.
We also carry many hazardous materials on trains; trains carry petrol and diesel, the same types of material you see on the road are carried by rail, and they have to have strict guidelines. So, if we concentrate just on the waste from Lucas Heights that might travel on our railway, I suggest we also look carefully at what hazardous materials, which might be far more dangerous, that travel through our towns. If we happen to have a train full of petrol going past Weddell or Palmerston, does anyone make any noise over it? Yet, if it all went up, half of Palmerston would disappear. But we have rules and regulations on the way materials are carried whether it is on rail or by road.
I believe you have to step back from much of this debate on the Muckaty issue and other issues in the Chamber at the present time. Whether the Australian nuclear waste site is at Muckaty or some other site, if you are talking about the transportation of radioactive material, we do have strict guidelines in relation to that; you can look them up on the website. No one would want any hazardous material carried around Australia unless there were guidelines and regulations in force to ensure it was safe. Radioactive waste is not the only material we carry on our rail.
Once again I say: please go to Lucas Heights. It was the Howard government that set up the new Lucas Heights Research Station. I visited the research station in its previous form, and I went to the opening of the new research station. I believe it is one of the greatest contributions to science Australia has ever made. It is one of our largest research stations; it deals with very important issues; it deals with what we call molecular science. What happens in this debate, we wrap it all into radioactive/nuclear and that makes people: ooh, ooh, scary, scary, when we are actually studying molecules, studying materials, isotopes, and those types of things.
We do get waste out of a place like Lucas Heights, and we will get a small amount of intermediate waste coming back from France - grams. The member for Braitling mentioned high level. We will not get high level from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor; there will be a small amount of plutonium, in grams, which will be encased in glass. If you want to find out more about what that material is made of, it is …
Mr Tollner: Synroc.
Mr WOOD: In this case, I do not think it is synroc that is coming back from France, but it is practically indestructible, and it will be brought by sea. It can be dropped, it can be belted, but it is stable because it is solid. People also forget the low-level radioactive waste material from Lucas Heights does not have any liquid - it is solid waste. All the liquid is taken out of it - it is compressed and compressed - and that is the way it is stored.
I do not want to get into the nuclear waste debate at the present time; it is just that the member for Braitling raised it in relation to rail safety. Whilst that is important, some of the comments he made might actually scare people, and scaring is not good for the debate because you need to look at the science, what is being transported, and what the regulations are. If this debate is not looked at in totality, then the wrong message is sent. That has been one of the biggest problems with the whole debate about nuclear material - whether it is nuclear power, nuclear waste, or whatever.
The area I want to speak on is developing uniform legislation on rail safety, and that is fine. I believe we should put more effort into finding out why we cannot get uniform railway lines built. I travelled from Melbourne to Mt Isa recently by rail. You go from Melbourne to Brisbane on the standard gauge, and, then from Brisbane to Townsville and from Townsville to Mt Isa on the wobbly narrow gauge. In the Territory, we are looking at developing a phosphate industry in the Barkly, and there has been talk about whether we should join Tennant Creek up with Mt Isa. That is fine, but what is the point? At Mt Isa there is a different size railway line.
While we are promoting the idea we should have uniform rail safety regulations, which is very good, that should be going hand-in-hand with having a uniform rail gauge around Australia. Rail is a great form of transportation, especially for heavy industry, and it takes many materials off our roads which, in many cases, cause a lot of wear and tear to our roads. If anyone has been across the Barkly recently, they will know that the first 40 km when you cross the Territory border is still suffering from severe road damage caused by, I understand, extremely cold weather plus very heavy mining equipment that went across at the same time.
It would be great if we could use rail to cart some of that heavy equipment and take it off our roads. However, you cannot do it if rail gauges change from Queensland to the Northern Territory. I make the point; it is fine to have a uniform legislation. The Territory is part of Australia and we need that type of legislation and we are moving that way in many things; trains travel from South Australia to the Territory, and what is the point in having a different set of rules once you cross the border? It is like having different rules for crocodiles; a crocodile does not know it has crossed the border either, but we have not sorted that out yet.
When it comes to trains travelling across borders, having similar legislation makes a great deal of sense. Until we get a system where our main interstate rail connections are all on the same gauge - I believe the main area is the differences between New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland - once that is connected the whole idea of uniformity in regulations makes much more sense and is also beneficial to economy of Australia. And it is the same with uniform legislation, which is also beneficial.
If we are to develop industries in the Northern Territory, like the phosphate industry on the Barkly then, as well as promoting uniform legislation, we should also promote a uniform rail gauge so we can move materials, and people and cattle across this country, which would be great for the economy.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the bill, despite the empty vessel contribution from the member for Braitling. This legislation is about harmonising rail safety regulation across the jurisdictions and it is an initiative supported by industry that commonly works across borders, and it delivers on a COAG commitment under the National Partnership Agreement for a seamless national economy.
The National Transport Commission developed the model legislation in consultation with the jurisdictions and industry, and it was subsequently approved by the Australian Transport Council. The focus of the legislation harmonises accreditation procedures and administration, rail risk, and safety measures. It is a practical step towards aligning regulatory practice and the different arrangements that currently exist in the states and territories.
Harmonisation of accreditation and regulation will reduce cost for Territory businesses, in particular, and will reduce red tape for the operators who work across the Territory and South Australia. For example, with these changes, we will be able to consider interstate gained accreditation when assessing applicants locally.
The model provisions within this bill have been applied following consultation with the industry as to what works best in the Territory context. We have chosen to more closely align our legislation with South Australia, given our rail system links to South Australia. Like South Australia, we have chosen to depart from the model provisions by allowing an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator. This takes into account the challenges in a small jurisdiction in resourcing what can be complicated investigations in the case of rail accidents. This bill also strengthens auditing of railway operations and provides a wider range of sanctions for safety breaches.
While we have had two major level crossing accidents since 2006, we have been fortunate that no one was killed in either incident. One involved The Ghan, and the other a freight train. Both led to convictions against motor vehicle drivers for multiple traffic offences. I well remember, as the former Transport minister, heading out to the horrific site of The Ghan derailing, viewing the wreckage and being amazed there were no fatalities. The structure of The Ghan itself was sound; if it had been a lesser train, it would have torn apart and cost lives. The Ghan structure itself saved lives in that horrendous derailment.
We responded with a package of measures to address railway crossing safety, including education, sanctions, increased enforcement, assessment, and industry awareness, and I want to take the opportunity to thank the Australian Trucking Association, who worked hand-in-hand with the government at the time to respond to this blitz to bring about a greater awareness of level crossings.
Extra advertising was put in place focusing on the themes: always expect a train at a level crossing; and Stop, Look, Listen, Think, when approaching a level crossing. We increased fines for non-compliance with traffic signals at level crossings, and applied demerit points. Interestingly, people have been seen driving around boom gates to get across a level crossing, despite the boom gates being down and the warning signals flashing.
Police continue their increased enforcement activities at level crossings, and we assessed all rail level crossings across the Territory - 61 public crossings, and 161 occupational crossings. The assessment process was rigorous using the nationally agreed ALCAM model and, at the time, the Territory was the only jurisdiction to have assessed all its level crossings using the nationally agreed ALCAM model. The model considers a large number of variables, including up to 12 different site distances, speed of train, and number of vehicles using the level crossing etcetera to assign a risk score to the level crossing which is used to consider whether the crossing requires modification.
The NT Level Crossing Assessment Team included FreightLink, the AustralAsian Railway Corporation and the Australian Trucking Association of the NT. While all our crossings complied with Australian standards, we identified safety improvements which could be made, and delivered a $6.4m two-year package to upgrade these crossings. These works will be complete this financial year.
The upgrades will include more crossing signals, boom gates, bells, advance warning signs, and vegetation management. The Federal government stimulus program announced last year included a boom gates for rail crossings initiative which provided a further $2.52m to the Territory.
The empty vessel member for Braitling might be interested to know, because he likes to think nothing happens anywhere under this government, that of the 12 crossings identified for safety upgrades, five were located in the Alice Springs region.
I will go through some of the safety upgrades. The Ilparpa Road level crossing has been upgraded from a passive crossing - signs only - to active crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. The Bradshaw Drive level crossing infrastructure has been upgraded and boom gates have been added. Works in the Top End have commenced with several sites being completed, while the remaining sites have works well advanced. The Elizabeth River boat ramp level crossing has been upgraded from a passive crossing - signs only - to an active crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. The Leonino Road level crossing has been upgraded to an active level crossing comprising lights, bells and boom gates. Both those level crossings are the first in the Territory where axle counting technology has been used. This technology uses axle counters instead of traditionally used track circuits to detect the movement of trains. Axle counting technology had not been applied to level crossing protection in Australia until very recently. Apart from the two Territory crossings, there are two crossings in Victoria, and two in South Australia using this technology, with another five to follow.
Works have also commenced to establish active advance warning signs on Wishart Road, Cox Peninsula Road and Kakadu Highway. In order to maximise the benefit of available funding sources, one project from the Territory program has been moved to the federal program. This is on the basis that other level crossing works have brought forward on the Territory program to take advantage of the available stimulus funding.
The level crossings to be upgraded by the federal program are Larapinta Drive, Lovegrove Drive and Espie Street, all in Alice Springs. The crossing at Larapinta Drive will be the first in the Territory to be equipped with quadrant boom gates. Works have commenced at the three sites, and are expected to be completed at the end of next month.
The empty vessel opposite would think nothing happens anywhere, ever. Facts tell us otherwise.
There are increased safety obligations where rail transport operators are required to have specific safety plans in place to deal with emergencies, rail safety worker fatigue, and other issues. These obligations are consistent with the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The bill also provides the Workplace Health and Safety Act will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency to ensure any breaches of safety are not prosecuted twice under both acts.
The railway has a role in transporting dangerous goods, and the legislative regulation of dangerous goods transportation is also in the process of being harmonised with other states. We are drafting new legislation which will synchronise the requirements for the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail into one set of regulations, making allowance for the variation in roles and responsibilities. With the adoption of that legislation later this year, the Territory will align with the current best practice in Australia and overseas. The objective is to reduce the regulatory constraints on industry engaged in the transport of dangerous goods, thereby improving efficiency and reducing costs.
I know the work that is gone into the development of this harmonised approach to the Rail Safety Legislation. An enormous effort has been undertaken by all the states and territories working through the National Transport Commission in developing the model legislation; extensive consultations have occurred; transport ministers at the Australian Transport Council have turned their minds to this time and time again. It is interesting the member opposite said they are only supporting this because it was a John Howard initiative. I can say genuinely, having been a member of the Australian Transport Council under the former government, and a member of the Australian Transport Council under the current federal government - what a world of difference that change in federal government made. The clogged wheels of a tired Howard do-not-care, lets-go-in-have-a-fight-with-states government were removed. Instead, federal minister Albanese came in, rolled up his sleeves and got stuck into the work required to get the national reforms up and happening.
Previously, it was just a sit down and let us see which state or territory the federal government can have a bit of a biffo over; so everyone kept walking away from collaborative reforms because they turned into bunfight after bunfight. It got to the stage at the ATC, where you wondered how many years it was going to take good reforms to get through because of the bogged down in-fighting the federal government caused in their attitude towards the states and territories.
It was a breath of fresh air attending the ATC, when minister Albanese was heading it. Finally, there was a cooperative approach where the federal government genuinely knew they needed to work cooperatively with the states and territories, regardless of political colours, to get these important national reforms through. I really felt for the officers who had been on the ground doing the work of these reforms, because they would do the work and see it collapse at ATC level, because of the bunfights the Howard government would cause amongst the states and territories just for a political biffo. So frustrating! Years of reforms sitting there, jammed in the system because of the attitude of the Howard government to use ministerial councils for some strange political biffo and bunfights with the states and territories.
What a breath of fresh air it was when the federal government ministers stepped to the table, showed true leadership, allowed for the genuine views of the states and territories to be heard in the fine, detailed issues supporting these important reforms; allowed them to be worked through, and that is why we have harmonised Rail Safety Regulation coming across the jurisdictions. There was an attitude of cooperation - sitting down, working together, allowing the issues and differences to be accommodated. We have an example of that with the opportunity to pick up the South Australian approach. We are still in the harmonised umbrella, but because of the particular needs of our jurisdiction; we are allowing an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator.
Those types of details would have become the bunfight, the crunching points in the past which clogged the wheels of reform, but a cooperative federal government understood that broader reform was more important than some nuances within the harmonised regime, and allowed each jurisdiction to deal with its particular circumstances. I sit on the ministerial councils dealing with reform processes - whether it is Treasurers, where we finally crunched 100-plus SPPs down into core SPPs - I sit and look at the pace of the occupational health and safety harmonisation reforms …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Now that the minister has made the same point five times I draw your attention to Standing Order 70 about tedious repetition. She should be instructed to discontinue her speech unless she has something more to offer.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. He does not like to hear the reality of it.
Mr Elferink: I have heard it six times.
Ms LAWRIE: No. He was only allowed to be a backbencher under the CLP government; they would not let him near the Cabinet room. He was only ever allowed to be a backbencher. They chose Lim over him - how embarrassing.
I digress. If you look at the pace of occupational health and safety reforms occurring with a cooperative approach, we are now achieving the national, seamless, economic, regulatory changes which have been long overdue and long worked on by officials from all jurisdictions, because of the attitude of cooperation from the federal government, which is starting to genuinely address the issues of the states and territories through those discussions, instead of using them as a battering ram ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is now the seventh time I have heard that same comment. I draw your attention to Standing Order 70. A member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition may be told to sit down by you. I urge you to ask the minister to sit down, or introduce something new.
Mr KNIGHT: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! We had repetition from other speakers in this debate; it is common practice in here, so …
Ms Lawrie: I am not being repetitious! I am talking about reforms.
Mr Elferink: You have said the same thing seven times.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, there has been significant digression from the topic in this debate, particularly by the member for Braitling, and also by the member for Nelson. The minister has the same right as those other two members, who were not pulled up.
Minister, please continue, but if you can stay as close as possible to the legislation, that would be good.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. What I am talking about goes to the heart of why this legislation is before the Chamber today, because I am aware of how long these reforms of rail safety regulations being harmonised were stuck at the ATC after the National Transport Commission had tried, at officer level, to work it through, and how important it is for governments, in harmony, to be at the table working together to drive through the reform process ...
Mr Elferink: You have said that, too.
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting. The member for Port Darwin plays by his own set of rules. He likes to do and say whatever he likes, and champions the importance of speech in this Chamber, yet spends his entire time trying to interrupt, despite Standing Order 51, a contribution to the debate I am making as the former Transport minister, the Attorney-General, and the Treasurer, who understands what occurs in national reform processes of which this legislation is a critical part.
Getting the national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy through COAG and really setting the reform agenda for all the work sitting at National Transport Commission level through the processes which have been clogged at ATC, is critical reform
I am delighted our Transport minister deals with harmonised models - particularly fatigue regime in trucking - and is able to achieve results which deal with the unique Territory circumstances; what we need to do to apply the broader harmonised changes into a model that works and fits the Territory. We have unique challenges and circumstances; that is why we have lined up with South Australia to look at our approach and ensuring we can have an independent investigator to be selected outside the regulator.
I commend that minister for this legislation; it has been a long time coming. I commend the officers of the department of Transport for all the hard work they have done to get to this point.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank all the participants in this debate. There is no doubt we can improve upon the current rail safety legislative framework in order to achieve better safety outcomes, and I thank the honourable members for their contributions towards that.
The concept of ensuring the safety of railway operations involves the elimination of risks to safety, or reducing the known risks. This bill aims to improve the conduct of railway operations through the management of risks and making special provision for the control of particular risks arising from railway operations.
Before rail operators and infrastructure managers can operate in a stable Territory, they are required to gain accreditation from the relevant state or territory rail safety regulator. Different regulatory requirements in different jurisdictions mean that people who operate across state and territory borders are subjected to a host of different rules and, because the requirements of each jurisdiction differ, accreditation gained in one jurisdiction may not assist operators to gain accreditation for the same type of operation in a neighbouring jurisdiction.
This bill requires rail safety regulators to consult with one another when someone seeks accreditation in more than one jurisdiction, and it will allow the Northern Territory to take into account an applicant’s accreditation elsewhere when determining their competence and ability to carry out the operations proposed for which accreditation is sought. This will reduce the amount of red tape, and industry is very supportive of that. The system of accreditation is designed to ensure that rail transport operators have the confidence and capacity to operate safely before they are permitted to operate. All accredited rail transport operators will need a safety management system suitable for the rail transport operator’s railway operations.
Contractors will no longer be required to become accredited rail transport operators, but they will be subject to the same general safety duty that applies to the accredited rail transport operator, and they will be required to comply with the accredited rail transport operator’s safety management system. This will clarify and simplify the chain of responsibility for all.
The Director of Safety will be equipped with the powers and sanctions required to monitor and enforce compliance with the legislation. It will also ensure that rail infrastructure managers and rail transport operators take responsibility for, and are in the best position to identify, assess and manage the risks. The Director of Rail Safety will continue with the current cooperative approach to achieving compliance by educating and informing rail transport operators and by issuing warnings when safety breaches are detected.
Enforcement action is appropriate for people who persistently fail or refuse to address safety concerns raised by the Director of Rail Safety. The intent is that there will be a proportionate response to any detected non-compliance with the act or regulations. In the case of recidivous, or where the non-compliance has resulted in a serious accident, this may involve prosecution.
The bill also provides that the Workplace Health and Safety Act will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency, and that an offender is not liable to be punished twice under both acts for the same act or omission.
The bill does vary from some national model provisions in order to comply with the Territory’s legislative drafting practice. The offence provisions have been restructured to meet the requirements of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code, and some interpretive provisions have been omitted because they are dealt with in our Interpretation Act.
This bill will also provide rail transport operators with a national regulatory framework which is consistent with the rules they will be operating under in other jurisdictions, in particular, South Australia.
I thank the member for Karama, a former Transport minister, for her contribution to this debate and for outlining this government’s investment in rail infrastructure upgrades at rail crossings. It demonstrates, once again, the government’s commitment to continuing to improve safety on our rail line.
It was great to hear that powerful message: ‘Stop, Look, Listen, Think’, which was a big part of the Barkly education system when the new northern Australian rail line went through. We took time and put energy into educating all rural residents about this new rail infrastructure, and rail operation which would cross our region, and cross the Territory for a greater good, and the bottom line was rail safety. It was also interesting to hear the former Transport minister provide real substance to the debate about the Australian Transport Council, and how the national regulation has moved forward and the real players behind the scene, and the real politics behind the scene; that is an education for all of us; someone who has been there and done that.
To the member for Braitling, I would like to address a couple of important points: one was the member for Braitling’s understanding and agreement on this Rail Safety Bill which relates to common sense and best industry practice. This is national model legislation; this is national harmonisation, this is improving rail safety outcomes by managing risks. And industry supports this legislation.
I will make a comment on the member for Braitling’s concern about drink-driving. I would rephrase that for the member and say this law applies to all NT rail workers in rail infrastructure and also rail operation, and the alcohol level of 0.02% relates to scientific-based evidence and allows for normal lifestyle practices such as nutritional supplements, and things like mouthwash. There is no real concern there, but I thank the member for raising his concern
In relation to the member’s comment on monorail, that is a national model. The Territory has no plans for monorail at this stage, but who knows what the future holds. Going on the unprecedented growth we are experiencing under the Henderson government, these other opportunities in great, safe, efficient and green public transport are definitely worth thinking about on the way forward.
In relation to the carriage of dangerous goods, I would like to say very clearly, once again, this legislation is about improving rail safety outcomes and managing risks. The legislation improves rail safety outcomes simply by managing the risks - it is the old prevention is better than cure. The carriage of dangerous goods is already regulated through the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act.
In relation to the member for Braitling’s wonderful opportunity to raise the debate about the proposed nuclear waste facility at Muckaty; I stand here as the local member opposed to the imposition of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory; and I stand here as a member of the Henderson government. There will be much work as the local member in my electorate working with constituents on this issue, educating, and making people aware.
Member for Braitling, come to the Barkly and meet the people, come and be part of the debate and declare your position. Let us know where you stand, and talk to the people about what you propose; keep that debate going. I have no problem with that being raised today but, let us talk about the real issue. Let us talk about your position in this, and let us talk about the people of the Barkly being able to hear you articulate that.
The member for Braitling made the comment that he will stand aside and let this legislation go through, and he then went on to talk about mushrooms. I thank the member for Braitling because this has been a good process; the member for Braitling was briefed on the bill by the department officials, and I want to thank him for taking an interest and being an active participant in moving good legislation through for the Northern Territory. I understand the briefing was extensive; the member for Braitling and his staff asked very relevant questions, and left the briefing session with a good understanding of the purpose and intent of this legislation.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution; a good, solid, rational debate, and always challenging. The member for Nelson is always challenging, always thinking about the future, thinking about better ways of doing things but, most of all, thinking about the Territory. That is what this transport legislation is all about.
In conclusion, our train industry supports the passage of this bill as it will improve their compliance with rail safety requirements, here and across the border in South Australia. We all know the north-south rail link is an extremely important link for the Northern Territory, it makes great sense to align with South Australia; the industry wants this, and these outcomes will benefit rail organisations and the community alike.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 60)
(Serial 60)
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I wish to provide some comments today on the Mining Amendment Bill (Serial 60) and, whilst the bill is mostly procedural, I believe it is important for this parliament to have an understanding of its history, and some understanding of the uranium industry in the Territory and Australia.
I am probably the only person in this House who was involved from the beginning with the development of this legislation and the uranium industry framework which was set up by the then minister for Resources, Ian Macfarlane, who was committed to creating a policy framework to expand Australia’s resource base and increase international competitiveness of Australia’s resource sector. Additionally, through the uranium industry framework, Mr Macfarlane sought to improve the regulatory regime for the uranium industry consistent with the principles of environmental responsibilities and sustainable development. It was from this framework the legislation before us today had its origins.
The Uranium Industry Framework Group was set up around January 2005, and it involved representatives from industry, the companies in particular; Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern Territory governments; and Indigenous groups, namely, the land councils. Interestingly, the Northern Territory government was not keen at that time to participate, and did so begrudgingly. I know that to be factual as I was there and spoke to the people who represented the government. However, they were there and that was good.
Western Australia and other states, at the time, declined to participate. However, Western Australia has now changed its government and there is great hope for the future of the uranium industry in that state; new projects are online, including the Kintyre Project in the north of the state. The framework, despite any politics, went onwards regardless of which government was on board or not, mostly driven by the Commonwealth and with the support of industry, as there was a bigger picture than the politics of the Labor party and its antiquated policy regarding uranium exploration and mining.
Four working groups were set up under this framework to establish and implement recommendations. The first being a regulation which included a sub-group of royalties; one for transport; one for skills; and one for Indigenous engagement. The royalties subcommittee had representatives from the land councils, Northern Territory Treasury, industry representatives, industry associations and the Commonwealth government. It met regularly and thrashed out the issues to establish a royalty regime for the new mines in the Northern Territory; not the other states of Australia, just the Northern Territory.
The reason for addressing royalties separately for the Northern Territory was because ownership of uranium in Northern Territory is vested with the Commonwealth government under the Atomic Energy Act. But no resource charges generally applied to uranium in the NT, on both Aboriginal and other land tenure. To date, royalty arrangements have been determined for each mine taking into account a range of relevant considerations, including the world market for uranium ore; any previously negotiated non-statutory payments to Aboriginal communities; the loss or damage likely to be suffered by Aboriginal communities effected by the proposed grant of the mining tenure; and the royalty rates paid by other mining projects in the Territory.
For example, the Narbarlek mine which was in Arnhem Land, and has since ceased, had one rate of royalty; and the Ranger Mine developed another rate. It was agreed, at the time, through the framework and the royalty subcommittee, with future prospects and the growth of the industries, that separate royalty arrangements for different projects would be inappropriate.
Another aspect was there might be polymetallic projects, such as those we have in the Northern Territory at Batchelor with the Brown’s project and the Nolan’s Bore project north of Alice Springs, where the situation of dual royalty systems could exist - one royalty for the uranium product, and another for other minerals in the project. This would lead to administrative complexity and tax-driven investment decisions.
An application of royalty arrangements through uranium development was on a project-by-project basis. As I said, Nabarlek had a particular arrangement which was ad valorem of 3.75%. In the short time that mine was operating - about three years, and they milled for six or seven years - $13m of royalties went to the Aboriginal people in that area.
Ranger had another arrangement, which I understand is still in force, was 5.5% ad valorem which comprised three components. The first was 2.5% royalty applicable on the Aboriginal land under the NT Mining Ordinance; the second was 1.75% notional, which was negotiated for the traditional owners, and the Commonwealth pays these two together - 4.25% - which goes to the Aboriginal Benefits Account. The third component is 1.25% which the Commonwealth pays to the Northern Territory in accordance with a memorandum of understanding signed in 1978. To date - and I do not have an exact figure - the Ranger mine has contributed in excess of $250m in royalties to Aboriginal people in the area.
The royalties subcommittee considered alternative options: the profit-based royalty which we have in the Northern Territory of 18% profit based on the minerals or an ad valorem. There were arguments from both sides - industry and some governments favoured the profit-based; the land councils favoured ad valorem - and they gave their reasons strongly and consistently. However, at the end of the day, the Commonwealth was convinced a profit-based royalty of 18% was the way to go They believed it would give certainty and clarity to the industry, not only here in the Territory, but also to Australia, and it would assist projects to do their financial and investment planning.
As I said, it is procedural legislation; it is good it has happened; it will give clarity to some of our projects in the Territory, such as the one I mentioned and, possibly, other new projects, I encourage the government to support the uranium side of the resource industry as much as they can, because it can generate, and will generate, many benefits to the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the Mining Amendment Bill. I agree with the member opposite that the mining industry is significant for the Northern Territory; it contributes nearly 25% of GDP and employs 4000 to 5000 people and, despite the global downturn in economics, this has not happened in the Northern Territory. On the contrary, in the Northern Territory we have increased mining activity. In yesterday’s newspaper, you will find two pages full of mining exploration applications. Currently, in Tennant Creek there are 14 exploration drills, and you cannot find a driller to come to the Territory unless you book well in advance.
The Territory is well endowed with ore bodies of significant size: polymetallic, iron ore, and diamonds. Yesterday, I read an announcement from Merlin Diamonds that they actually increased their estimate of how many million carats from two million to six million. What we are currently seeing in the Northern Territory is an increase in mining activity, and consequently, an increase in employment, and an increase in royalties.
With regard to some of my Commonwealth colleagues, Ian Macfarlane was very good minister but, unfortunately, he had no idea about the uranium regime. He admitted to me later: ‘I took the uranium off the Territory.’ He rang me, very sheepishly, and told me he did not know the Commonwealth actually owns the uranium in the Territory under the agreement we have. As a matter of fact, it is the Commonwealth which has the final word whether a uranium mine will operate in the Territory. By law, a minister of the Territory has to obey the ruling of the minister of the Commonwealth. If he says yes, I have the power to say yes. If he says no, I have to say no.
At the same time, the Commonwealth government has (inaudible) somehow the Territory to provide the regulatory framework, the direct regulation, and to administer the mines of the Territory, providing a fee for service. What we see know is the federal government changing the royalty regime for new Territory uranium mines, if they open, when they open. Now, we have exactly the same royalty regime we have in the Northern Territory at the lowest - 18%, so when the mine gets up and makes a profit, it then starts paying royalties. I believe this is significant because it brings into parity all the royalty regimes throughout the Territory for all mines.
As to support of the uranium industry, uranium is a mineral, we address it the same way as other mines, but not without undertaking a significant environmental review to asses socio-environmental economic input; and we have said again and again, should a uranium mine compromise the safety of the environment or the community, we will oppose it. However, again I repeat, the final word on uranium mines rests with the Commonwealth.
I welcome this new action by the government, and I certainly support my colleague, the Treasurer, who is trying now to ensure there is a consistency when it comes to royalties with the laws of the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise only one issue today. It arises out of a comment by the minister in the second reading speech.
We will not be objecting to this bill. We will be supporting it because it deals with arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory over the payment of royalties to the Northern Territory; under the rather unique circumstances in the Northern Territory where uranium royalties remain within the scope of the Commonwealth. It deals with the arrangements pertaining to the collection of royalties for uranium extraction by the Commonwealth, and clearly, there is a legislative instrument at the Commonwealth level which does not quite match because of amendments, at the Commonwealth level, to the instrument here in the Northern Territory. The purpose of this legislation is fundamentally to recreate that alignment; and we have no problems with that. The perfect situation would be that the Northern Territory retained, or was granted by the Commonwealth, the royalty collection rights over uranium; however, that is a debate for another day.
I pick up on one particular comment in the second reading speech by the Treasurer in relation to this, and that was the comment about the inconsistency of legislation; the Treasurer was concerned, because the legislation was inconsistent, that the Northern Territory legislation would not operate.
This raises an issue which is not really on foot with this particular amendment, but it does give me an opportunity, as it was in the second reading speech, to address the issue. In recent times, I had cause to do some homework in relation to the status of Northern Territory legislation as it resided within our federal structure, compared to other legislation. I do not have my notes in front of me but I believe it is section 109 of the Australian Constitution, which carries an inconsistency clause. I could be corrected on the section number of the Constitution, but in any instance, the thrust of the section is that where there is an inconsistency between state and Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation would be null to the extent of the inconsistency.
I have always assumed, as the Treasurer has assumed, that is actually the case in the Northern Territory. However, there was a Senate committee in relation to the Territory’s euthanasia bill some time ago. I believe Bob Brown brought into the Senate an attempt to readjust the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to enable the resurrection, for lack of a better word, of the Territory’s euthanasia bill. Without entering into the debate of euthanasia, some professorial work was done, and I spoke to one of the professors who made a submission to the Senate - his name escapes me. They asserted it is possible and, even likely, that arrangement in the Australian Constitution does not apply to the Northern Territory. It does apply in the case of the Australian Capital Territory, because of the way the self-government act of the Australian Capital Territory is drafted. However, no similar laws exist in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and the constitutional clause in the Australian Constitution does not apply as far as the Northern Territory is concerned.
Consequently, the issue is what happens next. It resurrects an old common law doctrine called the ‘doctrine of repugnancy’. To over-simplify the doctrine, the theory underlining the doctrine goes back to the old imperial days where there was one superior parliament in the Empire, and that superior parliament was the Palace of Westminster, which governed the Empire and did have other parliamentary organisations in it of different shapes. For example, the original colonies of Australia prior to Federation - in fact subsequent to Federation - all had their own parliamentary systems.
To ensure the integrity of the whole system, as is the case with the Australian Constitution, the integrity of the system was protected by a similar clause, or doctrine, which is the ‘doctrine of repugnancy’ as captured by the Australian Constitution. However, there is one fundamental difference between the two approaches. The Australian Constitution uses the approach that the inconsistency is the extent of the nullification. The doctrine of repugnancy has the effect of rendering redundant and void ab initio the legislative instrument of the subordinate parliament. As we are a subordinate parliament to the Commonwealth parliament, we are constituted by its will in the same way the Australian parliament was constituted by an act passed in the British parliament.
The old common law doctrine would actually be resurrected in our case, which means it is conceivable and probable, even, that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, even if the federal law was changed, would not have survived. It is conceivable the legislation in relation to the carriage of nuclear material through our borders would not have survived to this day. It is conceivable, under such a doctrine, if there was an inconsistency between the Territory legislation and the federal legislation in relation to the royalty arrangements here, that doctrine may have actually come into play and, if a court was asked to adjudicate, it may well determine the original Northern Territory legislation was essentially nullified in toto.
I ask the Treasurer to seek advice on this and advise the House on the situation with this legislation because, it is my understanding, this is an amendment bill and if it is an amendment to legislation that may have been affected or in someway touched by the doctrine of repugnancy then, I suspect, if it is ever challenged the Treasurer would want to know about it. Consequently, I have raised this in a briefing with the Treasurer’s staff, and I hope the homework and research has been done and the Treasurer will be in a position to address this issue, because there are two law professors who made a submission to a Senate committee on Territory legislation. If those law professors are correct, then I am concerned that doctrine may have touched Northern Territory legislation, and we need to know what the effect of that is, and what the extent of that influence is.
It also gives me the opportunity to make one last observation, and the observation is simply this: if it turns out those two law professors are correct, the Chief Minister also is correct. Not only are we second class citizens in this country because the quality of our legislation does not enjoy the constitutional protection of the states but, on top of that, it appears we might even be third class citizens because out legislative instruments do not even have the legislative strength of legislation passed by the Australian Capital Territory.
I wait eagerly for the Treasurer’s comments.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I can indicate the opposition will be supporting this bill. It is a bill that does not require a lengthy debate, so I will keep my comments relatively brief.
Last year, the Commonwealth enacted the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009 to provide for a consistent and regulated framework for the imposition of a royalty on uranium and certain other designated substances recovered in the Northern Territory. It did this simply by applying the Mineral Royalty Act of the Northern Territory as a law of the Commonwealth, and making amendments to that act through new Commonwealth legislation.
Under the new Commonwealth act, royalties are to be applied to designated substances which, in the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act, are defined as prescribed substances under the Commonwealth Atomic Energy Act 1953. This further goes on to describe those substances as uranium, thorium, any elements having an atomic number greater than 92, or other substance declared by the regulations to be capable of or being used for the production of atomic energy, or for research into matters connected with atomic energy and a derivative or compound of those substances.
Under the previous royalty scheme for uranium, royalties were derived from our only existing uranium mine, the Ranger Mine operated by ERA, on the basis of 5.5% ad valorem. Under this scheme, royalties were payable on the value of the mineral extracted at a rate of 5.5%, broken up into a 2.5% royalty applicable to Aboriginal reserves, 1.75% royalty negotiated payment to traditional owners, both of which were paid into the Aboriginal Benefits Account; and a further 1.25% on-paid to the NT government by the Commonwealth. I see from the legislation and from the Treasurer’s second reading speech that this royalty arrangement will be grandfathered.
Looking further into the history of uranium mining in the NT, the Nabarlek and Jabiluka mines paid royalties at the rate of 3.75% and 5.25% ad valorem, respectively. Effectively, then, only new miners of those designated substances will be subject to the new royalty regime. Of course, in the new regime, royalties are now calculated on the same basis as other minerals mined in the Northern Territory - basically on a profit basis - that is a scheme where 18% tariff is applied to the gross realisation, which is turn-over, for want of another word, less the operating cost, less the capital recognition deduction, less eligible exploration expenditure, and any additional deductions allowed by the minister. This is enacted under the Mineral Royalty Act of the Northern Territory.
Clearly the new regime will be a far more equitable and fairer system for producers of these types of elements, making the royalty regime consistent for all minerals removed from the ground in the Northern Territory, which makes sense. However, I hope this new royalty regime for uranium and, for that matter, the existing regime for all minerals extracted from our land is not short lived. I am referring here to some details of the early indications and implications of the Henry Tax Review. I note, with some concern, that The Australian in an article dated 24 August 2009, and the Business Spectator in an article on 22 January 2010, reported that the Henry review of taxation may recommend a scrapping of a state-based royalty payment scheme for mining activities, to be replaced with a federally-controlled resource rent or rent tax.
Those articles contended another alternative being considered would be to leave the state-based royalties in place and heave an additional Commonwealth royalty payment on top. Either way, the Henry Tax Review’s first paper indicates its preference for a resource rent tax to be levied federally. If the federal government were to adopt this approach and bring that new tax into line with, for example, the existing petroleum resources rent tax of 40% - that is 40% - this may prove to be an absolute disaster for the mining sector, not only in the Northern Territory, but right across Australia. According to the articles, Treasury estimates mining royalty fell 20% based on mining profits between 2002 and 2007, and it seems Henry would like the Commonwealth to get a much larger slice of that pie.
I note one of those articles refers to submissions from various interested groups, including the Minerals Council of Australia, and a number of Australian states including Western Australia and Queensland. Both Western Australia and Queensland indicated their support for a state-based royalty regime. This left me wondering what the Northern Territory’s submission to the Henry Tax Review said. I visited the review’s website and was able to find hundreds of submissions to the review from a number of Australian state governments and many other stakeholders; yet, I was unable to locate a public submission from the Northern Territory.
Perhaps the Treasurer, in closing debate, might make mention of the Northern Territory’s submission and the thrust of what was contained therein.
The question I have for the Treasurer is: did the Northern Territory lodge a submission to the Henry Tax Review? Naturally, an offer by the Treasurer to provide a copy of the NT submission to the tax review to the opposition would be most welcome.
I put on record, while we are on this topic, that the Country Liberals would vehemently oppose any moves by the federal government to wrest away from the Northern Territory our royalty regime. I ask the Treasurer to affirm or reaffirm this government’s commitment to keeping the NT-based royalty scheme intact and within the purview of the Northern Territory.
I am worried; we have seen in the past two days how the Commonwealth government can exercise its will over the Northern Territory with new laws, introduced at the federal level, in respect to the nuclear waste dump. This is certainly not the only time the Commonwealth has interfered in matters in the Northern Territory; mentioned earlier today by the Chief Minister in Question Time, was the overturning of euthanasia laws. I also mention the implementation of welfare quarantine right across the Territory where, effectively, the Commonwealth is using the Northern Territory as a guinea pig to test that particular regime.
In a similar vein, I am worried the federal government will use the Northern Territory again as a guinea pig to roll-out some form of a new, federally-based mineral royalties scheme. Any scheme such as this would have serious implications for the bottom line of the NT budget. This form of federal intervention in the Northern Territory already has a base through the very Commonwealth legislation that has brought about the legislation changes we are debating today; that is, the Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009.
Will the Treasurer, and the minister for Resources, give the people of the Northern Territory, and the mining companies which are operating here, as well as the companies which have Northern Territory mineral riches on their radar, some assurances it will fight any move by the federal government to uproot the Territory-based royalty regime we have here for all our minerals?
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support of this legislation. I will go to the concerns raised, first of all, by the member for Port Darwin regarding the issue of repugnancy. I can advise we sought advice from the Solicitor-General. The member for Port Darwin suggested paragraph 5 of the second reading speech is incorrect because it refers to ‘inconsistency’ between Territory and Commonwealth legislation …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is required. A quorum is present.
Ms LAWRIE: … because it refers to inconsistency between Territory and Commonwealth legislation rather than repugnancy. The advice is clear. There is nothing of substance in the point raised by the member for Port Darwin. The term that has been historically used to describe the situation where Commonwealth legislation prevails over state and territory legislation is that of ‘inconsistency’. So the second reading speech is very accurate.
In a 1987 case, the High Court told us that ‘inconsistency’ in this context, means ‘repugnancy’. Whether one uses the term inconsistency or repugnancy, the principle is that state and territory legislation cannot affect the operation of a law of the Commonwealth, or detract from a right conferred by a Commonwealth law unless the Commonwealth law allows for this. The member for Port Darwin has identified a distinction without a difference.
In relation to the strange contribution from the member for Katherine, he clearly does not understand the Henry Tax Review. He clearly has not read any of the debate about the various royalty regimes around our nation and the view of the federal Treasury Secretary in relation to which is the better type of system. Certainly, we are very confident that our profit-based system is seen as a highly competitive and attractive system to have. The fact that, after all of the industry work done in achieving consistency which we have before us today in terms of this legislation shows the industry was very keen on ensuring the royalty scheme which applies in the Northern Territory applies as well to the uranium mines, which this legislation reflects. So, to go on with some strange ramblings of some potential threats in terms of royalty regimes, was curious.
Part of the Henry Tax Review will be looking at all these matters. The Territory has provided a submission. I can say it is confidential, as it should be, and states followed suit with confidential submissions. I will not get into the politics of scaremongering that the member for Katherine chose to use in this debate. What I will say is, we have ensured the protection of the Territory revenue base, and the arguments around that and how taxation regimes could provide protections for revenue bases for states and territories, have been put forward very strongly in the Territory submission.
I have every confidence that whatever results from the Henry Tax Review, there will certainly be much public debate about that. It will not be an easy task for the federal Treasurer to get to a landing on that, and I have no doubt all state and territory Treasurers will be in discussions about it, as will all Treasury officials. We are some way off, but the work has been significantly done. I have been privy to briefings from Ken Henry himself, and also from the federal Treasurer.
This legislation before us simply provides for consistency, provides for arrangements between ourselves and the Commonwealth, who are the operators of uranium mines. On 9 September last year, the Australian Senate passed a new Uniform Uranium Royalty Scheme, adopting the Territory’s existing royalty regime in the Territory’s Mineral Royalty Act, which is applying an 18% profit-based royalty regime to new - I emphasise new - uranium mines in the Territory. This provides a consistent framework for the assessment and payment of royalties on the mining of uranium and other minerals in the Territory. It is a good outcome for the industry.
It is a particular benefit that will allow a single royalty scheme to apply where a mine produces both uranium and other minerals, as the member for Goyder pointed out. This change provides the industry with certainty that, should any future uranium mines be developed, it steps away from the previous project-by-project royalty arrangements where uncertainty could affect investment decisions.
The reforms are in response to industry concerns about royalty arrangements that had previously been determined on a project-by-project basis. It is not retrospective legislation; it will not apply to the Ranger Uranium Mine, which will continue to operate under its pre-existing royalty agreement.
Under the Commonwealth’s Uranium Royalty Scheme, royalties for new uranium mines are to be collected by the Northern Territory on behalf of the Commonwealth. In turn, amounts equivalent to the royalties collected by Treasury are to be paid by the Commonwealth to the Territory. The consequential amendments to the Mining Act proposed by the bill are necessary to facilitate the new Commonwealth scheme.
I recommend and commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
No 2 of 2010 Relating to Freedom of Information Applications
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
No 2 of 2010 Relating to Freedom of Information Applications
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, continuing from my remarks earlier, I would like to point out the member for Drysdale brought forward a bill which, in the second part, removed the changes for an FOI application for members of parliament. This bill was voted down last year by those opposite when this was done, and they set out that this part of the bill would be covered by a mechanism which they would enact; and I touched on all those issues earlier in relation to how they have not enacted that mechanism which has attracted, if you like, this particular response from the opposition.
It does not cover the costs of getting material in respect of how Parliament House has dangerously high levels of legionnaires’ disease in its cooling towers. It does not cover the costs of getting material around minister Lawrie’s instructions to public servants. It does not cover the cost of obtaining ministerial diaries, such as that of then minister Scrymgour, and her famous incident of being at the beauty parlour when a well respected educator was being sacked. Interestingly, when we got that diary it did not reflect that incident of the beauty parlour, and we still harbour suspicions in relation to why it did not; and we harbour suspicions it may well have been changed.
Under the new mini-fee law and, again, it is good you have made the $30 free, I move to the issue of Darwin prison. For the department of Planning and Infrastructure - a favourite of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader and myself - the changes do not cover the request for information about community consultation undertaken with respect to the prison. Such as documentation in respect to the location of the prison, documentation between the department and the minister’s office on this matter, all costings, work which had been undertaken - then again, is this so much of a problem? I suppose not. I guess the department does not deem itself required to provide this material.
At the moment the Leader of the Opposition is in the midst of a complaint with the department and, I believe, off to formal mediation which, if successful, will lead to a hearing on the matter. It is not the only one.
Let us look at what is going on, because this government said it is interested in freedom of information. But this government is not about freedom of information; it is about not allowing departments to release information.
This is a government about secrecy and silence. This is a government whose ministers come into this place and simply do not keep their word. Even if it is on the public record, this is a government that does not want the opposition or anyone, for that matter, to have access to material that lifts the bar of scrutiny. This is a government that has said it will go so far and no further, and removed the $30 lodgement fee and the report fees. What about all of the other work, the correspondence, the e-mails, the community consultation documents, the costings that ministers quote from, or statistics or data, or surveys, and so on? Oh, no, not these, Madam Speaker, not these at all, just the reports.
Returning to the Planning and Infrastructure matter; this process began on 21 November 2008, today it is 25 February 2010, some 16 months later, and here we are off to mediation on Monday. Here we have a department using whatever means possible to prevent the flow of information. We suspect the minister will be found wanting, just as then minister Scrymgour was found wanting when, by some miracle, two diaries were different, yet she managed to keep her appointment. Amazing! I would really like a lesson from the member for Arafura on how she manages to be in two places at once. I thought that was the stuff of science fiction. I am sure there are many in the science community who would want the same lesson from the member for Arafura.
Or was the diary changed? Maybe this is a question your ministerial colleagues - no wait, we have voted on that, so the member for Arafura could not be held to be lying in parliament, nor any other member of the Labor Party, or any former or current minister, because they are accountable, open and honest - just not with reports or releasing things under FOI, or taking ministerial responsibility, or doing what you say you will do.
But, according to the member for Karama, the member for Arafura, the Chief Minister, the member for Nelson, and those in the Labor Party, this government is open, honest and accountable. Such openness is seen by what they do, rather than what they say. These are the actual words of the member for Karama: ‘All fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to FOI applications should be waived, is within the agreement’.
Ms Lawrie: Quote the entire paragraph.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yet, somehow, it did not make its way into the regulation - our open, honest and accountable Labor government - I said it this morning and I say it again now, but I will come back to that. In the long line of things that show how unwilling this government is to release information, the financial impost remains.
Returning to the matter of diaries; I understand ministers are now even trying to hide their diaries saying that they are not freedom of information material. In recent correspondence with the Chief Minister’s Department, diaries have been excluded because, according to the department, they do not fall into the definition of what is a record. The department considers the diaries are discretionary, are not maintained by everyone in similar circumstances, and may be deleted by anyone at anytime, and they are not required to be kept.
There is no doubt we have run into that before, because we have diaries mysteriously disappear in all sorts of matters, not least of which was the movements of people and records kept by people around the time Bob Collins engaged in his first suicide attempt.
The work ministers do in this government is discretionary and tends to be done to different standards, if at all, and is often forgotten when it suits them. To claim that diaries are not records of what ministers do and how they spend their time is a complete and utter untruth; they are public figures, they have statutory obligations and they are accountable, or should be, not just under the stewardship of one member for Wanguri.
I know of instances where ministers have lost their ministries, lost their jobs, because of their diaries. Ministerial diaries are, in every way, a record of activities identifying the date, time and location of meetings, discussions and events and their subject matter. By their very presence they record the operations of a minister at any point in time. Diaries are a means by which ministers account for their day–to-day activities and performing their functions as ministers of the Crown. In essence, a minister’s diary is a record of their accountability - but not under this government.
If a minister claims they did, or did not, go to a meeting when someone is embroiled in some controversy and we want to check the veracity of such a claim, then apparently this is not possible; departments have been instructed that diaries are not available under FOI because they are not a record. Well, here is a diary of the then minister for Education, the member for Arafura, which we did obtain under FOI. It looks like a record to me - tastes like a record, smells like a record, feels like a record underfoot – lucky I did not step in it! It is a record of the minister’s movements and meetings - a publicly accountable person making decisions of Territory laws, and spending Territory money; and it looks like a record of the minister’s activities to me. As to the integrity of its accuracy, well, that is a matter for members opposite. However, they were not prepared to test the accuracy of that diary; they were prepared to assume innocence without any form of examination.
I well recall the now Leader of Government Business climbing to his feet saying: ‘It looks like the opposition has made up their minds already, and they are biased’. I thought to myself: at least I was prepared to test my so-called biased position by sending it to a trial of the member for Arafura’s peers. I also know they had a biased position, because they voted against it. They did not want to send it to Privileges; they were never prepared to test their bias. What a surprise!
Section 17(2) of the Information Act specifically states public sector organisations are not to be concerned about, or to take into consideration the reasons access is being sought. I suspect the government’s views on opposition access to diaries goes very much to the heart of section 17(2) - if we use FOI information to embarrass the government and highlight their inactions or mistruths. Mind you, we have some very busy FOI applications and some fairly short diaries being returned.
We used the member for Arafura’s diary to show the skulduggery and smell that surrounded the diary of the then minister for Education. However, getting access to that diary was a mistake - we should never have received it - then, I guess, it never would have needed to be changed. Anyway, we are no longer to get them because the Attorney-General has made a ruling: no diaries, not allowed to have them; not allowed to have any form of openness, honesty and accountability in government - we will say we have it. But, my goodness gracious me, let us put the acid test on it and, all of a sudden, the marshmallow disappears in the blast furnace.
What were those words of the Attorney-General? Oh, that is right: ‘It is within the agreement’.
Member for Nelson, I am interested in your views. You wanted more openness and transparency. Does the denial of access to diaries, which are part of the government’s accountability, deliver this? Not only to the member for Nelson, but to all members of this House, and to all Territorians? I have concerns with the direction this government is heading with the freedom of information, and I trust the member for Nelson will oblige in assisting me, and the opposition, with this task.
I wonder whether the deal done between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson equals one set of freedom of information rules for some MLAs and a different set for others. Does the member for Nelson still lodge FOI applications, or does he now just knock on the door of the Chief Minister and say: ‘Hey comrade, give me A, B, C, D, E – whatever?
I wonder what would be the circumstances if both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson were to ask for exactly the same information - be they reports or other forms of record-keeping. Would the same rules apply to the Leader of the Opposition as, I suspect, they do for the member for Nelson? The member for Nelson will not be trapped by Cabinet solidarity, but one must wonder, to get information under FOI, how much the member for Nelson gets by picking up the telephone. That would be the Westminster system in operation. Or, was that the party system desperate to cling to power? Or, was it that our side was not looking to hold the government and, for that matter, the member for Nelson, to account?
Instead, in the words of the member for Nelson: we are simply in it for the power. Member for Nelson, thank you for making it clear why I turn up to work every day. Sadly, you do have it wrong - very, very wrong.
Irrespective of any deal that has been struck between them, when it comes to freedom of information, one MLA should be treated in exactly the same way, and by exactly the same standards, as any other.
Let us look at the context of an issue I know is of interest to the member for Nelson, as it has been for the opposition, for many years.
On 21 October 2008, the Leader of the Opposition lodged an FOI application asking for the following: documentation relating to the assessment and sustainability, including the results of any community consultation, of all sites in the Darwin region that have been identified for potential location of the new prison. What is the status of that submission 16 months later? Well, it started with the application being transferred from the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then refused to take the application, and returned it to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Planning and Infrastructure denied access to the information, and the matter was submitted for a section 38 review. The Department of Justice then took over the review and, after consideration, the request was denied. We then submitted the matter to the Information Commissioner under section 103, who has ruled that there was, and I quote:
- … sufficient prima facie evidence to substantiate the complaint. I am not satisfied that all documents fall within the scope of the application have been located and I am not satisfied that all the material on file is exempt pursuant to section 45 of the act.
The Information Commissioner required the department to release the information by 8 February. Surprise, surprise! They refused and the matter will proceed to mediation next week.
Now I ask: what information has been provided to the member for Nelson? Has the government provided documentation relating to the assessment and suitability, including results of any community consultation, of all sites in the Darwin region that have been identified as the potential location of the new prison? Under the regulation agreed to by the member for Nelson within the agreement, even if we do eventually get this information, we will have to pay for it. I call upon the member for Nelson to table any information he has received from the government since 16 August 2009 that relates to the new Darwin prison.
Let us see how one set of FOI rules apply to us, and another to the member for Nelson. Has the government denied us information using provisions of the Information Act, and yet provided information to the member for Nelson? What does this do for the equity of access and the whole principle of openness and transparency of the government governing for all, rather than special interest groups who help you cling to power?
The government had an opportunity to deliver on its openness and transparency mantra yesterday, when it could have supported the committee to look at $2bn of Territory finances and why there is so little improvement for it. They could have put in place a book to show where the Indigenous expenditure was going. But no, they called it a racist committee. That is disgraceful. Whenever the call for openness and accountability is heard, whenever they are tested, they run, they hide from the truth, and the culture of cover-up continues. No wonder, it is ably led by an Attorney-General who, herself, is a past master of the culture of cover-up. Just go back again to what she said: ‘All fees payable by the members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived ...
Ms Lawrie: Read the rest of the quote.
Mr ELFERINK: … it is within the agreement’. It should have followed the opposition’s lead and said …
Ms Lawrie: Read the rest of the quote about the strange and bizarre witch-hunt we have seen by the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … I will assist you in your task of the responsible and professional scrutinisation of our government.
I would love to hear the member for Karama say: ‘We have nothing to hide …
Ms Lawrie: Who brought an echo up?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We do not hear these words from her, or any other member from that side. We have a set of regulations that are close to meaningless. They add nothing to government accountability except a one line item in an obscure part of the Territory’s budget books.
This is, yet again, a government which is economical with the truth. When the Treasurer walks into this place and speaks of economy, she absolutely speaks of economy, but it is with the truth that she is economical, not with taxpayers’ funds.
When it comes to actually finding out, through this open, honest, and accountable government, what on earth is going on in so many areas of this government, we find freedom of information lives up to the other moniker attached to it: freedom from information. That really is what is going on here. It is deplorable that the arrangements between the member for Nelson and government continue to be employed in such a way. In this room of equals clearly, in the government’s eye, he is a favoured equal indeed.
The example of yesterday, when government had clearly colluded with the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Rubbish!
Mr ELFERINK: He says rubbish, but the fact was …
Mr Wood: You told me the member for Macdonnell had not discussed it with me. You did not know what you were talking about.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson made no attempt to advise this side of the House …
Mr Wood: I did not advise anyone.
Mr ELFERINK: … that he was going to do this type of thing, yet we heard, by way of interjection from the government, they had been spoken to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This sweet little deal between the two sides is not the equitable arrangement the member for Nelson promises to the people of the Northern Territory. What the member for Nelson promised was a system and a standard and benchmark of conduct he himself is failing to meet. That is the problem.
Clearly, the government knew exactly what was going to come from the member for Nelson. Why? Because we heard by way of interjection that they had been speaking to him. There was the Treasurer - nod, nod - we have spoken to him. Well, we have not been spoken to. I read in the paper today the member for Nelson believes we are picking on him. It is not about the member for Nelson …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: What it is about is the good governance of the Northern Territory, and the good governance which is denied the people of Northern Territory by his decision. I do not care what the member for Nelson does or does not believe, or whether he feels he is being picked on or whether he is not being picked on. What I can tell you is some of his approaches and attitudes, which have been denied by government repeatedly in this House, suddenly become flavour of the month in spite of the fact they are based on inconsistent and fuzzy logic. That is an outcome which really affects people’s lives. The problem is the member for Nelson still cannot separate what is happening here.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Port Darwin be give a further 10 minutes to complete his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson still believes we are picking on him. This is not about the member for Port Darwin; it is not about the member for Nelson; it is not about the Minister for Local Government; it is not about the Chief Minister. It is about what happens out there.
Today in Question Time, we saw one of the people affected by the decisions of this government - a robust economy is the answer said the Chief Minister. No, the real cause of that lady’s plight was that two years ago the Treasurer said we only needed to release 300 blocks per year. That is the real cause of that lady’s plight - bad planning. The fact the member for Nelson who, in the past repeatedly attacked government on its poor planning outcomes, continues to support them and say they are confident government, does not present as consistent. That is what I care about. It is about the lady who was in the gallery during Question Time. It is all about Territorians who suffer the consequences of decisions taken in this House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the interjections: ‘It is all about you.’ No! If you believe that you have missed the point of why I am here and why you should be here. It is not about the member for Port Darwin; it is about results for Territorians. Where are the houses you promised? They were taken from you because you could not run the show. Where are the 300 houses the Treasurer said they were going to release in April 2007? She said 700 blocks would be released in Bellamack over the next two years - that was the solution. She has just started releasing those blocks, and not one person has yet moved into a house in the Bellamack area.
It is a failure to plan; a failure to plan that the member for Nelson criticised them for. If there is one person in the Northern Territory right now who can change and effect the way the Northern Territory is governed, it is only the member for Nelson, and he can walk into this place and send it back to the true sovereign …
A member: The king maker!
Mr ELFERINK: … the king maker who is not a king maker. Nonsense! In an attempt to avoid responsibility and be answerable, he avoids taking up the one duty which would truly put responsibility on his shoulders, and that is to become a minister of the Crown; and he could organise that with that lot opposite by simply saying: ‘I want it’. But, he would be tied to Cabinet responsibility, he would be tied to the collective agreements made by Cabinet, and he would be unable to be all care and no responsibility.
This is about responsibility; it is all about responsibility for the member for Nelson, and we know that he does not want the job. He said: ‘I do not want this to happen. I do not want to be responsible.’ The point is that he has no choice. He has been thrust into that situation and all he is doing at the moment is taking decisions to avoid that responsibility; and that is the critique I have of the member for Nelson. I am not picking on him. I want him to take advantage of the job he has and apply that position to the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory - not his own best interests, which is the avoidance of the responsibility he sought to bring upon himself by the decisions he has taken. That is what it is about, that very clear distinction.
I could not care less what motivates the member for Nelson, but the way he is discharging the responsibility he has thrust upon his shoulders is not working out for the people of the Northern Territory. That is the crux of what underlies this whole argument in this place.
The people of the Northern Territory have a right to make a decision. It has been made abundantly clear to me by people who come up to me in the streets, talk to me in the malls, and come up to me at my van that they were annoyed they were not given a chance to sort this out. It is clearly the decision the people out there want, and the member for Nelson continues to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, there is a common theme in debates being led in this Chamber by the member for Port Darwin and it is his obsession with the member for Nelson, and it reeks of hypocrisy.
This notice by the member for Port Darwin to disallow Subordinate Legislation No 2 of 2010 will not be supported by the government. We will be voting against the disallowance.
It is interesting the member for Port Darwin talks about freedom of speech. He was a member of the CLP government which refused to introduce FOI legislation. Hypocrisy reeking from the member for Port Darwin. It simply did not exist under the CLP.
Mr Mills: You are unbelievable.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand to hear the facts, and he is trying to talk over me. They refused to introduce it. It simply did not exist, and the member for Port Darwin, who was a member of the CLP government of the day, stands there and reeks of hypocrisy in this debate. He is an embarrassment. We do not take him seriously. We know it is his obsession with being in opposition, with being frustrated at the lack of leadership from the member for Blain, being frustrated with the challenge coming on from the member for Fong Lim, being frustrated that no one seems to be putting the vote behind the member for Port Darwin. This is a purely political stunt by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr Mills: What kind of books do you read, science fiction?
Ms LAWRIE: When we came to government there was no estimates process, no freedom of information legislation, the Electoral Commission sat …
Mr Mills: Not a single school anywhere.
Ms LAWRIE: He does not want to hear it. … the Electoral Commission sat in the Department of Chief Minister. There was no whistleblower legislation and it was the Labor government that introduced ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Glass jaws over there. It was the Labor government that introduced freedom of information legislation after decades of refusal by the CLP.
These regulations were made under the Information Act, and gazetted on 17 February of this year. Section 156(4) of the Information Act allows for regulations to prescribe different fees for different types of information. These regulations amended the current regulations made under the Information Act, and made certain specified government information available, free of charge, to members of the Legislative Assembly making applications.
Under the Information Act, any individual may apply to a public service organisation for access to government information held by the organisation. Under the regulations, those organisations are entitled to charge an application fee and a processing fee. The amendments made now mean public sector organisations - except for a government business organisation, a local authority, or a higher education institution - cannot charge an application fee or a processing fee if:
- (a) the application is made by a member of the Legislative Assembly; and
(b) the application is for access to government information in a report brought into existence by a public sector employee or a consultant to a public sector organisation; and
(c) the report describes an event or situation arising from an investigation, inquiry or observation.
The act also currently provides for a waiver or reduction of fees if the circumstances, including financial hardship of the applicant and the objects of the act, warrant it.
On 29 April 2009, the member for Drysdale introduced the Information Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 20), into the Legislative Assembly. The bill sought to amend the Information Act to restrict the existing exemption for Cabinet and executive council documents, and also to abolish fees for members of the Legislative Assembly where they make applications for information or complaints.
The Department of Justice recommended the bill not be supported as its exemption from fees was too broad, and its changes to the Cabinet exemption provisions were inappropriate. The bill was debated during the August 2009 sittings of the Assembly, but was not passed.
The member for Port Darwin refers to the parliamentary agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. This agreement contains a term under the subheading Parliamentary and Other Reforms, to allow government reports – it is very clear, reports - available under FOI to be free of charge to MLAs. The term of the agreement is met by way of these changes made to the information regulations. These regulations enable government reports available under FOI to be available free of charge to MLAs. Despite what the member for Port Darwin claims, it was never intended, and never stated, that applications for access to documents generally available under FOI, be available free of charge to MLAs. This is clearly reflected in the terms of the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. The agreement specifically refers to government reports; it does not refer to all documents available under FOI.
The member for Port Darwin referred to comments I made in regard to the opposition’s Information Bill. The member for Port Darwin says he wants all fees payable by MLAs in relation to an FOI application to be waived. This Assembly has already dealt with this issue. This is exactly what the opposition sought when it introduced its own Information Amendment Bill. For good reason, that bill was not passed.
During debate, I explained why the opposition’s bill completely compromised the capacity of the public service to provide government with frank and fearless advice. I reiterate: protecting the integrity of government decision-making is important, and this is why we could not, and would not, and still will not, support the opposition’s bill.
The member for Port Darwin has been selectively quoting from my comments during that debate, not distinguishing between a comma and a full stop. At that time, I said, and I will quote from Hansard:
- We will be removing the requirement for fees to access government reports under the FOI process. That is distinctly different from just any witch-hunt someone may want to have as a member of parliament, requesting whatever e-mails there are, trying to grind down the business of normal government. It is understandable and appropriate to provide access to reports under FOI by waiving fees, but the strange and bizarre witch-hunt we have seen conducted by the opposition, the CLP, in terms of broadbrush e-mails from people - no, we will not grind down the good operations and functions of government because of their political whims and witch-hunts.
During this debate of the opposition’s flawed Information Amendment Bill, I said that the government will hold true to its commitment to the member for Nelson in waiving fees for MLAs for government reports sought under the FOI process. We have done this with these regulations. Now the opposition is seeking that these regulations be disallowed. This will mean that no longer will fees be waived for MLAs for government reports sought under the FOI process. This would simply be a loss; a loss to opposition members, a loss to any MLA wanting to access these reports.
The opposition, in seeking to have these regulations disallowed, is repeating themselves, and so I am forced to repeat myself. This government will not support any bill or any regulations that provides all fees payable by MLAs in relation to an FOI application to be waived - and for very good reasons. We will not grind down the ordinary business of government; we will not fetter fearless and frank advice coming to government through the decision-making process. The government will be opposing this motion of disallowance.
In closing, I note the member for Drysdale again, yesterday, introduced the Information Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 83). Again, it seeks to waive or reduce the fees payable. In fact, he goes one step further; he was bold enough to seek the bill also amend the act to waive fees for certain applications by MLAs, being applications amounting to less than 3000 revenue units - $390 000. The opposition is becoming increasingly ludicrous.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak on this motion. Some of the criticism I have received about lack of cooperation does surprise me then, out of the blue this morning comes this particular motion which, I gather, is rarely ever used. It is under the heading Assembly Notice, I believe. It does not really allow much time, considering we had a fair amount of other work today, to look at what was behind this but, on the surface, it actually seems silly.
Regardless of whether people might have an argument with the government over what they can and cannot get through freedom of information, I would have thought that to repeal a regulation which actually allows members of parliament to obtain reports free of charge, would be working against the very thing the member for Port Darwin is trying to advocate.
In the agreement it states that the government would allow reports to be given free to MLAs. The minister might remember that I actually applied for a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Glyde Point which, I must admit, the minister seemed to be somewhat hazy about whether it had been delivered, but eventually we found it did exist and when I put an FOI in for it they told me: ‘If you have $990, or something, you can have it.’ I said: ‘I do not want the appendix and I do not want this, and I do not want that; how much for the Executive Summary?’ That brought it down to about $100, so I paid the $100 and I thought to myself: ‘Is this actually right?’ Reports are put forward by government so governments can study those reports and come up with policy, but also members of parliament sometimes need those reports to give good responses. That is why that was part of the report.
Also in the Information Regulations under application fee. it clearly states:
- A prescribed PSO may not charge a processing fee as mentioned in subregulation (1) if:
(a) the application is made by a member of the Legislative Assembly; and
(b) the application is for access to government information in a report brought into existence by a public sector employee or a consultant to a public sector organisation; and
(c) the report describes an event or situation arising from an investigation, inquiry or observation.
The idea of repealing this legislation works against something that, whilst it might not satisfy the opposition, at least allows for some access to government documents free of charge, and that is simply all the agreement was about.
In relation to the member for Port Darwin saying I get special privileges to information on the prison; part of the agreement is about the prison, which involves the siting of that prison - which has always been a concern - and naturally I have had a number of meetings with a range of people which involving the site, the construction costs, the architectural design, those types of things.
With regard to information on matters outside of the agreement, I do not recall getting any information which no one else would be allowed to have. If I have, I do not recall it, and I would not expect it. But in relation to matters involved with the agreement, I certainly would expect to have some discussion, whether it is about a bicycle path or a sewerage line, etcetera. I would expect some type of briefing on those matters because they are part of the agreement. Without having knowledge of that, it is very hard for me to discuss those issues with the community or with the various bodies that deal with it.
Today is Thursday. I thought it was going to be a quiet day. It is obviously the same old tactic - they do not like the agreement and they will keep harping on it. Of course, if the CLP had the same agreement …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: They just love it. If they can go for me they will go for me, and they will go for me time and time again. So, the issue here really is …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I had a sock here, I know who I would give it to.
The issue is this particular notice on the paper today is a vehicle. It is not a vehicle to have a decent discussion about FOI; it is a vehicle to attack the agreement, and to attack me. You can do it until the cows come home; but I am disappointed. Regardless of whether you like the agreement or not, we did get some improvement in the agreement so people can get reports free of charge. That was something I believe was wrong: MLAs should be able to get hold of reports from the government, because how can they debate those issues if they cannot get hold of the reports?
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Glyde Point is a classic example. The minister made some rulings on rezoning land there, which stopped the possibility of industrial development. The minister then made some decisions about Middle Point Arm, and I simply wanted to get more background details on whether the minister’s arguments for closing that area down were valid; and if there was a report paid for by the taxpayer then I believe that report, unless there were national security issues or whatever, should be available to the public.
I do not support this motion. I believe it defeats the purpose. I do not want reports being charged for, because that is what this motion would mean; and that is a silly idea. If we can get access to reports it helps us as members of parliament. If people have issues about the definition of a report, then that is a reasonable area we could look at. Otherwise, I believe the regulation as it is, is okay, and I will not be supporting this.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, unlike the member for Nelson, I do not agree. I believe these regulations are an absolute con job by the minister on the people of the Northern Territory.
These regulations provide free access for MLAs to government reports; it is more about the government’s hallmark of spin rather than substance. It is an indictment this government will do or say anything to stay in power; they will hide the truth from Territorians to protect their own neck. Freedom of information was founded on the principle of open government. Freedom of information is consistent with the accountability of the Executive to the parliament and to the people of the Northern Territory.
Freedom of information is intended to expose information held by government to direct public scrutiny; it can break through the cycle of control and spin which has been the hallmark of this government - the culture of cover-up. The government would have you believe that today’s regulation will have a genuine impact on providing greater disclosure of government information to all members of this parliament; information that, in the ordinary course of a member of parliament’s work, would allow access for the closer scrutiny of government actions; and nothing could be further from the truth with these regulations.
It is interesting these regulations come on top of the government’s vote against the member for Macdonnell’s motion yesterday for an Indigenous funding watchdog; a committee that really sought a simple mandate to scrutinise government expenditure on Indigenous people. As the member for Macdonnell said, to iron out the kinks in the hose, real time freedom of information - it had teeth.
There is no denying the opposition actively seeks freedom of information from government through these FOIs, and we do not apologise for that. The Country Liberals currently have 44 FOI applications in the pipeline; 44 applications on a wide range of important matters mentioned in previous comments by the member for Port Darwin. Examination of those applications demonstrate these regulations are really just a faade - all spin and no substance.
On 9 April 2009, the opposition lodged an FOI seeking a full copy of the Cornish Report into NT Aeromedical Services. That report contains important information about aeromedical retrieval services for the NT, which have experienced a number of adverse events in recent years. The report would have provided advice to the department on ways to improve the practices and coordination of these aeromedical services for members of the public in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The government has refused to release the report and the matter is now before the Information Commissioner, almost a year after the application was first lodged, and Territorians are still none the wiser about the state of their aeromedical services. How do you think people in remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory feel about that? I can inform the House the government has continually made differing claims as to why the opposition is denied access to the report, and we await the decision from the Information Commissioner.
Another example: in March 2009, we sought information relating to the presence of Legionella in the cooling towers of Parliament House, and the member for Port Darwin touched on this. The information and documentation sought included reports detailing microbial contamination in the cooling towers. We sought this information based on conflicting information from the government and information provided to us from unnamed sources; and after the appalling responses we received to our inquiries in this parliament. After a payment of some $1184.61, we are still waiting for the delivery of this information which will only be released in part, again, almost a year after the initial application.
The question has to be asked: are staff in Parliament House aware of what is happening? Have they been exposed to dangerous levels of Legionella, and has the government actively covered this up? Again, a year later we still await the information.
Another example: on 27 October 2009, we applied for the full version of the 2007 Bath Report into FACS. The department lost that application, and we have subsequently reapplied to gain access to the report.
The latest advice from the department is information will be released to us in part. What part is released, we will have to wait and see. The department has claimed secrecy provisions prevent the department from releasing the report in full to us. In the meantime, we have been provided a copy of the report from an unnamed source, and it makes for interesting reading. On page 1 of the report it clearly states that names have been changed in the report to protect confidentiality. Our examination of the report has only identified a handful of pages which could be considered to come under secrecy provisions. So, what does this say about how this government uses freedom of information laws? It does not say much at all; or, in fact, it probably says a great deal.
We accept when it comes to personal information there should be appropriate provisions to protect that information. But this government uses those provisions to deny access to the entire report - in this case a report that, in 2007, shows the child protection system is in crisis and, two years later, this government has done nothing to implement the report’s recommendations - absolutely nothing - two years on.
Several other applications for reports are before the government - but these are more recent – and we will wait and see how much information, if any, we receive.
What this shows is, while fees may be waived, access is still denied; access to important information that is crucial to the good governance of the Northern Territory is denied. Access will continue to be denied to documents which inform Territorians what is really happening behind Labor’s spin - spin and no substance. The government does not want the opposition, or anyone else for that matter - anyone in the public gallery, anyone listening to this broadcast - to have any access to material that lifts the bar on scrutiny. It is as simple as that.
These regulations do not provide freedom of information in the Northern Territory. These regulations are nothing more than what may be called a Clayton’s improvement on the faade of openness, accountability and transparency - an appeasement to the member for Nelson. If the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson were to hold true to their commitment outlined in their parliamentary agreement from August last year to provide greater involvement in the oversight of important initiatives across the Northern Territory, then we would have access to the information this House previously proposed.
The question has to be asked: what is the government afraid of? I believe it is an open-ended question. If the last eight years are anything to go by, this government is absolutely up to its neck in mess. The fact that the opposition will continue to pay for its FOI applications is because, more often than not, we are digging deeper into the information and decision-making process of the government; reports do not tell the full story.
The majority of opposition FOI applications do not seek copies of government reports. We, more regularly than this government would like, seek information in the form of correspondence, handwritten notes, e-mails, legislative briefs, ministerial advice and other forms of briefing material, including urgent flashes; internal departmental information briefs, communications, statistical, empirical evidence, tests and other scientific evidence, minutes of meetings, and photographic or electronic imagery.
This information will not be free under these regulations. In fact, these regulations have no impact on the vast majority of the opposition’s FOI applications. Again, it is just spin and no substance. Information contained in the forms listed is vital to the opposition’s role in scrutinising government and the general public’s role in scrutinising the government and holding them to account.
We have sought e-mails and documentation relating to staffing issues at Royal Darwin Hospital. At the time of our FOI application, the NT Coroner had released a finding that was highly critical of the recruitment and allocation of nursing staff at RDH - that application cost the opposition some $60 000. We requested e-mails relating to documentation, minutes and e-mails from hospital management and meetings of the RDH Hospital Board for a specific period of time in 2006. This was prompted by a report by the Health Complaints Commissioner into the sexual assault on an infant in Ward 5B. The Health Complaints Commissioner made a comment in her report that she had requested the minutes of the board meeting since the assault but she had not received them. The Health Complaints Commissioner had requested those minutes and she had not received them. The fact that these minutes were not released to the Health Complaints Commissioner, or through the FOI process, demonstrates that either the government is actively trying to hide something, or they are completely incompetent. My guess is a bit of both.
Let me raise more serious and damning examples, particularly one, of the opposition’s access to information through FOI and why it is so critical. The example we all know too well, and it saddens us all. Too often we have spoken of the crisis that is the Territory’s child protection system, and how that crisis has failed too many young and innocent Territorians. The sad case of 12-year-old Deborah Melville is just one example. That young girl died a horrendous, agonising death on 12 July 2007. On 17 July, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, the member for Karama and the person responsible for bringing these regulations to the parliament, said on ABC that it took her department four days to inform her about the death of Deborah Melville.
I need to remind members that, at the time, the Community Welfare Act imposed on the minister the same obligations as the parent of that child. As the coroner said, those obligations included the obligation to provide Deborah the necessities of life, including accommodation, and the obligation to provide medical and health care for the child. She had been in the minister’s care since 2000, and the minister had authorised her foster carer. The minister was central to Deborah’s placement, her care and her welfare.
At the time, and for years before and after, the Department of Health provided portfolio ministers with what are called health flashes - urgent briefs about a range of issues, including staffing issues, service delivery, public health concerns, suicides of people in care, and child protection matters. Health flashes. We sought, after much struggle and cost under freedom of information, and obtained Department of Health and Families’ health flashes from 2003 and 2007. Here is one set of health flashes we obtained, and it makes very interesting reading indeed.
What is interesting, in this case, it is not what they contain but what has been admitted under secrecy provisions of the FOI legislation. As part of this set of health flashes we obtained this piece of paper. Innocuous as it is, we were told this piece of paper refers to a health flash dated 13 July 2007 and that disclosure of its information would be an unreasonable interference with the person’s privacy. This piece of paper.
Such provisions of the Information Act have been consistently used to prevent the opposition gaining access to child protection case information. We have the death of a young girl in the minister’s care on 12 July and, one day later, we have on this piece of paper what any reasonable person would consider to be the most likely scenario a health flash to the minister about the death of that child while in her care. But the minister expects us to believe it took the department four days to brief her about the death of that young child.
Minister, the department was communicating with you much sooner than the four days you claim. Any reasonable person, having seen this material could not, and would not, believe her. Here is the evidence, obtained under FOI, that the minister spoke mistruths. These health flashes contain very important information that any reasonable minister would demand be put before them as soon as they arrived in their office.
Responsible child protection ministers would ensure that any health flash pertaining to the death of a child in her care would be given to her immediately. She had responsibility; she should have demanded her staff provide her with that information. She should have cared.
Ms Lawrie: You are a grub.
Mr CONLAN: It is right here.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Treasurer knows that is completely unparliamentary language, and she should withdraw it as such.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw, but he is making it up as he goes along.
Mr CONLAN: I know it hurts when the member for Karama is exposed in such a way. She is exposed as a cold and heartless Child Protection minister. If we make a stretch, a very long stretch, and take her word that she did not see the health flash delivered to her office on 13 July for some four days, there are some serious questions about what she is doing as a minister. Some serious questions hanging over her head, indeed.
This was not a brief about a very small matter. This was about the death of a child in the care of the Minister for Child Protection. It was about a child in her care who died in the most horrific circumstances.
This case highlights the very reason the opposition pursues information through FOI - not just reports - which, more often than not, are influenced by ministerial advisors and spin masters rewriting the truth. It happens all the time, and it is very easy to provide them free of charge because you do not care if that information gets out. But the information that informs government, briefs government and shows government’s responses to various situations, circumstances and issues, is the information that we seek.
We currently have an FOI application before the same department seeking access to a more recent set of health flashes. That application has been denied at this point, and now you can see why. It has been denied because it will embarrass the minister, and this government, even further.
A major concern of the opposition when it comes to FOI is the storage of information by this government. We live in an age of electronic communications; e-mails have replaced written communications, but this government’s focus on recordkeeping and storage of electronic information has not kept up with the times. We have all had e-mails and overflowing inboxes and if you can not find an e-mail there are multiple options which allow you to search by key words, etcetera, provided you have not deleted the e-mail. Even then, I believe, there is an underlying assumption they are all stored in an archive somewhere in the bowels of a government building.
The former Attorney-General said the Information Act, and I quote:
- … will promote appropriate record keeping and record management in the public sector, including the management of the Territory archives.
Yet, in a response provided by the Department of Health and Families the process appears to be nowhere near as simple. DHF made inquiries regarding the storage of e-mails to the government IT provider, CSG, and the department of Business’ IT manager, and the following was returned. It said:
- E-mail messages that are stored in backup files are only retained for 12 months. The e-mail backup system is not an archival system and each user’s data would have to be individually restored. E-mails of ex-employees will not be able to be located if they did not archive them external to the computer system.
This is an appalling situation in this day and age, given the electronic nature of today’s workplace. Decisions are made, agreements are reached, conditions are negotiated - the whole gamut - documents are circulated electronically by e-mail, and backup files are only kept for 12 months. It is bad enough that essential public interest information is not permanently archived and is unable to be accessed for FOI applications, but this is the same system which would have to respond to inquiries and investigations into serious misconduct such as corruption, fraud and criminal matters.
Freedom of information laws were born out of the massive increase and encroachment of government in the 1970s. The laws were always intended to, and I will list a few: improve the quality of decision-making by government agencies in both policy and administrative matters by removing unnecessary secrecy; enable groups and individuals to be kept informed of the functioning of the decision-making process as it affects them; develop further quality of political democracy by giving the opportunity for all Australians to participate fully in the political process; enable individuals, except in very limited and exceptional circumstances, to have access to information about them held on government files so they may know on what basis decisions are being made and have the opportunity of correcting information that is untrue or misleading.
This government has lost touched with the origins of freedom of information. Clearly, it is because they are up to their eyeballs in so much mess. The government says it is open and accountable, but it is nothing of the sort; it is all spin and no substance. This government uses and abuses the freedom of information laws like a beauty salon makeover, having a pretty package all dressed up to hide the real face of what is going on. This government has bungled the job of running the Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK: I move an extension of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is too late; the time had expired, member for Port Darwin.
Mr CONLAN: It is all right. I only had one line to go, and that is: you are a bunch of incompetent idiots.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, your time has expired.
Ms Lawrie: You are so incompetent, your time expired, and your mates did not even notice.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Karama cannot help herself. She fires up any time she is caught out. That is the way she tries to cover things up, and it is no different in this whole government. This whole government stinks badly of a culture of cover-up. Everything they do, everything they try is about withholding information; trying to hide their own shortcomings; keeping information from the public; keeping information from those people who should be able to access information.
The member for Nelson made a good point: what is a report? There seems to be no definition of a report. We know of reports that no amount of freedom of information will allow opposition members to access. It is just wrong.
I have been involved in committees of this parliament and I have been involved in many committees in the federal parliament, but this joint absolutely takes the cake. In the federal parliament the committee system is very robust. It is a large parliament, many resources are put into committees and it is about informing members as best they possibly can. It is not about withholding information, it is exactly the opposite. It is about getting information to members of parliament whether they are government members or opposition members.
I have often said probably the best university in this country is the federal parliament; in particular, the committee system in the federal parliament. You have experts from all over the country, all over the world, coming to give information to committees and treating everyone on those committees like an idiot by trying to put information across to members in the simplest terms, in a great effort to bring them up to speed on a range of subjects.
The committees, however, in this parliament seem to be completely the opposite. It is about: ‘How can we manage to stop members getting information?’ It is an exercise in obfuscation, deceit, and withholding information. The best committee members in this place, as far as the government is concerned, are those who manage to obfuscate and withhold information and cause public servants not to offer information better than anyone else. That is the way this government sees it.
I have been involved in a committee here and when I asked a simple question of a witness I had a government member jump down my throat saying: ‘You cannot ask that question. You are asking for a personal opinion’. Of course I was asking for a personal opinion. No, that is a complete abrogation of standing orders; you cannot ask public servants for opinions. Goodness me, it would be absolutely dreadful if a public servant gave an opinion. No, you cannot ask these types of questions at all.
Question Time is a complete farce. In federal parliament, Kevin Rudd is a past master at not answering questions, and these guys here have picked up on it incredibly well. This last Question Time we heard the member for Macdonnell ask the Indigenous Affairs minister: ‘Why are you not paying your lease payments on a lease you have on the Tiwi Islands?’ A simple question. Do you think the minister would answer that question? Did we hear a reason at all why the government failed to pay a couple of hundred thousand dollars in lease payments?
Members: No!
Mr TOLLNER: Not a cracker! It is not about informing the public, telling people why they are not paying their bills. It is about rattling on about deals negotiated with the Commonwealth by Mal Brough …
Ms Scrymgour: Did the CLP make any lease payments?
Mr TOLLNER: We hate Mal Brough, don’t we, member for Arafura? You hated that decision to have an intervention …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair …
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Continue, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We see another example here – a pointless point of order. The Leader of Government Business jumps up and down when I made the point about the member for Arafura and the reasons she so hates the idea there should be private home ownership on Aboriginal land. Why does she hate …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have never said I have been against private home ownership. If the member for Fong Lim will constantly stand here and lie – actually lie …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that comment. If you wish to make an explanation …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw that comment, Madam Speaker, and I will certainly write a letter to you to seek a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw his comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the member for Arafura is absolutely incensed with the federal intervention. She trotted off to Sydney, she talked about a black kids’ Tampa, ignoring completely what was in the Little Children are Sacred report. Now, she hates the idea there are leases on the Tiwi Islands …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not true. I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, if you wish to make a personal explanation, you can approach me later.
Ms Scrymgour: I will.
Mr TOLLNER: … she talked about the black kids’ Tampa …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you come to the point, please? This is a disallowance motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am speaking on that. I am talking about the culture of cover-up that exists in this government and the fact we cannot get an answer to why this government is not paying their lease obligations on the Tiwi Islands. For some reason or other, the member for Arafura is taking offence to that …
Ms Scrymgour: I take offence at lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … she was the one who raced off to Sydney as soon as the intervention happened and started giving speeches about the black kids’ Tampa. It is on the record, we know she does not like it.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67 - relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, if the Minister for Indigenous Development and the member for Arafura were so incensed about the intervention and everything that came with it, why could they not stand up and say the reason the Northern Territory government is not making lease payments on the land it is leasing on the Tiwi Islands is because it does not agree with it.
Ms Lawrie: You are a clown.
Mr TOLLNER: Why do they just not say that? And here we get these futile interjections and points of order from the Treasurer.
Ms Scrymgour: He is an idiot.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Has he ever heard of the Office of Territory Leasing?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: Have you ever heard of it?
Mr TOLLNER: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: The Office of Territory Leasing. Have you ever heard of it?
Mr TOLLNER: Office of Territory Leasing? Well, why do you not explain why the Office of Territory Leasing is not paying their lease payments, if that is what you are suggesting? I would have thought it was quite a simple question to answer. Why are you not making your payments? A couple of hundred thousand dollars to a bunch of people on the Tiwi Islands, the Tiwi Land Council, from what I can gather. Why are you not paying them? Goodness me, you do not pay rent on …
Ms Scrymgour: Understand the process; it is not to the Tiwi people, it is paying the Executive Director of Township Leasing, you dropkick.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I would like you to withdraw that last comment.
Ms Scrymgour: I withdraw that comment, Madam Speaker. I believe that, but I withdraw it.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, we have just had it confirmed; they are not paying the Director of Township Leasing. So why are you not paying the Director of Township Leasing? In any case, I have to ask the question: are the traditional owners getting paid? No, we cannot get an answer to that in Question Time.
As I say, it is a culture of cover-up that exists in this government. The member for Port Darwin outlines in his dissenting report on the CTC a conversation he had with the Under Treasurer. All of a sudden, he is abused because he has the audacity to ask a question three times - has to ask a question three times, and the Treasurer comes in here on her high horse, preened up, carrying on like a poor martyr about us belting up public servants. We cannot ask a public servant a question now because we might be accused of belting them up - they are picking on public servants again.
Like the member for Nelson, you cannot ask him anything because it is picking on him. Everyone is picking on the member for Nelson; it is not just in this term of government, it was the previous term of government; everyone on that side of the House was picking on the member for Nelson then. It is interesting, a bloke who goes through life constantly being picked on, I do not know whether politics is a good job for him. But I do digress.
Madam Speaker, we are now informed at the eleventh hour that, through regulation, government is going to withhold information. This is just appalling. This is part of an agreement they cooked up with the member for Nelson. In their dreadful desperation to hang on to government they will do and agree with anything. Then they trundle in here and, in some sneaky, underhanded way will add fees and charges, and all types of other reasons why they are not prepared to part with information.
Everywhere you look in this government, in every nook and cranny, there is some tactic, some effort to cover up and conceal information. That is what they are all about, all the time. There is not a single good story for this government to tell, and if people start to dig to try to get information, this government is obsessed with making sure they cannot get the information they should rightfully be entitled to; it is absolutely ridiculous.
I was listening intently to what the member for Greatorex had to say and he had a litany of failures of government to be up-front and provide information. I thought it was a well-worded, well-crafted dissection of the way this government acts. He had some very good anecdotes and lessons about how this government operates. I believe he did a fantastic job of pulling that speech together. He dissected this government’s modus operandi very well and he demonstrated it with some very good examples …
Ms Lawrie: Deputy or whip?
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go; here is another example for how the member for Karama operates: run some interference, start off on a complete tangent and try to whip up a controversy somewhere else. We come into this place, we make some ground in opposition, which is almost impossible at times because of the way this government covers up and conceals information, but every now and again the opposition has a win in this place. The government despises it so much and the next day you open the newspaper and see some puerile story that takes away from it completely.
Yesterday, it was about the fact that I called for someone to gag the Treasurer. All of a sudden, the member for Greatorex makes a sarcastic comment beside me, and it is in the newspapers everywhere. I wonder where that came from. You have a whole unit up there on the fifth floor working overtime, running interference, trying to find nasty little stories to run about members of the opposition in the media. That is how this works, that is how this government works. They are a nasty, evil bunch of deceptive …
Mr Elferink: And they eat babies!
Mr TOLLNER: Well, let us not get too carried away …
Mr Elferink: Sorry. It was a joke!
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know they are used to being offensive, but can they just pull back every now and again?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please continue, but perhaps less of the flowery language.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought the Treasurer was upset at what the member for Port Darwin said. I do not for a second believe government members eat babies, but I do believe that they are deceptive; they are extraordinarily sensitive about anything which could impact on them negatively in the real world; and they will go to any lengths to cover up and hide the truth.
Almost every time we come into this place, every Question Time, there are a dozen points of order on relevance. Why? Because ministers fail to even go close to answering the questions. It amazes me in this day and age of openness and accountability around the world where everyone is striving to be more open and accountable, here in the back blocks of Australia we have a government that is working overtime to hide things, to not be accountable, to not be transparent.
Some things they try to hide and cover up are just ridiculous; you have to scratch you head and wonder: why would they try to hide this? Why are they not telling us about this? Some of it does not necessarily reflect badly, it is just the principle of the matter - you are not to know. That is what irks me the most. This culture of cover-up started and turned into an art form and a profession by this government. They are a sinister mob who is prepared to do and say anything to stop the truth coming out, which is a terrible shame and reflects badly on all Territorians that we have such a government here. We talk about getting investment and so forth into the Northern Territory, we talk about getting businesses here; but businesses like to operate in places of openness and accountability.
It was mentioned to me the other day about the corruption and the lack of accountability in China. I was in Shanghai last year, and I can tell you, there are no people keener to get rid of corruption and cover-ups than the people of Shanghai because they want to be a global financial services centre, and there is no way known that will happen while a shroud of secrecy, or even a perception of secrecy and non-transparency, hangs over them.
People around the world recognise this. It is how you develop industries, how you develop an economy, but here in the Northern Territory, it seems all that is out the window. It is cover-up, it is hiding things, obfuscating facts, twisting stories, twisting words, selectively quoting - you name it. These guys have done everything they possibly can to make sure the public and the people of the Territory are not informed.
It is a dreadful shame. Madam Speaker, I believe this government has passed their use-by date, and they have to go.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this debate has surprised me with the passion it has aroused in members.
The motion is a disallowance motion for a regulation, but what has become clearly apparent is the disallowance motion has highlighted grave shortcomings in the way this government conducts itself, the promises it makes, the arrangements it has, and the assertions of what it is.
In terms of the promises it makes, we hear the Treasurer doing back-flips and squirming and doing the little Treasury dance she does on the hot plate of having to back away from the promises she makes; dancing a little two-step number and saying: ‘You have to read the whole quote, you have to do this, you have to do that.’ The fact is, she made a promise and now she is backing away from it.
I was also interested to hear in her response to the motion it was, apparently, the opinion of the Department of Justice to put this together and how to respond to FOI legislation. Since when did the Department of Justice form the elected government of the Northern Territory?
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a fair call, is it not? Because the Department of Justice is actually a servant of the people of the Northern Territory as expressed through the people who hold the majority - albeit only just - in this House; so a minority government is formed, which has the member for Nelson as its 13th member and, whilst he continues to argue he has not the joined the government and is simply supporting them in certain circumstances, I am seeing less and less evidence of it. I thank the member for Nelson for confirming he has received information from the government in relation to the prison.
I ask him, again, to come into this place and table this information, make it available because, if he does not, he is obviously dealing with that information in a privileged fashion, and it has been given to him on some confidential level, or whatever. Well, the government can supply the opposition members with the same information.
The member for Nelson says he is not a member of government yet, interestingly, he is elected to this place in the same fashion. There is a group of people in this room who have taken an oath of office in relation to ministering on behalf of Her Majesty, and taken an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty to that effect. They, then, have a special position in this House; but the reason they are drawn from this House to fulfil that role – and technically, there is no reason why a minister needs to be in this House other than they are responsible to this House and the people in this House. They have no privileges in this place bar one or two rights in tabling matters and dealing with questions put to them in relation to their roles.
In this place, the lowliest and most remote backbencher has the same voting rights and the same legitimacy as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; the only exception to that rule, Madam Speaker, is you, being the first amongst equals. The concern I have is this non-member of the Australian Labor Party who has no affiliation with their government, other than having this arrangement in place, is provided with information only available to him. In the eyes of government he has a privileged position which ensures he is provided with certain information no one else receives. Clearly, he has set himself apart, and the government continues to set him apart.
The member for Nelson said he is not a member of government, yet he is being treated as such. Section 45(1)(a)(i) of the Information Act says information is exempt from release if it:
(i) was brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an Executive body …
Why, when we want certain information, we have to argue and plead for 16 months with the department, and jump through all the hoops, where the member for Nelson is simply granted that information?
Let us have a look at some of the documents the Information Commissioner has ruled should be provided to the opposition. This is from the Deputy Information Commissioner, Zoe Marcham. We have various information applications before the Information Commissioner and we sought information from the Prison Master Plan. On page 12 of the letter she provided to us on 18 January 2010, the Deputy Information Commissioner had this to say:
- I do not believe that these documents were brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an executive body, whether or not they were submitted to or considered by the executive body. I do not believe that these documents are exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a) of the act.
Well, hell, government does. Government does not want us to see it and their own Deputy Information Commissioner disagrees with them. What about the aerial map we sought? The answer from the Deputy Information Commissioner:
- I do not believe that this document is exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a(i)) of the act.
Madam Speaker, we sought information in relation to the alternative site, the determination by the Deputy Information Commissioner: ‘I do not believe that this document is exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a) of the act’. We also sought maps and, again, the finding from the Information Commissioner was: ‘I do not believe that these documents are exempt pursuant to section 45(1)(a)(i) of the act’. Each and every occasion, the Deputy Information Commissioner has said, no, this stuff is not exempt. Clearly, the government agrees with the Deputy Information Commissioner as far as the member for Nelson is concerned, but not the opposition.
This is the problem with the way this government conducts itself, and that is the problem, ultimately, with what the government is trying to do with its Information Act; by denying members of this House, who are the elected representatives and the occupiers of the superior body of government in the Northern Territory, have to subordinate ourselves to a government whose own appointed Deputy Information Commissioner disagrees with them, and still they dig their heels in and withhold. If we seek information we pay.
This government does not like opposition. It does not like examination. Nor should it like opposition or examination because it would very quickly be found wanting if information of this nature was released, I presume. I suspect information has been changed before being passed onto us in the past, particularly in relation to diary entries. This also does not bode well for the governance of the Northern Territory, and is one reason this system of government, as a whole, works so well. Whilst people who have their noses pressed up to the glass looking into the rarefied atmosphere of this place see people constantly in positions of combat and at odds with each other, the fact is the system actually works to improve the quality of governance, because ministers who go into a room where everyone agrees with them and tells them they are doing a great job, will actually not be as careful in terms of how they do that job, and that is why the system works.
To enable the system to work in that fashion, a truly free freedom of information system is required, and that is what is being withheld and that is why this disallowance motion is before this House.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, if members vote to defeat this motion and support the regulatory instrument as it currently stands, they will have taken up membership of the freedom of information death squad which this government represents.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note paper – Council of Territory Cooperation Progress Report, February 2010
Note paper – Council of Territory Cooperation Progress Report, February 2010
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker. I thank all members, and others, for their contribution to the first report on the CTC. There is no doubt the government, including the Commonwealth, needs to show it does take the recommendations seriously, and the CTC will be monitoring the response.
I should reiterate some of the important recommendations made, especially in relation to SIHIP houses. I know we have been over the reduction in funding from $150 000 to $75 000 for refurbishments. I believe it is important that be re-established and, from a personal point of view, I wonder whether putting a specific amount for every house is sensible in the first place, because each house is different.
I wonder if there should have been a more global fund even if that meant not quite the same number of houses were up to scratch, but the houses that were up to scratch would be complete and available to be handed over to NT Housing; but that is just a personal aside.
In the case of Tennant Creek where most of the money is going for refurbishment of houses, the money set aside for infrastructure should be used for more new houses, especially as people in Tennant Creek need 280 houses to catch up. That is certainly an issue.
We have all been concerned about the cost of these houses. The idea of when a house is handed over to Territory Housing there is a publicly available final cost which includes the administrative component; and, also recommendation 9 when SIHIP comes to completion, I believe it is really important there be an independent audit which looks at the usefulness of the alliance model, because that model was, to some extent, costed onto the NT government by the Commonwealth. Some people claim the system is good, so when the program is finished we need to see if those who believe the alliance model is the best process for building houses can argue their case against the scheme or the standard contract we have for building houses elsewhere. That is an area we certainly need to look at.
There are many issues in relation to the shires. The shires do not have the money to maintain the services they have to provide and the government needs to be looking at that urgently. It cannot leave these councils to flounder. The issue of roads is very important, and the government has to get back to us about why there has not been road funding under a similar scheme which applied to Pitjantjatjara Council. I was part of a discussion about local government reform and one of the areas continually used as bait to allow reform to occur was that bucket of money. The federal government was happy with the idea of amalgamating councils, and we always got the message there would be more money. That money has not been received, and we need to know why. If there is some doubt on behalf of the Commonwealth to supply that money, then we need to put much more pressure on the Commonwealth.
There is also the dissenting report from the CLP in relation to the report covering the time between November and December, and discussions which were held in relation to the timing of the report which finished at the end of December. Within the dissenting report the CLP included reports on places we visited since the time the report was completed; and also on a meeting we had in Darwin with Power and Water, the Department of Justice, and the Police
In relation to work done on the dissenting report, we spent approximately five hours going through the CLP’s position, page by page, recommendation by recommendation in a collaborative way. Some recommendations were outside the scope because of the report time frame; some were about administrative issues; and some, I thought, were more political than the scope of the CTC covers, and they were not agreed on.
There were issues such as local government functions and it was suggested LGANT, or a similar body, should take over from the department. I do not recall any local government saying this was a good idea. I am not saying it is not a good idea, but I have always felt the department of Local Government could be much smaller; but that has to come from local government, not from the CTC. If the CTC hears local government believes there should be another body to run or oversee their sphere of government, then that is where it should come from.
There will always be differences, which is why we have a dissenting report. However, some issues raised by the CLP will come back in the next report and cover issues raised by Power and Water, the Department of Justice and the Police department. We also had trips to Nguiu and Wadeye, and issues raised at those places will be raised in the next report.
I do my best, and I become disappointed at times when the CTC is attacked. I do not mind people disagreeing or not being happy with the agreement because, of course, the CTC was born out of that agreement, but there is an opportunity here to work cooperatively, regardless of the criticism. The member for Katherine said it educates him as a politician about places and areas he has never been to. It gives us a better understanding.
I have never seen the CTC as having a focus on one particular facet; we come with many recommendations and cover a range of topics. The member for Port Darwin and I disagree on some things, and I do not agree with his conclusions on many things in this dissenting report. But, had it not been for our meeting with Power and Water, we would not have had a day of questions regarding the issue of gas supply in this House; and that is a good thing. Talking to the Chief Minister, he realises there is a risk with the CTC because all members can be on that committee and they can gain information they would probably not be able to otherwise; and that gives them the ability to question government more. I appreciate the member for Port Darwin used information he obtained from that meeting to question government the other day. I find that a good thing, but we have more work to do.
However, underneath all that good, I feel a niggling effect all the time - some of which is personal and some about the CTC - and that is unfortunate. I say that because there are omissions in the report; there is a sense I have not worked hard enough or I have done this or that. I do not mind constructive criticism, but I have tried.
For instance, we cancelled the meeting to Groote Eylandt so the members for Katherine and Port Darwin could attend. I did not have to do that, I could have said: ‘Too bad’. But I tried. We had a meeting with the Department of Justice and police, and the member for Port Darwin was late; I held the floor for 15 to 20 minutes to ensure people did not feel they had been snubbed. I did it because I believe that was my job. The member for Port Darwin had asked for the Department of Justice and the police to come to discuss domestic violence matters, and I knew it was important, so I held the floor. I did not complain, and I did not write it in my report. If you read the dissenting report, you would believe I was the world’s worst chairman. There is a range of things in the report which are factual, but the conclusions are not fair - they are definitely not fair.
All I want to do is focus on the positives, and there are positives out of it. I am learning many things: I am learning how to chair a new type of committee I have never chaired before; I am learning about places, people and issues I have not had much to do with over the last few years. I believe it is a good program; it will continue to be criticised, but we can work our way through it.
As a council, we have to sift out the rhetoric and the politics and look at the facts which, no doubt, will be a challenge because, as we know from comments and e-mails, any issue can be turned into World War III, or can be looked at as a negative which needs to be turned into a positive. Governments can hide behind spin to cover their mistakes, and we need to dig through that spin. That is why it is important we talk to the backbenchers rather than the ministers, because if you are going to get spin, you will get it from the ministers.
The Chief Minister made a statement yesterday that should they retain government at the next election, they will retain the Council of Territory Cooperation. Yes, it is uncomfortable for the government of the day to lose control of the flow of information into the public arena; however, it certainly makes for a more robust, transparent and accountable system. And I am all for that. He went on to ask if the opposition would commit to maintaining this council if they came to government. I also asked the opposition if they would do that; if they would actually bring ministers before the CTC, because that certainly has been one of the issues; and would it be open to intense scrutiny by crossbenches.
The CTC is in uncharted waters in the Northern Territory, and a number of difficulties have been identified in how it operates, and getting information from government. The CLP is not unique in recognising that; in fact, we are working on a list of discussion papers with members now. This is a learning experience and we will continue to work in a cooperative way to come up with solutions.
Regardless of whether people agree with setting up this council, the benefits of this council far outweigh the negatives, and I believe we should keep working to do good. Because I do not stamp my feet and get over-agitated about issues, does not mean I do not have a passion for what I do. That happens to be my style; other people have a different style. That is my style of doing things and I do not intend to, necessarily, copy other people’s styles. I have said I did not get into politics to end up like a politician; I got into politics because I thought I could do some good. That is the reason I believe the CTC is important - it can do good.
I will finish with a philosophical, or maybe a strange quote, because I always feel we can have lots of argy bargy in here, but I am still the same bloke whether I am the member for Nelson, or Gerry the chicken farmer, or whatever. It is still me. I found this quote the other night from John Wesley, who founded the Methodists. I thought, to some extent, it sums up why we should be in this House. It says:
- Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can.”
That sums it up very well.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Climate Change Challenge
Note Statement - Climate Change Challenge
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this important statement of climate change. I commend the minister and the department for bringing in a framework which will assist, not just the broader community, but also across government agencies. It has always been felt, as the minister said, that government must lead by example, and it is fantastic to see this strategy and to see the percentage government will work towards - 10% - to reduce its carbon footprint.
When you think what you can do, as an individual, about climate change to reduce your carbon footprint, and look at your own home - light globes, air-conditioning - all those things that, as an individual, can make a difference. That is the important thing. We will go a long way in dealing with climate change if everyone did their bit as individuals and families to make this work.
This policy is fantastic to look at particularly from the perspective of my electorate. I have often talked about land management and the successful WAFMA project in my electorate, the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project (WALFA). This project was started by a significant man for whom we had a condolence motion in this House when he passed away, Wamud Namok. He did significant work as the founding member of the project and the testimonials we talked about touched on his encyclopaedic knowledge of country, his impressive body of artistic work and his contribution to scientific research and understanding.
Wamud Namok’s status was well-known in traditional arts and culture. He received a Medal of the Order of Australia, the OAM, for services to the preservation of Indigenous culture as a senior traditional man and significant artist whose work included the relationship of the land and its ancestral past with the Mimi spirits of rock art. That old man had achieved prominence for his critical role in the success of the West Arnhem Land fire abatement project which is an innovative strategy and now the model for adoption elsewhere.
I remember going down to an environment meeting a few years ago when the Warddeken Rangers and the land council were developing this proposal and putting it to the then federal agencies to look at as a model for a carbon offset program, a carbon trading program. People were sceptical about how savannah burning could actually offset carbon and become a project that would be the model for elsewhere.
As local member, I saw this project evolve over the last seven or eight years, and I see it today used as a model to be adopted elsewhere. Its impetus started when the ABC Catalyst program documented the progress which had been made by the team at Kabulwarnamyo, in Western Arnhem Land. As that program said, it was late May and Arnhem Land was still drying out after the big wet and Aboriginal people start burning Arnhem Land soon after the rain, as they have done for millennia, to regenerate useful plants and animals.
But, over the last 50 years this early burning was interrupted as people started to move into townships. As a result, approximately half of the landscape is incinerated by uncontrolled wild fires late in the dry season. The carbon trading offers an elegant win/win solution for a company needing greenhouse credits and for Aboriginal people wanting to restore traditional burning on a grand scale. This was something ConocoPhillips, or Darwin LNG, worked on with the Warddeken Rangers and Wamud who always said he wanted a place where both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal scientists, and people, could come together and combine both laws and cultures.
So he established Kabulwarnamyo and whilst, many people might call it an outstation, that old man and the Warddeken Rangers see Kabulwarnamyo as the regional fire station for all of Western Arnhem Land. I am looking forward to this Dry Season to invite the minister for the Environment to come with me to have a look. And it is not just Kabulwarnamyo, because another area in my electorate which is very fragile and needs to be looked after and nurtured starts at the Mary River, which is not in my electorate but is in parts of the electorate of Goyder, but the Mary River goes right back to Kakadu and the fragility of those wetlands and the encroachment of salination, or the salt water intrusion into those wetlands, is certainly something we need to be mindful about.
The Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments do have a partnership and some funding which has been put towards looking at the salinisation or the salt water intrusion into the Mary River wetlands, but more certainly needs to be done and a keen eye should be kept on the progress of what is happening with salt water intrusion into those very fragile areas. The fragility and biodiversity of Kakadu a place all the documents point to as one of the areas which will become a hotspot in Australia where we will see the first indications of climate change in the Northern Territory.
Already that landscape has changed. Just over from Jabiru is a little community called Gunbalanya. It was only two years ago that community suffered the worst floods it has ever seen. Many old people and locals who grew up in that region, not just Binninj or Aboriginal people, but many of the non-Indigenous rangers who have worked in Kakadu for a long time, 20 or 30 years, were quite shocked at the level of the salt water that has intruded around Gunbalanya. That is a worry because the environment, not just Gunbalanya but throughout Kakadu, has the escarpment where there are paintings which hold the history of Western Arnhem Land from colonisation and it needs to be preserved and looked after.
Climate change is here, it is real. We have to be serious locally, nationally and globally to recognise the challenge, part of which is recognising it as individuals within our own families and within our own groups; understand what it means for us and to be smart in managing the change because it does mean having to change how we do things. Territorians are good at doing that: working together, developing local solutions to apparently huge challenges, working together and being smart and creative in problem-solving. Our challenge is to capitalise and further develop our collective skills and knowledge, and there is a great deal of skill and knowledge in the many groups around the Northern Territory. The Landcare groups have done and do fantastic work. The ranger groups, not just in the Top End; we have many ranger groups in Central Australia such as the Ntaria Rangers, and many groups that work in land management programs.
The Environment minister oversees a fantastic grants program for schools. Education on our environment starts in our schools, and it is important that young people in our schools participate at that level with the environment. It is about what is there for our future. The important thing is to recognise the important job we have to deal with, and to have a supportive management framework that fosters collaboration, partnership and innovation - an adaptive management plan we can work on and modify as new knowledge comes to hand.
Going through the Northern Territory’s Climate Change Policy - and I commend the minister and his department – it is very important to have a framework which can be adapted as things change, and will change, and this Climate Change Policy provides that framework.
I thank the minister and all the people in his department and throughout the Territory; the ranger groups, as I said, but also a group we often do not think about; the North Australian Aboriginal Land and Sea Management Alliance. One of the key areas these groups look at is the issue of water. Water sustainability in the Northern Territory should be a key component of land management because water is a vital ingredient in protecting the country.
It is a fantastic policy, it mentions wetlands which are really important; I have huge wetlands in my area and the issue of water sustainability and the future of water in the Northern Territory needs to be also treated with much seriousness.
Minister, thank you for providing a policy for action to respond to climate change in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a couple of comments on this matter
Clearly there is concern in the community that a response to environmental issues be made. At the time we began to develop a strong interest as a community, and became aware people demanded leadership on this issue, political parties started to respond because the community was becoming increasingly aware. Having been involved in education for many years we know, as young people go through the system they become more aware of environmental issues than the older generation – the Xs and the Ys and so on. We knew it was coming.
As community leaders we need to ensure that we provide the right kind of leadership. There is a great temptation to play with issues such as this, because you are playing with the fears, the uncertainty, the anxieties of people, and you can craft policy responses to create impressions and trade off that feeling in the community. You do your polling and get a sense the green sensitivities out there, and respond accordingly. However, the response must be something very honest. We have seen in recent times, through lack of leadership, an increased confusion and cynicism as to whether these methods, practices, responses and statements are, in fact, a response to a problem we agree on, or is it a response to a general feeling in the community which can be used to advance a political position and not actually take us anywhere.
I believe that idea is growing, particularly after Copenhagen, and after the last federal campaign. There is now a greater level of confusion, cynicism and uncertainty about this matter than there was going back 24 months. Now is the time for a clear response. That is why the response from the federal Coalition is something I am attracted to, because of the direct action. People are aware there is a problem; it is an abstract problem in many respects, but they want a practical response, something they can actually do. Everyone wants to do something, so, what can I do to make sure I give the benefit of the doubt to the planet, something practical I know has meaning? Now is the time for a practical response.
The practical elements described in the statement must be backed up with recognising there is a desire in the community to respond, to give the benefit of the doubt to the planet, but in such a way that is practical and the hard questions are honestly answered.
I was at the Property Council’s 4 o’clock Forum, where Mr Mike Moon got up and spoke. He asked what I thought was a ripper question, he said:
- All this talk about changing a building, say within the CBD, from something that has a large carbon footprint to something that has all the right green credentials is admirable, but how much carbon is consumed to move it from there to there? The cost of that change. Would it be more effective to leave it as it is, rather than to consume an extraordinary amount of energy to take it too another place?
That a good and honest question.
We get confusion about driving a Prius - and we have the issue now with Prius - and people say the cost of making one balanced against the savings you make whilst you are driving one does not quite work. I do not really know. I am not a scientist. It is that type of cynicism that is starting to crank up in the community, particularly after Copenhagen, and we are wondering what is what. Then we have science, and now we question science.
I am saying let us just make sure what we do is practical, and measurable, and meaningful; that is where we should head. There are a number of things in here that nearly head in that direction and that is where I am comfortable. But grand, abstract proposals, I am not drawn too.
I will put on the record something I am particularly interested in which comes from my own observations as a local member. I would like to see something practical like this take place, and I am going to advance this and I have already had some conversations. Every second or third weekend, I take palm fronds to the Palmerston dump - using this as a practical illustration. You know the story: as soon as you load your trailer up and think you have loaded the last palm frond, another four fall down. I took four loads to the dump last weekend and I felt good about that, but when I got to the dump I got to thinking, as I have done this a number of times, I am going to respond practically.
How is it we take palm fronds from the garden, put fertiliser on the garden, drive the palm fronds to the dump, and then put them in a big skip? A big truck filled with diesel comes along, belching smoke, hoists the great big skip, which does really contain much - just palm fronds and they do not take up a lot of space as anyone knows; you can winch down a pile of palm fronds on a trailer to about nothing - but you have these skips loaded with palm fronds, lugged by a big truck all the way to Shoal Bay. That whole exercise, if you are really serious, something has to happen there. That is a local response, and that is direct action.
I believe the direction we need to be looking at is: you need to mulch that there, have it on-site so the council can take that and put it on the verges; people can buy it and put it on their garden; it conserves water, enriches the soil, stays in Palmerston and you do not have trucks lugging light loads, high bulk, low volume loads from Palmerston to Shoal Bay. Even if no one wants it, even if the council does not want it, even if residents do not want it to enrich their soil, at least you have bulk to take and make greater use of the diesel and the truck to take it there. I believe we need to get down to those practical things; and there are some here.
That said, anything that is a practical response to an abstract problem, such as climate change, I am with you. There are questions that come up; we have the contest and the debate over the Arafura proposal - it is a proposal - but one argument I have not heard properly addressed is if you are passionately concerned about climate change resulting in sea level rise, then that is one response. Put the emotions aside, put the poll research aside; as a community leader you need to weigh that up honestly, and see whether it is a genuine concern that may require a practical response one way or another. I am not spinning it one way or another, and we may have some clever people up on the 5th floor thinking: ‘Oh, ripper, we can now do something! Forget that, I am saying you have to make sure those types of ideas are brought into the debate to pay due respect to the process of discussion within a community.
Finally, I come to a character I was reminded of not long ago when watching the show The Best of Paul Hogan, Part 3. It was not very good. This character’s name was ‘The Dodgy Magician, Luigi the Unbelievable’. He was a fantastic character; a hopeless magician, full of hype and bluster; he was quite serious about his work, and he thought he was very good. It reminds me, in a curious way, of the Chief Minister - ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ - when it comes to the matter of trying to distract attention from a conflict taking place within the Labor government in power, and has been in power for some time and has sucked the political value of this to its max; and has done all types of things and devised clever responses to advance its political interest. I believe there has been an absence of honest engagement in this, of practical, genuine, honest, engagement on this
Perhaps it is the problem of government, but they are now in the position where they think: Oh god, there is an election coming up and where is Howard when you need him? Oh god, it’s Kevin Rudd. The truth is that the conflict is now with our own comrades in Canberra’. But ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is going to try to conjure up this show which creates the impression the conflict is actually elsewhere; it is as dodgy as ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ to try to create this illusion that somehow there is a problem in existence which we are responsible for.
I can tell you quite plainly, Territorians, to their great credit, can see through this just as anyone in the audience can see that ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is not a fair dinkum magician. What we have here, regardless of how cleverly you attempt to spin your lines, we have taken an honest position all the way through this. We have done the assessment. If you are honest about statehood, stick to your digs if that is what it is really about. If you are serious about that then we will see the same concerted campaign mounted and perhaps even increased, because it is now moving to the end game. We will see it by evidence, or do we see the flamboyant, dodgy manoeuvrings of ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’? I wait to see whether genuine leadership will be shown here.
We know the science has indicated quite plainly for all to see it should be in South Australia. They have an election coming up, but that should not change the fact that is where it should be; but do you honestly believe, given that and that preservation of political capital is a consideration here, that it will not come here? We have to weigh that up and say: ‘Our position has always been if it does come here, then we must make sure we get the best deal possible; if it does.’ It not like screaming you do not want something to happen when you know you have to prepare for the next stage.
While we have this conjuring act going on creating some kind of distraction, I am not wearing it. Territorians, to their credit, will see right through it. We will see the true nature of this so-called passionate opposition by their actions; whether those same glossy petitions will circulate with hyped-up anxiety exhibited by members of government running right through the public service, as it did before, through the Royal Show. I recall very clearly and widely, at considerable expense, full page advertisements. I have already checked a number of media releases issued by Warren Snowdon when it was dear old former prime minister there, he was frothing at the mouth; he was writing a media release a week, a day, perhaps; there is a whole bundle of them.
Someone said: ‘On one hand you have, say, 30 to 40 media releases issued when this issue was of such profound concern that media releases needed to be issued to attack those evil characters in Canberra who are going to do something shocking to the Northern Territory; and, on the other hand, are all the media releases that have been issued since the other bloke attempted to do the same thing.’ You have 30-odd this side. Zero on that side. Well, here is a big opportunity to show that you are going to provide genuine leadership because I reckon our community is a bit more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
I do not believe ‘Luigi the Unbelievable’ is a real magician, nor do I believe real leadership has been shown. I believe a con job has tried to be conjured up here to distract attention from the fact that the real battle is between this Chief Minister and Kevin Rudd.
We are watching this. Play it out and show us if you are fair dinkum.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber for some time now listening to the Chief Minister accuse all of us on this side of being climate change sceptics. I wonder what he means by a sceptic. If that means one challenges theories that are put before all of us in the community, then I do not know whether that is actually scepticism; I suggest it is actually part of the scientific process.
I listened to the Chief Minister yesterday tell us about the scientific evidence in relation to the location of the uranium waste deposit facility. He said this should all be based on the science and the geological facts should be considered by all of us; and I agree, perhaps it should.
However, that suits that particular argument, but it may not suit his argument when he comes to calling people climate change sceptics. I recall at school when I was taught science; I had a particular interest in science and did very well at it; it was something that fascinated me and I was taught the art of science is about challenging theories and trying to prove what is and what is not; and theories that were unable to be proved were still, in fact, theories. One should always challenge the theories of the day, as people in the past have.
Columbus challenged the theory the earth was flat. If he had believed everything everyone was telling him, he would not have sailed off into the sunset and discovered what was called the new world. It behoves all of us, especially those in leadership positions in the community, to challenge the theories put up by all people.
As member for Sanderson, I receive in my office numerous books, journals, articles, and e-mails on a range of subjects. In relation to this ministerial statement, I will speak about some of the information I received in relation to climate change. What I see in the papers appears, to one who has an interest in science, a one-sided argument where - and there is a new term from some of the information I have read - the eco-journalist; people who specialise in climate change and, in particular, climate change articles in newspapers, journals and other publications. What I see in newspapers are people saying the climate is changing; and I do not disagree with that. They then go on to say what they insist are the causes of the climate change and, if you do not believe them, too bad, you are labelled a climate change sceptic.
I have looked at some of the DVDs which have come into my office. There are DVDs which are for the current theories being espoused claiming they have all the evidence and suggest we are responsible for it and everything is doom and gloom. Then, there are other DVDs which present a different argument, a different set of facts. On both sides, there are people of eminent standing in the scientific world who are saying it is this or that, and both sides have arguments; both sides have charts to back up their particular arguments. The people who are for are saying carbon dioxide is terrible and is a pollutant, which is interesting because when I was doing science and biology, carbon dioxide was something we all are made of. We are made of carbon, and carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is actually part of the life cycle of the Earth. How much is it going up by? I am very interested to see figures from both sides, and it behoves us to do just that - look at both sides and consider all the experts who are giving us both sides of the argument.
I am really trying to get my head around some of this, so I watched An Inconvenient Truth, one of Al Gore’s DVDs. It was fascinating because he said in 20 years time there will be a 20 foot sea level rise if we continue the way we are. I think he said it was 20 years. I have since seen evidence to suggest that is actually not the case and there are figures available, which I do not have with me at the moment. However, the DVD goes on to say many things: if we do not do exactly what Al Gore says, we are all in trouble.
I then got another DVD called Earth 2100, which is almost farcical. I do not know exactly who put it out, but I found it fascinating because it basically says if you continue to do this, then it is doomsday, there will be no water on the earth, there will be nothing left, and everyone is going to die; and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion. It went on to say if we do exactly what they say, and it showed some pictures, artists’ impressions and computer-generated pictures, of plentiful food, plentiful water; the earth is a great place, everyone has a wind generator on their house, the lawns are green, everything is fabulous and there are no problems at all; not discounting population increase and some of the problems that will come with that.
So, here we have a DVD that starts off saying it is doom and gloom, like the Doomsday Book. Then, at the end, if you do what we say, which are the things perhaps some of the eco-journalists are suggesting we have to do, then the world will be a land of milk and honey.
I do not know whether I believe everything in that DVD Earth 2100, but I have looked at it, and another couple DVDs that present the other side of the argument, again, by eminent scientists who put up evidence to say that it is not actually CO2 that is causing global warming, it is actually sunspot activity. It has to do with clouds and water vapour, and the amount of radiation that clouds deflect from the earth. There are charts which suggest when industrialisation came to the western world, CO2 went up but, in fact, the climate temperature was going down, so there were massive increases in CO2; and temperatures were still going down in about 1970. Now they have reversed, and are going up.
There are graphs in Al Gore’s movie where they disregard the mini ice age in the 1500s; yet other DVDs say they conveniently forget about that because the Thames used to regularly freeze up, and they have drawings and paintings of the Thames in the 16th century showing it frozen over in winter. It does not do that these days. It is hotter; it is colder. Things change, and I am not supporting one side or another; what I am supporting is we should really take a close look at both sides, not just one. To be labelled a climate change sceptic by the Chief Minister is quite unusual, when we should all, especially in this House and in the scientific world, look at both sides.
There is a climate scientist in the United Kingdom who, for some years, has made himself quite wealthy by betting on the weather. I am not suggesting we should go out and bet on the weather, but one of the DVDs I watched interviewed this particular scientist and he places bets on a weekly basis with a betting agency in the United Kingdom. He bases his information on sunspot activity and what it is going to do. Over a period of 20-odd years he has, without blemish, almost a perfect record of predicting the weather. His resources are very finite and quite small compared with the resources of the United Kingdom’s Department of Meteorology. Apparently, they cannot get it right, but he can.
So, having bet a lot of money, and made a lot of money, they show photos from the newspaper of this guy who actually predicts the weather with far more accuracy than the United Kingdom’s Meteorology department. After 20 years, the department now goes to him to get much of their information about predicting the weather. The Danish State Department of Meteorology also spoke to him and are now looking at his type of research. They have gone back to look at sunspot activity for at least the last 400 years and the rises and falls in the earth’s temperature seem to almost exactly match the graph of sunspot activity piece for piece. I was stunned at how closely that actually follows it and I wonder whether it is actually carbon dioxide, or is it sunspots, or is it something else.
I do agree that whatever we do in this world we should reduce pollution. Whether that is causing climate change or not I would rather put that aside for the time being. I look at the statement the Minister for Climate Change has made and the things he is talking about. He talks about Mr Rudd’s big, new tax on everything, and about Copenhagen and the targets they set. On page 6 of the minister’s statement:
- … interim target of reducing emissions from our fleet by 20% by 2014 and 50% by 2020.
I applaud that, it is great that we put targets on it, irrespective of whether the earth is warming or not. I believe, as a species on this earth, we should not pollute anymore than we have to and if we can reduce it, we should make every effort do so. On page 7 of the statement, the third paragraph says:
- Government’s carbon neutral target outlined in the Climate Change Policy includes travel, use of fleet vehicles, and the energy consumed in Government buildings …
It goes on to say:
- Demonstrating our commitment to the National Strategy for Energy Efficiency, which all Governments signed up to through the Council of Australian Governments in July 1999 …
They have installed a highly secure video networking system called Telepresence, which will be used by Territory government staff instead of travelling interstate for inter-governmental meetings. It goes on to say how fantastic this new technology is: saves costs, less greenhouse emissions, improves productivity, less travel time, increased work/life balance, and many other things.
I wonder if this will also apply to ministers of the government who shoot off all the time to do this, that and everything else. They too could save an enormous amount of time and cost, greenhouse emissions, improve ministers’ productivity through less travel time and increase work/life balance for them. It says here this is all right for Territory government staff, but it does not mention anything about ministerial travel, of which, we understand, there is a substantial amount; and up to this point in time they need to do that, they need to go to meetings and have face-to-face contact with people sometimes.
Quite often - and I am sure government would put up a similar argument - many things at these meetings happen outside; it is not necessarily about what happens in the meeting room. We know from our own experiences in this Chamber that discussions go on between the government; the opposition; between the Independents and government; Independents and the opposition, and a whole raft of things occur that cannot occur with video linking.
I am sure the government will say of course ministers have to go; ministers have to do this, ministers are important, ministers have to be seen to be there to do all the social things that go along with cordial and friendly relationships. Quite often, I believe that will be the case with government staff; they will have to go down and do those things that occur outside the room and build relationships.
On that subject, we heard the Chief Minister this morning during the condolence motion for Frans Seda saying how important those relationships are. I wonder how it would have worked for the Chief Minister to have built a relationship with Frans Seda over a video link - I do not know whether it is quite the same. I suggest there will still be a considerable need for people to travel, and if they do restrict people travelling, then perhaps they should say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and restrain their own travel.
Further in the report, on page 15, paragraph 2, and I quote:
- Diesel is a known offender for greenhouse gas emissions and has a higher carbon footprint than gas.
I might read that again so members on the other side can hear it, and the Minister for Essential Services might be able to hear it as well. I quote again from the report:
- Diesel is a known offender for greenhouse gas emissions and has a higher carbon footprint than gas.
I saw some documents recently, and I stand to be corrected, but I thought the document said in the last calendar year, or it might have been the last financial year, the Northern Territory government burnt 121 million litres of diesel in the Channel Island Power Station. That is interesting because we were supposed to have a gas-fired power station last I heard, which was just recently. You hear about it, you see it in the paper, the government is on about gas and how wonderful it is. We hear the Chief Minister, on a regular basis, talk about 2030 and about gas and how we need gas, our power plants will be run on gas, our remote power stations are going to be converted to gas.
I turn the page of the ministerial statement and on page 16; I will quote this because it is quite interesting:
- The Power Water Corporation is contributing to the goals of the Territory’s Climate Change Policy by implementing a strategy to reduce reliance on diesel power generation in remote communities. This strategy incorporates the substitution of diesel with renewable and low emissions energy sources such as pipeline gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Concrete examples of early action by Power Water under this strategy includes a proposal to replace the diesel fired power station at Wadeye with a new natural gas power station connected to the Blacktip pipeline, the substitution of diesel with natural gas at Hermannsburg …
And it goes on to say there is a tender process, etcetera, with 20 regional communities. I find that quite amazing, we have a capital city that was gas going back to diesel; and remote communities where they have diesel going to gas. I wonder when the government is going to get it right.
I recently read in the paper, and I have heard members in this House talk about it, we actually ran out of gas at the Channel Island Power Station about three months ago when the gas was shut off. We have had many troubles with the power supply in the greater Darwin area and at Katherine, which is on the same grid; and we have a huge problem with gas flowing into the power station. I was here just last week when the question was asked of the Minister for Essential Services …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; and thank you, members. So the gas is shut off and we start trucking more diesel down there. I have had reports of road trains full of diesel heading down to the Channel Island Power Station on a regular basis. So, what has happened to the gas? Why, in a capital city, are we going back to diesel-fired power stations when we are supposed to have gas? That would be a good question the Minister for Essential Services might like to inform the House about in one of these mini statements, if he ever gets around to getting them back to the House.
So, we have all types of things contributing to our greenhouse footprint up here. I believe the department of the Environment still has the highest carbon footprint of all government departments. We have eminent people giving us information from both sides and, what I find quite unusual is the government seems, on many occasions, not to want to discuss any of these issues; they do not want to go through the process. I would like to reiterate something I started with: in a scientific process all theories should be looked at and given equal weight until someone can definitively prove one side or the other.
We have a very interesting conundrum with climate change. I do not believe there is a person on this side of the House who believes the climate is not changing - the climate has been changing for millions of years - it goes up, it goes down, it goes here, it goes there, it is different all the time. The experts from both sides need to be heard so we can make decisions. The problem, at the moment is there is equal weight of evidence which suggests different things cause climate change, other than carbon dioxide; and both sides have evidence to put forward.
However, the Chief Minister has decided we, as a group of people, should not do that; we should just believe what he is saying and believe the people who are telling him various things and giving him information, and we should not even consider anyone else. Why does he continue to do that? He talks about process, discussions, and going out into the community and consulting with the community on everything; in fact, sometimes people in the Northern Territory are consulted to death - and have been for some years - we have a report on this, and we have a report on that. If that is the case, why is it the moment we disagree with the Chief Minister, he labels you as a climate change sceptic. I put onto the record: I am not a climate change sceptic, and I do not believe my colleagues are climate change sceptics. We accept the climate is changing. The question is: what causes that change?
People are saying, and have all the glossy pictures: the ice sheet is melting. I saw some figures recently which suggested there is 720 000 km2 extra ice this year than there was two years ago - which demonstrates the Earth is creating more ice in some places and not in others. I read some interesting information in relation to the Himalayan glaciers melting. Given the member for Barkly is watching, I will ensure I quote the reference of this Internet document. It comes from an article in The Sunday Times, London, on 17 January this year titled World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown. It is interesting when one researches; one learns something new every day. It says the west Himalayan range includes 15 000 glaciers. I did not know there were that many glaciers in the world, let alone on the west side of the Himalayan ranges.
Mr Elferink: I am not taking you to a Trivial Pursuit night.
Mr STYLES: I love all this stuff. The article says:
- Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
It also says:
- In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
- It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then in based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
It has the wrong presumptions and asserted that the Himalayan glaciers would be removed from future IPCC assessments.
- Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: ‘If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.’
So, the IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1990 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. It goes on to explain the size of these glaciers and how long it would take for them to melt.
There are pages on this which I have looked at, and I am certainly not convinced by the eco-journalists it is actually CO2. What I am aware of is that we, as a species on the Earth, need to be very considerate of the Earth and the other species we share the Earth with and, whether there is global warming or not, we should be mindful of the pollution we create, and we should decrease the amount of pollution in any way we possibly can. But, listening to the doomsday people, I am yet to be convinced it is all gloom and doom.
I believe we should perhaps look at the possibility of nuclear energy, and we should look at thawing; we should examine, discuss and allow those arguments to go through the process. The problem we have, of course, is the Rudd Labor government will not even entertain the fact of an alternative base load power supply, and they just want to keep putting up renewable energy. I do not mind renewable energy, but I believe we should invest in research and development and we should go down that path with whatever vigour we can.
However, I do not know if we should be penalising ourselves and sending hard-earned money we make in taxes in this country overseas, just yet, when other countries are not going to play the same game. I believe the rules should be the same for all, and we should negotiate with the other players. Of course, we are only a bit player, producing 1.2% of the world’s emissions.
There are figures here from 2006 which say China produces 21.5%. I believe that is slightly more now with at least one coal-fired power station commissioned every week in China. India is the same. I believe China is going into next generation nuclear energy for power generation and will bring that online as soon as they can; which brings us back to where we take the waste and what we do with it and, of course, the Muckaty Station location of our uranium and waste storage facility.
It says Chinese emissions will increase by at least 11% per annum, and it will take only 12 days for these increased emissions to equal the reductions proposed by the Australian government. That will come at a huge cost to our community in Australia, and they will increase what we save in 12 days. It hardly seems like it is a fair argument, but I would encourage those on the other side to talk to their colleagues in Canberra, and ask them to negotiate with these countries so that we are all playing on a fair and equal footing, and the rules are the same for all.
I would like to say again, I am not a climate sceptic. If the Chief Minister wants to continue the claim we are all climate sceptics, then perhaps he should entertain the thought that one should allow it to go through the process; which is what this place is all about, what politics is about - ensuring the process is fair and equal for all.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions over this week of parliamentary sittings. The majority of members in the House have talked to this important statement, which demonstrates that, while we have differences of opinion, and political parties differ on issues such as climate change, we all agree on one thing in terms of climate change: we can take small, practical actions in response to this issue, and we all believe we have to change behaviour. We need to change the way we do things, whether it be in our own households as individuals, or as parliamentarians, or as members of the broader Northern Territory and Australian community, and the global community.
So, I truly do thank all members of the House who have contributed to this climate change statement during the sittings this week.
I thank the member for Arafura for her contribution and her knowledge on the background of the West Arnhem fire abatement scheme in her electorate. As we know, unchecked wild fires create approximately 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory. The savannah burns we experience at the beginning and right through the Dry Season is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory.
Listening to the member for Arnhem really did reinforce for me that climate change is something which can unite the Northern Territory community; whether it be scientists within my agency, whether it be the business community such as multinational companies like ConocoPhillips, or countrymen on their homelands, working in a united way with scientists across the board, sharing contemporary knowledge of climate change and carbon emissions with the elders that the member for Arafura talked about, and their traditional knowledge.
We are very fortunate in the Northern Territory to have traditional Indigenous people who are scientists in their own right, who have extraordinary knowledge of country, extraordinary knowledge of the biodiversity of the land they have walked for thousand of years, working together with scientists to deal with the issues of carbon greenhouse gas emissions.
I thank the member for Arafura for sharing her insights and her knowledge as the local member there for many years, uniting Territorians from all walks of life to deal with the issue of climate change in the Northern Territory. She raised the important issue of water, and the member for Goyder also raised the issue of water. We are certainly aware that with climate change we focus on the more global issues in terms of becoming carbon neutral and those types of issues.
I take on board the issue of water. We are signatories to the National Water Initiative signed by COAG that particularly focuses on the need for better ways to manage our water in the Northern Territory through to 2011, and there are many areas my department has worked on regarding water. We have the Katherine Water Advisory Committee which has overseen the Tindal Water Management Plan monitoring water throughout the Northern Territory. We are very keen to see these water management plans roll-out across the Northern Territory to achieve better results and how we can be smarter in our use of water. It is there for everyone, for all users, and we need to look at how much water we extract from this very important resource.
The announcement of the moratorium on land clearing in the Daly expiring next week is a very important part of that, and it is not just the land clearing guidelines they will introduce, but also the Katherine/Tindal aquifer, a complete water allocation plan for that region which will give everyone certainty on this important commodity. Without the science, without better planning in place, things like the moratorium may have to continue. But, it is a very positive story; once again science is working with people on the ground who rely on the natural resource. I believe the whole Daly River example is one we can roll out across the Territory in regard to our water management.
Member for Port Darwin, I am glad to hear you got rid of that little bus you had …
Mr Elferink: No, I still have that.
Mr HAMPTON: You have not got rid of it?
Mr Elferink: No, I still have the bus, but I drive a Prius.
Mr HAMPTON: I thought you got rid of it. I was going to congratulate you because I have seen it a couple of times and there was a great deal of smoke coming out of it. I was worried what sort of impact that might have …
Mr Elferink: That is misleading parliament, surely.
Mr HAMPTON: In all seriousness, that is one example. We should be looking at hybrid vehicles. I have driven one on occasions down to Katherine and you hardly notice any difference to a standard vehicle. A hybrid vehicle is certainly the way to go, no doubt about it. I suppose it is hard being a bush member, as you would know in your previous time as a member for Macdonnell, it is difficult to get one of those hybrid vehicles out on the Tanami. I acknowledge that, but it is a great initiative and, in terms of greening our fleet, it is a path we should continue to go down.
In the contributions this week everyone agreed we all have a role to play whether it is in the family home, or as parliamentarians. We are all members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and at their last conference there was an agreement to be part of a wider Commonwealth initiative to press for more effective global responses to climate change issues.
There has been a task force established looking into this through the CPA, and in their latest newsletter one particular point has come out from a statement made at the 15th Conference of Parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is a role we all play that comes to us as parliamentarians. The first point I would like to put on the parliamentary record, and it states:
- At the national level parliamentarians have a key role to play in the formulation, implementation and oversight of any climate change agreement.
So, we do have a role to play as individuals, as parents, but also as parliamentarians and it is refreshing for me to have so many parliamentary colleagues contribute to this important statement. But in terms of the CPA, they have also taken a keen interest in the issue of climate change and I look forward to the work coming out of the task force which has just been established from the association meeting last year.
I thank those business involved in leasing commercial buildings in Darwin, and the grants that were awarded under the Oz Industry Green Building Fund to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. Everyone has a role to play and it is great to see the business community get on board, and they include: Paspalis Centrepoint, 9-11 Cavenagh Street, Harbour View Plaza, and the RCG Centre, all in Darwin. So, through the Oz Industry Green Building Fund they have taken on the challenge to improve the energy efficiency in their buildings.
As a householder, as a parent in Alice Springs, I try to do my bit to change the way I do things at home and in my garden; simple things such as native plants, having timers on your drip systems, appropriate shade around the house, protection during the summer months so you can cut back on the use of air conditioners. I do not use my air-conditioner at all during summer, with the help of ceiling fans. They are the small things, and the Leader of the Opposition said it as well, they are the small, practical responses we can do as individuals which all goes towards climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also like to clear up a few misconceptions regarding my agency and clarify that my department is not the biggest greenhouse emitter; plain common sense would tell most of the opposition this would be impossible given the size of my department. Comparative information on greenhouse emissions is publicly available on the Northern Territory government website, and I would urge parliamentarians to have a look.
The website compares agency emissions from energy used in buildings. This shows the Department of Health and Families clearly has the largest emissions from energy use - four times the emissions from my department ...
Mr Elferink: Until you count the number of people in your department.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Unfortunately, members of the opposition have drawn their conclusions from figures reported by my department during estimates debate last year, which I am happy to clarify. At that time, my department gave an estimate using a different methodology to the standardised approach, which had the effect of bumping up their figures. The publicly available report I have referred to already, is available on the website, and has all agencies using the same methodology. I encourage members opposite to look at this report which is publicly available.
It clearly shows those agencies supporting high levels of infrastructure have the highest emissions, as you would expect. It is there I acknowledge the great program, the Government Energy Efficiency Program, or GEEP, has a large role to play in cutting these emissions. As I said in my opening statement to the House, an example of the GEEP program in action is the energy efficiency lighting upgrades at the Royal Darwin Hospital, valued at approximately $0.5m, and will save 450 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and up to 60% of the energy used by the old light fittings. Also, $0.5m through the GEEP program is about to be invested into energy efficiency upgrades at the Alice Springs Hospital. As I said, the Health and Family agency is the biggest emitter, and the GEEP program will go a long way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
So, $0.5m going into the Alice Springs Hospital very soon in energy efficiency upgrades, which is predicted to save, again, 440 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. These upgrades range from optimising air-conditioning and heating controls, light sensors, and low-flow shower headsets which save water, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
The project is funded through the Northern Territory government with contributions to the Alice Springs Solar City Project. With a pay-back period of less then four years, this project should save 6% of the hospital’s energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the Katherine Hospital will be undertaking similar energy efficiency upgrades. I hope this clarifies for those people opposite who is the biggest emitter of the government departments.
There was a great deal of support from members for the fantastic work occurring in the Western Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project. Again, I thank the member for Arafura for her comments and sharing her journey as a local member, with the countrymen, the traditional owners, and the elders. It is great to see the issue of climate change bringing together all this knowledge, both scientists and the Indigenous traditional scientists and their knowledge of country and how we can reduce those emissions. We need to get more projects like this up and running. With the North Tanami Indigenous Protected Area Scheme, they are keen to look at the carbon offsets available through that region, and are working with the private sector in that offset scheme.
I also listened carefully to the member for Nelson’s comments on land clearing. This week I announced a comprehensive new land and water management regime in the Daly area. Let me reassure you, member for Nelson, under the Climate Change Policy we are committed to be a low land-clearing jurisdiction. It is one of the key actions of our Climate Change Policy. However, that does not mean no land clearing at all. Land clearing will be necessary to support infrastructure in our primary industries, and I acknowledge that.
There is a process land-clearing applicants have to go through, and I encourage them - actually put the onus on them - to ensure they get those applications in according to the land clearing guidelines. In saying that, we need to ensure, when land is cleared, it is in the right places and we keep the rate of clearing in check, because it does lead to substantial emissions from what can seem like small decisions.
The member for Nelson also raised some queries about whether land clearing really does lead to these emissions, and I am advised by my department that the benefits of carbon uptake by, for example, growing a crop, are taken into account in the calculations. As to whether exclusion of fire from cleared land somehow negate the impact of the clearing, I am advised this is not the case.
Land clearing is the big carbon event, and will not be offset by what happens afterwards. Of course, if others have scientific information to the contrary, then they should present it and we will look at it.
Climate change is one of the most serious issues facing this planet, and the future of our kids and our kids’ kids. As I said before, during one of my trips through my electorate I came across a fantastic quote at the school at Pigeon Hole which is: ‘We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children’, and it is so true.
It is a serious issue which deserves a serious response and that is what this government has done. Government’s policy embraces the new carbon economy of the future which will see the Northern Territory Government become carbon neutral and a global leader in remote, renewable power; real land management projects to offset four million tonnes of carbon each year; become a low land clearing jurisdiction protecting the carbon banks stored in our landscape, and real action to protect our priceless wetlands from sea level rises. The CLP’s policy does none of this.
This government acknowledges climate change is real, it is human induced, and we need to deal with it in an economically responsible manner. Every single member on this side of the House is absolutely committed to responding to this challenge for our economic and social wellbeing, and for the future of our planet as well.
The CLP, on the other hand, deny the science; they are not serious and have no credibility. It is a real disappointment, at this most important time, the opposition are playing politics on this issue. It is really unfortunate, because I believe the member for Brennan has had a decent, honest crack at getting his side of politics to see some sense. Let us not fool ourselves; he has absolutely no chance of convincing his colleagues, they are just playing him along, and the member for Fong Lim has already pulled the rug from under him. The member for Fong Lim cannot even bring himself to acknowledge they have a climate change policy. Within a day of its release, he was out in the media telling everyone it was a pollution reduction policy, not a climate change policy. Why should we be surprised?
This is the same man, when he was member for Solomon, who introduced a report into the federal parliament denying that climate change was manmade. What can you say about the sincerity of the member who now says he is open to climate change action, but is opposed to the federal CPRS? This is the same man who went to the 2007 election knowing that John Howard would implement an emissions trading scheme, but raised no objections at all. The opposition need to come clean; they pulled their policy together to support Tony Abbott because it was politically expedient. They did not consult with Territorians as we did over two years.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members. As I said, they did not consult Territorians as we did over two years; it was policy on the run to score a cheap political point and climate change is too serious for those games. I come back to the member for Brennan: good luck, if you can keep your mob together on this issue, I very much doubt you can. We have already seen what the conservative side of politics does to those who believe in strong action on climate change - just ask Malcolm Turnbull - he will tell you, member for Brennan. They savage those who understand that sort of action is required.
We know the opposition are not serious. The member for Goyder spent much of her contribution bagging renewable energy. Maybe she needs to look at her own policy. She then went on to talk about not lumping various initiatives under climate change. That says it all, and really exposes the mindset at play here.
We know the opposition is not serious, because every one of them supports taking money from mums and dads and giving it to the big polluters. This government supports solutions that make the polluters pay and compensates mums and dads. The opposition’s proposed emissions reduction fund does not include any detail on how they will fund it, but it is clear it will be from the mums and dads, from the strugglers.
The CLP purports to be the party of free market solutions, the party of individual choice and the party of small government, but it has thrown it all out the window at the first serious test. Instead, it is in favour of the big government solutions and picking winners. I am sure the member for Brennan knows the only way to move to a low carbon future is to put a price on carbon. The CLP can make all the big claims they like, but if they oppose putting a price on carbon, then they cannot deliver a low carbon future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the opposition’s head in the sand approach, this government will get on with the business of pushing hard to make the changes necessary to respond to climate change for our kids and the planet.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
LEAVE DENIED
Public Accounts Committee –
Report on Deliberations
Public Accounts Committee –
Report on Deliberations
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to report to the Chamber on matters currently before the Public Accounts Committee.
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I call a division, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You cannot have a division on seeking leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I am simply seeking leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to report on matters before the Public Accounts Committee, and we hear a single voice over there, and all of a sudden we have a decision.
Mrs AAGAARD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Seeking leave is not a motion; it is merely seeking leave.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: It is a tragedy, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you well know.
TABLED PAPER
Building on Our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Territory 2008-2012 - First Progress Report 2008 – 2010
Building on Our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Territory 2008-2012 - First Progress Report 2008 – 2010
Ms McCARTHY (Women’s Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the First Progress Report 2008-2010 of the Department of Health and Families, Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012.
Today, I present the First Progress Report on Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory. The women’s policy identifies five key priority areas for women: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. This report looks at the progress and achievements made by the Northern Territory government for Territory women under each key area for action since 2008.
Notable achievements for Northern Territory women’s health and wellbeing include major investments in women’s sport, such as the new $6.2m home for Territory netball at Marrara Stadium; the implementation of a family partnership model of child and family health care; and a focus on an integrated approach to maternal and antenatal care, to name a few.
We have established a number of projects which contribute to women’s economic security, providing continued funding to the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre, and the initiation of the Girls at the Centre Program as part of the Alice Springs Indigenous Education Strategy. The Chief Minister’s Study Scholarships for Women and the Indigenous Business Development Program also support Northern Territory women to be economically independent. This government has made a significant commitment to domestic and family violence services in the last two years, establishing a dedicated domestic and family violence policy team.
There has been a major focus on investing in local services and in partnerships with the Australian government in this area. We have also implemented mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, upgraded sexual assault services, and developed a new social marketing campaign aimed at increasing public action in regard to domestic violence.
Increasing the participation of women in leadership roles is important in bringing diversity, new voices and experience to decision-making bodies. To achieve this, the Northern Territory government has created a new online board registration website, and we have funded forums in all regions for women to inform government on issues of importance to them.
This progress report also highlights current major projects being undertaken by the Office of Women’s Policy, such as an indicator project on the status of Territory women, a feasibility study for the provision of micro-credit to remote Indigenous women for enterprise development, and an inquiry into pay equity.
Underpinning the Building on Our Strengths framework is the use of gender analysis in the development and reporting of public policy and programs, delivering services and when reporting outcomes for women.
This government supports women in overcoming the significant social and economic barriers to enjoying equal opportunities and participation. The Northern Territory aspires to be a place where women can balance work, family and lifestyle. This framework clearly articulates the government’s agenda for change and a commitment to working for better quality of life for all Territory women and their families.
In conclusion, I advise the parliament that next month is International Women’s Day on 8 March. This year the particular focus and theme is Celebrating Women in Local Government.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I table a report titled Towards Northern Territory Statehood - Issues for Consideration.
MOTION
Print Paper - Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Print Paper - Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper - Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Note paper - Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Towards Northern Territory Statehood: Issues For Consideration
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
In the lead up to the Constitution Convention in 2011, the campaign for statehood in the Northern Territory is entering its next phase with public forums being held throughout the Territory in 2010. It is timely therefore that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee conclude its inquiries into a bill of rights for the Northern Territory and customary law. For ease of reference both reports are contained in one volume.
First, let us turn to the Bill of Rights Inquiry. Strong rights protection is important in any modern democracy. Over the years civil, political, social and economic rights have extended to include new rights not previously articulated, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment. Rights protection can take any forms; the Bill of Rights is one form of legal protection. Would a Bill of Rights in the Northern Territory improve and extend our existing rights protection? This is a question Territorians should be asked. Whether the answer is to be sought at the same time the statehood question is considered is a separate matter entirely. The two questions are not mutually dependent; a bill of rights could be written to the constitutional document of the state of the Northern Territory, or be enacted as a separate statute now or when statehood is achieved.
Would tackling both questions at the same time do a disservice to one or both? Should we consider a Bill of Rights for the Northern Territory while statehood, which would give Territorians a more constitutionally secure place in Australia, is yet to be achieved?
The committee believes that priority must be given to the attainment of statehood. It is also noted that the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, led by Fr Frank Brennan SJ, handed down its final report in September 2009. The committee recommended the enactment of the federal Human Rights Act as well as a range of other measures, including increased and improved education to all Australians on human rights
That committee also recommended that all measures occur within the National Framework of Human Rights Protection containing a stated of lists of rights and responsibilities to be protected. Given the current status of the Northern Territory constitutionally, it would be prudent to wait for the federal government’s response to see how the Northern Territory can best respond within the national thinking, either before or at statehood.
This Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report reflects the research and considerations undertaken and how the Committee arrived at its recommendations through consideration of issues in international, national and local contexts.
The question of the Bill of Rights for the Northern Territory is a debate which the community must have in earnest, without the issues being entangled in or impeding our progress towards statehood. Achieving statehood first would make clearer the way for a state-wide debate on a Bill of Rights.
Turning to the inquiry into customary law, the committee acknowledges the continued existence and practice of customary law in many Northern Territory communities is a reflection of the strength and will of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and cultures. It calls for greater recognition of customary law have largely risen in reference to criminal justice. However, in the context of the current move to statehood the question before the committee was: to what degree customary law could be acknowledged in the Northern Territory. There are positive and negative arguments for this. The many legal questions which arose during the inquiry reflect the level of complexity of the issues for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and the Northern Territory as a whole. Underlying the considerations were the different forms of recognition that are possible, and which form would be best for the Northern Territory.
The committee believes a collaborative and pragmatic approach needs to be taken to further recognise customary law, and any approach must not create uncertainties for either customary law or the general law; any aspects of customary law which might be recognised, and the form in which that recognition can take place in our legal system, needs to be driven by societal changes from time to time. The recognition of Indigenous Australians within the Australian Constitution is being considered, and this may be a step worth considering for the Northern Territory as it walks towards statehood.
The statehood forums in 2010, and subsequent Statehood Constitutional Convention, will be significant steps towards statehood and the future of the Northern Territory. It is inevitable that topics of whether the Northern Territory should have a Bill of Rights and issues associated with further acknowledgment of customary law will emerge during the statehood forums and the constitutional convention. However, it is important these issues not detract from, or take precedence over, the important goal of achieving statehood.
I thank the members of the committee. This is, in fact, a bipartisan report and I make particular comment on the friendly and professional way in which these issues, which are quite difficult ones, were dealt with by the committee. I thank the members on the committee: the members for Goyder, Arafura, Fannie Bay, and Brennan. It was a pleasure working with members on the committee.
I thank the committee Secretariat: Patricia Hancock, Maria Viegas, Eva Scott, Kim Cowcher, and Kay Moorhead. I also acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, Mr Michael Grant QC, and the Crown Counsel for the Northern Territory, Sonia Brownhill, and Dr Jan Whitehead, a former committee research officer.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the report which has been tabled and echo the sentiments of the member for Nightcliff. Both these issues contained in the report - the Bill of Rights and customary law - were considered in the context of statehood for the Northern Territory, leading up to the community fora we are currently holding across the Northern Territory and, of course, the constitutional convention which will be held in 2011.
They are both very complex and complicated areas, but we must not lose sight of the fact we are trying to attain statehood. Whilst they are important, we believe they should be tabled and noted and we can discuss them at a later date and include them in discussions with regard to our new state.
I also thank the members of the committee and the secretariat staff for their hard work. Let us just get on and attain statehood for the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about my visit, as Tourism minister, to Malaysia and Singapore.
I recently went to continue to strengthen our tourism and business links with Asia, a key responsibility in my role as Minister for Tourism. Since receiving the Tourism portfolio responsibility from the Chief Minister in December last year, I wanted to ensure the good work of my predecessor, the member for Casuarina - who also visited Malaysia towards the end of last year - was not lost.
This means engaging with the key stakeholders - local, national, and international - to properly understand the views, issues, and opportunities of the industry; and that is what I have been doing. Much work has been undertaken in engaging with and building a strong relationship with Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian Tourism minister, and the opportunity of a short visit came up during February.
In Kuala Lumpur, I had a very productive meeting with the Malaysian Minister for Tourism Dato’ Seri Dr Ang and her key staff. We discussed a range of topics and, during our meeting, Dr Ang accepted my invitation to visit the Northern Territory so she can see firsthand what we have to offer. The only problem will be which parts of the Territory we can get her to in the short space of time she will have for her visit. A great deal of work is going on at the moment looking at locations across the Territory in preparation for Dr Ang’s visit. Already, there is a delegation here from Western Australia on behalf of the Malaysian Tourism minister.
Singapore and Malaysia are major gateways to Australia, and the Northern Territory government has an active interest in these markets, and we want to make it easier for international visitors to come here. Malaysia is one of the top 10 international source markets for Darwin, with approximately 2200 Malaysians visiting annually. We also know here in Darwin city, and across the Northern Territory, we have a significant population of Malaysians, so it is important we maintain those links, not only from a government-to-government perspective, but also family relationships that are ongoing. The Territory has more than 500 Malaysian-born Territorians who make a huge contribution to our diverse and vibrant community.
I also had a constructive meeting with Tengku Dato' Azmil Zahruddin CEO, Malaysia Airlines, whom I encouraged to consider re-establishing its links with Darwin, and again operating a direct service between Kuala Lumpur and the Northern Territory. Through Tourism NT, we have been working very closely with Malaysia Airlines in recent times and hope for a very positive outcome in the near future. Attracting a full service international airline such as Malaysia Airlines to Darwin is a priority for the Northern Territory government. Malaysia Airlines operates to a number of key tourism source markets for the Northern Territory, and our European tourist markets continue to grow. I am confident this growth would be even stronger if we had increased airline access, and I will continue to work hard to secure the appropriate services we need.
I also took an opportunity to meet with Ms Rosalynn Tay, Managing Director, Tiger Airways Singapore, to better understand their future plans for growth in the region. Tourism NT has developed very good working relationships with these key stakeholders, and I am certainly encouraged by the positive responses I received during my brief visit.
This visit, my first to Malaysia and Singapore as Minister for Tourism, was a success and important in understanding just how close we are to the region. It was also an important trip on a personal level, not having left Australian shores for nearly 20 years. The first time I left Australia I went to the Philippines to spend some time working with the Indigenous peoples in Mindanao and spent some time in Cebu.
It was an important trip in understanding our relationships with overseas connections, and I look forward to the visit of the Malaysian Tourism minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Council of Territory Cooperation has confirmed that the scandal-ridden Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is heading for a cost blowout, or another reduction in what will be delivered for $672m. Recommendation 2 from the Council of Territory Cooperation states:
- The Council recommends that SIHIP should be allowed to roll out its refurbishments and rebuilds to the standards originally promised.
Not downgraded. That recommendation says plainly that there is not enough money to do what was promised, and that the refurbishments and rebuilds will not be up to scratch without either an injection of more money or the delivery of substandard work.
It must be remembered that SIHIP has already been gutted to make it fit the $670m budget. Originally, the SIHIP budget was going to pay for the infrastructure needed to support additional housing; it was going to pay for the roads, the power, the water, the public amenities these communities desperately need.
I say the Territory’s original budget was $0.5bn short, going by the management of this Territory government. Having stripped infrastructure out of the budget, we were assured the remaining $672m would deliver 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds of existing houses, and 2500 refurbishments across 73 remote Indigenous communities. Clearly, that is not going to happen.
Everywhere, the program is being further gutted. Housing is shrinking in size, four-bedroom houses becoming three, three-bedroom becoming two, two-bedroom becoming a duplex; and one-bedroom units are now being built and classified as housing. How can a one-bedroom unit be classified as a house just to make the 750 target? Houses are now being built in the bush without verandahs, something that is clearly culturally inappropriate, and was identified through the consultation phase in developing the design standards. The story relates to rebuilds and refurbishments as well.
The Australian has reported that one total refurbishment consisted of a new stove, a new family kitchen, new tiling in the bathroom, and painting of interior walls. It also found kitchen benches were not replaced, windows were still broken, floors were bare concrete, and the outside of the house was not painted.
This goes to Recommendation 3 of the CTC report:
- The Council recommends that the Northern Territory Government work with the Australian government to ensure that stock from SIHIP meets minimum Territory Housing standards.
Not in the report in The Australian. How can SIHIP houses meet Territory Housing standards without a further injection of money? The member for Fannie Bay indicated yesterday, they may need more money to actually get the work done.
That is an indication, or a vindication, of the failure of the Northern Territory government in the management of the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. It is all very well to read a report which has been produced under the guidance of the Chairman, the member for Nelson. A report means absolutely nothing. I read the report in full again today, and I went through Hansard discussions from yesterday, and understood exactly where things are at. We now have refurbishments downgraded from what could be spent of $150 000 down to $75 000, according to the words of the member for Nelson, the Chairperson of the CTC. We hear anything over $100 000 for refurbishment is now called a rebuild. Let us get to the point: 230 houses not fit for people to live in were supposed to be knocked down and 230 houses rebuilt. Now you are telling me you can do repairs and call them a rebuilt house.
This is a clear sign of the failures of the Northern Territory government. You have 750 new houses, which incorporate one-bedroom units. That is not going to solve the overcrowding crisis. You are doing repairs on property and calling it a brand new house. This is an absolute failure of a program!
Where in Australia would anyone, apart from a millionaire, spend $450 000 on the construction of a house? Let us not forget that does not include the infrastructure or the land. This government is pilfering money. That is why the member for Macdonnell made a recommendation yesterday, through a motion, that we should have an Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee to oversight where the money is going on Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory.
People want to see the issue of Indigenous affairs fixed. People do not mind money being spent if it is fixing the problem, but, this is clearly not fixing the problem. This is a fraudulent program mal-administered by the Northern Territory government and is not delivering outcomes. $450 000 for a house is an average price - that takes in the bottom end, the one-bedroom units which might cost $150 000 to build, to the million dollar tin-sheds being built in these communities. It is fraud!
One of the recommendations in the report says the Northern Territory government is the most fit and able government to deliver this program. I have reached the point where I believe the program should be taken away from the Northern Territory government and given to the federal government to run. This never happened when the federal government ran Housing. I have moved to a position where I feel it is so important that the government has fraudulently managed this program, with their snouts in the trough, that the program should be taken away from them and given to the federal government.
There is absolutely no way the Northern Territory government can run this program. Millions of dollars have been spent trying to get the program up and running, spent on design consultants and, here we are now, seeing the old designs rolled out everywhere. We see money squandered on countless, dozens - I believe up to 75 - public servants running this program, and we have two houses built three years after it was announced. It was announced in 2007; it is now 2010 and we have two houses built; and the houses that have been repaired or refurbished have smashed windows. I believe there is something in the report that says they have not enough money to take graffiti off the internal walls of a house. I do not know how you cannot have enough money when you have $672m.
This comes down to the absolute bottom line management of this government and its incompetence to manage. It has been unable to manage Family and Children’s Services to look after children; it has been unable to manage Education with the educational standards of the Northern Territory; it has been unable to build the roads and bridges it promised it would build in the Northern Territory. It cannot deliver on the housing and planning requirements to release land in the Northern Territory to address the worst housing crisis the Northern Territory has ever had. Nothing in this government is working, and you have virtually put against the wall $672m worth of important, emergency funding announced by Mal Brough as part of the intervention. This money was for an emergency, and you have wasted it.
We hear about Peter Garrett and the pink batt scandal and the mismanagement of funds that have gone on with that, and the tragedies that have come out of that program; well, this program is worse - the Strategic and Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is worse - it is not about a measly amount of pink batts in a house, this is houses costing anywhere up to and over $1m to build, not including the land, not including the headworks.
The member for Johnston, the new Housing minister after many reshuffles, likes to hold up what Aboriginal people in Alice Springs call banana splits: the yellow shirts with the blue part down the bottom that all the workers wear. I liked it when the member for Daly, the previous minister for Housing went to Tennant Creek and said: ‘The media coming; we need some Aboriginal people in those high visibility shirts. Can you get them out?’ Roll them out and get all the photos’.
It is the same thing the member for Johnston is rolling out. Yesterday, on a housing site in Santa Teresa there were all these people building $850 000 worth to replace two houses that blew down in a windstorm 18 months ago, well overdue, and there is not one Aboriginal person working on them. Who is going to do the work in the yard after the house is constructed? We have no Aboriginal people - none. Who is going to do the work in the back yard? ‘Oh, we have asked the CDEP to come in and do the work out the back’. CDEP labour to come out and do the fences and do the driveway and do the landscaping of this house. Not even a real job for Aboriginal people.
How can you stand here on your morals? You will not support the Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee; you will not support our offers to help you improve this program. The member for Nelson stands here, as the Chairman of the CTC, and says: ‘Oh, it is costing $450 000.’ He has not even got the guts to make a decision to can this government that is wasting this money; wasting Aboriginal people’s money that should be improving their livelihoods out in the bush. The member for Nelson has completely rolled over on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory; and this government does not deserve to manage this program.
This government does not deserve to have their snouts in the trough managing this program. This government should be handing this program back to the Commonwealth and saying: ‘We’ve stuffed it like we’ve stuffed everything else.’
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not even going to bother to respond to the rubbish and drivel that emanated from the member for Braitling. It was nothing other than rubbish, dribble, bile and vitriol.
In the adjournment debate this evening I wish to speak about the late Mr Arsenio de Guzman.
Mr de Guzman passed away on 2 January this year and was an outstanding and well respected leader in our Filipino community. I am aware that the member for Johnston took the opportunity to speak about Arsenio in adjournment debate in parliament last week, but I really wanted to take the opportunity of inviting Arsenio’s family here this evening to be able to listen and share in the celebration of the life of their father, grandfather and great-grandfather.
I want to welcome Arsenio’s family here tonight in the gallery and, particularly, I understand that his son, Ross, his daughter, Maryanne, and his niece, Alice Gomez, are here along with other members of the family. You are very welcome, and it is great to see you here tonight in the gallery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Welcome to all of Arsenio’s family including grandchildren and great grandchildren. I was so proud to be able to invite Arsenio’s family and friends to Parliament House in December 2008, around the time of his 71st birthday, and to present Arsenio with a plaque in recognition of his service to the Territory community. It was a very special evening, and it was great so many family and friends could be here to see Arsenio’s contribution to the Territory recognised formally by the Chief Minister on behalf of all Territorians.
Arsenio de Guzman was born on 9 December 1937, and passed away peacefully on 2 January 2010. Arsenio is survived by three sons, Joe, Ross and Bob (known as Arsenio IV) and his daughter, Maryanne. Sadly, Arsenio’s dearly loved wife passed away a few years ago, and subsequently Arsenio’s health continued to decline from that time. I thank Arsenio’s family for all of their efforts in supporting him during the years of declining health.
As I said previously, Arsenio was an outstanding, well-respected and loved leader in our Filipino community for over 30 years. Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, migrated from the Philippines to Australia in 1972. They originally settled and worked as teachers in New South Wales but, shortly after, they relocated to the Northern Territory, teaching in Katherine and, later, in Darwin. Arsenio also worked voluntarily with the Territory’s Filipino community, welcoming newcomers to Darwin, assisting with the difficulties of language and bureaucracy, and generally helping new Filipinos settle comfortably here in Darwin and other regional towns of the Northern Territory.
In July 1973, Arsenio was co-founder of the first Filipino association in Darwin - the Filipino/Australian Association of the Northern Territory. FAANT continues on today as an active group in Darwin, following on from the strong foundation established by Arsenio as a co-founder all those years ago.
In 1990, Arsenio established a new Filipino association, the Pinoy Aussie Society which focused on Arsenio’s desire to assist Filipinos to integrate into the Territory community. Many members of this House have really enjoyed many social events with the Pinoy Aussie Society over years. They were always great nights – with lots of fun and laughter, and the Filipino community’s love of singing and dancing; they were always wonderful nights …
Dr Burns: And food!
Mr HENDERSON: And fantastic food; thank you, member for Johnston. They were always great nights, and I have many fond memories of Arsenio on those nights with the Pinoy Aussie Society.
On behalf of all Territorians, I take this opportunity to say to Arsenio’s family: thank you to Arsenio for his untiring work with the Filipino community and his commitment to community service. One of the other great attributes of Arsenio was his commitment as a dedicated teacher. This was a commitment shared with Arsenio’s wife, Ricarda, as they both had teaching careers. Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, started their teaching careers in the Philippines and continued here in the Northern Territory until their retirement. Arsenio’s teaching career was broken only by Cyclone Tracy.
In Darwin, I understand Arsenio taught at Casuarina, Darwin, Dripstone and Sanderson High Schools and, later, at Kormilda College. As I mentioned previously, Arsenio also taught at Katherine High School. Throughout Arsenio’s teaching career, he certainly touched the lives of so many Territorians.
One of the great things about being a teacher - and I know many of Arsenio’s former pupils - over all those years, Arsenio probably taught thousands of students in the Territory, which is a really big number. Many teachers inspire kids to go on and lead great lives, and we can all remember teachers with enormous affection who made a huge contribution to our lives personally. The greatest tribute which can be paid to Arsenio de Guzman, and to Ricarda as well, is the thousands of people in the Northern Territory who will remember Arsenio with great fondness. He would have left a real mark in many students’ lives, inspiring those students to reach great heights in their maths. He made a difference and, if you can look back and say you did make a difference, you led a good life - what more can you ask? He made an enormous difference to thousands of students here in the Territory. Similarly, Arsenio’s wife, Ricarda, taught at Ludmilla and later at Kormilda College.
Again, on behalf of all Territorians, I say thank you to Arsenio and Ricarda de Guzman for their commitment and dedication to teaching here in the Northern Territory. Arsenio and his wife are sadly missed by their family, and by so many people in Darwin and other centres throughout the Northern Territory. I am glad I had the opportunity to thank and congratulate Arsenio in person in 2008 for his service to our wonderful community in the Territory.
I take this opportunity again, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, to recognise the commitment and dedication of Arsenio and his wife, Ricarda, to serving others in our community.
I pass on my sincere condolences to Arsenio’s family and friends. I am absolutely confident, and you will be sure, that his work and his memory in our community live on for many future generations. So, Arsenio, farewell. You lived a full and wonderful life, and you did make a difference. I thank the family for coming to the Assembly this evening.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also extend my condolences to the family, and say I have attended many functions of the Pinoy Aussie Society - and what a wonderful group it is. You will miss your father and grandfather.
Tonight I congratulate and thank incoming, ongoing and outgoing members of the Nightcliff Primary School Council. The 2009 Council Chairperson, Simon Cruickshank, was thanked for his input and leadership at the Annual General Meeting of the Nightcliff Primary School Council held earlier this month. Simon will stay on as an ordinary member of the school council, while members Jo Politis Dunne, Tim Cross and Debbie Wilkinson have retired from the council, either stepping down or in line with the council’s three-year term policy, after making valuable contributions.
Heading the 2010 School Council is Liz Hendry, who will be ably assisted by Vice Chair Sue Walsh who, after a year away from the school council, is keen to be again involved. Peter Bailey stays on as minute and correspondence secretary, and Zelia Bailey is again Treasurer.
Teacher representatives are Athena Hammond and Teresa Montague, and Bronwyn Wilkins, Jody Maguire, Judy Morgan, Frances Perrett, Marg Dorman, Simon Cruickshank and Lisa McMurray make up the remainder of the school council, along with the school Principal, Liz Veel.
Nightcliff Primary School is one of the largest primary schools in the northern suburbs, and having a functional, hard-working school council is fundamental to the school’s wellbeing and success. I congratulate and thank all the people who have put up their hands for this task in the coming year.
I also acknowledge tonight the contribution of the Royal Darwin Hospital Auxiliary, which held its final meeting on 4 February after 29 years of fundraising and voluntary service to the Royal Darwin Hospital. It is difficult to quantify the work of a volunteer committee such as this. As an example, over the past five years, the group has fundraised and given donations totalling more than $63 000 to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The range of goods and medical equipment this band of women has provided for our hospital is staggering. Recent items include medication pumps, an orthopaedic Transair mattress, a podiatry chair, a $5000 Power Lift chair, a bath chair, toys, lounges, televisions, washing machines, dryers, a dishwasher for the hospice, a garden seat, and contributions towards a fence. In recent years, the committee has refurbished and furnished a parent’s room at the hospital, providing parents of gravely ill children with a comfortable and private area.
I acknowledge by name the present day members of the committee: President, Rosemary Burkitt; Pat Venturin; Mary Woodrow; Kay Oates; Pauline Plummer; Joan Orr; Maralyne Glover; Beryl Lynas; Mary May; Miriam Chamberlain; and Margaret Stehouwer. I pay tribute to all those committee members who went before, some of whom served for over 10 years.
Nightcliff constituent and widow of the late Dr Alan Walker, Anne Walker, served on the committee for over 17 years, and recalled for me some of the earlier fundraising activities of the committee, including open days at the hospital campus, cocktail parties and fashion parades at Government House, Melbourne Cup lunches and regular cake stalls. Anne said the Darwin community embraced these events, resulting in thousands of dollars raised for the purchase of surgical equipment, furniture, furnishings, electrical goods, and other items for the hospital.
While the decision to bring the fundraising activities of the auxiliary to a close was difficult, the efforts of the members will not be forgotten. At the final meeting, members allocated the auxiliary’s balance of funds to four facilities: The Alan Walker Oncology Unit, the Renal Unit, Camp Quality’s proposed children’s rooms, and the Cowdy Ward.
Camp Quality are establishing children’s rooms in the hospice, which will be known as the Camp Quality Auxiliary Children’s Rooms, thereby acknowledging the contribution of the auxiliary and creating a lasting legacy. It is expected the children’s rooms will be functioning by the end of March. The Alan Walker Oncology Unit will use the donated funds to buy a covered golf buggy for patient transport between the hospital and the Oncology Unit.
Darwin Hospital’s Cowdy Ward plans to use the auxiliary’s contribution to purchase a Nintendo Wii Game console and exercise equipment for its clients. The renal unit plans to improve the patient waiting area and ward area to make both more relaxing and welcoming. This will include new lounges and a storage unit, art work and framed prints, lamps, a plasma television and DVD player. Enhanced facilities should serve as an encouragement to patients to attend the clinic, thus adding to the beneficial health outcomes.
While it is regrettable that the Royal Darwin Hospital Auxiliary has ceased, those involved at any stage of its almost 30-year history are to be congratulated on their significant efforts of providing resources to the Royal Darwin Hospital for the use and comfort of their fellow Territorians. I commend and thank all members, past and present, for their efforts.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about NAPLAN which was debated in parliament, in a form. Unfortunately, it was debated in a Censure Motion which can be exciting for those participating, but sometimes you do not get a chance to debate it fully in the calm light of day, or the evening, in this case.
I am not against schools having some form of categorisation, but if that is the only thing people see and the only thing people have to judge a school on, then that is rather unfair on schools, and also unfair on parents because they need to know more about schools than something in the newspaper.
There was a table in the newspaper of the top 10 schools and bottom 10 schools, but there is no analysis of that. For instance, were there any learning difficulties a child may have who was involved in exams on that day? Did a child have difficulty at home? We know some children do have problems at home, for whatever reasons, and that can affect their ability to cope with things such as doing NAPLAN. Families can have illnesses, so there are a range of reasons why even one child might not be working very well.
More importantly, the league table does not show the individual student’s improvement. That is the one criticism I have received. I met five school principals in the rural area – four government schools, and two private schools - and none of them expressed the idea the NAPLAN results, or what was in the paper, or even what the Leader of the Opposition put forward, was the way to go.
They all agreed there is no problem in examining children; but one thing I felt was missed in this debate was we are actually caring for kids. What we need to be doing is seeing if each child is improving, because the danger of just saying: ‘That school is no good’, is you are not digging down to find out why that school might be below the average. At one school where they have the RAD software to analyse data for each student, they found girls in Year 9 had results well above the national average, and the data for boys in Year 9 maths were well above the national average, but the overall average might have been down. So, it is not just a simple case of pulling out a figure and saying a school is below the national average.
If you have a student, for instance, with low reading skills, then just doing the NAPLAN maths test in itself will be a problem; so a problem in one skill may compound a problem in another skill. Of course, language and content could also be a problem. My understanding is teachers and principals do not necessarily have a problem with actual exams, but sometimes the wording of exams does not suit the clientele it is trying to address. For instance, I was told one exam question said: ‘Draw a loop around a series of numbers’. I do not believe my kids would know what a loop is; they know I can be a bit loopy, but that is not the same thing. To draw a circle around those numbers they would have understood what was meant.
There was a class that studied, as part of its curriculum, dinosaurs, and the NAPLAN test used the universe to test students in Years 3 and 5. So it can be an issue that children are brought up with a certain scope which differs from what is in the NAPLAN test.
I have copies of a Victorian government draft document titled Proposed Framework for Delivery of NAPLAN 2010. One of the proposed strategies for a teacher is to explicitly teach NAPLAN by including the genre of NAPLAN, commonly used terms, and a daily NAPLAN item in the program of instruction. So there is the danger teachers will teach for the program rather than teaching overall. We need to be careful of that as well.
Schools are much more than a test taken by students in May. Consider a child who has been in Year 3 for just over three months, having to sit an exam for 45 minutes to one hour, without any assistance from their teacher. It is disappointing if the selection of schools for children is done on just NAPLAN results; and principals, whilst speaking with parents, ask them to consider a range of programs at the school and the feeling of the school, and this is often done by asking parents to go into the schoolyard during recess or lunch. One principal said to us: ‘Go into the playground and talk to the kids, and you will get a feel whether this is a good school.’
It is not just simply about the maths and the English, and the grammar. There is no doubt they are important, but it is also about those other things which make a school. It is not only its values; it is the feeling you get, how kids react with the teachers, and how they get on with one another. That will not come out in NAPLAN results. So, when we are considering the figures that have been published, we need to take more into account than just the figures.
Schools I have contacted report four times to parents during the year, twice in parent/teacher interviews, and twice by written reports which some schools relate to the student portfolio. The biggest impact on the NAPLAN results was the lack of value placed on education by the community as a whole, so there are issues which need to be addressed. It is not saying these figures cannot be used, but we need to understand why a school might be below average, and we need to analyse that. It could be teachers; there could be two teachers in a school not achieving the standard required, and in their classes the results might be down. So you might have 90% of the school above the average, but two classes are enough to pull it down below the average.
The challenge is how to deal with those teachers, and there are only a very few, a minority, I believe. Most teachers I have met are hard-working and dedicated because I have many schools I go to in my area. If some teachers are not up to the necessary standard required, how do you change that? If you cannot change it, is there a way to move them somewhere else? If it is affecting the schools’ results, then that is going to be real issue, and a bad teacher is something no school would want. As I said, all the teachers I see are really dedicated to their work and are proud of the work they do, and they want the children they teach to succeed.
We found at one school there had been an influx of kids who were not of a high socioeconomic order and their education was behind, so when those kids come into the school it took a couple of years before they came up to the standard of the other children in their class. So, that needs to be taken into account. Also, where large numbers of students have English as a second language; or a mobile school where many Defence force families send their children and move every two years, that can also have an effect on the results of a school.
I do thank the principals I met; they gave us a very important insight into what they thought of the NAPLAN results, and the results shown in the NT News, and the results the Leader of the Opposition has shown. I would say they definitely do not like those results as they are because they do not necessarily achieve anything as they are and they put some schools down. I take a case in the paper which put down the Thamarrurr Catholic School at Port Keats. When we visited there with the CTC, we realised there are good reasons; things are not good there, and to turn it around is not easy. To see it in a paper, you think: what a terrible school, until you go there and find the reasons kids are not attending, then you realise it is not quite as simple as people might think.
There are good teachers and principals out there, and they are part of our community, and we should support them. We should support our schools and, if change needs to happen, let us do it sensibly, not based on figures published in a newspaper.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I inform the House of another sad event which occurred in our community; the funeral I went to last Monday 22 February 2010, at the Thorak Regional Cemetery. It was the funeral of one Robert John Garrett. Unfortunately, Robert, who was a Vietnam veteran, did not have any family in Darwin, and a number of people who were trying to track down his family could not find any family members. So, it was with a great deal of pride that I and a number of other people went to the funeral of this man who had served his country.
Before I speak about Robert, I pay respect to the Northern Territory branch of the TPIA – that is the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association – which looks after all returned servicemen and women who are totally and permanently incapacitated. I will say more on that later.
I put on the public record some of the things that occurred at this funeral so that, should his family ever go looking for him, one would hope the search engines would bring up the Legislative Assembly Hansard fairly early, and they would be able to find out some of the nice things said about Robert John Garrett at his funeral. I will quote from the funeral service document that was prepared by the celebrant, Mr David Hart known as Digby Hart:
- We have come today together to give thanks for the life of Robert, to honour him, and to lay to rest his body. The death of a veteran touches us in a unique way, and his passing demands that we put aside our cares, our business, and our pleasure to gather here today to acknowledge his service to his country. It is fitting that we should reflect on what we owe to those who have served and gone before us.
I could not agree more with the words David Hart put together for this service at Thorak. There were a number of tributes spoken by a number of people, the first of which was Jack Hamilton OAM. Jack is well-known in the Darwin community for his unstinting time helping Vietnam War veterans, youth, and the disabled amongst the Darwin community. He is the manager of Coral House, which is a facility on Bagot Road most members of this House would be aware of. Jack spoke only a little about what was known of our friend, Robert, who was a very private person and very rarely did he discuss his personal life or anything about his relatives or his past.
What we do know is Robert was born on 30 July 1945. Mr McKendrick, who was at the funeral, gave a brief outline of his service history, and I quote from the document:
- Robert served as a sapper with the Royal Australian Engineers in 32 Small Ships Squadron on the Vernon Sturdy - its registration is AV-1355 - which operated in Vietnam from 6 June to 14 December 1967. This vessel was formerly an LSM 1 class landing ship medium, with the vessel being built in Chicago, Illinois. When it was sold to Australia, she became the AV-1355 and carried the military’s significant name of Sir Vernon Ashton Hobart Sturdy DSO OBE CB KBE.
I put on the record for Robert’s family what was said by Bob Johnston who is the President of the TPI Northern Territory branch, and I quote:
- We are assembled here today to pay our last tribute to Robert, who came through the ordeal of war, having served in Vietnam, and has now joined now the great army of those who fell in battle in the defence of this nation. As brother follows brother to the great beyond, we who are left close our ranks and carry on the tradition of unselfish service to the disabled, the bereaved and to maintain the high standards and ideals of citizenship.
The service of today is over and the hour has come to rest. This poppy, the traditional emblem of sacrifice, the symbol of life given to one’s country, links us with Robert. It is our token of our affection and proud remembrance, and is placed there in abiding memory. I lay this poppy as a token of respect, a symbol of ongoing comradeship.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that Robert had a wife. There were a number of documents that we located in his possession, but the marriage was annulled at some stage; and we know he had a family somewhere. We only hope one day when the family or someone goes looking, they may be able to find this on the public record and know that he did not die alone, that there were friends, that there were comrades with him, and there were people who told stories, like Stephen Ellis, who works at Pearl Marine Engineering, formerly known as the Frances Bay Shipyard.
Stephen came to the funeral and spoke very highly of Robert, more commonly known as Bob and, in fact, in that establishment known as Two Bob. He spoke of what a dedicated worker he was, his skills and what he did, he fixed everything around Frances Bay Marine Shipyard, a very handy guy with his hands, and a very quiet man, but enjoyed the friendship of a few down at the Buff Club and a number of other clubs around town. Stephen spoke of the wonderful contribution Bob Garrett made to the company he worked for through most the 1990s; and we do not know much more about him.
I also put on the record the parting words said by Mr Mr McKendrick at the funeral, the Infantry Farewell. I quote from the service document:
- Rest ye a warrior, you will battle no more, no longer to live the horrors of war, your duty was done with honour and pride, farewell, oh brother, until we march by your side.
The funeral completed, and we all stood around and had a chat about things, and the support that Robert got, and the people who supported him in those final years.
That brings me to talk of Coral House and the fantastic work that the people there do for veterans. We all know that people of both sexes go away to fight wars, to serve our country and to protect the lifestyle we have, and when they come back, some of them have troubles readjusting. Many people have readjusting problems from many things they do in life, but none more so those who put themselves in the front line and in danger.
I quote from an Internet document about Coral House:
- Coral House was opened on 21st September 1989. It is named after the ‘Battle of Coral’, which was Australia’s largest and one of the most successful operations during the Vietnam war. The house was established with a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is rented from the Northern Territory Government, and operates under a joint Territory/federal government funding arrangement.
Coral House is located approximately halfway between Darwin city and Casuarina district in the northern suburbs. It is managed by a House Manager, Jack Hamilton, who is responsible to a Board of Management. The Board is comprised of representatives of the Vietnam Veterans Association and an ex-officio member from government. Coral House is an emergency or short-term residential facility provided by the Vietnam Veterans Association Australia, Northern Territory Branch, and supported through the Support Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) of the NT government.
The house is self-contained and amenities include:
Shared kitchen facilities
Madam Speaker, you can only admire the people like Jack and people like Robert Johnston ably assisted by his secretary, Alf Kennedy, who look after these people who, from time to time find themselves troubled and in need of a hand up.
There are many people in this world who need a hand up and sometimes it is very nice to be able to give them a hand up and get them back on their feet. I know a number of people who have been through that particular establishment and, because they got that hand up they were able to get back on their feet and get on with their lives and become very productive members of this community again.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016