2010-11-24
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, be granted leave of absence for Wednesday, 24 November and Thursday, 25 November 2010.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Public health is a matter which concerns everyone in the Northern Territory, whether a resident or a visitor. Public health is a cornerstone of our high standard of living in the Northern Territory. We seek to replace outdated, prescriptive public health legislation with a modern, flexible legislative framework which caters for the needs of today’s Territorians and our future generations.
It is proposed that the Public and Environmental Health Bill 2010 becomes the main instrument for monitoring and regulating public and environmental health in the Northern Territory. The bill has been framed to provide effective mechanisms for protecting public health at the enforcement level and by stakeholders assuming a greater degree of responsibility for improved public health outcomes.
The objects of this bill are to:
protect and promote the health of individuals and communities in the Territory;
The Public and Environmental Health Bill 2010 was drafted in compliance with national competition policy principles and is consistent with this government’s commitment to regulatory reform. If you are familiar with the current Public Health Act you will be aware of its complexity and lack of clarity. The current Public Health Act relies on a narrow view of risks to public health and remedies to control these risks.
The bill before you contains new legislation which has a broader public health base and an integrated approach to public health issues. The bill is supported by a range of health professionals in both medical and environmental health, and acknowledges that some groups in our society will, from time to time, need extra assistance to meet specific public and environmental health challenges.
This bill recognises the maintenance of public health as a necessary investment and an ongoing challenge for the government of the day. Considerable consultation has gone into the preparation of this bill and it has benefited from the extensive input received. Best practice public health legislation was examined in the formulation of the bill.
In June 2010, an exposure draft to the bill and a discussion paper were widely advertised and circulated, inviting written submissions from stakeholders. Meetings were also held with representatives of the Commonwealth, state health departments, Northern Territory government departments, medical groups, non-government organisations, the general public, industry, and some regional centres to facilitate community input.
I draw your attention to some of the significant changes in the approach to public and environmental health in this bill. The Chief Health Officer has been vested with wider powers to take a leading role in a public health emergency where no ‘state of disaster’ or ‘state of emergency’ exists. These powers will protect the community from major public health risks. An example of this is the potential spread of disease through increased mosquito breeding following flash flooding. This new provision will enable a more timely response, such as aerial spraying and the mobilisation of resources to prevent transmission of diseases such as Murray Valley encephalitis, Kunjin, or Ross River virus.
The bill introduces the concept of ‘declared activities’. Any activity which may result in transmission of disease or may otherwise pose a risk of harm to public health may be ‘declared’ by the minister. Examples of these activities could include: commercial visitor accommodation; tattooing; body piercing; and hairdressing, including mobile hairdressing. It is proposed that premises which carry out these declared activities will be registered and appropriate conditions placed on the registration. All relevant businesses will then be issued with a registration notice which should be conspicuously displayed on the premises to provide additional assurance to clients of compliance with minimal public health standards. The proprietors of these declared activities may be subjected to public health notices and, in extreme cases, public health orders if the circumstances dictate this level of control.
Traditional public health nuisances will also continue to be managed, particularly through education and conciliation. Public health notices and orders are available under this bill if the satisfactory resolution cannot be reached. This can also be followed by an order issued by the local court. The nuisance provisions in this bill will create an offence which attracts a penalty for allowing a public health nuisance to exist. For example, unsanitary conditions such as the accumulation of putrescible waste which gives rise to infestation by vermin, flies, and other animal pests.
Natural justice is served in this bill by an appeals mechanism. Appeals may be made directly to the Chief Health Officer for matters surrounding registration of businesses, public health notices, and public health orders. If a person is aggrieved by the outcome of such an appeal, they have the right to take the matter to the local court for hearing. The Chief Health Officer may obtain health information and use that information for monitoring, protecting, maintaining, or promoting public health. For example, analysis and reporting of factors impacting on public health including lifestyle and chronic, acute, or emerging health conditions, as well as information currently collected and required under the Public Health (Cervical Cytology Register) Regulations.
The powers of entry for authorised officers under this bill are necessarily wide in the interest of public health. They are similar to the powers of police officers. Under this bill, the consent of the owner, reasonable grounds or a warrant will normally be needed to enter property.
Penalties proposed in this bill are higher than those in the current Public Health Act to better reflect the seriousness of the offence and current community values. Under this bill, a magistrate may impose fines on a person of between $2600 and $52 000, or two years imprisonment in extreme cases.
The minister has the power to conduct an inquiry into any matters which affect public health in the Northern Territory. The bill requires that a suitably qualified and experienced person conduct the inquiry, and that the person has protection and immunity from liability.
The bill is necessarily broad-ranging in nature. The bill goes far beyond the traditional role of policing nuisances by progressing modern public health thinking and providing a flexible approach to emerging public and environmental issues.
The current Public Health Act is a daily frustration to authorised officers who are working with it and members of our community who need to understand it. Environmental Health Officers who are in the field every day trying to interpret the law in a practical sense are frustrated by many of the narrow, outdated, and prescriptive regulations associated with the current act.
This bill is outcome based, and has deliberately moved away from its previous prescriptive nature. The regulations from the current Public Health Act have been retained in this bill and will be progressively repealed or updated, as new regulations, guidelines, and standards are developed, within two years following the enactment of this bill.
Minimum public and environmental health standards will be developed with industry and government to protect the public and provide benchmarks for the operation of the declared activities carried out by businesses. These documents will stipulate outcomes which are legal and enforceable. Guidelines will act to inform the development of these minimum standards. The guidelines will also be developed in consultation with industry and government, and will provide clear advice to businesses to protect the public and provide benchmarks, particularly on the operation of activities which have not been declared by the minister. The new regulations, guidelines and minimum standards to support this bill will uphold the direction of public health in the Northern Territory well into the future.
This bill seeks to protect people in the Northern Territory from factors in the environment which can, or will, cause harm to human health. The bill supports the government’s strategic direction in improving the health of all Territorians and visitors alike. The vigilance of the health professionals who enforce this legislation carries the government’s vision forward for the benefit of all of our community. Under this bill, public health staff will be aided in their work by modern legislation which takes a proactive approach to emerging health concerns. In addition, developing programs to minimise the health risk from communicable disease in industries which were previously not registered, and recognition of the risk posed by vectors, is possible under this bill.
The Chief Health Officer will continue to ensure the quality of drinking water in the Northern Territory under this bill through the provision of appropriate guidelines to advise water providers not covered by the Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act.
This modernisation of public and environmental health legislation in the Territory is long overdue. The bill will further enhance public health conditions and better reflect change in community attitudes and lifestyle. This is an important bill which has been consulted on widely over a number of years to accommodate the many and various concerns of Territorians. It affects all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members, and table the explanatory memorandum.
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.
The Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Bill 2010 continues the process of converting penalties in all NT legislation from dollar amounts to penalty units.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 have converted most of the penalties in the Department of Justice and Treasury legislation. The purpose of this bill is to amend penalty provisions in the acts administered by the Department of the Chief Minister and NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 provided for penalty increases of no more than 15%.
This bill maintains that principle. As was the case for the Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010, the conversion factors are based on a penalty unit value of $133, rather than $130, as the value of the penalty unit increased on 1 July this year in accordance with a formula in the Penalty Units Act 2009 and based on the Darwin CPI.
For penalties of a significant size, the conversion process is:
current monetary penalty is increased by 15%; and
Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in a decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied:
Amendments have not been made to amend any act which is either proposed to be repealed or amended in some other way. The Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act; Inquiries Act; Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act; AustralAsia Railway Corporation Act; AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act; AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act; Fire and Emergency Act; Fire and Emergency Regulations; and, the Weapons Control Regulations are not amended by this bill because other bills intend to amend, may amend, or have amended, the penalties in those legislative instruments.
This bill provides for the conversion of seven Department of Chief Minister acts and four NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services acts. The balance of all remaining NT acts is expected to be reviewed by mid-2011.
This approach in bringing in penalty units does not solve all penalty-related issues. For example, it does not fix differentials across the statute book concerning like offences. Differences in specific offences will be individually reviewed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Water Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 137) passing through all stages on Thursday, 2 December 2010.
Mr Elferink: Are you going to explain that? You have made a motion; explain to us why you want this motion.
Mr HAMPTON: I will go through that now.
Mr Elferink: Good. Now is the time to do it.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my second reading speech, the Water Act has been thought, since its enactment in 1992, to provide a legal power to issue waste discharge licences where a facility …
Mr Elferink: He has to learn his job.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I will continue. As I said, the Water Act has been thought, since its enactment in 1992, to provide a legal power to issue waste discharge licences where a facility needs to release waste to a natural body of water. Recent legal advice from the Solicitor-General indicates that the provisions in the act do not sustain this long-standing practice and the manner in which the act has been thought to operate for the last 17 years or so …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, minister. I remind people in the galleries there is no photography allowed. I ask you to put that away or we will have it removed. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: My office has circulated that advice to the opposition and the Independent members. As you would be aware it is not unusual for government to distribute the legal advice it receives. I have done so because there is a problem which needs fixing, there are no games being played here and I am bringing forward this bill in good faith that the Assembly will see the urgency. Clearly, from the Solicitor-General’s advice, the Water Act needs fixing. The reason it is urgent is threefold.
First, the discharge licences already issued to industry are now invalid. Those licences afford legal certainty to the licensees and those operators make decisions based on the legal protection afforded by a licence. The validation of licences provided by the bill I have introduced can quickly resolve the uncertainty created by the recent advice.
Second, waste discharge licences are a key regulatory tool. The setting of conditions enables risk to be managed and environmental impacts to be reduced. If this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months. If an incident occurs during this period there will be limited legal remedy.
Third, there are eight applications for licences which are currently under consideration and new activities requiring a licence often crop up, particularly during the Wet Season. For example, a cyclone could dump heavy rain over a mine site, overwhelming the on-site retention ponds and requiring controlled release of waste water from the mining tenement.
Without this amendment there would be no capacity to issue a licence during much of the forthcoming Wet Season and there would be no controls which would usually be in place to limit environmental impact and require appropriate monitoring. Without this bill being considered on urgency we will be crossing our fingers that no incidents happen until February. I do not think that is a risk worth taking and we will be asking industry, which has operated under those licences on a reasonable expectation they were valid, to operate with a high level of uncertainty for three months due to an issue which was not of their making.
Madam Speaker, it is for these reasons that I commend the motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I am a tad confused by all of this. Not so much by what we have been told but by how this has unfolded. Yesterday, I expected we would have had the motion on urgency. Why was it not urgent yesterday but urgent today? The process we are unrolling here does not seem to fit with what was first described. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect there is more to this because you are asking us to have confidence in you that we need to do this on urgency. Alarm bells start to ring.
I appreciate that, from time to time, legislation will be tested. Not taking anything away from the Solicitor-General and the advice they have given, was this ever tested in court? Has this gone through a court process and been fully tested to see whether the legislation stacks up? I do not believe it has been tested; I cannot recall anyone being prosecuted in the Northern Territory, at least in the last 10 years, for any pollution.
It should be pointed out that I am aware a media release went out from the minister’s office suggesting the opposition and the Independents had been offered briefings on this matter. I received the call after seeing the media release; so I believe it is like the process here today: it is slightly back to front. Perhaps the Independent members were offered briefings before the shadow minister was, but there are questions in regard to the process.
I understand the intent of the original legislation. I also understand, from the briefings so far, why there is a need to make the change. My concern is we are doing this on urgency but I have not been overwhelmed by this government’s performance in the last two years, which is why I am a tad cynical about why this needs to be done on urgency. We have amended legislation in the two years I have been in this House and it has gone through a normal process. Alarm bells start to ring when there is a need for urgency. The process in this House is to adequately cover all bases; our job in opposition is to ensure you guys are doing it right. That sometimes takes time. You guys have the support and resources of government. We do not have the resources of government, and sometimes it takes time to unwrap things, to unpack things, to ensure we are not having the wool pulled over our eyes and Territorians do not have the wool pulled over their eyes.
We need to be convinced that this needs to happen on urgency. My understanding to date, and please correct me, minister, if I am wrong, is the original legislation is in place to allow for water discharge licences - let us be frank, this is all about a licence to pollute. On a number of occasions in this House we have raised the issue of what pollutants are going into our harbour, our environment, and many times we have raised the conditions in those licences. We all agree there are some real concerns.
As I mentioned to my colleagues yesterday, I have raised a number of times where Power and Water has exceeded its licence conditions. It has a licence to discharge waste, which we now find is invalid in the opinion of the Solicitor-General; however, I remember reading a report where Power and Water exceeded its limitations in the Palmerston sewerage treatment plant eight days out of 10. I was advised at a briefing, when this was raised, that it did not exceed its licence conditions if you average it out over a 12 month period. As I explained to my colleagues yesterday, that would be like arguing with a police officer when caught speeding between Palmerston and Darwin that, if you averaged out the speed I had been driving at between Palmerston and Darwin, because I was only driving 60 km/h earlier, I would be under the speed limit, and therefore not guilty. When I am caught by a police officer for driving 10 km/h over the speed limit I get a ticket. I do not get the chance to argue that my speed between Palmerston and Darwin, because I was going 60 back there and 70, and 40 and I had to stop for traffic lights, was, on average, less than the speed limit. I do not have that option. We all agree there are real potholes in the conditions applied in these licences.
The second important thing to note today, from my understanding of the briefings, is the legislation provides five or six areas where people can be given water discharge licences. I also understand Power and Water is outside those prescribed areas. That being the case, for many years we have had Power and Water polluting our harbour by discharging waste into it and it does not have a licence. It moves on to mine sites, private businesses which are now outside the scope of legislation.
This is all on one opinion which, to my understanding, has not been tested in court. There has not been a successful prosecution of this law. The reality, if I understand from the briefing - and I appreciate the briefing - is if we can fix this loophole now then we can continue to allow people to pollute, to discharge waste, into our environment. My only confusion today is the process we are using. The alarm bells are ringing on this side because of the urgency. I appreciate we have a Wet Season coming. I appreciate we have industry and mine sites which will need to discharge at times because of heavy rain.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry for being cynical on the urgency. To convince me we need to pass this on urgency - based on the track record of this government alarm bells start to ring because we do not get the amount of time required to scrutinise this to a deeper level. I look forward to the briefing next week by the Solicitor-General on this matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I can well understand why government is seeking urgency on this matter. To edify members who are not familiar with what is going on, the Northern Territory government, since 1992, has been issuing licences for the discharge of water to the various industries which discharge water into our waterways and harbours. This is normal practice, and the intent of the legislation, I imagine, was always to authorise the minister of the Crown to enable certain people to discharge, from mine sites or, for argument’s sake, the Power and Water Corporation, certain waste waters into our harbour.
The description by the member for Brennan that it is a licence to pollute is correct. The law in the Northern Territory says you cannot pollute unlawfully. The way to pollute lawfully is to find a legal mechanism - perhaps a licence - to set aside that unlawfulness. If people need to know about the principles of authorisation, section 26 of the Criminal Code is where to look. When these licences are issued by the minister, the minister is saying to the Power and Water Corporation, or a mine, or whatever else: ‘You may discharge water under certain conditions’. Those conditions can be found in the water licence issued by the minister; there are terms and conditions applied. Checking those licences is part of the role of government to ensure the levels of pollution are within acceptable boundaries.
It now transpires from the legal advice - and I thank the minister for having provided that legal advice from the Solicitor-General - that the operation of section 74 of the legislation is probably - in fact, almost certainly - not valid in reference to how section 73 is drafted. That anomalous situation means certain relevant offences are not covered by the licence which is purported to be issued under section 74. Without going into the technical and legal arguments of it, it means there is a high degree of likelihood that these licences will have to be confirmed by an act of this parliament, which means we have to do something parliaments do not like to do; that is, issue retrospective legislation. What the minister wants us to do during the course of these sittings is to come in here and say: ‘Not only are the licences which will be issued in the future valid, all licences issued by the minister since 1992, whoever that minister was, will be valid from 1992 as per the original intent of the legislation’. No problem with that; that I understand.
I sense the urgency comes from a slightly different place to what the minister explained. I think the urgency is that, if the Solicitor-General is correct, everyone who is currently discharging water with pollutants in it into our waterways and harbour is doing so unlawfully because they are not licensed to do so.
I listened to the member for Brennan use a driver’s licence as an example and that works in this instance. If every driver’s licence issued by the Motor Vehicle Registry was not actually valid, then all of us with driver’s licences would be offenders the moment we jumped in our cars and drove down the street. As a consequence, government would move, and I think quite correctly, to fix the anomaly in the Traffic Act to ensure all driving which was done under licences issued under the Traffic Act was legal from the day the licences were issued. That is certainly what the minister has so far explained.
However, what he scooted around is an important issue. At the moment, everyone who has a water discharge licence does not have a water discharge licence. As a consequence of that, they are discharging water unlawfully and are subject to prosecution. Whilst it is the government’s purview, as a general rule, to be the representative of the Crown and the prosecutor in these matters, nothing prevents a third party entering into a prosecution if they can demonstrate standing. I would not be surprised if there were elements in our community which would be more than happy to start lodging prosecutions whilst all of our water discharges are unlicensed. Moreover, those people would seek to use this anomaly nefariously to their advantages and their own causes, and it could cause any amount of grief.
Retrospectivity at this point would not lead to a major problem, but if you look at something like the Ward decision, where certain subsequent court cases were lodged or dismissed as a result of assumptions about the operation of retrospective legislation, you very quickly start to realise that where actions are on foot and we try to legislate retrospectively, the courts are not comfortable with that idea and the government finds itself exposed.
I understand what the original intent of the government was, and I understand what the intent of government is today to fix this issue; I get that. Then we come to the decision. How long ago was the government informed this was a problem? I understand that the government was informed at least three weeks ago; on 28 October 2010, the Solicitor-General advised government this problem was on foot.
The minister has a duty and a responsibility, when he seeks a motion of urgency, to explain to this House why the matter is so urgent and to seek the assistance of all members of this House to enable him to do something which operates outside of the normal rules we apply to ourselves; that is what this motion is all about. Let us set aside standing orders, change the way we make law, make this law in a hurry so we can close this loophole and prevent exposure of, let us say, the Power and Water Corporation. Why did the minister not inform us on this side of the House, let alone the rest of the Northern Territory, in the nearly four weeks since he became aware of the Solicitor-General’s advice? Moreover, when were the polluters, or the people with water discharge licences, advised of this anomaly? Or did government allow them to continue discharging water without advising them of this anomaly? The minister has been silent on this issue so far.
I am interested to know if the Ranger Uranium Mine, or any of the other mines for that matter, has been blissfully ignorant of this situation when discharging water in the time since the minister became aware of it. The first we heard about it was on Monday.
If the minister wants support from this side of the House, in a spirit of cooperation, to close a loophole he has discovered - it is the proper process of government to review legislation from time to time and I acknowledge this has been discovered as a result of the department’s efforts - but to sit on an item like this for a month without telling us until Monday that urgency would be sought and then come into this House yesterday, move the bill and say you would be seeking urgency, but seeking it today rather than yesterday, is an uncomfortable way to proceed to say the least.
Why would this matter of urgency engender suspicion in the member for Brennan? I listened to the member for Brennan and asked myself that question. He is quite right to be suspicious. I become suspicious when legal advice dated a month ago is not brought to the attention of members of this House when the assistance of members is needed to pass the urgency motion so the bill can be passed.
Have they told the Power and Water Corporation and, if so, on what date was it informed of this problem with its water discharge licence? Was a general advice sent to all people possessing water discharge licences as to the situation they were in? If not, why not? If the minister has issued such a notice to people discharging water under licences, then table the information which was issued. Did you send an e-mail, a letter, a telegram? Did you send it by pony express? We would like to see that the minister has acted in good faith in his approach to this issue - or has he done the usual thing and taken the political ‘how do we manage the politics of this issue’ approach? ‘I tell you what, we will drip feed it out at the last moment, say we have discovered this anomaly, am I not a good minister, I will do the little interview in front of the television and I will have this problem fixed’.
That is a political way of dealing with a political problem, not an effective way of dealing with a real problem. If the minister has failed to advise those people discharging water under their licences and they have continued to discharge water under those licences, does the liability suddenly transfer to the government for pollutants released whilst the government knew the licences were invalid and discharge continued to occur? What liability has government brought upon itself? There was no explanation of those issues. I would like to know, from this government, when the dischargers were informed.
We now deal with the rather cumbersome process of pursuing this urgency motion through the House today. The first I heard of this was on Monday. On Monday, the member for Brennan made some comments to me and that night on television we see the minister saying: ‘Yes, we will deal with this anomaly and by that process we have controlled the issue’ - we have controlled the issue of how this thing is dealt with publicly. The problem is, in the process, they may well have exposed other people.
Then the minister came into this House yesterday, after his own staff had been briefed, and said: ‘I am going to move this bill,’ and gave a second reading speech. He mentioned twice during the second reading speech that he will be seeking urgency but moved no urgency motion. This House gave him leave yesterday, unusually, to introduce a bill for which no notice was given. We were happy to do that, having been briefed. Then we were told afterwards: ‘We are not going to move urgency until tomorrow when this stuff has been explained to you guys’, hence the arrival of the Solicitor-General’s opinion. We are grateful to the minister for releasing the Solicitor-General’s opinion to us.
Why did he not do all of this yesterday? Why were we not briefed last week on this issue and given the Solicitor-General’s opinion last week so we could prepare for the normal process of bringing on an urgency motion? Because the minister was sitting on it. He was sitting on it because he was dealing with a political issue. All he had to do was prepare us the week before, come into this House and go through the normal process of seeking urgency: bring the bill in and say you would also like to ask this House for urgency.
We now have this ridiculous situation where the minister says: ‘This is urgent, but I will tell you how urgent it is tomorrow’. It does not wash and, if you drill into what is happening, it is because this minister does not run his own department, he does not run his own office. Everything is done for him. The speeches have to be written. If, yesterday, he had to negotiate his way on his feet as to how this matter was to proceed - if he was a competent minister he would have been able to do that. Okay, the words would not have been quite right and he may have had to be more thoughtful about how the words came together, but because the speech was not written for him in the first place - all that was written and prepared for him was the second reading speech - he could not negotiate the urgency motion until today.
That is the hallmark of how this government operates. It finds a problem, sits on it until it finds the political solution, keeps as many people in the dark for as long as possible and has a house-trained minister, who reads whatever is shoved under his nose, come into this House and read what he has been given.
That is one of the problems people have with this government. Recently, someone raised an issue with me which pertained to one of the minister’s portfolio responsibilities. I said: ‘Have you spoken to the minister’s office, yet?’ They said: ‘You are kidding, aren’t you? Have you ever spoken to minister Hampton? Have you ever spoken to that bloke? It’s a waste of time; we may as well talk directly to the department. We do not waste our time talking to this bloke any more’.
This is the type of governance the Northern Territory has under this Henderson Labor government; and this government wonders why it is considered to be the worst government the Territory has ever had …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is all about the managing of the message. If a minister cannot negotiate his way without having a written speech in front of him for something as simple as an urgency motion, it demonstrates how absolutely useless these guys have become.
Madam Speaker, this is the worst government the Territory has ever had; and whilst we understand the need for this urgency motion, its advocate is not up to the job.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan asked whether there had been any court cases - has it been to court and if it has not been to court, why are we doing this on urgency. The answer is simple, member for Brennan. I believe the member for Port Darwin answered that question. We cannot allow potential illegal activity to continue. It may not have been to court but, as a government, we have a duty to ensure potentially illegal activity does not continue.
I agreed with almost everything the member for Port Darwin said until he got to the end and became political; however, he made some points. This issue has been going on since 1992, it came about because of some question marks over drafting and dissonance - it is probably not a legal term, it is probably a scientific term - dissonance between certain clauses within the act around authorisation to discharge into waterways.
I commend the legal officer in the department who discovered this as they were reviewing the act; I will come back to the review of the act soon. The matter was brought to the attention of the minister; the minister rightly sought advice from the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General, as the member for Port Darwin said, provided advice some three weeks ago. Subsequent to that advice, the minister did the right thing; the minister looked for the remedy for the situation. His first priority was to find the remedy for the situation. Of course, that involves bringing the matter to Cabinet; it also involves the parliamentary drafters drafting legislation which could be moved in this House on urgency.
I believe most people here today - I do not know what the members for Nelson or Macdonnell will say, but I believe even the member for Port Darwin is acknowledging the need for urgency in this motion.
The minister has to bring the remedy to Cabinet. Cabinet considered this matter and made a final decision towards the end of last week. I assure this House, as Leader of Government Business, I give any minister, including the Chief Minister, a grilling if they want to bring something in here on urgency on any matter. I do not want to see too many bills brought into this House on urgency: only those bills which really are urgent and have to have a result within a sitting. The process we have as a parliament - the Westminster system – is right, and most bills should sit on the Table for the statutory period. I am a great believer in that. Therefore, I put many questions to the minister about this issue of urgency. The sort of questions I had were the questions the member for Brennan had. It has been going on since 1992 so why do we have to act now? What is the imperative? The answers which came back to me, and the Solicitor-General’s advice, made it very clear we had to act to remedy this situation.
The member for Port Darwin is trying to fabricate some cover-up or political spin in all of this. The processes of government move as the processes of government, member for Port Darwin, and the Cabinet process is square and central to that. As a Cabinet, we need to consider these matters before we start consulting with the opposition and Independents, and we before we start communicating with other people involved, including those who have discharge licences.
You can have the flat earth - did the minister pick up the phone and ring those people discharging? Well, it is not as simple as that. We have an 18-year history here. Some companies would have come and gone; there are some companies currently discharging. As the minister said in his speech, there are a number of applications before him which need to be settled. Those people would want those applications to be settled. The only responsible way for this parliament to go is to deal with this matter on urgency. Given the fact we are a minority government, and this parliament is in that situation, the debate could go any way. As a government, we have a responsibility to try to introduce this on urgency and, if that is successful, debate it on urgency and see where that debate goes.
Regarding government liability and all the rest of it, member for Port Darwin, that liability stretches back some 18 years. You talked about the worst government. The opposition is saying at every opportunity: ‘This is the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As soon as you said that, do you know what my first thought was? Mt Todd, Edith River, and what you mob did during that time. You were discharging, and potentially discharging, cyanide and other heavy metals into the Edith River …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are debating urgency. I know there has been a bit of latitude but, from memory, the Speaker has always been fairly strict on the debate around urgency. This is drifting into other realms.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. There was a fair bit of latitude given, particularly to the member for Port Darwin. Minister, if you could come to the point very quickly?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson has made his point; it is a very valid point. I will stop there. I have made the point I wanted to make about who is the ‘worstest’ of the ‘worstest’.
We can engage in this, but let us try to engage constructively on this issue. Let us try to solve it for the benefit of the Northern Territory. We are presented with a situation. Let us, as a parliament, try to work through this situation. I commend this motion on urgency and I hope it is passed.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this motion on urgency. I take this opportunity to thank you and your office for briefings, minister. The member for Nelson and I had a briefing from the minister’s office yesterday and were informed of the Solicitor-General’s advice to the government.
It is very important that at this stage - I am not reading from notes; I can see the member for Port Darwin looking at me, Madam Speaker - I thought that the briefing was thorough. This has been around for 16 or 17 years. At this time you have new eyes, legal eyes, which can see the impact into the future if we do not correct this now.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know the theme for this sittings will be the worst of everything, but the briefing I had from the minister’s advisors yesterday was probably one of the best I have had. It gave me a good indication that there is a need for urgency in this case.
I do query urgency motions, and anyone who has been in parliament in the same period I have knows I have challenged urgency motions before. They should only be brought on when absolutely required. I remember getting clobbered by the then Treasurer for objecting to an urgency debate on the dry towns motion for Alice Springs, which I felt was not an urgent case because the 2 km law already existed in Alice Springs.
So I do take it seriously when the government comes before parliament and asks for something to become an urgent matter. I sometimes wonder how these things slip through for 17 years. The previous government had this legislation; why did the Solicitor-General not pick up these issues in the previous government’s time? I suppose with a lot of legislation, until someone actually sees the error, it continues until it is picked up, or picked up in court. You do not want it picked up in court because then it starts to cost a great deal of money and I imagine there is action taken against the government for having a faulty piece of legislation.
I believe there are other risks if the government does not act now. If the government did not act and continued to allow this fault in the legislation to continue, saying: ‘Well, we will not prosecute anyone’, and someone became ill or injured because of a discharge licence being granted by the government, then I think that person would have a reasonable case for suing the government for being negligent. That is one of the major reasons this legislation needs to be fixed.
I do not know whether you are allowed to have a committee stage when you have an urgency debate. The member for Port Darwin raised a number of questions. I know the Leader of Government Business answered many of them, but could the Speaker give me a ruling on whether you can have a committee stage during urgency debates where some of the specific questions can be answered by the minister? That may not be the case because we do not have a bill before us as we would normally.
I know there are some issues. The member for Brennan obviously has some concerns about the record of government in these matters. That may be reasonable. However, we are debating a specific issue about whether these amendments should be brought forward urgently. Regardless of whether there have been issues before or will be issues ahead, regardless of whether in these sittings it will be found that some of the worst coffee ever made is made in my office - because there will be a lot of that going on. We need to take some of that political argy-bargy out and look at the issue as it is.
From my point of view, and from the good briefing I received, I agree with the member for Macdonnell. Regardless of the cynicism sometimes in this place, and I understand why that is from time to time, I take the minister on his good word that this is important. He has not brought it forward simply because it is a nice thing to do. He has been given advice. The Solicitor-General’s advice has also been given. I have not seen that advice but I believe the opposition has seen it. The minister would be derelict in his duty if, after being given all that advice, he did not bring it on in urgency. You can work this argument in reverse and then we would be criticising the minister for allowing people to keep operating with illegal licences.
Madam Speaker, I support the urgency motion. If there are other issues people would like to debate they will have their chance next week when we can have a more open debate on some of the matters the member for Brennan was concerned about.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I understand the requirement to have this amendment to the Water Act put through but I still do not have information as to what the trigger was. Was it one of these eight applications under consideration for discharge licences? I understand the discharge licence system with regards to the mining industry, not so much for Power and Water, but what was the trigger which prompted the department to seek the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General? I have no issue with the fact he has delivered the information, but I am concerned with the potential for legal vulnerability of mining companies because over the last 10 to 17 years they have been discharging at the peak flow times of the Wet Season, believing they have been doing so legally. We know that happens with all the major projects, plus the smaller projects, and to no detriment to the environment, contrary to what the member for Johnston was trying to claim. So, minister, what was the trigger which caused the department, or you, to seek the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General?
How many discharge licences have been issued in the mining industry over the last 17 years for current and past projects? Whilst a project might have ceased to operate, the company may still exist elsewhere in the Territory or in an exploration mode. Will they be legally vulnerable to external stakeholders seeking some kind of redress once it is in the public domain that this company has been putting contaminants or pollutants - call them what you like - discharging water from the mine site? Is the minister going to release some factual information to industry and the broader community so they can have confidence as to why it has been done and that there has not been any detriment to the environment.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing it to the attention of the House but I want a little more clarification as to what started it, and how many companies are going to be affected. Have you contacted all the mining companies? If so, was it done formally, and what were their responses? Have you had any working groups with them to try to address this issue?
When there is urgent action, being in opposition you cannot help but test whether that is the case. There are high levels of cynicism we have to work through to ensure we are being called upon to do something that is, in fact, urgent.
We discussed, with the little amount of information we had - the alarm bells had rung. We found the briefings, which we were told the community had been provided, had not been provided. Then we had a limited briefing, so we are to take it on faith. It is very difficult to have faith in a government which has such convoluted processes that we lose our confidence in its capacity to use a process for the public good. There seems to have been, over these 10 years, an inclination to use processes for political benefit. We are cynical.
We come into this Chamber to test this. If it is urgent, it must be compelling and require immediate action. That is what I understand urgent to mean. Therefore, having alarm bells rung across the community, by way of a media conference, this must be urgent. Therefore, I would have expected when we come into the parliament all is cleared aside, it is made front and centre, first cab off the rank. Explain this because it is so serious. However, that did not occur. It was like he who hesitates is lost, which caused cynicism to grow. That has given rise to this discussion. That cynicism would have been reduced by the minister being decisive yesterday.
I cannot say cynicism just goes away. We have an obligation to respond and work our way through that. That cynicism would have been reduced if you had been very specific about the nature of the risk in very real terms - if you demonstrated to us you were galvanised to action by talking to this parliament about the very specific risk we face as a community, given you have already rung the alarm bells in the community and we are now going to meet together on a Tuesday to sort this out because it is so serious.
What is the specific risk? Explain it to us! Persuade us, so we can consent to the call you have made. How did this specific risk we now face as a community remain unnoticed for 17 years? That needs to be explained to us clearly so we can handle our apprehension about working with this government when it makes such a call. We need to be persuaded. The ball is in your court. We will come with you, but you have to play it and recognise the difficulties we have after working with you for 10 years. We do not have that much confidence in you. By hesitating, by telling the world you had briefed us when you had not, by not being specific about the nature of the risk and explaining how this remained unnoticed for 17 years – that is a concern. How did it occur? How was it identified? What happened? Walk us through it. What happened to identify this? How was the alarm bell raised? Build our confidence so we can give you this consent, minister. You need to stand up and deliver this so we can follow you and understand we are following you in good faith. That has to be re-established. The things we have discussed here erode our confidence in this hopeless government.
To call upon us to follow you, you need to deal with these matters because, make no mistake, on this side of the Chamber we have real difficulty working with you. We have lost confidence in this government and the community has lost confidence in this government. You come in here and require urgency; you do not even make the case. You do not explain to us in specific and real terms what the nature of the risk is. We had media releases, we had small briefings, we had a media conference to alert the whole community, but we have no coherent explanation. We have a mumbled response and a call to arms, but we do not know exactly what it is.
I have a sense through all of this that there is a problem which needs a response. However, I have to say, lift your game so we understand exactly what it is you are asking this Chamber to do, because this is a matter that …
Mr Knight: You need to grow a brain.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … raises a number of questions.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Minister for Essential Services, I ask you to withdraw. I remind everyone you must stand when you are speaking to the Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Honourable members, I am very concerned about the parliamentary standards in this parliament and the level of interjections. This is only the second day of the last two weeks of parliament, and I am very concerned about the rudeness and unparliamentary behaviour generally. I will be putting more people on warnings, including you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We do not want to be a compliant and meek opposition. We are not weighing into this because it gives us joy. We have to protect the interests of the community. We have to test this government which we do not have confidence in, and we are calling upon you, minister, to state your case. Explain this to us, persuade us of the view, recognise there is a very real level of cynicism on this side of the Chamber; it does not exist because we were born that way; you have helped us to establish a very significant level of cynicism.
The big question is: how did this occur? It is a real question - not just political terms. I know that is the only way you blokes see things. How does a system we have in place, which allowed this risk which requires an urgent and galvanising response of the parliament, remain unnoticed for 17 years? The learned member for Johnston probably knows but we all need to know it. Respect the Chamber! Explain this to us so we can attend to it! That is what this is about.
Madam Speaker, we could have taken the alternate path and said: ‘Yes, whatever you say’, but we are not tame. We know our duty and will test you so we can be sure. When the alarm bells ring we will heed the call if it is an emergency.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I raise the same concerns as other colleagues. I am concerned why, after 17 years of operation of these laws, we are now being called to do something on urgency. When you look around the Northern Territory at the failures in SIHIP, the failures in child protection, you would think there is a range of other things …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow a little deviation but I am sure the member for Fong Lim will come to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am speaking to this motion. What I am saying is there is a range of other things which are just as urgent - probably more urgent – to which this parliament should be devoting its time. The government has clearly failed in the areas of child protection and building houses for Indigenous people but now we have to debate an urgency motion about changes to the Water Act.
We have been led to believe the government has received advice from lawyers that there is a loophole which may be exploited, or someone could hurt themselves, or there is some other group with devious motives which is going to leap at this opportunity, drag the government into court and shut down businesses.
The member for Brennan made some very good points. We are talking about Power and Water Corporation, miners, and many other private operators which discharge water into the environment. If what we are led to believe is correct, almost the total economy of the Northern Territory is threatened by this legislation which stood for 17 years without challenge. Now we are dragged in here because some lawyer says he has found a loophole in the law which says someone can take the government or these organisations to court, and thereby sabotage the whole of the Northern Territory economy.
I ask the minister: who are these economic terrorists the government has identified? Who are these people who are lining up, ready to seize on this opportunity to take the government through the courts and sabotage the whole Northern Territory community and economy? It has been mentioned to me by some, in passing, that these people are in the community, very well-resourced, well-funded, environmental green activists ready to go.
Minister, as members of the Labor Party, you guys are best placed to know who these people are. You are in bed with groups which have obvious connections to these economic terrorists. Federally, the Australian Labor Party is in bed with The Greens; they have a formal coalition agreement with The Greens. The Greens may well be behind some of these activities. Your government funds the Environment Centre in the Northern Territory. I am sure you have very close contacts with groups like Greenpeace. I am sure there are other militant environmental activists out there to which your government and members of the Labor Party are very close.
Minister, when you sum up this debate, I would like you to explain which of these organisations is plotting the overthrow of the Northern Territory economy. Which of these groups is ready to go, has a pot of money and is ready to drag the government through the courts if we do not act on this matter urgently? Why is this matter so much more urgent than issues pertaining to child protection, Indigenous housing, and law and order in our community? When I talk to Territorians, that is what they are concerned about, and they are upset that this parliament is not acting on their concerns more urgently.
Now we are told legislation which has stood for 17 years unchallenged needs to be changed urgently because someone can, in effect, sabotage the Northern Territory economy by shutting down organisations like Power and Water, mining companies, and a range of other businesses which discharge water into the environment. You would never trust conspiracy theorists, but there has to be a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the government if it believes there is a group out there ready to quickly trot us into court.
Minister, it would be great if you could explain that. I, like the other members on this side of the Chamber, have reservations as to why this is so urgent. It would be very good if you could outline in a forthright manner exactly some of the concerns members have raised. What has triggered this investigation into the legal standing of this act? What prompted the Solicitor-General to look at it? Why did the Solicitor-General suggest it needed changing urgently? What groups are prepared to sabotage the Northern Territory economy and why? What information do you have on those groups?
It seems a bit bizarre to me to think there is a group like that. Greenpeace, even the Australian Greens and the Environment Centre are looking for public support. I would have thought sabotaging the Northern Territory economy would be a way of guaranteeing you get no public support. If there are people or organisations prepared to sabotage the Northern Territory economy, please explain who they are because Territorians have a right to know. Explain to us whether the Labor Party’s close coalition with the Australian Greens has given you inside information about some of these groups.
Madam Speaker, it is a bit rich to come in here demanding urgency on legislation given some of the circumstances in the Northern Territory, particularly in the area of child protection. You have a big report here. You said you are about to implement all 147 recommendations. I would have thought to do that would require a significant amount of the time of this parliament. Many of those recommendations are said to be urgent. We do not seem to be getting around to too many of them but we are quite prepared to act urgently on a law which has stood for 17 years without challenge.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, without doubt this is going to be a very important motion. First, it has demonstrated to the entire Northern Territory public how inept the minister is, how poorly advised and directed on parliamentary processes he is, and how ill-prepared he was when he came into this Chamber yesterday knowing he had a matter of urgency. He bungled his way through it. It is disgusting and disgraceful to see a highly paid minister of this Territory government botch a matter of urgency. One would have thought he would have been rehearsed to the letter so he got this right and we could get this through as a matter of urgency.
Next week, on 2 December, is when you want to finish this. That is when you want to finish it off as a matter of urgency. Not today, not tomorrow, but next week on 2 December. That is what is in our papers. I find it bizarre it has come through as a matter of urgency. This act has been in place, unchallenged, for a very long time. Unchallenged bar the member for Brennan who has done a fantastic job this year of prosecuting this poor government for its waste management and environmental control. The only reason this government has found anything is because the member for Brennan has done an amazing job of prosecuting this disgusting, disgraceful, worst government in the Northern Territory’s history, particularly when it comes to its management of these fine details. They are only fine details. It is not urgent because we are going to deal with it next week, not now.
I have great respect for the Solicitor-General’s position; however, I am concerned this letter he wrote on 28 October, over 20 days ago, had such urgency that the minister must bring it upon this parliament to change the act. In paragraph six of his letter he indicates:
That paragraph leads me to suggest that even the Solicitor-General did not see it as such a matter of urgency because he did not further investigate how bad a problem this was. He could see that the intent of the act …
Mr KNIGHT: 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 in attendance.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of urgency and it is disgraceful the government has not stood by their man. Most of us have spoken on this because we see it is urgent. We also see there have been grave failings on the part of the government in dealing with this part of the act and the way this matter of urgency has been brought to parliament. The Solicitor-General brought this to the government’s attention on 28 October 2010. The government said it was a matter of urgency, yet the Solicitor-General has stopped short of investigating if it is that bad. I would have thought the minister would have big red lights in his office flashing: ‘Help, we have something really bad happening. We need something done urgently. Let us throw our entire department into finding out how bad this is’. The Solicitor-General stopped short of taking that further investigation step when he has the power to do so.
I am not saying it is not important to change it. I am questioning how urgent it is seeing it has not been contested, whether it is that important, whether the member for Brennan has done such a great job prosecuting this government on its poor performance this year it knows it is the one most likely to be acting unlawfully. It is the one most likely to be acting unlawfully because it is the biggest stakeholder in the Power and Water Corporation, which is pumping sewerage into the harbour and has come under great strain at the waste which has been floating around our harbour, onto our beaches and causing closures.
Yesterday, I spoke to visiting students. They all knew the beaches had been closed; they knew about the problem and where it was coming from. It is coming from your own corporation. The reality is, because of the fantastic prosecution by the member for Brennan of this government, the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory …
Mr Knight: He is too scared to meet Power and Water. Too scared to talk to the professionals there.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: I cannot hear when the member for Daly keeps interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Essential Services, you will cease interjecting. Member for Drysdale, please keep to the motion about urgency. It is not about all these other things. There has been enough deviation, thank you. It is about urgency.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, certainly. Can I make a point of order regarding the unparliamentary comments made by the member for Daly in relation to the member for Brennan? The comments were terrible.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear them. Minister for Essential Services, can you withdraw the comments, please. I did not hear them.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, very much. Member for Drysdale, remember it is about urgency.
Mr BOHLIN: As a matter of urgency, this government has realised it is most likely to have legal action taken against it. As a matter of urgency, it has seen the need to amend this act to prevent prosecution of the government. After a fantastic prosecution from the member for Brennan, this government has identified it is the one most likely to have legal action taken against it for the waste discharge. It is the one most likely to be in court. It is about covering its own tail, not about whether it needs to be changed, because it has not been challenged.
As a matter of urgency …
Ms Lawrie: If you do not pass on urgency, you cannot take it to court.
Mr BOHLIN: I doubt that is so. It is quite strange, as the member for Fong Lim said, that child protection should have been at the forefront as a matter of urgency. Yesterday, as a matter of urgency, we spent over five hours gloating about what the government believes it has done when we heard a statement on jobs. We should have been dealing with fixing child protection. As a matter of urgency, next week this will come before us again to go through all its stages.
The letter from the Solicitor-General was sent on 28 October 2010. This government has had over 20 days to prepare itself for a matter of urgency, prepare the legislation, and to prosecute that argument in this House. We would have supported it, without a doubt! But you failed to deliver. You failed to deliver a good argument …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Knight: I am glad you are not carrying a gun around any more …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Essential Services, cease interjecting!
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of urgency, apparently. We will soon see what comes out in a vote. The government has had since 28 October to get its business in the one sock and present its case so this parliament could undertake its business. However, we wasted five hours yesterday debating the statement. Child protection is in the forefront of every Territorian’s mind. I believe this government’s real motivation is to ensure it protects its tailbone; it is the most liable because it is the stakeholder of Power and Water Corporation which has been polluting our harbour uncontrollably and unchecked for a long period of time, including the last 10 years and beyond.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I highlight to all those in the gallery, all the public servants, and all the Territory citizens that today we are witnessing history. Territory history is unfolding as we speak. This is the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory and, once again, it is proving it in spades.
The minister was on television on Monday night saying: ‘Okay, this is a pretty big deal. It is big on my agenda. I have to get in there and pass this on urgency tomorrow so we can square up bits of this act which have been anomalies for 18 years. I have to get in there and do it’. We saw him fluff over the process yesterday. Today, we are no closer to this being passed on urgency. It flies in the face of the definition of ‘urgency’, when we saw a day pass yesterday and we are no closer to it, and saw another five hours taken up with, yet again, another political puff piece on jobs. When challenged on that at 8.30 pm last night, after five hours of debating it, the minister said: ‘This is a pretty important statement’. Yes, jobs are pretty important to Territorians. I do not believe five hours spent on a political puff piece is good use of taxpayers’ money. It flies in the face of the definition of ‘urgency’ when even today it is item No 3 on the Notice Paper for ‘Mr Hampton to move so much …’ etcetera, of the debate we are undertaking now.
We have already had two notices introduced. It hardly seems urgent and that is the concern of the opposition. It is a little suspicious; it is supposed to be urgent, but it is anything but urgent. There are many other areas in the Territory which require urgent attention. Law and order is one of them. Anyone from anywhere in the Territory will tell you law and order is out of control in so many areas and, once again, the latest crime statistics illustrate that. We talk about jobs; well, it is very hard to create and sustain jobs when you do not have the capacity for affordable housing for low- to middle-income earners. Child protection, of course, is hot, it is …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This motion is about the urgency of the Water Amendment Bill. There is a high level of irrelevance in the comments from the member of Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. I have given a great deal of latitude to a number of members but I remind you of what the motion is: that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Water Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 137) passing through all stages on Thursday, 2 December 2010. Member for Greatorex, I remind you that that is what the bill is about.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am using the time allotted to me to develop my argument to prove and illustrate that while this motion is about urgency, the government seems to have no understanding of the definition of urgency, considering this is day two of parliament and the minister said on Monday night he was going to do this first thing on Tuesday morning.
I highlight law and order, which I believe is urgent. It is an urgent matter facing Territorians. I highlight the housing crisis and the land shortage crisis we are facing in the Northern Territory. These are urgent needs which this government should be focusing on. Again, child protection - which is right across the country. Tasmania is facing some serious issues with child protection. The Northern Territory has, once again, been dragged into the spotlight because of its failure to act on child protection matters. Five failed Child Protection ministers. There is no doubt that you have failed as Child Protection ministers …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that in an urgency motion you are only allowed to speak about the motion. You are not speaking to the motion.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, as I am using the time allocated to me, I am developing my argument to illustrate that this government has no understanding of the word urgency. I am utilising this time, the 15 minutes I have …
Madam SPEAKER: It has to relate to the motion, which relates to none of those things you have spoken about. There has been a great deal of deviation allowed.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, if I am allowed to develop my argument, you will see it will relate to it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a long-standing procedure in this House, member for Greatorex, that when we are debating a motion on urgency, the debate only relates to the motion before us. So I call you, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, we are talking about urgency, you are absolutely right, but while we are talking about urgency, I cannot ignore the fact we have had five failed Child Protection ministers in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: If you were that good, and that adept at your job …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Greatorex has clearly not heard your ruling in terms of relevance. He is digressing again from the motion on urgency for the Water Amendment Bill.
Mr Mills: They are sensitive about this one.
Madam SPEAKER: As the Leader of the Opposition has made an interjection, you will recall, Leader of the Opposition, as one of the two longest-serving members in this House, that a debate on urgency relates only to the motion. While I and previous Speakers have allowed a level of latitude in debating a motion on urgency, we have certainly gone well beyond that at this stage. Member for Greatorex, I remind you that the motion is about the Water Amendment Bill.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can see this is very sensitive. There will be plenty of opportunity to highlight the failures of this government over the next couple of days, in particular its failures in child protection and the five failed Child Protection ministers it has had. If it was adept why would it have had five ministers?
As I have highlighted, there are so many pressing issues facing the Northern Territory: law and order; housing; child protection; hospital waiting lists; a raft of things, yet here we are …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. You have directed the member to confine his remarks to the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: I assume the member for Greatorex is winding up.
Mr CONLAN: I am, Madam Speaker …
Dr Burns: He is wound up already.
Mr CONLAN: I am wound up …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: You are dead right because again we come into this parliament and see such time wasting as yesterday and here we have a government with the audacity to say: ‘This is urgent, let us bring it on’. When are we going to get around to it? There is plenty of time to highlight the failures of this government because there is no shortage of them.
Madam Speaker, this whole thing is a little suspicious. It is grossly incompetent of the minister. It highlights that we are witnessing the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, as the minister for the Environment I have found this debate very important. I have said on the record that I was not happy to bring this on, on urgency because I know the Westminster system. I know the testings and the role we all have to play as legislators in this Assembly. As minister I did not want to bring this in on urgency but I had to on the advice of the Solicitor-General and I take that advice very seriously.
For me it is a matter of listening to the debate; it is a matter of testings. When I was first made aware of this - a number of speakers have given out the running time line on this - the Solicitor-General’s advice was provided on 28 October, a little less than four weeks ago, and I have acted responsibly as the minister. As a government, we have acted in the appropriate manner and in the time frame we were able to do it. This is the first sittings since receiving that advice on 28 October and as my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business articulately pointed out, the process - I know the members opposite have not been in government, maybe the member for Blain has as the oldest member on that side of the House, but when you are in government …
Ms Lawrie: And Port Darwin.
Mr HAMPTON: … and Port Darwin, sorry member for Port Darwin, but those two would understand the processes and the member for Port Darwin acknowledged there is a process when you are in government, which, as a minister, you have to go through to test the advice you receive. There is a number of tests you go through …
Mr Elferink: When did you finally make a decision as a Cabinet?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Why were we not told last week?
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I am trying to respond to this debate.
Mr Elferink: You said last week, so why were we told on Monday?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: It is all about you is it, John?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The minister has the call, not you, member for Port Darwin, or you, Treasurer! The minister has the call.
Mr Elferink: It is about competence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, we received the advice on 28 October and my colleague, the Leader of Government Business, explained the processes which government and ministers go through when you receive this type of advice. This is the first sittings since we received that advice. If we do not pass this motion on urgency during these sittings, as I said in my second reading speech yesterday and my contribution today, we have to wait three months during the Wet Season until the next sittings in February. That is why it is on urgency. I have acted responsibly as the minister. This government has acted in the appropriate manner and in the quickest time frame we could.
I will take the Solicitor-General’s advice on board. This motion is about the urgency. If this motion is passed today we have plenty of time to debate the other elements of the amendment bill next week. That is the whole idea of it. There have been a number of good points raised by members opposite and I especially thank the independents because they have put on record that they will support this motion. I am not sure about the opposition. I thank the member for Macdonnell. She is a former Environment minister and understands the complexities of the portfolio and the urgency of this motion. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and support for this motion. I am not sure where the opposition stands on this. I urge them to pass this and support this motion on urgency. Next week we can debate fully some of the points raised by the members opposite.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which seeks to amend three pieces of Territory legislation: the Superannuation Act; the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund Act; and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities’ Superannuation Scheme Rules, all through a number of significant amendments and minor administrative amendments. I thank the Treasurer and Treasury staff for providing a briefing on this legislation. I indicate the opposition will be supporting this bill.
In the first significant part of this bill is a proposed repeal of Part 4, Division 3 of the Superannuation Act which includes sections 45J, 45K and 45L. These sections deal with the requirement for a medical classification upon entry to the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme established under section 45G, and where membership is provided for under section 45H.
Under the sections which it is proposed to repeal there is currently a requirement for new members - those employed on or after 1 July 2007 - to submit a medical declaration to the Commissioner for Superannuation. The commissioner could accept the medical declaration or direct the member to either provide further medical information or undergo a medical examination or examinations. This was for the purpose of defining a member into a reduced benefit classification, or otherwise, for the purpose of reducing the death or invalidity benefit payable to a member whose pre-existing medical condition contributed to the death or invalidity of that member within a 10 year period.
The history of the implementation of that scheme was borne out of a perceived disparity between members with and without pre-existing medical conditions and the benefits they should receive if that pre-existing condition contributed to their death or invalidity. This amendment removes those provisions so all members of the scheme will be treated equally. The Treasurer has also cited other reasons for disbanding this part of the scheme.
There is apparently a cost reason: to rid ourselves of what has become a rather inefficient cost and cumbersome requirement. I am advised, and the Treasurer raised this in her second reading speech, these provisions cost the Territory government around $100 000 per annum, and that is not taking into account the additional costs to community in medical time spent on conducting examinations where the time of medical practitioners could be spent dealing with more critical issues.
According to the statistics provided by the Treasurer, and the second reading speech, since 2007 more than 1000 new members to the scheme have been required to undergo further medical assessment, with around 250 of those people having their cover reduced. It is noteworthy that only one person has received a reduced benefit from the scheme since its inception in 2007. With an annual investment of $100 000 and only one benefit, to the tune of $12 000, received by the Territory, the inefficiencies of the scheme are quite apparent.
There are some further amendments to the act, along with some transitional arrangements for the NTGDI scheme. There are a number of other significant amendments to the legislation in this bill. One revolves around the capacity of a person to take a superannuation benefit while they continue to work, even if part-time. This is an initiative agreed to by the opposition in general terms, in that it encourages mature-age employees to work for longer. These changes apply to people who have choice-of-fund superannuation arrangements; however, they will not apply to members of NTGPASS or NTSSS. Those people would have to resign to take their superannuation benefit.
Looking at how these changes occur in the legislation - and this applies to other parts of the legislation as well - one needs to look at the definition at section 3 of the word ‘adherent’. It goes on to define adherent of the NTGPASS scheme as:
One then has to dissect the definition of ‘eligible employee’ and some changes to that to see how the effects take place in legislation. The nett effect of those changes to the superannuation rules allows an employee of the NT government to transition to retirement; that is, remain employed by the Northern Territory government and access their superannuation, unless the person is a member of NTGPASS or NTSSS. In the case of those members, they have to resign from the NT government before they can access their superannuation.
The next significant proposed change to the legislation in this bill involves a change in the Superannuation Act with respect to fees which may be charged by the commissioner. Section 50A of the Superannuation Act is amended to allow for an account-keeping fee to be charged to a person who is an adherent. Currently, as I understand it, NTGPASS account-based pension members are charged a variety of fees on their accounts, including account-keeping fees. This amendment brings into line with other superannuation funds, particularly the superannuation choice funds, the concept of an account-keeping fee for retained members where, at the present time, one does not exist. I note this change to the provisions relates only to retained members, who are those who have an accumulation fund with NTGPASS, and who are no longer employed by the NT government.
During the briefing, I was advised these legislative reforms are Stage 1 of a two-stage process of superannuation reform being undertaken by Treasury and the Northern Territory government. In saying that, and in talking about fees being applied to certain members of funds, I hope this is not the thin edge of the wedge in bringing out other fees which might come in for members of NTGPASS who are still employed by the Northern Territory government. As I understand it, currently there are no account-keeping fees for members of NTGPASS if they are employed. I will be seeking a guarantee from the Treasurer that in Stage 2 there will be no further fees sneaking, incrementally or otherwise, into accounts of currently employed NTGPASS members.
The other significant changes to legislation in these amendments relate to the consolidation of the three existing superannuation boards. These are the Superannuation Investment Board, established under the Superannuation Act and responsible for NTGPASS members; the second is the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Trust, responsible for LAMS; and the NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, which is responsible for the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme. In total, I believe approximately $750m is administered by these three schemes.
Given the complexities around Commonwealth legislation and changes to trustee obligations and responsibilities, there have been moves to rationalise trustee arrangements in other parts of the country. The moves in this bill to achieve consolidation, a bit of streamlining, and even simplification of the structure of superannuation boards of the Northern Territory are consistent with moves elsewhere. The information provided to me at the briefing, and I have to admit, I did not get a chance to chase it up personally, was that the move by the government to consolidate these boards is supported by members of those boards. I take that on face value; I have no reason to believe otherwise.
To me it seems like sensible legislation as part of an overall move by the Northern Territory government to rationalise and reform superannuation across the Northern Territory. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what stage 2 will bring.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasury staff for their briefing. It was most informative and they were very frank in answering questions, even outside of the specific purview specifically of the act.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and I thank the opposition for their support of the bill. Superannuation is a very important topic. It is one of the most important things people can have. Often people do not know how much they have in super, it just ticks away, going in each pay. They do not know their balance, but when it comes to their retirement years, their sunset years, it is one of the most important things you can have, with your health, to get you through. Often people do not know what is going on with their super and, as you know, that is what we are talking about today.
Government manages some super funds, and we do that responsibly. Part of being a responsible manager of a super fund is to look at it from time to time, see how you can review it and reform it, and what fixes you can put in place which will deliver a greater return on the investment without risking the benefit. A superannuation fund should be rock-solid, safe and stable. You get the occasional hits that come along, like the global financial crisis, which collect everyone on their way, but superannuation funds need to be managed responsibly and, as part of managing our super funds responsibly, we are debating this bill.
It is a sensible bill which reduces red tape and administration costs for running government super. It restructures governance arrangements by creating a single trustee board for three super funds with no loss of benefits or conditions for existing members. The Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer have already spoken about the three boards and how they operate. I know the shadow Treasurer mentioned the members of those current boards and whether they are happy to be merged into a single board. I understand through the Treasurer that they are happy with that new governance arrangement. I am sure the Treasurer will touch on that when she wraps this bill today before we go into passage.
Perhaps more importantly for the new members of the scheme, the requirement for a medical examination has been dropped. I am not a member of a government scheme, I am with the CareSuper fund, a legacy of an earlier job, and I was quite shocked to learn about the requirement for a medical examination. I was not required to have a medical exam to become a member of the CareSuper fund. I was quite surprised that some super funds do require you to have a medical test. It was an odd thing to learn. I am happy to speak to a bill which will see that requirement for entering a super fund removed, and other onerous paperwork requirements reduced.
These reforms modernise super schemes so they are, as the Treasurer commented in her speech, the first step in our reforms. Today’s bill proposes four separate reforms:
1. removing the medical provisions required for new members of the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme;
3. improve the ability for members to retire or transition to retirement by opting out of their scheme when they reach the preservation age, which is currently 55; and
4. simplifying the governance structure by creating a single trustee board to oversee the Territory’s defined benefit funds.
Four simple reforms , the effects of which will be to reduce the cost of the scheme, which in turn improves benefits and improves the returns for members.
The third reform, making it easy for people to transition out of this fund when they reach preservation age - it is not always the easiest thing to roll over super or do whatever you want to do with your super. As I mentioned before, I am a member of the CareSuper fund. When I was working at Big W stacking the shelves, working my way through uni, I was a member of the REST Super fund, a great super fund; I know because I have a very small amount of money with them. I tried to roll it over a couple of years ago. I wrote to them, filled out all the forms and said I would like to roll my REST into my CareSuper fund. They wrote back eventually and said: ‘I am sorry, Big W says you still work for them and you cannot roll your funds over’. It has been 10 or 12 years since I worked for Big W. I am glad it still claims me; I am very proud of my years at Big W. It was a great job and helped me get through uni, but apparently I still have a job there and I cannot roll my super funds over. I am sure I could clear that up if I tried again now, but it is something I will look at when my super is going to come to fruition; I will get around to it eventually.
Super funds do a great job. It was good of REST in many ways to say: ‘No, we want to look after your money and we want to look after you as best we can. We think we can do that best and you are still working in the retail industry’, which of course I no longer am.
To return to that first reform around the new entrant medical requirements for the NTGDIS, I quote the Treasurer’s summary of the current process.
That is a bit of a mouthful. It is a complicated process, as members can appreciate, and as the Treasurer has costed, this is an expensive process, about $100 000 per agency. It is costly to have a medical examination when you first enter the scheme. As the Treasurer said, it is an impost on our medical services and doctors to have a medical check with - you know I am fully healthy today, go and get a check to see if I can enter the scheme or not, that is a tick in the check-in book at the doctors where someone else who is genuinely sick may want to get in that day. In the three years there have been 8500 medical examinations which would not have otherwise been required. The outcomes of those 8500 medical examinations, and the shadow Treasurer and the Treasurer spoke about this too, have not reduced the Territory’s liability. For all that effort and imposition there has been no measurable benefit to the scheme. A benefit to the scheme is a benefit to members and the return members receive. So we are going along to the doctor, getting a check, assessing the liability, 8500 visits, $100 000 per agency and there has not been a measurable benefit to the scheme. So it is a very sensible reform to remove that.
The second reform is aimed at keeping our senior public servants in the workforce; we do not want to lose their talents or corporate knowledge. As the scheme sits at the moment there is an incentive to retire at 55 when their super benefits are maximised. I am sure plenty of members have had these conversations with public servants when they talk about trying to work out the right time to do this and do that. We do not want them doing that, we want them to stay; we need them. It is very important to retain our senior public servants. I have never quite understood money because I have never been part of the scheme. I have not had to work it out for myself - it is many years away anyway. But it is good to see we are fixing that through this bill, because it always has been a bit of an issue and you talk to good public servants who move on and end up doing other jobs or other things to benefit their retirement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, given that there is a committee meeting, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to continue after Question Time.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received an e-mail from the member for Nelson regarding pairing:
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Northern Territory government for its completely incompetent handling of its duties regarding the Montara oil facilities and other facilities under its command and protection.
Contained in the media release from the federal minister for Resources regarding the Montara report is a very short sentence saying ‘Montara was preventable’. All accidents, all incidents, are preventable and the minister knows that. The minister also knows there is not one single action which contributes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, it is impossible to hear. It is an important motion; I would like to hear what is going on.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister would also be aware that apart from accidents being preventable, there is more than one action which contributes to an incident or accident. In this case, the commission has identified many contributing factors. One of them was the company and its processes and procedures failings and systems failings, but the other one clearly identified in the report, in the minister’s statement to the House and his media release, is the Northern Territory Designated Authority, quote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 will go down as the day it all went wrong with the Montara oil field. The inquiry commissioner, David Borthwick reports, and I will make selective quotes - this is what happened in the lead-up to the incident:
On 7 March 2009, conditions were set which resulted in the eventual blowout of the Montara well on 21 August. If the minister was leading his department properly, people would have been on the Montara platform talking to the company personnel either offshore or onshore, so some of these issues with their systems, procedures and case management would have been picked up.
That is not a good record: the third largest oil spill. The commissioner then reported:
It is good news the government is working with the Commonwealth government to make things better because in any industry we learn from accidents and from mistakes so they never happen again. It was only by the good grace of Our Lord that no one was hurt or killed in this incident. The potential was there; thankfully, it did not happen. What would have been the situation if people were hurt or killed? Would the minister still be saying: ‘It is not really my responsibility. It is not my government’s responsibility’? How would you say that to the families if they had lost someone, minister?
It was this Labor government’s failure to resource the regulatory body to a sustainable level over an extended period of time. All it could do late on a Friday afternoon, on receiving a call from the well operator that a plan of work was required, was a tick-and-flick assessment of the hazards and the risks. It was all the department could do to sign off on a program of work, sight unseen, the following week.
The Northern Territory government departmental people can go onto offshore facilities. They have been on the floating production facilities, I know, but very few times have they ever been to a facility such as Montara - probably because they are not encouraged to, directed to, or because they do not have the funding or resources to allow them to do their jobs properly. It was an absence of oversight, a lack of resources, and a lack of will by this government to do the right thing which allowed the Montara well closure to slip through the system. Mr Borthwick reported:
And the minister says it is not an environmental issue! What was one of the key findings of the Montara inquiry report? The report says the Northern Territory regulator ‘was not a diligent regulator’. At the beginning of the report - and I quote from the executive summary:
There was a joint partnership between the company and those who regulate it, which is the Northern Territory government, and they failed to regulate, and assist the company in going about their business.
This is what the report is saying about the Northern Territory government agency and the way the minister went about the work:
Even today, I rang the government switchboard to be put through to the Director of Energy and I was told by the operator no such position exists.
It is one thing for the company to have poor practices; it is another thing for the regulator, regardless of the industry, to assist the company through regulation, education, or cooperation so it implements best practices, not poor practices. What did the commissioner say about the Northern Territory? I quote:
That is how the department was seen, which I am very sad about, because I know there are some very good, decent, hardworking people there.
The Territory regulator was soft, it was weak but, more importantly, it was understaffed, under-skilled and undeserving of the failure of this government and this minister has to go into bat for his department to give it the necessary resources. Over the last 10 years, I have seen how that department, the Resources department, mines department, call it what you like, has been dumbed down. It has not replaced the level of skill, professionalism and expertise we need going into the next phase of development in the Northern Territory in the minerals industry and the offshore oil and gas industry.
We are talking of billions of dollars of project coming onshore in the form of INPEX, and yet we have this report, right around the country now, telling everyone, telling industry, that the government is not up to the job. I am reminded of the winding back over the last 10 years of the Energy division of the Department of Resources, a stand-alone director and staff across the field of energy management and regulation. Experts and four staff, not as we have seen reported before. I quote:
To show just how in the dark the department was, the commissioner reported:
So if this inquiry had not taken place, we could well have a project, an operation similar to Montara, with systems not as good as they should be, operating under the Northern Territory government’s watch.
The department was not looking in the wrong place; it was not looking, full stop. The reason it was not looking is because this government has gutted the Energy division of its department over the last five to 10 years. It has failed in its duty to provide the resources and, as a consequence, it has failed the people of the Northern Territory, offshore oil and gas industry, and Australia.
The offshore oil and gas industry is an international industry. Every time there is an incident or accident of this proportion offshore, it goes around the globe in regard to what happened, why it happened, what can we learn from it and how can we ensure it never happens again. Part of that analysis will go clearly and very specifically to the regulator of the operation, as it has done in other cases where there have been accidents and incidences. The most notable, which some members of this House may be familiar with, was the Piper Alpha accident, which was an exceptionally tragic accident. At the heart of that accident in the North Sea was the intense and systematic breakdown of procedures, processes and the role of the regulator.
Following the Piper Alpha accident, industry around the globe changed how it went about its business. It changed technically, engineering-wise in regard to safety case management, it changed across the board for the benefit of people and their safety, the environment and the industry. No doubt there will be changes similar to that, on a smaller scale, perhaps, given that there were no people hurt or killed in this incident, which will go across the country. The commissioner tells us the reason why this is so:
One person working with the offshore oil and gas industry in their operations; one person assisting in the regulation of the offshore gas industry. The recommendation about this is that the federal minister takes the responsibility away from the Northern Territory government. Let us have a look.
Members: No he hasn’t.
Ms PURICK: He wants to. The minister would like to. I know minister Ferguson is not pleased with the Northern Territory government on many fronts, notably – well, we will not go into why he is not pleased, but this certainly will not please him. Yes, the Northern Territory government has been fully cooperative, as you would expect both from a political level and a departmental level. But point 37 of the minister’s speech says:
Not by the Northern Territory government and Western Australia, by the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum. You are not capable or competent enough to do the assessment yourselves. You have to get the big brother or big sister from Western Australia. I have no issue with Western Australia. Effectively, you have handed over management of our offshore oil and gas industry. Are we going to have to use the Western Australian Department of Mines and Energy to help us with the INPEX project? Based on this, I can draw the conclusion that we will.
The Northern Territory government has demonstrated it is so incompetent it cannot manage a billion dollar offshore oil and gas industry. It does not have the oversight, did not provide the resources to the department, and quite clearly did not do its job. It has been stated in the report. The minister stated it in the parliament. What comfort are we, as the Northern Territory, going to give to future oil and gas operators, whether they are partners in INPEX, Greater Sunrise partners, Evans Shoal or the proposed offshore floating Methanex plant? They will get no comfort from this decision which will be all around the country. The national oil and gas industry group, APPEA, has already made statements it will be working with industry. It has already been working with industry. Clearly the Northern Territory government has not been doing much with industry because we have not heard anything from the minister about the problems which have arisen because of the Montara fire and spill.
A couple of points in the minister’s speech to highlight again how the Northern Territory government has failed Territorians, the industry, Australia, and our reputation as a desirable destination for offshore oil and gas investment. Point 17:
That is a pretty damning statement. Yes, the company has much to answer, and all of its operations in Australia are being reviewed. It may lose its licence to operate, but it is not for me to comment on that. That is between the governments and the operators.
Further into the minister’s statements he has instructed his department:
So it is not just about this incident and the oil and gas industry offshore. It is about fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities more generally. What does that mean? We have another part of the federal department coming into the Territory to assist. I have no issue with Geoscience Australia. It is an eminently qualified and reputable organisation within government, but it shows that this government has taken its eye off the ball with what should be their premier government agency, the resources agency.
I have spoken about the fact we will have to work with the Western Australian government more closely because this government does not have the necessary skills or leadership to undertake the important task it has in the offshore oil and gas industry, which is very different to the onshore hard rock mining industry. Perhaps the minister needs to explain to the House whether he knows the difference.
There are many comments about the Department of Resources in the major report: not a sufficiently diligent regulator; should not have approved the production or certain things the company did; the manifest failures within PTT extended to the interactions the company had with the regulator, or perhaps it should be that the company did not have with the regulator. The Department of Resources, in the inquiry’s view, had become far too comfortable:
Clearly, the company did not take the Northern Territory government seriously because there had been no relationship building with them. The company was probably not even aware it should have a relationship with the Northern Territory government. It probably thought it had to report to the Western Australian government rather than the Northern Territory government.
That is what the Northern Territory government told the inquiry. However, the inquiry:
Clearly, the commissioner, and the inquiry, could see that what was being put to them was blatantly incorrect. The Northern Territory Department of Resources made a major error when it approved the Phase 1B drilling program in July 2009. Yes, the company put the drilling program together and it was obviously flawed, but compounding the problem was Northern Territory government approval.
Probably the reason they approved was they did not know what they were looking at. They probably did not know what they were reading and the consequences of how that drilling program had been put together. There is much in this report; it is nearly 400 pages long. The federal minister has lost faith in the Northern Territory government and would be disappointed in delivering this report to the federal department because he is a person who has to promote and sell Australia as a desirable destination for investment in the oil and gas industry. The Northern Territory is blessed with oil and gas - more gas than oil at this point in time - and again it raises the issue of this government putting itself and the Territory in the position where we are becoming less attractive to these large-scale companies.
Mr Vatskalis: Pull the Territory down. Talk the Territory down.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I take up on the minister’s interjection. Yes, the government has done much work with INPEX, as have many people in this town, the business community notably. However, recently, under the current minister we have seen Arafura Resources take their proposed processing plant to South Australia. They were there for five minutes and received major project status. You really did not help them. You did not help …
Mr Henderson: Wrong, that is not what they have said. They have publicly said they had extraordinary help from the Territory.
Mr Bohlin: South Australia gave it major project status straightaway.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: Extraordinary help.
Ms PURICK: Is that why they went to South Australia and received major project status?
Mr Henderson: Best place to do business in Australia.
Mr Elferink: Which is why they went to South Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, please direct your comments through the Chair. Members, cease interjecting!
Ms PURICK: We saw Arafura take their processing plant, their jobs and their investment to South Australia. We saw the environment department stymie the Batchelor project. Area 55 - you know this to be correct, minister - the environmental conditions put on the company will never be able to be met. They will not be able to be complied with; you have effectively written them out of the equation. This was one of the companies you actively encouraged to have a Chinese investment partner. I was there for the big signing. The minister was there with the Chinese partners: this is going to be the best thing since button up boots. Now the project is on permanent care and maintenance. That is in their media release. We have seen Arafura leave town.
We have seen Browns and Area 5 shut down. We have seen jobs go out of the Territory and a major exploration company in Darwin is closing its office in February. They are taking 20 staff out of the Northern Territory. The minister knows this company is leaving town, the department knew this company was leaving town, yet has done nothing to encourage them to stay in the Northern Territory. They will keep their tenements active in the Northern Territory, but they are leaving town. What has the minister done about it? Nothing! Previously, ministers would have been on this company’s doorstep. The company told them back in January it was looking to leave town, and they have done nothing. This company has a salary bill of $6m to $8m; it employs about 20 staff; it employs Aboriginal people on its tenements in Arnhem Land. It will be gone by about February/March next year. This company is disappointed with the way the Northern Territory government has been dealing with it …
A member: Really, that is not what they have told me.
Ms PURICK: Yes, and it is the same company which has the Angela project in Alice Springs. Hand on the heart, Chief Minister: ‘I feel it in my blood, the people of Alice Springs do not love this company or this project’ ...
Mr Henderson: Do you support the Leader of the Opposition’s position?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Cease interjecting! Order! The member for Goyder has the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, three years ago, the current minister for Resources invited companies from around Australia and internationally …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Ms PURICK: The current minister invited companies to bid for the right to explore Angela Pamela …
Mr Henderson: Do you support Terry’s position or not?
Ms PURICK: He was out there. The Chief Minister is on the public record saying: ‘This is a good prospect; I welcome this economic contribution if and when it happens’ …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is very difficult to hear with all these interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. There are a great many interjections. Please cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: So, two-and-a-half years down the line, the company and its joint venture partner have spent upwards of $12m in the Central Australian community and the Chief Minister turns around and says: ‘You can still explore but if you find something we are not going to support you’.
Take the politics out of it, Chief Minister. How does that look to the international community? The Fraser Institute has dropped us in ranking in regard to sovereign risk, based solely on that decision. That does not send good signals to the international community. This Montara report does not send good signals to the offshore oil and gas industry or the investment community.
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of time for the minister. I spoke in the last sittings about how he has done an exceptional job for the industry and he is a great champion of the industry. However, I believe he has taken his eye off the ball and the game. He has not only let the industry down, he has let the Northern Territory down. More importantly, he has let Territorians down in regard to the future of our Territory. He should be sacked, or resign.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I believe our minister for Resources is the best minister for Resources the Territory has ever had. I was minister for Resources for a while. I acknowledge that the passion for the industry and the huge amount of work the minister has put in to promote the industry, not only here in Australia but around the world, is unprecedented. I totally support and endorse the minister for Resources and his handling of this portfolio.
I will go to a number of the comments made by the shadow minister in a moment. First, this report is not a good report and does point to very significant failings of the company. Significant mistakes were made in the department of Resources in the regulation of the drilling program for this project. I acknowledge mistakes were made.
If you look at this issue in the context of the history of the offshore industry in Northern Australia, this is an incident which should not have happened. It is very regrettable that it did happen. Our responsibility, both nationally and in the Territory, is to ensure we learn from this and it does not happen again.
I also point out that around a similar time - six or eight months earlier - the Varanus gas field in Western Australia had a very significant explosion which cut off gas supplies to virtually all of Western Australia for a significant period of time. The comprehensive and transparent way the Territory has cooperated with the inquiry and the Commonwealth is in contrast with that of the Western Australian authorities. The Western Australian government’s report into the Varanus explosion was completed 12 months ago; it has yet to see the light of day. The Commonwealth, which co-funded this report, has tried to access it, and the Western Australian government will not release it because of so-called commercial issues. We have been transparent, open and cooperative with the inquiry because we want to learn from this experience and not see it repeated.
The Territory and all of the states have agreed there should be a new national regulatory regime, that this industry now is too important, too big; we are talking about a multibillion dollar international industry. The regulation of that industry should be a national effort, not left with different regulatory regimes in different states. In trying to recruit and retain professional people to regulate this industry, the reality is there is enormous competition globally for these resources. The international oil and gas industry can offer globally-competitive salaries and conditions to work in the industry. All Australian jurisdictions find it very hard to compete within public wage terms and conditions with the international oil and gas industry.
One of the reasons to promote a national regulatory authority is the authority will stand outside the public service and, on an industry user-pays basis, will be able to pay for top-line people to recruit to the industry. The Commonwealth acknowledges if it employs these people as public servants there is no way it is going to be able to compete with industry. It will be established as a national statutory authority that, in a user-pays industry, is going to pay for the new national regulatory authority and will pay industry rates to regulate the industry. That is the reality of the situation. One has to ask what the Western Australians have to hide, because they are saying: ‘We do not want to be part of a national regulatory authority’. It is the Western Australians who are putting the results of their inquiry into the Varanus incident into the public arena. We all have a responsibility to people who work in the industry, as well as to the environment, to ensure we learn from accidents and incidents, and that inquiry reports are made public so there can be public scrutiny of government’s response.
Moving on to the report which was tabled in the federal parliament today by the minister for Resources, I can say we have cooperated fully. The minister came to visit me and the minister for Resources in July this year with interim findings. We agreed at that meeting that there were significant shortcomings in the agency and we needed to move immediately to ensure improved regulation of the industry via the agency. We acted immediately and were cooperative.
Let us look at the report – and we can all pick out the juicy quotes in regard to the Northern Territory. First, as my colleague, the minister for Resources said, in 2004, instead of a prescriptive regulatory approach to this industry offshore, there was a move to an industry-regulated approach. As a result of that, all of the approvals processes are now done as a paper-based process where work programs are put together by the company. The company has to put those work programs together to the level of international standards, they are provided to regulatory authorities to endorse and authorise based on the papers, not based on visiting the fields and conducting visits and observations.
The main findings of the report go to the failure of the company. Those findings state that:
Mr Elferink: This is the weakest defence you could possibly run.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: You laugh, member for Port Darwin, but as I have said, the responsibility to visit rigs, conduct inspections and spot audits was moved away in 2004 and was replaced by approvals based on the papers. The report says the company used poor practices. It did not adhere to practices or its own well construction standards and the department had little chance of discovering these poor practices. The primary responsibility for the failure of this well is with the company, and the secondary responsibility was the failure of the regulator to identify the poor practices of the company.
When those reports came to us in July we agreed to have additional resources immediately seconded from Commonwealth authorities to work with the Department of Resources staff to ensure there was an additional level of approvals and oversight given the interim findings. The report says the Territory has cooperated fully and goes on to talk about the ways we have cooperated. I acknowledge there was poor oversight of this project and individuals, if they had their time again, would probably make different decisions. Our responsibility is to ensure these things do not repeat themselves, and we will. I urge Western Australia to get on board and commit to a national regulatory authority and regulatory system. It would make more sense from industry’s point of view to work with one regulatory authority and system as opposed to different authorities and systems in different states.
I condemn the shadow minister for trying to use the political opportunity this report provides the opposition to try to scare industry and investment from the Northern Territory. That is an outrageous thing for the member to do and shows that the members opposite will use every opportunity to talk the Territory down. They are not taking this report with the gravitas and seriousness with which it should be taken. It is a political opportunity for the opposition and it will use it to scare industry from the Northern Territory.
The industry can have confidence in the regulatory approvals in place. What the Commonwealth wanted us to fix, and we agreed needed to be fixed, as a result of this incident has been fixed. We are fully supportive of a national regulatory authority to provide a single national regulatory system for all projects around Australia rather than a hodge-podge and mismatch of different regulatory regimes in different states. It makes sense for industry and the vast majority of industry supports it.
In regard to projects operating in the Northern Territory, or which will come to the Northern Territory, you can have every confidence in the regulatory regime because it is the responsibility of companies and regulatory authorities that when accidents happen there are independent and thorough inquiries, and when those inquiries conclude and report, governments take action. We are taking immediate action, as we did in July, on what was identified as shortcomings in our system.
I am surprised the opposition allowed the shadow minister to lead debate on this because we are a government committed to the safe regulation of this industry. People in the Northern Territory trust this government with protecting the environment. They will never trust the CLP. That came through in spades again today when the member for Fong Lim, in debate earlier in the day, spoke about his attitude to environment groups and environmental regulation. The member for Fong Lim is always colourful; however, an amazing speech to the House - and this is the real attitude members opposite have to the environment. He stated:
He went on to say:
Anyone concerned for the environment, according to the member for Fong Lim and the deeply held and ingrained attitudes of members opposite, is an environmental terrorist. When the shadow ministers talk about the Territory government being a soft touch, well, goodness gracious, if the Territory government is a soft touch …
Mr Elferink: No. No, the commissioner described your department as a soft touch.
Mr HENDERSON: If the Territory government is a soft touch, heaven help what it would be if the CLP was to return to the government benches. Not only would it be a soft touch, it would roll over like a puppy and say tickle my tummy to the industry. That is exposed by the shadow minister for Resources during her position as the head of the Minerals Council in the Northern Territory. She clearly outlined her opposition to the establishment of an EPA in the Territory, and further opposition to the EPA being independent. At the time she said the current system of environmental assessment and management by government for the resource industry is objective, fair, open to scrutiny and relevant to contemporary operations.
This is what we would go back to: an industry regulated approach with no oversight from independent authorities because industry can look over itself. She went on to say major changes to current arrangements cannot be justified and she did not want it to be independent. She said: ‘I think the word independent is grossly misused; it is devoid of meaning these days’.
In the lead-up to the 2005 election, she took the CLP line that an EPA was not required. She went on to say on ABC radio on 11 February:
She also said:
So, it is not what they say - yes, this report provides a wonderful political opportunity. I will be telling Territorians to be very careful because you can see this government’s commitment to protecting the environment, establishing an independent EPA, establishing proper reporting and monitory regimes compared to the inbuilt attitudes and the reality of the position of members opposite who did not support an EPA. They never would support an EPA. I doubt the EPA would last a change of government. If it did last it would last in name only. The real attitude of those opposite is, let industry do what it wants to do.
I found astounding the open and hostile challenge the shadow minister and Deputy Leader of the Opposition made to her leader today about the decision not to support any application for mining at Angela Pamela. I have been saying for a number of weeks now that the Leader of the Opposition is leader in name only; there is open hostility to his position on any number of issues. There is open defiance of the Leader of the Opposition on any number of positions he holds. He is constantly contradicted by members. To have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stand here today and say she does not support his decision to oppose any application for mining at Angela Pamela leaves me aghast. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can sit there as leader with such open defiance from his own deputy on a matter of such importance to the people of Alice Springs.
It is not about the divine right for any company to dig up whatever it wants in the Northern Territory to the total opposition of the people of the Northern Territory. Mining and resource companies have a social licence to operate that is issued to them through the government of the day, given that they comply with a range of requirements for safety, environmental management and their contribution to the economy. It is not a carte blanche advertisement to operate.
I was pleased when the Leader of the Opposition came out so quickly - after the member for Greatorex bolted straight out of the door - to say the CLP had heard the same message from the residents of Alice Springs. The CLP holds all the seats in Alice Springs. You guys know what the people in Alice Springs are telling you. Our Minister for Central Australia lives in Alice Springs. He knows what residents are telling him. I am a regular visitor to Alice Springs; I know what people tell me ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a censure motion on government over their appalling handling of the Montara oil spill. Why are we talking about Alice Springs? Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the shadow minister raised this in the debate.
Mr HENDERSON: I am responding to the shadow minister’s prosecution of the censure motion. I point out there is an open and hostile challenge active against the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a matter of if, but when and what the issue will be. We acknowledge and accept - and I accepted it in July this year when I met with Martin Ferguson – that the department needed to lift its game in its regulation of the industry.
Regarding the independent investigation to this incident and the draft recommendations which were being devised, we agreed we should not wait until the full conclusion of this report to act. We acted immediately.
Any objective reading of this report shows the majority of the blame for this incident lies with the company. That is why the minister today has given the company an opportunity, in terms of natural justice, to put forward its position as to why it should continue to have a licence to operate in Australian waters. The federal minister will give the company due process and natural justice to respond to this report. At the end of that period the minister will make a decision about whether he issues a show cause notice as to why the company should be allowed to continue to operate. That is the process which will work through the system.
Having a national authority makes sense. It is supported by the industry and by this government. As an interim measure, until a national regulatory authority is established, we have additional checks and balances in place to ensure there will be a co-assessment of all approvals from now on, with either Western Australia or Victoria, given the difficulty in recruiting top-line people from industry. The co-assessment process will give added protection to the decision-making process.
I suppose the policy issue for the CLP to advance in regard to the rest of this debate is do they support a national authority or not? They will probably stand with their colleagues in Western Australia and try to pretend that the little old Northern Territory can compete in salaries and conditions with a global industry of this size and scale and with the wealth these players have. If that is your position you live in cloud cuckoo land. That does not happen in the real world.
In regard to the recommendations in the report, the inclination is to support all of them. We have only seen them today; we need to take stock of them, but in regard to cooperating with industry, cooperating with Commonwealth, providing certainty for industry and ongoing investment, that certainty is there – what the opposition is doing, via this motion, particularly in trying to scaremonger amongst the industry, is outrageous. Obviously the government will not be supporting the censure motion but we acknowledge the agency was at fault. The faults which have been identified were rectified. I believe the minister for Resources is the best minister for Resources the Territory has ever seen. I have every confidence in him.
Madam Speaker, this was an isolated incident, primarily caused by a company which was not operating up to industry best practice. The regulation and oversight of that certainly fell down. The issues that have been identified have been resolved.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I listened with great fascination to the offerings and feeble defence of the Chief Minister. Were that his defence in a court of law, I suspect very quickly the jury would not even bother to retire.
This is a disgraceful indictment of this government for a couple of reasons. I will start by agreeing with the Chief Minister on one issue. The company involved - and I will not try to quote the acronym, I will just say the drilling company involved - did not do its job. But why did it not do its job? This part is the part where the Chief Minister, and the minister for mines and energy in the Northern Territory, have been slippery, to say the least. The reason that company did not do its job is the same reason so many other people and organisations do not do their jobs when they do not feel there is a sanction upon them for failing to meet the requirements, legislative or otherwise, to do that job effectively.
The sanction which should be brought to bear should be investigated by a policing body of some sort, aka, the regulator. In this instance the regulator was that person over there in the dock. The accused has failed to give any form of argument and his lawyer gave no argument which would give any cause for a court to find anything other than guilt. The defence lawyer for the accused decided it was better to talk about things happening on this side of the House than justify the appalling response this government gave to one of Australia’s worst pollution disasters.
How bad was that disaster? You could see it from space; that is how bad. If you want to know what the Northern Territory government’s policy on environmental protection is and making sure its role was completed, look at the photographs from the satellites which were passing over the Timor and Arafura Seas. Whilst no oil washed up on the Indonesian beaches, the fishing industry had something else to say about it in Indonesia. They had much to say about it. This is the Territory’s Piper Alpha.
The regulatory responsibility rested with one person in one government. That is the simple finding of this government. It has been trying to avoid its responsibility on this since day one. We heard in evidence during the inquiry that the approach was pretty much a tick-and-flick approach. That was the evidence given. That is why the company involved was described by the commissioner in his report, if I am not mistaken, as having a ‘cosy relationship’ and saw them as a ‘soft touch’. These are not my words; these are the commissioner’s words. The regulatory authority was a ‘soft touch’.
Imagine this: my name is Lucio Benito, I work in New York City and I have a special cosy relationship with the New York Police Department. Don’t worry about it. Forget about it, they are a soft touch. That is the approach and attitude we are seeing from the company and that was the way it saw the regulator in this instance. I am not alleging corruption. I am alleging indifference through governance. It is not just me who is making that allegation; it is also being made by the inquiry commissioner.
I found it very interesting to hear the Chief Minister say twice today that they had met with Martin Ferguson in July. That is supported by Martin Ferguson in his statement of today. Curiously though, the question was put to the minister on 12 August 2010 about the report which Martin Ferguson had received. The minister, Mr Vatskalis said:
July was not a caretaker period for the federal government. So why was this minister in here saying Martin Ferguson was not going to give it to us? ‘Oh, he wanted to study it.’ Can you imagine how this meeting went? It would have gone like this: Here is the minister for mines and energy in the Northern Territory sitting there with his ears back, looking a little sad, replicated by the Chief Minister sitting there looking twice as sad because Martin Ferguson is saying: ‘What on earth are those clowns in Darwin up to?’. If I was the minister for mines and energy and the federal minister said: ‘I have this report with the results of this inquiry and I am going to keep it to myself’, I would say: ‘Show me a copy’. Did you ask for a copy, minister? No. You report back to this place that you have not received a copy because Martin Ferguson said he was going to study it. You sat there, listened to what he had to say, walked out of the room and said: ‘Oh, he has a report. My goodness, I wonder what is in it. I wonder if it reflects on the appalling approach I and my government have taken on this issue. Hmm, maybe he will tell me at some point after the next federal election. They will be in caretaker mode shortly’.
Is that the sign of a responsible minister who is thinking to himself: ‘I need to know what is going on in my department’? One of the first things a minister must do when they meet with their departmental heads, is say: ‘What are the administrative arrangements of my department? Which acts do I have governance over?’ And as a consequence of the answers to those questions: ‘’What are my reporting and policing responsibilities for each of those acts?’ A minister of the Crown should be making sure the policies of the Northern Territory government, as expressed through the legislative instruments of this House, are being properly policed. That is far from the capacity of this government and this minister. Why? Because we know, time and time again, their failings in these areas.
We do not see annual reports until they are two or three years late. We do not see policing bodies doing any sort of policing, and a regulatory body of any description is a policing body. Here is the investigation run by the Chief Minister’s department. ‘I have this responsibility’, he says. Well, he denies it: ‘It is the department’s responsibility. Nothing to do with me!’ The Pontius Pilate group over there is incredible. Their hands are so clean they probably go through buckets of Palmolive lavender oil soap every day whilst trying to avoid their responsibilities. Once again this is what is occurring.
The answer from the minister today was: ‘Not my job. It was the department’s job to look after this’. What was the minister doing – going to the window, standing there, looking out: ‘Nice view, wonder why I turned up to work today. Yawn. I may go home later on’.
That is not how to run a department. You sit in charge of it, you run the damn thing, and you ask: ‘What are our responsibilities? How do we run these departments? What are my regulatory responsibilities?’ One of the answers was we are overseeing rigs out at sea. The minister says: ‘I do not think that is appropriate’. Okay, move on that issue; however, whilst it is your responsibility stay in charge of that responsibility. What are we doing to police those rigs? When did we last visit them? No, that is not a requirement; we just have to check the paperwork. Okay, that is fine; all you have to do is check the paperwork; that is okay. If that was the case why would the commissioner be dumping buckets of criticism over this government and the way the regulatory authority took, and I quote, a:
Could you imagine if the Northern Territory Police Force took this attitude to its policing role? I have a mask on, I have my swag, I have my striped shirt and beret and a five o’clock shadow. ‘Hi, I am here to look after the bank’. ‘Oh’, says the policeman, ‘Okay, off you go, you look like you are dressed for it’. That person robs the bank. ‘Did not have anything to do with me’, says the minister for Police. ‘We have a tick-and-flick approach; he filled out the right form, off he went’. Rubbish. It is not believable. It is an incomprehensible approach and an abrogation and abandonment of your responsibilities as a minister of the Crown.
For that reason you should resign because you are ashamed of your calamitous failure to do your duty. That is what drives this issue: the calamitous failure of this government to do its duty. If you want to see the results of that calamitous failure, look at the satellite photographs from space of the results of the tick-and-flick attitude, not of the department, of this minister.
He was happy to do it, and I hear: ‘We should look at Mt Todd, you guys were no better’. That is your argument. We did not do anything worse than the CLP, but you want to fix it. How often have I heard the minister come into this House and say: ‘Mt Todd was really bad, should not have happened, we are going to fix it’, and now his defence is: ‘We did exactly what the CLP did, so you guys cannot complain’. You were going to fix it. You were going to come into government and all this was going to change; it was going to be a brave new world. That was the promise and this is the evidence of the lie.
I turn to these documents and you cannot but be thunderstruck that this is a friendly comment about what is happening. Friendly - this is a Labor government talking about another Labor government.
There is the regulating authority sitting in his office saying: ‘A bit of paper, okay we will read that. Oh, my goodness, gracious me, we had better approve that. Okay, there is the approval. Thanks for coming, have a nice day’. That was the scrutiny we saw through this process, and the minister denies the tick-and-flick approach which was given in evidence. He said in April this year:
The company requests approval and the department gives it. It is a consent authority; it puts the consent into consent authority.
Here is the defence from the minister in April this year: ‘They come to us with this whole plan and you have to see the whole plan in its beautiful entirety to appreciate how beautiful it is. We sit there and say, “Oh, that is beautiful!”, and we give it our approval. But we will not ask about a single critical aspect of that skull and crossbones over there in the plan because it is a whole plan and that is what we look at, the whole plan’. Nonsense! That is not how a department works; that is never how a department works. It is not how a regulatory body should work. If that is what the minister believes then he is merely incompetent - not dishonest, just incompetent.
That is the problem; these ministers of the Crown struggle with the basic principles of their jobs in government. It is their job to ensure the policies of this House and their government are properly adhered to. To do that, if you impose a regulatory framework, you must anticipate a need to govern that framework. The delegation for this duty was granted by the federal government to this government. This government accepted that duty.
I find it interesting that this government chooses to deny it has done anything wrong whatsoever, with the exception of recent comments from the Chief Minister who changed the position of the defence during Question Time saying: ‘Oh, yes, there was a problem with the regulator, but we fixed it’. I wait with bated breath to hear what the fix is. How many more regulators do we have in place? The Chief Minister’s response is to say: ‘We are going to tax the mining companies so they can inform the policing body, which is at arm’s length from government, to police itself’. I would like to know much more about a police force which is paid by the organisations …
A member: Paid by the industry it is supposed to police.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, okay, let us go and check with the regulatory - I think I understand what the Chief Minister was talking about. He has come in here and said: ‘We are going to tax the industry so they can then pay for their own regulatory body at arm’s length from government’. That is something we are supposed to sign up to. And he says Western Australia is being ignorant for failing to cheer that approach on! Goodness, gracious me! I believe there is a potential issue here which needs to be looked at more closely and explained more fulsomely than the Chief Minister has on this occasion.
The absence of the endorsement of the minister for mines during Question Time was resonating throughout this room. It is not at all surprising the endorsement, lamentably, came at the last moment when a censure motion began: ‘Yes, of course, I support my mines minister. Why wouldn’t I?’ He did it at the end of the speech – a pity he did not do it during Question Time. He doubtlessly was very nervous. That belated endorsement should have the minister feeling slightly concerned about the situation in which he finds himself. The agreement with the Independent member for Nelson which keeps this Chief Minister in place, despite his own party’s desires, is predicated on …
Mr Westra van Holthe: The Labor member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, that is a very good point. I pick up that interjection up from the member for Katherine: the Labor member for Nelson who will not challenge government decisions and will support their legislative instruments - is based on a single presumption or condition, well, actually a whole bunch of conditions, but one which really resonates through that process is maladministration. If the member for Nelson does not start to realise how profound the maladministration of the Northern Territory is, sooner rather than later people will start to identify him as an apologist for the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
SIHIP, as the second intervention into the Northern Territory because of this government’s calamitous incapacity to run a simple housing program, an expensive one, saw $42m-worth of expenditure without a single house being built. The local government reform was another disaster which befell the people of the Northern Territory and has made no one happy. The first intervention of the federal government saw the federal government roll its people into this town because of the disastrous and lamentable condition of the children which was identified in the Little Children are Sacred report.
Gaol visits anger resonating across the headlines. Whistle-blowers are now actively pursued by this government. If you in any way criticise this government, you will be bullied, and that is the answer. Hell, yesterday, I saw my superannuation details being dragged through this House simply so the Treasurer could make some sordid little point. Well, I am an open book. I do not care that she decides to make my personal superannuation details public, but I will not be bullied by a pack of schoolyard bullies, and that is exactly what this government is about. If I get wind of the people in the department who were abandoned by this minister, who have had to cop it in the neck and have been accused by this minister of abrogating their responsibilities - ‘It is nothing to do with me, it is the department’s fault’, he said. If I hear one word that they have been bullied, I will be screaming it from the rafters, and you can talk about my superannuation until you are blue in the face, I do not care. The whistleblowers on the Health department - Sue Mansfield, berated by her own department. This is the way this minister deals with people. He sits there and is Mr Nice Guy, but in the background beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
A spin doctor is the best paid person on the fifth floor, with the exception of the Chief Minister. $200 000 so he can get the message right. Here is a thought: get the job right. The Power and Water Corporation, Tiger Brennan Drive, it is all about maladministration. This government has collapsed into a hole and the moment the member for Nelson realises it – and some of its own members realise it - and gets honest, the sooner we can get to an election and let the people of the Northern Territory resolve this issue once and for all.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, one thing I do not enjoy much in parliament is listening to the tripe which comes out of the member for Port Darwin’s mouth. One thing I agree with the member for Goyder is that the Montara accident was preventable. Every accident is preventable. I totally disagree with everything else she said for the simple reason the report and the commissioner’s findings point the finger at the company. The company had a number of faults. It did not adhere to its own practices and processes, it did not adhere to common practices, and did not have the competent people on the rigs and on the operations. And when things went wrong, it failed to advise the authorities.
The member for Port Darwin said the first thing he heard about our department’s fault was from the Chief Minister. I said at Question Time that our department was at fault. I said at Question Time that the department should have done better, it could have done better.
One thing reported by the commissioner on page 7 of the summary is:
So, even if the department does not do the right job, if the department had adhered to their recommendations, all of the department resources instead could have been appointed. What the commissioner also says is that:
So it was a litany of errors, intentionally or unintentionally, of the company which led to this issue of the Montara incident.
We identified the faults of the department and we moved very quickly to rectify them. Yes, Martin Ferguson came here and, despite the fact they did not give us the report because he had not started it yet, he discussed with us the issues identified during the inquiry. We immediately moved to rectify these issues. There was not an invasion by the Commonwealth here. We agreed to find a way to improve the process of the department, which we did immediately. Not only did we agree to that, we also decided to seek assistance from Geoscience Australia - the peak body in Australia - with geological information and processes. We also decided to have another level of assessment by the Western Australia department of Resources because that is the department with the majority of oil rigs and oil wells in Australia.
We heard the member for Goyder talk about the department’s year of neglect and not enough staff, but the departmental unit looking after oil and petroleum was fully staffed at the time of the assessment. Four people were working there when everything was assessed. We recognise we need more skills which is why we moved quickly to advertise to get more people with higher qualifications. We are prepared to offer a package which offers over 30% more than equivalent positions to attract the most appropriate people.
The member for Goyder mentioned that the company was not working with the department. The member for Port Darwin says they had a ‘cosy relationship’ with the department. Which one is true? We either did not work with it or we had too close a relationship with it. The reality is the department worked with the company the way it worked with every other company.
According to the 2004 changes in the regulation, the department was required to approve plans submitted by the companies and the information from the companies to make assessments. The difference between the regime controlling oil and gas, as changed by the Howard government, and our own regime here in the Territory is this: the regime put in place by the Howard government does not require a prescriptive approach, does not require us to be there all the time or to visit the oil rigs or gas fields. However, our legislation differs; it requires an inspection of mines. Last year my officers from the department of mines visited the 10 mines in the Territory 262 times because our legislation requires investigation of the mines at regular intervals. Our legislation requires a hands-on approach to the mining industry. The 2004 change does not require this kind of approach. For the member for Goyder to blame this government for that is unbelievable because she knows that very well – she was the CEO of the Minerals Council at the time. She is well aware of the requirements of the federal legislation.
They raised environmental issues. Four independent reports say that the Montara report, despite the fact that a significant volume of oil escaped into the sea, did not pose any environmental danger to Australian or Indonesian waters. The member for Port Darwin said it was a disaster; you could see it from space, from a satellite. The only photographs seen from space or satellite are of the Mt Todd mine disaster. You are talking about disaster - 700 000 litres of high potency cyanide left on site; 17 tonnes of copper going down the Edith River every year appears in the water in retention pond 2. I suggest you do not put your hand in that water unless you want a skin replacement. That was a disaster which happened in our back yard, not 3000 miles away from Darwin, in our back yard.
This is the government that believes in controlling mines. This is the government that introduced environmental bonds, assessed independently, and demanding a sufficient bond to rectify any environmental damage should a mine close down or withdraw.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Didn’t Daryl Manzie introduce that years ago?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: This government introduced that bond, to respond to the interjection by the member for Katherine. This is the only government that decided that the bond would be assessed by an independent person, not by the minister. That is the reason why some of the mines now have environmental bonds as high as $150m. This is why some of the mines in the Territory have bonds which may exceed $0.5bn.
If you look at the history of the CLP government, there are still 2000 legacy mines around the Territory. No one knows who owns them, no one knows who is going to fix them, and no one knows how much it would cost to fix them. We are working very hard to rectify the situation.
We looked at the situation and said it was not good enough. It should not have happened. Now we have identified the weakness in our system and moved very quickly to close all the loopholes. We have taken a number of measures to address these issues. We have moved quickly to strengthen the unit. We moved quickly to have a second tier of assessment of any approval by an independent third party to avoid any accusation of tick-and-flick, as the member mentioned.
The member opposite mentioned the tick-and-flick approach and how we did not really assess the application of the company. That is not true. The department did assess the application of the company. However, many times in the industry the application we assess today is exactly the same or very similar to applications assessed a month ago. Since you have assessed them before, the level of assessment for the second application is not as rigorous as the first because you have already done the job. You have already assessed and approved something for exactly the same situation. The assessment process is quite rigorous and fast, which is why it comes down to a 30 minute approval. Otherwise you would be assessing the same thing time after time.
We recognise that we have to improve our situation. It is not that we deny any responsibility; we say we have been more rigorous, there were shortcomings, and the skills probably were not there. We have moved very quickly to address this situation. We have worked very closely with the federal government to address the situation because we believe we have to ensure the people of the Northern Territory and Australia are confident with the job we are doing.
The member for Goyder said we do not look after the mining industry. Let me tell you how much we look after the mining industry, and the oil and petroleum industries. I have been travelling to China for the past few years with a specific China Investment Attraction Strategy and Japan Investment Attraction Strategy. We started with seven mines. We started in 2001 with 700 exploration licence applications sitting on the minister’s desk. He refused to sign them because he was playing politics with Aboriginal people’s rights.
When we came to government in 2001, mines were closing down and we were left to pick up the pieces. We had to ask taxpayers to fund the rehabilitation of mines. We took government when exploration was going down hill. In 2010, the Territory exceeded the expenditure of New South Wales, Victoria, and we are slightly behind South Australia. Three years ago, expenditure and exploration in South Australia was three times the expenditure in the Northern Territory. In the past two years Chinese companies have invested $140m in exploration, and $40m has been invested by Japanese companies. Is this expenditure a sign of no confidence in the Territory government?
I recently visited China and was impressed when I met with the Minister for Commerce, the China National Development and Reform Commission, and the Minister for Lands and Resources. We presented them with information about the opportunities in the Northern Territory and our investment guide. I was taken aback when the minister personally asked permission to incorporate our material in the official ministry’s website. I was taken aback when the Minister for Commerce commented that the material we had provided them was miles ahead of any other jurisdiction in Australia. I was taken aback when the commissioner from the National China Development and Reform Commission asked permission to incorporate our material into their official website. Is this a lack of confidence in the Territory?
We have oil and gas companies coming to the Territory all the time. We had Falcon Petroleum and Central Petroleum talking to us about exploration in the Territory. They would not be here if they did not have any confidence in us. Companies which act diligently, comply with international standards and comply with their own standards do not have the kind of accidents we had in Montara. I have no problem being criticised by the federal minister, Martin Ferguson. He gives it to me the way I give it to him. It also gives me the opportunity to identify some of our shortcomings and fix them.
The CLP used to be criticised, look at the shortcomings and close its eyes, and ignore them. We have seen it once again today. The member for Goyder asked why the Department of Resources does not require a rigorous environmental assessment at Area 55 in Batchelor. The simple reason is we want to protect the environment. If it was you, it would be a free for all, go for it, do not worry about it.
We have heard the allegation that ConocoPhillips will close their office in Darwin because it does not have confidence in our government. Well, I am sorry, I spoke to the ConocoPhillips executive and they clearly told me the reason the office in Darwin is closing is because they cannot attract suitably qualified personnel in Darwin. You mentioned Arafura. Arafura came to us and asked for some land, resources and services which, at the time, were too expensive and we were unable to provide, or it was totally unsuitable because of the process employed to position Arafura where it wanted to be. We offered to work with them, and our extensions are still with them to find suitable land to bring them here to work. Our invitation is open. It is a commercial decision it has made. You have to remember that Arafura will open a mine in Ti Tree which will provide the raw material for the processing plant, wherever they decide to place it.
We heard about the intervention, SIHIP and everything else. It is easy to talk about the intervention. One of the things I have to remind the member opposite is the real roadblock behind the intervention was not ‘come to save the poor people of the Northern Territory’, it was ‘come to save the poor skin of John Howard’. That was said by none other than Alexander Downer, who said they were desperate to try anything to see their polling go up. The intervention was good because it was going to attract the doctors’ wives. Well, it did not work for them and they abandoned it. How good was the intervention? Let me tell you, member for Port Darwin, you have to ask the previous Leader of the Opposition. She was not even advised of the intervention and I know that very well because she admitted it to me. The federal government did not even consult its allies in the Northern Territory.
With SIHIP, the years of neglect by federal governments culminated in the requirement for the significant expenditure of money to provide housing for Indigenous Territorians. Even when the federal government decided to spend money, it was not enough to cover one-quarter of our need. Despite that, our government agreed to provide extra money to address the serious issue of lack of housing in the Northern Territory.
I commend Martin Ferguson because he was the one who agreed to work with us to address these issues. He agreed to work with us for the simple reason that the federal government is not in a position to administer offshore oil and gas installations because it does not have the organisation nor the legislation. By his own admission, he had to commence some serious amendments of the legislation. On the other hand, every time something goes wrong, how much are you going to take from any jurisdiction?
It is better to build capacity rather than to say: ‘I will take it away and run it from Canberra’. We know very well things run from Canberra do not run very well. It has been tried before and it never worked. The best thing to do is build the capacity. That is what we are doing here. Our capacity was not as it should have been. When we provided a plan of progress to Martin Ferguson, he agreed to provide any support we needed. He agreed with us when we told him we were prepared to work with other jurisdictions in Australia to meet the demands.
Following the situation with Montara, my department immediately commenced an assessment and requested that the Commonwealth provide a detailed assessment of all the oil wells under production or exploration in the waters off the shore of the Territory. The Commonwealth provided this information. They have been assessed, and we found these oil wells are considered to be safe.
In conclusion, it was something which should not have happened but it has happened. The main reason defined by the commission was the failure of the company to follow its own processes and procedures. The blowout could have been prevented if the company adhered to the well control practices approved by the Department of Resources, and it says:
Madam Deputy Speaker, our government identifies if there is something wrong, learns from mistakes and fixes the problems. We do not close our eyes, try to cover it up, or say to the taxpayer: ‘Well, we stuffed it up, you pay for it’. We try to fix it. But there are stragglers who will stay behind. It does not matter how much the member for Port Darwin plays theatrics, the reality is that people know the environmental record of the CLP very well, they know what the CLP did in the mining area and how they used the mining industry to blackmail Indigenous people and withdraw their rights.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There is a long-standing convention agreed between the parties that a censure motion has two and two. I understand two members of the opposition have spoken. Is there a view to break the convention?
Mr Mills: It was yesterday, and it has been done many times before.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, over recent times it has been somewhat abandoned by this House and it has been dealt with as a normal motion. Now they are trying to reassert a convention which will have the effect of gagging members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Whilst it is a convention of this House, member for Katherine, if you do wish to participate in the debate, there is nothing which prevents you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ordinarily, the term ‘facet’ is used to describe something you may consider precious, such as a diamond. Everyone would be familiar with the facet of a diamond - something which sparkles. You facet a diamond to make it look nice and present well. I am at a loss to find another word to describe this government’s reprehensible record in governing the Northern Territory. The Montara report is another facet of what is, unquestionably, the worst government the Northern Territory has ever had.
I am going to start where the member for Port Darwin left off and talk a little about the Labor member for Nelson. When I talk about the facets of this worst government the Northern Territory has ever had, it does not take too much effort to think about what the other facets are.
Child protection and SIHIP - I will talk about those two for a moment. If we go back a little, the Little Children are Sacred report is what prompted the first intervention into the affairs of the Northern Territory by the federal government. The first intervention happened under the Clare Martin Labor government. The intervention has been debated up hill and down dale for a long time and I am not going to belabour the point. The second intervention was with SIHIP. Originally, the Northern Territory government had carriage of the SIHIP program with minimal involvement from the federal government, but the handling of SIHIP by this Labor government was so appalling that the second intervention …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call relevance, Standing Order 67, Digression from Subject. This motion reads:
We seem to digressing. I know the opposition has a line it wants to peddle but I call relevance on this.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister and the minister ranged widely and broadly and barely mentioned Montara.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In speaking to the points of order, the debate has been fairly wide-ranging. It is about the Montara oil facilities and other facilities under the government’s command. Member for Katherine, if you could focus on Montara oil facilities and other facilities, please?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Deputy Speaker, it will become apparent that I am developing an argument to contribute meaningfully to this debate. You will find that there are a number of arrows which need to go into the quiver before they can be fired. They will hit the target on the other side of the House and it will relate to the Montara oil spillage.
I am not going to belabour the issues around the second intervention into this government’s handling of SIHIP - a major project in the Northern Territory. We will move quickly to the third intervention, which is the intervention the federal government is imposing on the Northern Territory with respect to the Montara oil spill and its capacity to provide a reasonable, safe and robust regulatory framework around the offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling industry.
I have a copy of the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP. In talking about the intervention the federal government is imposing on the Northern Territory, I need to set the scene by going to paragraph 17. There is a dot point here. It has been mentioned before in this debate. It says:
That was in reference to the poor practices of PTTEP Australasia.
I am going to use a word the member for Arafura has used in this House and that is the word ‘decode’. She was quite happy to decode an article from the NT News. I am going to decode for this House and for this government what Martin Ferguson has said in his statement to the federal parliament. In another dot point in paragraph 17 he says:
So that will be an adjustment to the legislative regime.
By way of further decoding this, there is a delegation in place and paragraph 33 says:
Paragraph 34 says:
Decoding that, even if he did take the delegation away, it would not do enough to solve the problems of Montara. And:
I suggest the change to the legislative regime the federal minister is referring to is an amendment to the act to rescind their powers. It would not surprise to see that occur.
I have heard the Chief Minister and the minister for Resources attempt to defend the indefensible today. Those two speeches were probably two of the lamest speeches I have heard in this House regarding a matter of such importance to the Territory. During the course of debate today the minister for Resources alluded to all sorts of things. During Question Time today he said the department was fully staffed at the time the Montara leak occurred. I questioned the minister during estimates this year on matters relating to resourcing. I am critical of myself. I probably did not hit the nail on the head because we talked about resourcing in the department from October of that year and it was just after the Montara spill.
I want to emphasise one of the things minister Ferguson said was the Department of Resources had a minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities.
Also during estimates this year, I questioned the minister about the responsibilities of the department with respect to regulation. I asked the minister how many regulators, or people working in the department, he had checking the work on the ground of oil and gas explorers. I was referring to the offshore industry. Mr Alistair Treier replied:
The minister then went on to talk about the fact that when the Coalition government was in power there were some changes to the regulatory regime at the federal level, which changed the legislation so the system was more self-regulating. When I further questioned the minister about whether anyone from his department bothered to conduct site visits on an oil rig - which goes to the minimalist way the department was conducted under the stewardship of this minister - the minister said:
I then said:
The minister said:
Then there is an inaudible word:
I then said:
The minister said:
What I point out to the minister, even though there is no requirement to go out there - in the vein of the minimalist attitude this government had with respect to Montara, cited from the report – his department does have the power to do it. It just chose not to exercise it.
I draw the minister’s attention to section 126 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of the Northern Territory which says:
Powers of inspectors
And so forth. He:
And so on, for the purpose of doing that.
The Department of Resources could have conducted inspections; it could have gone out in the field and done what it was supposed to do. However, according to the minister, because it did not have to do it, it did not bother. That is the minimalist attitude the Montara report talks about: ‘Oh, we will do the minimum we can possibly do, try to stay out of trouble and hope for the best’. Well, the best did not work.
I stood in this House some time ago during Question Time and said that the chickens for the minister would come home to roost over Montara. The chickens have come home to roost, not only for the minister but also for the Labor member for Nelson. The chickens have come home to roost for him as well because he is now propping up a government which cannot regulate the oil and gas industry.
If you read through minister Ferguson’s statement it is highly critical of the way the Northern Territory government handled this process. I do not know what it is going to take for the member for Nelson to realise. Perhaps there are people in the Northern Territory who need to get on to the member for Nelson and up him for the rent over this. You have a so-called Independent member supporting this government which fails on child protection, SIHIP, housing and land release. There is a raft of things. It cannot manage the offshore oil and gas industry; there is no doubt about that. I see ministers across that side of the House dodging responsibility all the time. And it is in this House, in the Northern Territory, and by the people of the Northern Territory, that they will be held responsible. It is a shame that we are probably going to have to wait until an election for those people on that side of the House to be held responsible for their failings. Their list of failings is getting longer and longer by the day.
It is only a few weeks since the Bath report came out, another failing of this Northern Territory Labor government. We now have the Montara report. I am surprised the federal minister released it at this time. I was expecting to see it probably next Friday, at the end of these parliamentary sittings, so we would not have a chance to debate this until February or March next year …
Mr Mills: Like the Mataranka one.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, as they did with Mataranka, left it until the last day of sittings in the last parliamentary sitting period to table that report.
Effectively, what the federal minister has done today is left this crowd to hang out to dry. He could have sat on this for another week-and-a-half. I do not think anyone would have batted an eyelid. But, no, he chose to release it today, which gave the opposition and the people of the Northern Territory an opportunity to properly scrutinise and put this mob under some pressure, make them account for their actions. All we get from that side of the House is a lame attempt to defend the indefensible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am appalled. I will tell you right now that we are not ready for statehood in the Northern Territory because we have a childlike government. It likes to pull all of the toys out of the toy box - the minister for China and all that, that is great, it is all good fun - but it does not pick up the toys at the end of the day. It does not attend to the finer detail and it certainly cannot attend to the finer details of the regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry. They should be ashamed of themselves. This minister should do the right thing and resign. I call on him to resign, or the Chief Minister should sack him.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 125)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we now resume debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the call with 22 minutes remaining.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said before the luncheon interval, I support the bill. Superannuation is one of the most important things people have. Many do not think about it. It just ticks away earning money for them, but it is possibly the most important thing, as well as your health, that you have post-retirement which needs to be responsibly managed. As a government we have our own super funds and we responsibly manage those, and part of that responsible management is looking at possible reforms. We are here today to talk about the first stage in a series of reforms we are bringing in for our funds.
I spoke previously about the health requirements, the 8500 medical examinations required in the last three years, and the impost that has on doctors and their medical practices; the fact if you have healthy people going to see the doctor when, unfortunately, everyone can pick up the common cold and they want to see the doctor. We are looking at removing the medical examination requirement because it has had no meaningful impact on the liability the Territory government is faced with and as a result we will see greater returns to members of the super funds.
We are looking at merging the three boards into one single board. The shadow Treasurer asked this morning if the members of those three boards were happy with that merger. The advice I have is that they are. We are going to a single board which makes sense when you consider the complexities which exist when you manage super. Super is meant to be a very solid, safe investment. You need important obligations on boards to ensure that money is managed properly. To duplicate that across three boards does not make sense when one board can manage those complexities. We could probably predict that those complexities will become more complex as we go forward. We are looking at getting one board of talented people with the right expertise to manage this rather than having three boards of people with the right expertise and skills. That is an important reform in addition to the removal of the requirement for medical examinations and the cost impost that would impose of about $100 000 per agency. That was the costing in the Treasurer’s first speech - sensible steps, sensible reforms.
We also talked about the importance of a better way to manage super when people reach preservation age so we do not lose senior public servants and people with corporate knowledge, which is very important, especially in a small place like the Territory. Most public servants do not need their computer or their files; they have it in their head. They know most things that are going on so it is really important we keep them in the public service. We have reforms around how we handle that preservation age stage. I have had conversations with public servants talking about how they maximise their retirement, what is the best time to retire. We do not want them to retire. We do not want to lose them so it is important we manage that stage better. We are doing that with reforms to opting out around the preservation age - another sensible reform. We need to be in a good position to maintain our senior workers; we do not want to lose them, especially as the Territory goes through a growth period as we face challenges around planning and the future of the Territory. We are going through a period where we need a plan for the future; we are planning for the future. We need to keep planning for the future. We do not want to lose those talented, experienced public servants.
There are three boards; I mentioned them earlier - the Superannuation Investment Board, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Trust and the NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme Trust. We are looking at replacing those three boards with one single board, which makes sense.
We are talking about the life savings of some members, perhaps their only life savings. The house you own can also be your forced savings, as some people call it, but you have equity in the house so you can have your house and your superannuation. Very often they may be the only things you have going into retirement to help you through. As you go into your sunset years it is important you manage those properly and have responsible management of our superannuation process - those funds we are responsible for.
Before lunch I mentioned REST and the difficulty I had rolling my fund over from REST to CARE. I should clarify that REST is an excellent super fund. I do not want to leave REST for any reason apart from the fact the majority of my funds are with CARE. REST has been voted number one super fund in Australia several times. It is a great fund.
We are talking about government super funds and the importance of reforming them, managing them well into the future, reducing risk to members, increasing returns to members, making sensible changes to the government’s arrangements as the Treasurer has noted, and those changes which have occurred throughout the superannuation industry. It does not make sense to have boards duplicating each other’s work. That is a clear example of where savings can be found by streamlining, pulling together one board of people with the right skills and experience to the work which is normally done by three separate boards, the removal of the medical examinations, and the changes to how we manage people opting out from their retirement schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they are very sensible reforms brought forward by the Treasurer. I commend her for that and the process. I welcome the support from the shadow Treasurer; he spoke about similar things the Treasurer and I have spoken about. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The member for Fannie Bay took us through some of the realities of superannuation, the difficulties people often have in rolling over funds, and the importance of the process Treasury has been undertaking in streamlining our different superannuation funds and making them more consumer friendly, particularly in this legislation where we are taking out the entrant medical provision and reducing red tape. I note the opposition has indicated its support for these reforms and I thank the member for Katherine for that. He also went through some of the key aspects of these reforms, which I will touch on in my wrapping up.
I reiterate, as I did in my second reading speech, this is a first tranche of significant reforms the government is undertaking in superannuation in the Territory. I thank the Treasury staff who, I know, have been working tirelessly on these reforms and ensuring they are keeping pace with any federal changes to superannuation. There is a significant administrative burden in managing the variety of different super schemes we have operating in the Territory which are managed, essentially, by my Treasury staff. I am delighted with this first tranche of reforms we have before us in legislation today. They are sensible, fair, and will result in a more sustainable and cost-effective administration of our superannuation law and policy, but will also provide flexibility, importantly, to respond to any changing superannuation law and policy.
In summary, this bill is making amendments to the Superannuation Act, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund Act and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authority Superannuation Scheme Rules to implement Stage 1 of the superannuation reform project. A key objective is to modernise our defined benefits superannuation framework to allow for more sustainable and cost-effective administration and to provide flexibility so we can respond more proactively to any changes in super law or policy.
We remove - and I believe this is a great initiative coming through in these reforms - the new entrant medical provisions for the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme, which will result in less red tape for new Territory public sector employees and, good news from a Territory perspective, lower administration costs.
We are also introducing an account-keeping fee for retained members of the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme, commonly referred to as NTGPASS. This is a fair approach. Retained members are former Territory public sector employees who have chosen to leave their superannuation in NTGPASS.
The bill will also assist in the retention of mature-age workers - the members for Fannie Bay and Katherine talked about this - by allowing active NTGPASS members to opt out of the scheme when they reach their superannuation preservation age, which is currently 55, without having to resign from the public service. Many of our valuable and esteemed public servants are reaching that age now. It is no secret when we look at the age data on our public service profile. We have a cohort of highly experienced Territorians in the middle to upper ranks of the public service. They have vast amounts of experience and specialist expertise in their respective areas of the public service. We would not want superannuation to be the key driver for their retirement, so it is a great initiative coming through in these changes.
The bill also restructures governance arrangements for NTGPASS, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund and the Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme. We will create a single trustee board to manage the investments of these funds. I thank the governance members of those funds. They have been fully consulted every step of the way on these proposed changes and, ultimately, the actual changes by my Treasury officers. I can assure the member for Katherine who asked whether they in favour and supportive of these changes that the answer is yes.
Lastly, the bill will make minor amendments to the NTGPASS rules to clarify that unclaimed NTSSS benefits can be retained in NTGPASS, extending this to include unclaimed benefits from the NT Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme to improve efficiency in the administration of lost superannuation accounts.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to go through the key features of the bill again. This has been a fully supported debate and I am aware there is no desire by the opposition to take this into committee stage. I again put on record my sincere thanks to the officers of Treasury who have worked tirelessly on these reforms. They thought long and hard about the reform process when they brought the reform process suggestion to me, as Treasurer. I saw the sense in what they were proposing to do and was fully supportive of that and received full Cabinet support. Stage 1 is about to be passed in the Chamber today. We have a great deal of work ahead of us in Stage 2 of the reforms, but a great job has been done to date. I am very confident about how we will be able to proceed from here. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 October 2010.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to working with the community to reduce the level of alcohol harm in the Northern Territory and ensuring our communities are safe for all people. We recognise that alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory are at unacceptable levels and are the source of much distress for families across the Northern Territory. Moreover, the Henderson government recognises the importance of dealing with alcohol abuse as part of an overall strategy aimed at reducing the number of our children in need of care and maximising opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities.
Conquering substance abuse and alcoholism was a priority identified in the 2007 inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Little Children are Sacred report, and the subsequent Northern Territory emergency response. The Little Children are Sacred report made it clear that we, as Territorians, and with government leadership, must take on and overcome the problem of excessive alcohol consumption and the harm it causes to our communities. The report described how excessive consumption of alcohol negatively impacts on the social fabric of Aboriginal communities and contributes greatly to family and cultural breakdown. The inquiry co-Chairs, Rex Wild and Patricia Anderson, concluded that only radical, determined and wholesale alcohol reform will make a difference.
The Henderson government’s new alcohol reforms are the most comprehensive reforms in the Territory’s history to curb alcohol-fuelled violence and crime. They are radical and determined. These reforms will build on the successes of the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework, which was introduced in 2004. Since the release of this alcohol framework, much has been achieved in targeting alcohol abuse and harm, including: supporting communities to develop their own responses to alcohol issues through regional alcohol management plans; targeted trading hours and product restrictions; electronic alcohol management enforcement systems; extending dry area legislation so individuals can declare their private property a dry area; the establishment of the Alcohol Court regime; a moratorium on takeaway licences; and the announced buy back of three liquor licences in Alice Springs.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will go further to tackle violence and antisocial behaviour by banning problem drinkers from purchasing takeaway alcohol, introducing court ordered voluntary and mandatory treatment orders for problem drinkers; investing in community education campaigns to promote safe and responsible drinking practices; working with the Australian government to further increase rehabilitation and treatment options; and ensuring bans on drinking takeaway alcohol can be effective across the Northern Territory.
AMSANT, the Northern Territory’s peak Aboriginal group, has welcomed these reforms as:
AMSANT has confirmed that the new package of reforms is a good way forward which builds on successes which have been identified throughout the Territory.
A number of key community organisations in the Northern Territory have also endorsed the suite of measures announced by the Henderson government to combat alcohol abuse. NTCOSS president and Amity Community Services CEO, Bernie Dwyer, said:
Importantly, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory is strongly supportive of the Northern Territory government’s efforts to restrict supply and consumption of alcohol which are currently being developed together with community education around the harms caused by alcohol abuse. The Growing them strong, together report identified grog as being a key contributor to child neglect and abuse and domestic violence in many remote communities and town camps across the Territory. We are committed to effectively dealing with alcohol abuse as part of an overall strategy to improve child, family and community wellbeing.
I take the opportunity to remind all members that when we talk about problem drinkers we must be careful not to revert to the flawed stereotype that all problem drinkers are Indigenous. The 2005 ABS national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health survey found that the proportion of Indigenous adults who reported drinking at high levels, 15%, was similar to that of non-Indigenous adults at 14%. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s national health and welfare statistics and information agency, reported in 2009 that Indigenous Australians were also more likely to abstain from alcohol compared with non-Indigenous Australians. That is 23% compared with 17%.
These statistics also highlight that, in addition to turning off the tap for problem drinkers, we need to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. Our government, in partnership with NGOs, the legal sector and other stakeholders will develop a range of interventions to support not only problem drinkers but also their families who are affected by the SMART Court framework, the alcohol bans and supply controls being introduced across the Territory. We will also be putting in place prevention and early intervention initiatives and will work to link families to existing support programs and initiatives such as accommodation, health services and community support services.
As Minister for Local Government, Regional Development and Indigenous Development, I want to focus today on the alcohol management plans which are being developed between communities and government to respond to specific alcohol-related issues. Earlier this year, AMSANT made a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee’s Inquiry into Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009 and related bills. In their submission, AMSANT noted that the ability to tailor local alcohol solutions was important and identified successful alcohol management plans as ones which are driven by locals.
The need for strong community engagement in relation to alcohol management strategies was echoed in a report prepared for the Department of Justice by Menzies School of Health Research in June this year about the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. In this report, Peter d’Abbs and others explained that local community efforts to reduce alcohol problems require genuine community engagement if they are to have any chance of sustained impact.
Alcohol management plans have been introduced in every regional centre outside of the Darwin region. These alcohol management plans are negotiated between local communities, community organisations, local governments, government agencies, licensees and other key stakeholders. Rather than being a set of rules imposed upon a community, the alcohol management plans are tailored to be locally appropriate. In this way, alcohol management plans are delivering local responses to address alcohol issues specific to each community or region based on input from the community, industry and other stakeholders.
The 10 alcohol management plans which are already in place are overseen by local alcohol reference groups with representatives from local government, key service providers and relevant Northern Territory agencies such as NT Police, Justice and Health. These local alcohol reference groups are responsible for generating ideas for action, coordinating the activities of local agencies, and negotiating the local rules relating to alcohol use.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy has described some of the examples of positive outcomes arising from the development of alcohol management plans, one of which is the alcohol management system introduced on Groote Eylandt in 2005. As the member for Arnhem, I am pleased to stand in the House, not only on this occasion but also on previous occasions, to inform the House of the success of this system on Groote Eylandt. On 1 July 2005, the Alcohol Management System was implemented on Groote and Milyakburra. The system requires every person in the region to hold a permit to buy or consume takeaway alcohol. Permits are recommended by a local permit committee and issued by Racing, Gaming and Licensing within the Northern Territory Department of Justice. The system was soon reported by local community leaders and key stakeholders, including police, to have led to marked improvements in community function, including reduced violence. In the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage 2009 report prepared by the steering committee for the review of government service provision, the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System has been listed as one of the things which works in relation to alcohol consumption and harm.
I have seen, from direct experience with the families on Groote Eylandt, the importance of that system in reducing the high rates of violence, particularly domestic violence. While with any system there are always ways of doing things better, one of the things I have noticed in my time as the local member is the coordinated effort between the traditional owners, government agencies and other groups, including GEMCO as the main mining company on the island, to ensure this permit system works effectively for the people of Groote.
In 2006, the University of Sydney was invited to conduct a review of the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System on behalf of the NT Licensing Commission. This review is a comprehensive overview and evaluation of the development, operation and effectiveness of the Alcohol Management System on Groote Eylandt, and includes not only the Groote communities of Umbakumba, Angurugu and the town of Alyangula, but also Milyakburra. As Peter d’Abbs and the other authors point out in the review, the success of this system was due to the high level of engagement between the key stakeholders and the community, and the efforts put into the effective coordination of a response at a local level. The report states:
That was in 2006. With strong local boards and alcohol management plans, if things are not working local people can now manage the problem. Borroloola is one of the regional centres where an alcohol management plan has also been developed. It has been endorsed by the Borroloola Alcohol Reference Panel. In my submission to the NT Licensing Commission in relation to the application by the Borroloola Hotel Motel to vary its licence conditions, I said history has clearly shown the negative impact alcohol has had on the community and its people. We all accept we have to live with alcohol, and I am pleased the Licensing Commission has attached stringent conditions to the 12 month probationary hotel licence focused upon the prevention of harm and antisocial behaviour associated with excessive alcohol consumption.
I am also pleased the Licensing Commission has imposed a precondition of refurbishment on the grant of the hotel licence, requiring the bar and beer garden to be upgraded to project and promote a community focused environment. This is about creating a community friendly environment, incorporating the responsible service of alcohol and providing mid- and light-strength beverages sold in conjunction with substantial food and snacks. Another important component of the Licensing Commission’s decision is that the grant of the hotel licence is conditional upon the licensee’s adoption of strategies contained in the Borroloola Alcohol Management Plan which are aimed at reducing the consumption of alcohol and include the introduction of two alcohol-free days per month.
The other key strategies contained in the alcohol management plan for Borroloola include the introduction of an electronic linked ID system for takeaway sales from licensed venues in and around Borroloola; a variation to the local store liquor licence to limit takeaway sales to 18 cans of light- or mid-strength alcohol per person per day; a variation to the liquor licences of the Highway Inn, Daly Waters Pub, Heartbreak Hotel, and Mataranka Pub to limit the sale of alcohol to residents of Borroloola to 18 cans per day; continued support of recreation and diversionary activities aimed at adults and young people; increased access to services for people who are affected by alcohol misuse; and the establishment of the men’s cooling-off place or sobering-up shelter.
The alcohol management plan for Borroloola has been developed following intensive community consultation and is based on input from local people, local government, industry and other stakeholders. Again, as the AMSANT and Menzies report into the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan has highlighted, successful alcohol management plans are ones driven by locals.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will address the issue of alcohol and violence against women. Violence against women is one of the key risk factors for women slipping into poverty and disadvantage. Nearly one in three Australian women experiences physical violence, and almost one in five women experiences sexual violence over their lifetimes. In Australia, up to one quarter of young people have witnessed an incident of physical or domestic violence against their mother or step-mother. The statistics tell us alcohol is a significant factor in violence against women. In particular, the 2005 Personal Safety Survey found that 45% of women who reported a physical assault of them by a man in the last 12 months also reported that alcohol or drugs was a factor.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy has also told this House that 67% of all domestic violence assaults are alcohol related. This is why our government is targeting both alcohol and domestic violence. Our government took the innovative and bold step of introducing mandatory reporting of domestic violence and investing $15m to help reduce this crime over a three- to four-year period with an educational campaign to alert the people of the Northern Territory that enough is enough and violence is not on.
We have introduced alcohol management plans across many areas of the Territory to respond to alcohol-related violence and we have increased rehabilitation beds and awareness campaigns. By no means can we rest; we have to keep going. It is a system and an issue across the Northern Territory which requires vigilance for decades to come.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will curb alcohol-fuelled violence by turning off the tap to problem drinkers in our community who continuously commit alcohol-fuelled violence. These reforms align with the draft national plan to reduce violence against women and their children which has been developed to support all women experiencing violence, and their children. The national plan will build on COAG’s commitments under the Closing the Gap framework. In particular, the national plan has identified the need to foster community initiatives to reduce alcohol abuse as a key priority for Australian governments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the new package of alcohol reforms, including the introduction of a Territory-wide banned drinker register and electronic ID systems will have little impact on visitors being able to access alcohol, but it will make a difference to their experience in the Northern Territory. I commend the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s statement to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, in closing debate, note that at 5.30 pm we will be going to General Business.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I probably will not be able to finish by 5.30 pm, so I dare say I will have to continue my remarks at a later date. I will commence anyway.
It has been an interesting debate. The debate started in the October sittings and coincided with the tabling of the draft exposure legislation where the government stuck to its word by providing the details of the Territory’s most significant alcohol reform package in its history. The Enough is Enough package is built and based on evidence-based research, but also on the success of the alcohol measures this government has implemented.
We are targeting the problem drinker to turn the problem drinker off tap - a direct health intervention rather than indiscriminately affecting all of those Territorians, the majority of whom are doing the right thing and do not have a problem. We have heard through successive opposition speakers that they do not support this program of turning off the tap. They do not support the ID system, which we understand is the only mechanism of enforcement you can have to identify a problem drinker and turn them off tap. We are still waiting to find out what the opposition would use as a tool to support a ban system to prevent problem drinkers accessing alcohol.
Under the rivers of grog of the CLP, the grog would still flow. Not only would they still flow but they would increase, particularly into the problem area of Alice Springs which is being inundated with people coming in who are following the path of grog. I think they are way out of step with reality. They are certainly out of step with the third parties which have seriously considered these reforms, whether it be AMSANT or the Law Society, credible spokespeople across this debate believe these are the right reforms to meet the social needs of the Territory. We do not believe the CLP is committed to tackling crime in the Territory - if it was it would show some bipartisan approach to these reforms.
As I said, the reforms have been built on evidence-based research and the success of the alcohol measures this government has already implemented through alcohol management plans in different parts of the Territory. We recognise, though, that there needs to be some consistency. Whilst we are still fully supportive of alcohol management plans suited to the circumstances of particular localities, we are overlaying alcohol management plans with these Territory-wide reforms.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, given that it is 5.30 pm, I will interrupt you. In accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm. Minister, you will have the opportunity tomorrow to resume your closing remarks.
Debate suspended.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory parliament tasks the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee with:
investigating the state of the current telecommunications services in the Northern Territory in regard to hardware and assesses the intentions of the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in the Northern Territory;
investigating competitive and technological alternatives to the NBN in delivering high-speed broadband across the Territory; and
reporting back to parliament by 31 January 2011.
I know that is a short time frame. The reason I put this forward is because I believe information technology, and improvements to broadband in particular, present potential significant benefits to the Territory, across all four pillars of sustainable development, those being social, economic, cultural and environmental. Some would think the purpose of bringing this on is more of a political position but it is actually about trying to determine the best model of broadband information technology we can have for the Northern Territory. There has been plenty of discussion about this matter, especially in recent times, at the federal level and in the federal parliament.
In the Northern Territory, it is something which has gone relatively quiet, apart from a few dorothy dixers here or there. It is important to reflect on a few of those dorothy dixers so we can put into context the conversation government has had to date. I reflect on Hansard 21 October 2010 when the Chief Minister, in responding to a question from the member for Nhulunbuy said:
That is completely false. There is not one bit of accuracy in that statement.
The minister for Information Technology, the member for Stuart, in responding to a question from the member for Arafura, when asked:
said:
He went on to say that Internet cafs will be able to be established and will allow people to have access to families via video conferencing or web cams. He even said they will be able to:
$43bn to share information on Facebook. That is great!
It went further. There were dorothy dixers all the way through. But the important point on the NBN is to be aware of what it will actually deliver and where it will actually go. I am sure the members on the other side of the Chamber will be very interested to know where it will go because, from the NBN Co website and information received from the federal government, we can identify that the only places in the Northern Territory where the NBN will go are Alice Springs, Darwin, Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, McMinns Lagoon, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Palmerston, Robertson Barracks, Tennant Creek, Tindal, Virginia and Bees Creek. On top of that is an addition of the next generation wireless which will go to Amoonguna. Those are the only areas which will receive the NBN.
It is also important to note what type of service those people will receive in those areas. I hold up for illustration a copy of a map of the National Broadband Network and, for those who are not watching I can tell you that in Tennant Creek and Katherine the optical fibre footprint will cover the towns themselves. In Nhulunbuy it will also cover the town. But in Alice Springs and Darwin the optical fibre footprint will not cover the greater Darwin or Alice Springs regions. There will be a small component of the optical fibre footprint in Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston. Outside those two larger parts of that area it will be a fixed wireless footprint and anywhere else in the Territory beyond that is not national broadband, it is just a standard satellite footprint.
When you look at that and put into context the dorothy dixers the government threw out before you can understand that the NBN is not going to every corner of the Territory. It is not going to every community or every bush school. It is important to note that bush schools already have broadband. There are plenty of places in the Territory which already have broadband. There are health centres which already have broadband.
Work is being done by this government putting out tenders before getting broadband into the bush. There was a $20m tender awarded to Amcom. I am reading from a statement by Ben Grubb on zdnet.com.au on 8 February 2010, when he spoke about telecommunication provider Amcom scoring a $20m contract to provide telecommunication services to the Northern Territory government over a five-year period:
Which has already gone. We can see from that statement alone that there is already broadband in schools and government agencies across the Territory. The NBN will not change that. There will be no difference at all with the NBN.
The thing we do not know about the NBN is how much money is going to go into the Northern Territory to roll out the NBN. The minister will not give me a briefing on this despite having asked for four weeks. He will not give me a briefing, refuses to return telephone calls from staff in his office - maybe they are busy moving people to and from Yuendumu. We need to know how much money will be spent on the NBN in the Northern Territory and what we are going to receive from that service.
I know the government likes to defend Senator Conroy in Canberra, the Communications minister; however, a few of his bush members should be very concerned. So should the man who holds this government together, the member for Nelson. If you look at the seat of Daly, which the current Minister for Essential Services holds, according to the information I have, nowhere in that electorate will people receive the National Broadband Network. Some places already have broadband, some have wireless downloadable broadband through current technology such as iPhones, and the remainder are on satellite. In the seat of Nhulunbuy, the township of Nhulunbuy will have part footprint of the National Broadband Network, but outside Nhulunbuy town, nowhere in the seat will receive the National Broadband Network.
In the seat of Barkly, the only place to receive it is Tennant Creek. If you live in Elliott, on the Stuart Highway where the fibre-optic cable goes past, you will not get it. If you are at Aileron you will not get it. If you are at Ali Curung, Borroloola, Epenarra, Murray Downs, Ngukurr, anywhere outside the main highway, you will not receive it. In the seat of Nelson you will not receive the National Broadband Network. If you are in the seat of Goyder you are stuck as well.
The reason this motion is presented is because it is important to identify how much money is coming, what levels of technology are supposed to be there, what the alternatives are, and how we can put something to Canberra, as a committee of parliament, to say: this is what will help us the best with our four pillars of sustainable development, those being social, cultural, economic and environmental. Surely government needs to respond rather than just say the NBN will allow people to use Facebook and read the Northern Territory News in the bush, because that is clearly not the case. In most places you can do that now, even if it is only by fixed line.
Speaking of fixed line, people in the electorates of Goyder, Nelson, Daly and many other areas of the Northern Territory, particularly those in the greater Darwin region, still have to use dial-up network. In the 2007 federal election, the Coalition put up a model called OPEL. The OPEL model would have reached about 98% of the country. It would not have all been fixed line; it would have had a combination of the remaining 2% satellite, fixed line and wireless technology. The NBN only looks at reaching 90% of the population, which leaves out just about everywhere in the Northern Territory.
If the Coalition was elected in 2007, most people who live in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Berry Springs and Bees Creek would have proper broadband now. Technology changes so quickly it is always hard to be in front of the debate; however, 10 years ago there was barely anything in broadband and here we are now. Had the Coalition been successful in the election in 2007, OPEL would be out now and if you lived in Howard Springs you would not need a dial-up connection.
The benefit people have now in some of the rural communities or townships of the greater Darwin region is the opportunity to use telephones, albeit not always mobile telephones because they do not have mobile coverage - which is part of this debate - but people can use fixed line phones. If the NBN was to come in and there was a blackout - which happens when snakes are on lines and donkeys hit poles, and all the failures of the government with power in the Top End - people would not be able to use telephones, let alone the Internet. This is all part of the telecommunications debate in the Northern Territory. That is why it is important we have proper and sensible analysis and debate about what type of IT services we want in the Territory. It is not being debated in Canberra by the minister, Senator Conroy. That is not happening. We need to stand up and be mature about a debate on how we can improve IT and telephony services in the Northern Territory.
I am a person who believes that wireless technology is the way to go. I am a mobile person; I do not like the idea of a desktop. I like the idea of what they call ‘fibre to the node’, where there is fibre in every street corner and little wireless things on the street corner - I will keep it in layman’s terms so everyone can understand - so anyone can log on with their own systems. That way it can be done much more cheaply and less intrusively, without having to put people’s phones through the system, without having backup battery systems in your house for the power outages which happen in the Northern Territory. If you think there is a problem now with not having power, imagine what happens when you do not have your phone as well.
There are much better opportunities. A model of fibre to the node - and I am giving my preference of model here - would allow for the roll-out to be much cheaper and much faster to Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Bees Creek, and all of those places. You could roll it out to Dundee, Cox Peninsula, Wadeye, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Elliott, and Borroloola. All of these places could have this much cheaper.
This model of moving towards a fixed-line system to a few select places - albeit the greatest populations - in the Northern Territory is not the way to go. We need connectivity across the Territory. We are not even talking about new technology and the way copper wire which is currently there can be used from the node to the house. There are people who are talking about how advancements in technology can increase download speeds across those lines. We are not talking about that. This motion is about taking that to the committee and letting the committee look at all the technical expertise.
Rather than having some political debate on the floor of parliament, let a bipartisan committee - which has a majority of government people on it anyway - come up with what the best model is for the Northern Territory, so we can ensure the people who live at Daly River, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Wadeye, Dundee Beach, Dundee Downs, Bynoe Harbour and Cox Peninsula and all those places can have access to phones, mobile phones and fast Internet. People do not have that access now and, more worrying, people do not understand the technology.
Many people in the general public say: ‘With the NBN we will all be able to have fast computers’. Well, that is not the case. If your computer is not built for fast speeds it will not change anything. If your lines do not have fast speeds it will not change anything. If you are not living in the right area it will not change anything. If you are buying an Internet access product from a supplier which is an on-seller, there is every chance you will be signing for 10Mbs, but this person is selling packages of 10Mbs he has purchased from someone else and is selling it to 20 people so you are only getting one-twentieth of what you thought you were getting. You are all competing for the same speed. People think: ‘Oh, my computer is slow’.
It is like this very poor computer I have here. I can sit at home on wireless from a router in my house and the computer works very quickly. I go into the office at work and it takes me five minutes to open an Internet page. That is part of the problem with the IT systems of this government – well, it is the main the problem of the IT system of this government. Because it passes through VPNs and all these different servers, nothing works. People sit in situations like that and say: ‘Why doesn’t it work?’ People in the northern suburbs who are still on dial-up say: ‘Yes, I want faster speed’. Well, NBN is not necessarily going to deliver you a faster speed. What would help you is if you were not on dial-up for a start, if you were on ADSL2 and were not going through a provider which was splitting up the speeds you are receiving now.
There needs to be analysis and rigour put through the IT debate in the Northern Territory, but there also needs to be education campaigns to explain to people why their computers are so slow and why it is so tough to open things. There are further debates which need to happen in places much further abroad than here, particularly Canberra. If everyone in Australia had access to 1000 Mbps and they all jumped on the line at the same time or tried to access servers in America, could the overseas cables handle that? I am not an IT expert, but I am told they cannot.
This does not just affect my electorate. People in the rural and bush electorates of Goyder, Daly, Nelson, Arafura, Arnhem, Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Macdonnell and Stuart are going to be ripped off with this system. In Alice Springs, there will be some people in the electorates of Braitling, Greatorex and Araluen who will get the NBN and will get faster speeds, albeit intrusively into their house. Whether you are a 17-year-old kid who wants to get access to the computer or an 80-year-old person who has never even seen a computer, you will all have the NBN knocking down your front fence, digging trenches and putting holes in your wall. Then, if there is a blackout, you will be stuck. There will be people in those three electorates who will not have the NBN, and they will still have to use some form of wireless or satellite because the NBN will not go to everyone’s house.
I will leave the debate there. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say. As I said, for the last four weeks, or since my promotion to ICT, I have not been offered the privilege of having a briefing from the department because the minister’s office refuses to return my calls. Perhaps they are as cooperative as one of the advisors in the minister for Housing’s office is, I think it is Brendan Higgins - completely unhelpful.
Madam Speaker, I will leave that and I will listen to the debate by government. I will be happy to provide some summation to this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the member for Braitling on this important motion. There is no doubt about it, the NBN is a dog. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money - $43bn for the re-nationalisation of telecommunications in Australia, a country which is probably the wheeler and dealer in the world. We are into free trade, competition, providing commercial opportunities, we talk about entrepreneurialism and getting out and having a go, that sort of stuff, and it has paid benefits for Australia over a long time. It is not just Coalition governments in Canberra which have had that desire but past Labor governments. I well remember the Hawke and Keating years, floating the dollar, deregulating the banking industry. All of those reforms were very, very helpful.
It was the Labor government which first started privatising Telstra, and there was a recognition that telecommunications was no longer an industry which needed to be run solely by governments. More and more players were coming into the marketplace and it seemed wrong then, and it does now, that government would not only be the regulator but also the operator of the largest monopoly in Australia. It is like being the chief steward at the racetrack and owning the favourite. At the same time there was a severe conflict of interest. Credit needs to be paid to former Labor administrations in Australia - the Hawke and Keating administrations - for their recognition in privatising Telecom, now Telstra, and taking some of the shackles of government off that company’s back. It has gone on to grow in a marvellous way. Millions of Australians are now shareholders in that great telecommunications company.
Recently, we have had a complete turnaround by federal Labor; it seems that the socialists are back. I know the Chief Minister likes to deride me and other people when we talk about socialists in Canberra and the socialists here, but to me there is no better example of socialists at work than what they are doing with the NBN. $43bn is more than the value of the complete capital assets of Telstra now. It will be the largest telecommunications business, if you can call it that, in Australia. It will be a government-owned monopoly. As the member for Braitling said, people will be left without options. Whether you want it or not, the NBN is coming to you and it seems to me it is being done in the most destructive way possible.
Government fails to put forward a business case for the NBN. It was only last week when it refused to have proper scrutiny of the NBN. It refused to have a cost benefit analysis done. I think government is scared of the results because the more Australians are coming to understand what federal Labor has planned for them in relation to this NBN fiasco, the more Australians are becoming certain it is a dog.
The tide is turning. The way Kevin Rudd put it in the election of 2007 it gave great hope to Australians. John Howard was an old man and he seemed to reflect old school views in Australia. Kevin Rudd was a younger version who had many of the same qualities but seemed much more tech-savvy. He was on pages like Facebook and he was doing talk-back radio much more than the then prime minister was and he seemed to be a sort of a hip John Howard.
Dr Burns: I haven’t heard him described like that before.
Mr TOLLNER: He seemed to be a bit hip - and I note the member for Johnston is laughing at that. I think he would even agree with that. At the 2007 campaign, many people were talking about ‘me too-ism’. Whatever John Howard said, Kevin Rudd agreed with. Kevin Rudd said: ‘There is not a sliver of difference between my economic views and those of the Coalition. I am an economic conservative’. What he said and what he did, of course, were two separate things. Politicians, not only in Australia but all over the world, would have taken note of the way Labor and Kevin Rudd ran that 2007 campaign because it was a very slick, well-run campaign on Labor’s behalf and I have to say, all credit to them.
The trouble is it created such an expectation, such a desire, that people are now feeling let down that some of the things promised are not bearing fruit. Without going into all of them, one of the big ticket items, the greatest moral and social challenge of our time, was saving the environment. People in the community identified with that. I would say that 99.99% of Australians care about their environment and want to see our environment protected. Kevin Rudd in some way gave them hope there would be more focus put on the environment than what it was perceived the previous government had. I said ‘perceived’ because the previous government did much more for the environment than the Labor administrations we have had since.
It was time for a change for Australians and they wanted a new tech-savvy prime minister who did not seem that much different from the current one. The hallmarks of John Howard were he was good at managing the economy, keeping our borders protected, and keeping the country safe and secure. People like that in a Coalition government. They wanted to see that preserved but they also wanted to see someone who had more flare and more of an eye on the future. The NBN was one of those things where Australians said: ‘Oh, beauty, here are people who really want to throw us into the 21st century, bring us all up to speed.’ The promise of high-speed broadband sounded wonderful at the time. At that time Mr Rudd was talking about a $4.5bn investment in international broadband and that was a big chunk of money. If we went back to 2007 and Kevin Rudd said he wanted to make a $43bn NBN, Australians would have had quite a different view of the economic credibility of Kevin Rudd.
Since 2007, his election commitment of $4.5bn has exploded into a $43bn plan to connect Australians to fibre. It has gone from fibre to the node to fibre to the home. As the member for Braitling said, for those people who are listening and reading Hansard, the node is a box on the end of every street corner; however, the new Labor government is taking it further, it is not just taking it to a box on the street corner, it is taking it into the home, which means a big change to the way telecommunications are delivered into our homes.
Currently, you do not need a power supply to run a telephone or hook into your computer, but the minute you have fibre, the power has to be on if you are going to get a signal to your home computer or phone. With this government, power to the home is not guaranteed, as many Territorians know. When the power goes out, how many Territorians are going to be able to pick up the phone? There will not be too many. Well, there may be quite a few who have access to mobile phones, but some of the senior members - Madam Speaker you are very in touch with seniors in our community; you are well known for getting out and about in the seniors’ community and you will know that very few seniors are in possession of a mobile phone and still rely on landlines in their houses. Those seniors will be connected to fibre-optic and will have to plug their home phone into a power source to make phone calls from their landline. When the power goes out, those seniors who do not have mobile phones are isolated as far as communications go unless they can shuffle across to the neighbour’s house or yell out the window for someone to call and advise the power is off they will be isolated without power. That is one of the big drawbacks.
People who do a little research in this area say copper cable will carry exactly the same speeds as optic fibre will, just not over such long distances. Once you get past 500 m or 1000 m it starts to fade away on a copper wire. There is no problem at all putting nodes a couple of hundred metres apart. Using the existing infrastructure, you can connect many copper cables to a node with distances of less than 500 m to the house. Connecting fibre to houses means ripping out the existing infrastructure and rewiring the whole place. In many cases, as the member for Braitling said, ripping up people’s front yards and punching holes through their walls – not an ideal situation for many people. In some cases that will not be required; there will be lines which can be drawn through the existing piping and the like. However, in many cases, front yards are going to have to be dug up and holes punched in walls to install this.
It is happening whether you want it or not. It is happening across Australia. I look at Peter Garrett with his solar hot water systems. This Labor government has a penchant for means testing every government grant, even for solar power. So people on decent incomes cannot access the solar panel grant for hot water systems from the current government because they are what the government considers to be high-income earners. The government wants to means test the private medical cover rebate. It is into means testing everything, but will not be means testing, or even giving anyone a choice, as to whether they get the NBN.
The other side of the coin is that 3% of Australians will not get the NBN because they are outside of the network. You have to ask where that 3% of Australians live. They will not be living in Darwin and probably not in Alice Springs or even Katherine. They will be living in some of the further flung places, predominantly places in remote Australia in the Northern Territory.
This promise that every home - that is another joke in itself, every home - in communities around the Northern Territory will be connected to the broadband is a joke. There are many homes in the Northern Territory in remote communities which cannot get water or power. They cannot get water or power but we are going to plug fibre optics in there - if you believe the member for Stuart. Lovely bloke as he is, I believe he has been misled on this issue.
I know it is Labor’s job to talk this thing up. I do not even think they know what they are talking up, but they feel obligated to help Julia in Canberra cement her spot as the Prime Minister of this country. They feel that obligation deeply; that they have to, in some way, legitimise her existence. Somehow, it seems to these guys on the other side that the only bright spot the federal Labor government has now is the NBN. They have turned their back on saving the planet. They have forgotten about the greatest moral challenge of our time, global warming. That is something they can put off. Their stimulus package has fallen in a heap. Money for school halls across …
Dr Burns: Including the BER?
Mr TOLLNER: We see the Education minister fire up at the BER. He seems to think because he has a few good schools in the Northern Territory that all is roses. It seems he does not read the papers. I have to tell you, minister for Education, the BER is not seen as something good around the rest of the country, mate. It is marred with failure and wasted spending. It has been a terrible program. It is right up there with the pink batts scheme. It is derided by Australians.
Most Australians are starting to see that all of this stimulus spending was, in many cases, just burning money. It was no more than that. Tax Australians, take their money off them, give some of it to them and burn the rest. We have seen so many promises come out of this federal Labor government when it agreed to the Northern Territory intervention. I tell you what, it grinded that intervention on the members in the Northern Territory because they did not believe in it, and they still do not believe in it. They do not believe in the intervention at all. It was described as the black kids Tampa by one member in this place. Federal Labor came in and said: ‘No, we agree with the intervention, we will just do things a little differently’, and what has it done differently? It has wasted more than $1bn on SIHIP. How many new houses do we have?
A member: Eighty-eight.
Mr TOLLNER: Eighty-eight, so we are not at the 100 mark yet and we have spent $500m. It seems that the cost of a house is coming down because I remember about 12 months ago in this place we were talking about $100m spent and fewer than 10 houses were built. So at that time it was $10m per house. Now we have 88 houses and $500m spent, what is that? $6m or $7m a house, so the price of these houses is coming down. For that sort of money though, you could buy that beautiful house on East Point. Why we do not have Indigenous people all over the Northern Territory living in those sorts of houses beats me when you are spending the sort of money this government is spending.
In any case, the government is building these houses for these extraordinary amounts of money, and now it is telling us the only light on the horizon left for it is the NBN. It is dead keen to get it out there, get it right, and they are going to connect every house, whether you want it or not, with fibre-optic. When the power goes out - when Mr Knight, the most aptly named man in the parliament, Mr Knight, it is dark, it is night time - when the lights go out, the power goes off, Mr Knight will not have you ringing him because you will not be able to under the new NBN.
This scheme is the socialists at work. This is the heart of socialism coming to light. These guys are intent on creating a nationalised telecommunications system. Goodness me, we have had decades of Labor governments federally, followed by Coalition governments, a good 30 years of economic growth in Australia, and along comes this mob. Julia, I think, is from the extreme left of the Labor Party. I do not know whether it is true, but I did read an article saying she was from the extreme left of the Labor Party but had previously been in some sort of communist sect in her university days. It does not seem to me that she has moved too far because she still believes in the nationalisation of telecommunications. It is a real worry. In the Northern Territory we have so many different things which need attention, and what we could do with our portion of the NBN money is enormous. The opportunities are there. If only a portion of that money were to be spent in the Northern Territory we could do such wonderful things.
As the member for Braitling said, this is about fibre to the home, fibre into your houses. It is interesting that these days, in this new age of telecommunications, people are not looking for fixed line services so much. In the last few years Telstra has seen a reduction in landline services in Australia. People are going away from their landline telephones and are opting for mobile phones. It is similar with computers. Computer sales for desktop PCs are not as high as they are for laptops. People want mobility; they want to be able to pick up their laptop and take it somewhere.
These gadgets we have, these USB wireless broadband connections, are the greatest things ever, Madam Speaker. I thank you and your department for providing my office with one because I use that permanently in my Winnellie office. In fact, Madam Speaker, I am sure you will be aware that my electorate officer has asked if we can get one for her PC because I get far greater speeds from my wireless plug-in than we can possibly access through the Winnellie Shopping Centre. I understand the Winnellie area is in a bit of a black spot; Telstra has confirmed that. There is a lot of …
Dr Burns: Didn’t you try to fix that at one stage?
Mr TOLLNER: We did try to fix it. We have been out of office for a little while and this new beaut, tech-savvy Labor government we have federally still has not fixed it.
These things are marvellous and they allow people all sorts of wonderful opportunities. I know when I travel interstate and I take the computer I am not hunting around for a landline to plug it into anymore. Whether I am sitting in an airport or pulling up at some park, it does not really matter where you are providing you have a signal. You can plug that thing in, you are on broadband and you are getting pretty good speeds through that little plug-in on the side. These are the wonders of modern technology. I believe that is the way Australians are going more and more.
I understand if you are running an Internet betting agency, are one of the big four banks and you have a branch, are one of these other high-tech businesses, or are a government, you may well need superior speeds and the stability and certainty of service a fibre-optic cable will give you. I am not disputing the need for fibre optics but it should not be mandatory for everyone. It should be there for those organisations and people who actually need it and they should be able to access that stuff. But for the vast majority of people and small businesses mobility is the key. Having access to an Internet connection, whether it is wireless or fibre, is the main thing. They are not necessarily chasing the speed. I do not believe Australians are prepared for what the cost of that speed will be.
When you talk to the federal government it cannot give you an answer. It cannot tell you how much it is going to cost for a weekly, monthly or annual plan. It cannot tell you what it will cost you or what the plans are going to be like. One thing is for sure, these things are not going to be free. They are going to cost significantly more than people are currently paying for their copper service and in many cases that copper-wire service is providing adequate speeds for their needs.
Any way you cut this NBN it turns out to be a dog. It is a massive waste of taxpayers’ money. That is one of the hallmarks of Labor governments; they do not really care what it costs. We see that time and time again in this place. You stand up, throw questions at members of the other side asking what they have done about this and that and what are they doing. They pull out a chart and say: ‘This is how much money you spent; this is how much money we are spending’. It always comes back to money. They tell you they spend more. That is what they do. They never say: ‘Look how much we have saved you’. They never say: ‘We have saved you this amount of money’. They say: We spent this amount of money’, like that is an outcome. It is an outcome in the minds of Labor people. To them, spending money is an outcome.
It was certainly an outcome for Kevin Rudd in the global financial crisis. It was like manna from heaven for Kevin Rudd. He could not throw the money away quick enough; he had to keep spending. For some reason Kevin Rudd believed spending was going to save us - get out there, spend, spend, spend, spend and that will save us. People who are economic conservatives, as Kevin Rudd once said he was, do not share that philosophy. They believe in spending money to get the best value for your buck, ensuring you get a return on your money, being fiscally responsible. That is something Labor governments never are. That is the case even with the Hawke and Keating years, and is certainly the case now with the Rudd and Gillard years. They are quite prepared to throw money around like crazy.
In the Northern Territory we have seen it over and over again. Every day in Question Time we are reminded of it; we are constantly told how much money this government spends. It is proud of the fact it continues to spend, spend, spend, spend. Get the money out the door, spend! That is what it is doing with the NBN. It started off as a $4.5bn scheme which was fibre to the node. It decided that was not good enough; let us spend $43bn on the NBN, something on which we could have spent $4.5bn. That is where you see the obvious difference between the Coalition policy and the Labor policy. Federally, we have Malcolm Turnbull saying: ‘Let us offer Australians a top-notch service, but we do not have to spend $43bn to do it’.
Madam Speaker, this scheme is a dog. I support the member for Braitling for bringing on this motion and urge all members to support it.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on this motion. In the last 12 months particularly, and since his promotion, it has been great to discuss ICT, particularly the NBN, on a regular basis. I welcome the motion; I will not be supporting it and will outline why. I welcome the opportunity to discuss information, communications and technology in the House. Looking back over Hansard, ICT was not a very commonly discussed subject in the Assembly. It was in 2004 - it might have been Peter Toyne as ICT minister who talked about the electronic divide which existed, particularly in the bush and in Darwin and Alice Springs. I welcome this motion brought on by the member for Braitling.
ICT, until the last 12 months, has not been discussed enough in this Assembly. It is vital to the future of the Northern Territory, as it is to this country, that we discuss important issues such as ICT. We need to move forward with the times. We need to invest in this type of technology and infrastructure, not only in the Northern Territory but in Australia, if we are going to keep up with other countries, particularly those in the OECD, in driving the economy. The economy of the 21st century has been discussed many times, and so much will be built on having this type of infrastructure, this type of technology. That is why the NBN is such an important national project. As I said, it is important nationally that we have this type of infrastructure. There are debates happening at the federal level regarding the costing and business case of the NBN.
I listened closely to what the members for Braitling and Fong Lim had to say. I value the contribution the member for Fong Lim made. Given his time in federal politics, his experience is a very important thing which he brings to the Territory parliament. I see a clear difference in what we are doing on this side of the House to what they say on that side of the House when it comes to ICT and delivering for the Territory. I really believe - I am a true believer in the NBN - the NBN is fantastic news for the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about it; it is actually being delivered as we sit in this Chamber and debate it. The member for Braitling wants to form another committee: ‘Let us have a committee and talk about the NBN and what the values are’. However, it is being rolled out. The fibre is being rolled out across the Northern Territory as we sit in the Assembly discussing it.
There is a clear difference between what the John Howard government did for the Territory and what the Kevin Rudd, and now the Julia Gillard government, is doing for the Northern Territory. We are delivering. With a Labor government in the Northern Territory and a Labor government in Canberra there is a clear difference. We are delivering for the Northern Territory. You only have to look at Tiger Brennan Drive and the oncology unit; they are things that, under a John Howard government, were not delivered for Territorians. Look at OPEL. The member for Braitling raved on about the Coalition’s grand plans for ICT when they were in government for - what was it? - 12 years. Did they deliver that? I do not think they did. There is a clear difference between what they are saying and what we are doing.
The NBN is fantastic news for the Territory. It is going to bring us up to the 21st century with the digital economy. It will deliver across all elements of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Bohlin: Most people in your electorate won’t have it.
Mr HAMPTON: The NBN is not just about fibre; it is also about wireless and satellite technology. That is where the coverage is coming from. It is not only about fibre to the home, it is about those other elements which are going to be delivered through the NBN …
Members interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I am having trouble hearing the minister speak. I ask that there be fewer interjections.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Members for Drysdale, Braitling, and Fong Lim, you have made your contributions. You were heard in silence. I ask you respect the minister’s reply to this motion in silence.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in all fairness I never made a comment and I was interrupted constantly during my contribution.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I was just saying that you made a contribution; I was not saying you were disruptive. I pointed out that the members for Drysdale and Braitling should keep silent while the minister responds to the motion which was brought on by the member for Braitling …
Mr Elferink: I apologise for my constant interjections …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it may pay for you to listen to the minister in silence as well, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. As I said, I am a true believer in the NBN and I believe it is going to deliver fantastic things for the Northern Territory, particularly in growing jobs in the Northern Territory. We love looking at ways we can develop the green economy, and there are many jobs in that green economy. The NBN is going to be very much the basis of those jobs. In generating a creative economy, many of the other countries around the world are rolling out fibre. On my trip to New Caledonia there was a ship rolling out fibre from Sydney to Noumea. That is what the French government is doing: rolling out fibre from Sydney to Noumea. It is not waiting for anything else to come along, it is doing that as we speak. It is important that Australia keeps up with the 21st century and we continue to grow our economy. We will look at creative ways we can develop the economy and keep up with many of those other countries.
Japan is another believer in fibre to the home. It is being rolled out in Japan. By the end of 2010, Japan’s investment in laying fibre to the home will be worth around $908bn to its economy. That goes to show how important it is to a growing economy and to keeping up with the times. I am glad Julia Gillard and the Labor government are not going to lose that opportunity to keep up with the times, build our economy, and lay fibre to the home as well as improve the satellite and wireless technologies throughout Australia.
The member for Braitling has called on this motion to set up a committee, but the NBN is a Commonwealth government initiative; it is developed and paid for by the Commonwealth government. The Territory government’s role in this is to get the best possible deal from Canberra for Territorians. That is something which I, as a minister in this government, have worked very hard on for the last couple of years. The crazy thing about this motion is that the member for Braitling seems to be unaware of the work being done in Canberra to prepare some of the very material he is asking the Territory Legislative Assembly to prepare and examine through a committee. I will go through those points of the motion now to clearly articulate those pieces of work which are being done as we speak.
Point one of the motion is:
Since the Labor government came to power in 2001 in the Northern Territory it has worked very hard with partners in the private sector, the community sector, and both local and federal governments, particularly since Labor came into power in Canberra, to improve telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory, with great results. There is a clear difference between what we are delivering on this side of the House with our colleagues in Canberra compared to what happened with the John Howard government in Canberra. I pointed out Tiger Brennan Drive, the oncology unit, and rolling out the NBN. The Coalition, with John Howard, talked about its type of ICT infrastructure project for 12 years and did not deliver it. It had about 18 failed policies on ICT.
There are other examples of what this government has done since coming to power in 2001. It has worked with its partners, Telstra - which has made a massive contribution to telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory - and the Northern Land Council. I know the member for Braitling despises the land councils but there has been no better champion for rolling out this type of infrastructure through Aboriginal land, particularly through Arnhem Land, than the Northern Land Council. It has been a great champion for better telecommunications infrastructure in its region. I also congratulate Rio Tinto Alcan. Those three partners, along with the Territory government, have put Arnhem Land in touch with the 21st century. It is an infrastructure project which is internationally recognised for improving the lives of Territorians. We now have fibre going to Groote Eylandt - a fantastic initiative, working with partners such as those I have mentioned. We also have fibre going into 17 growth towns with upgrades to exchanges in all of those towns - a very important part of A Working Future and growth towns’ initiatives which will drive the creative economy which is needed in those growth towns.
We also have a competitive, second fibre backhaul network going in through Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston. We talk about the great conservative people on the other side here, but they do not want competition. They want to block all of this by closing down the NBN and going back to the 20th century type of technology. The second fibre means competition. We have a few more choices so people can access cheaper broadband than what they currently have. In the Territory we are paying something like 12 times the price of what people are paying in Sydney or Melbourne. We also have fibre going into homes – some 3000 households - and businesses in Casuarina next year.
Since 2007, when Labor won government federally, the pace of telecommunications infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory has increased. Suddenly we have telecommunication infrastructure projects happening across the Territory – something which was in the doldrums for 12 years under the Howard Coalition government - not only the NBN but those projects I have just outlined of ICT infrastructure being delivered. There are also private investments such as what Nextgen is rolling out, the huge job Telstra has been undertaking, and local government and communities are investing in local telecommunications infrastructure. What a difference three years of a federal Labor government and a Northern Territory Labor government have made.
The second point of the motion is:
This is one we can deal with straightaway. We do not have to set up a committee. The cost of the NBN to taxpayers is $26bn or less, or 10 to 13 a day per household. The real worry is that the opposition does not understand or know this. The business case for the NBN which sets out the costs for the roll-out was released months ago.
The third point of the motion is:
The opposition thinks we need to refer this to another committee to waste time. All this information is on the NBN Co website. It takes a bit of time to have a look it.
The fourth point of the motion is:
Currently, the USO is delivered by Telstra with the assistance of $145m of funding it receives from levies imposed on the telecommunications industry based on its revenue and market share. Under the government’s plan, Telstra will be relieved of its responsibilities to supply basic telephony services and pay phones to users in the bush and a new entity called USO Co will become responsible for the program. Telstra will be contracted by USO Co for a period of 10 years to continue delivering phone services while its copper network is switched off. The bottom line is that referring it to a committee in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly adds nothing to a matter which is scheduled to be debated in federal parliament.
The fifth point of the motion is:
Residents do not access NBN services. It is retailers which access NBN services. One of the objectives government has set for NBN Co is uniform national wholesale pricing. This means retail service providers, or RSPs, will have to pay the same amount, irrespective of where they are based, to deliver their services to households and businesses throughout Australia. NBN Co plans to charge the same amount for its basic access product across all three technologies: fibre, fixed wireless and satellite. NBN Co will also charge uniform national wholesale prices at higher speed tiers across its entire fibre footprint which will be servicing 93% of premises. The pricing policy is based on wholesale price levels allowing comparable or better retail prices than the current market for equivalent performance.
The pricing structure and pricing levels have been set to achieve a viable internal rate of return, based on NBN Co’s estimates of the take-up of different speed tiers and connectivity capacity usage. Based on take-up and speed usage growth assumptions, NBN Co anticipates being able to reduce real prices for all products and nominal prices for all products, except the basic service offering, while maintaining an internal rate of return above the government long-term bond rate.
The sixth point of the motion is:
There are three components to the NBN. It is not just about fibre to the home, it also includes wireless and satellite technology. There are no competitive alternatives to a mix of optic fibre, wireless and satellite in delivering high-speed broadband across the Northern Territory. This is the really funny thing about this point. The member for Braitling and members opposite are caught up in being parrots for their masters in Canberra; there is no alternative to a mix of optic fibre, wireless and satellite. We may as well waste the committee’s time examining other things rather than the NBN.
I am a true believer in the NBN, as I stated in my opening. This government has supported it from day one, with the Labor government in Canberra, which means we stand for access to the digital economy for all Northern Territory businesses, opening up huge new opportunities for green jobs and creative economies. We stand for $1bn of new infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory over the next eight years on top of what we have already been able to achieve in such a short time. We stand for productivity super gains for the Northern Territory economy. We stand for e-Health solutions for Territorians, particularly those in remote communities and many bush electorates, and we stand for distance education solutions for Territorians, which I am sure the minister for Education would be pleased to hear about.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not only for Territorians in the towns; 100% of Territorians will receive access to broadband whether it is through fibre, wireless or satellite technology. I do not support this motion, and I recommend the House votes against this very cynical and useless waste of time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the backflip we heard from the minister was astounding. He saved it for the last sentence but he came through with a backflip because we know from the dorothy dixers put forward in this Chamber some time ago that with NBN, every home, business, school and doctor’s surgery will have access to faster, affordable Internet access. He has just backflipped. No, it is satellite now; it is satellite and wireless and some fibre optic. I do not believe he understands the difference between NBN and fibre optic. He said: ‘The NBN is rolling out across the Northern Territory as we speak’. Where is it rolling out?
Today the business case was released under pressure from Nick Xenophon, Malcolm Turnbull and the shadow Regional Communications spokesperson from the Nationals. Page 9 of the 36 page report we see coverage in the Northern Territory. It is just the road from Adelaide to Darwin and across to Nhulunbuy, that is it. If you do not live there, you do not get any of coverage from the NBN. There will be some satellite stuff and some wireless, but that is there now.
You have to understand the difference here. How much money will be spent in Australia? How much will be spent in the Northern Territory, and what the NBN is going to mean. What will our productivity gains be? What will our economic advantage be? We know there is broadband in these locations now across the Northern Territory. How will people who live at Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Berry Springs, Bees Creek, Dundee Beach and Cox Peninsula benefit? What about the Tiwis? There is no mention of the Tiwi Islands on this. There is no fibre-optic cable for the Tiwis under the NBN model, only the Internet stuff which is there now. How will that service people in Oenpelli and Maningrida? Are we going to see the NBN going to those communities? Are we going to see it go into Ali Curung, or is that the fibre optic which is already there?
The people who sit on dial-up services in the rural area now are being hard done by. This was not a political thing or any direct correlation with the puppet masters - I think was the term you used – in Canberra. They do not know I am even speaking about this, minister; they have no idea. This was about how we can improve things. This is about asking whether fibre optic, under NBN Co, would be more important for productivity gains and servicing the Northern Territory, or would we be better laying a highway? Would we be better laying a highway between Docker River and the Olgas? Would that be more important as a productivity gain for the Territory? Is the outback highway more important? Could we seal the Central Arnhem Highway for the same amount of money? Will we get better gains by saving the lives of people considering the road toll on the dirt road? These are the things we need to be considering? Where is the best bang for our buck in the Northern Territory?
You have completely gone against that. There are arguments against the NBN; I know those arguments. I have not tried to play all those arguments here. I have spoken about alternate models for better connectivity in the Northern Territory. You thought this was political and you wanted to be smart about it, minister. I do not know if you fully understand the difference between fibre optic and the NBN, because there is no one in the Territory who is accessing the NBN now. I would be very happy for you to point out to me any household which is accessing it now.
What we are seeing now is the differences between brownfield and greenfield sites. What is happening with the uncertainty in the market, and has happened for years, is Telstra is now, in parts of the country, considering what sort of a role it will play under the Universal Service Obligation in installing cable to houses. Should it be installing fibre optic or copper in a greenfield site for a new housing development? Why would it install fibre-optic cable when it is not going to own it because it is going to be taken over by the NBN? Is it going to put a new line in there? These are the things you have to consider. You have new developments at Lyons, Muirhead and Bellamack - if they ever get power at Bellamack in Stage 4. These are things which need to be considered as part of the debate.
Think about the people in the rural area. I am disappointed the member for Nelson has not spoken in this debate on the National Broadband Network. There are people in his electorate who still sit on dial-up, whose mobile phones drop out all the time. The minister has not spoken about these people. He has complete disregard for the people in the rural area and the drop-outs in phone coverage, the poor Internet service, and the power outages they have. To think, when the NBN comes in, people are not going to be able to use their telephones unless they have some big generator battery back-up system so they can power up their phones. This is absolutely ridiculous!
There is a common thread here. We see the NBN here - we go from Adelaide straight through to Darwin. It covers a little of Darwin city and a little of the Darwin area. There will be a bit more wireless, because we are only talking about 93% of the population’s fibre coverage here. We sit in the last 2%, so there is a big gap there. However, they have a 4% wireless margin on page 9 of the 36-page report for the business case study if anyone is interested. There is a common theme; outside of Darwin, in the Lingiari electorate, what happens? We fall over again.
It seems nothing is delivered on anything Warren Snowdon has to do with in the Lingiari electorate - SIHIP, nothing is happening, roads have not been served, been there for 25 years. Now, we have NBN Co and that is falling over as well, not delivering services.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on Standing Order 51!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I just called for order. Minister, allow the member for Braitling to finish his reply.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
We are now talking about a fixed-line service protruding into every home which is fortunate enough to get it. I spoke earlier about the benefits of mobile wireless technology. It was on 29 September this year that Telstra reported that its wireless broadband business had grown by 109% per year over the last three years. In the year between mid-2009 and mid-2010, the number of wireless broadband subscribers in Australia rose from two million to 3.5 million and that excludes smartphones such as the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4. If you includes those iPhones, by one company and all the other companies which are now onto this smartphone technology with their wireless broadband - like the phone I use - you would see millions more people. People are mobile; people are business-orientated. You do not need a fixed line straight into your house, protruding through your driveway, into the wall …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Braitling knows the NBN has always been a mixture of fibre, satellite and wireless.
Mr GILES: There is no point of order. What is your standing order number? There is no point of order here. Sit down! You cannot just come up here and talk. This is not a time to debate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, the minister has called a point of order. I am listening to that. There is not to be any quarrel across the Chamber. Continue, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you. It is my understanding that when you call a point of order, whether it is about the broadband or otherwise, you need a standing order number. I am always inflicted with those rules and the same rules should apply. There is no standing order on the broadband process.
The fact remains that wireless broadband subscribers in Australia rose from two million to 3.5 million, excluding smartphones, and that is how people are these days. We have the NBN Co trying to tunnel into everyone’s house, if you are fortunate enough to get it, which in the Territory not many people will be fortunate enough, particularly those in the rural area. I believe this is part of some greater plan by Senator Conroy and the Gillard/Rudd government where they want to be intrusive and tunnel into everyone’s house. They have this new Internet filter where they are trying to check what people are doing. It is almost like the communist regime is coming back - one and all the same, want to see what is happening in every person’s life.
We have seen debate this week on the interception, on the telecommunications rules. We have the Internet filter, you combine those together, and all of a sudden Big Brother is watching you. It is disappointing the member for Nelson did not the speak on this debate and it is disappointing that no one else in government did. This could affect, potentially, so many bush seats. The member for Daly has not said one word. It is not even going to touch his electorate. NBN Co will not go anywhere in Daly. It will not even go to the minister’s electorate of Stuart. It is not going to Yuendumu, so we know he does not look after the people in Yuendumu. There is already fibre-optic cable there. NBN Co is not going, unless you are going to pension off Telstra. There is nothing happening there. He is not looking after Stuart or Macdonnell.
The member for Barkly is fortunate that people in Tennant Creek will get some NBN Co, but if you live in Ali Curung, Elliott, Borroloola, Epenarra or Alpurrurulam, sorry, no good. The minister will not help these people. If you live in Arnhem, you are stuck. You are fortunate if you are the member for Nhulunbuy, because you will get a bit, but the member for Arafura, no NBN Co. You are not allowed to be connected; you are not allowed to have those opportunities for economic advancement and business development.
We know the member for Casuarina, the minister for mining and Resources, has been fighting against development on the Tiwis, fighting against port development, and the minister for telecommunications will not even stand up for the Tiwis, the people in Maningrida, Oenpelli or Ramingining; he will not stand up for Indigenous Territorians. They made a statement here yesterday about jobs. Here is a perfect opportunity to get jobs through IT. He will not stand up for these people. If it is beneficial for all other Australians, it should be beneficial for all Territorians. But no, he will not stand up for that. We know he will not stand up for the people in Yuendumu because we saw the dilemmas which happened with those people.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, please direct your comments to me, the Chair. Minister, please allow the member to finish his reply in silence.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I have not taken my vision off you the whole time I have been speaking, so thank you very much. I have been directing my comments to the Chair. I am facing you. That is the way my desk faces. It is pretty hard for me to talk crossways unless I am turning around, but thank you. I do take those comments on and it has been over the last few minutes that the murmurings from the member for Stuart have been occurring. I can understand why he would be murmuring because he is disappointed that NBN Co has left his electorate aside. He is disappointed that he is the minister for ICT and he can do nothing about it. I know his dreams of getting people in his electorate on Facebook and video conferencing with their families or having the ability to read the NT News.
The point of this motion today was not about politics. It was about making sure there is the best opportunity for the people of the Northern Territory to get the best outcome for IT services in the Northern Territory. It would have had a focus on improving services for people who are in non-NBN Co areas - those that were to receive the wireless and satellite technology. But the purpose of the committee having a review would have also enabled the parliament to have an understanding of what the economic gains would be from the NBN plan for the Territory. It could also have provided a cost comparison with what other infrastructure services could have provided in the Northern Territory, whether that is roads, housing, building or any other processes.
There are plenty of things which could be done to improve productivity in the Northern Territory and not keeping in question the idea about throwing out the Labor government. That would improve productivity no end. This was a very sensible motion. I am disappointed the minister was so reluctant to provide any sort of consideration for how things may be improved under this motion. He saw it as a political stunt when it was not a political stunt at all, and I have not spoken to anyone in Canberra about it. I just wanted to make sure we got the best bang for our buck in the Territory with what was coming here. He has not seen it that way but then he has turned his back on his electorate, turned his back on Yuendumu, and I suppose he has turned his back on the rest of the Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Smoke alarms form part of a very serious plan and issue. There is nothing more final than fire and fire has a profound impact on families by destroying their most cherished possessions. That pales into insignificance when a life is lost. Those are the tragedies people never recover from.
This bill has been introduced as a result of a Coroner’s report dated 16 December 2008, which deals with the tragic loss of a life. I read the Coroner’s report, and it is a sad situation where someone was possibly asleep and was not roused when the premises caught fire. When they did wake it appears it was too late to get to the location in the house where the keys were kept. This person went into the bathroom and turned on the water to try to get away from the heat. The very sad situation is that the poor person died of asphyxiation due to carbon monoxide and a number of other toxic gases.
It is been nearly two years since that Coroner’s report was released. I will quote from page 6 of the Coroner’s report. There is one recommendation from this sad event, and that is:
This is another example of where this government appears to have sat on its hands for two years. We still do not see any action on the recommendation of the Coroner. The member for Nelson is quoted on page 4 of the NT News on Tuesday, 23 November 2010. It says:
We could have a debate on that issue alone. We have introduced legislation in the last 12 months which has been passed through this House. Indeed, over the time the member for Nelson has been in this House, he has introduced legislation of his own. So, for him to say it is the job of government and not opposition - I am assuming he would include himself as someone who is not in the government; although one wonders whether he is in charge of the government because he holds the balance of power. It is something the paper and people in the community recognise. We in this House recognise he holds a great deal of sway over what does and does not happen on the government benches.
This legislation seeks to bring the Northern Territory in line with other states in Australia. New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia already have mandatory smoke alarm legislation for pre-1997 properties. In 2006, the Australian Building Code was passed federally. That required that all premises built from 1 January 1997 be fitted with hard-wired smoke alarms; that is, they are connected to the 240 V electrical system in the home and must have a back-up battery. Queensland came on board in 2007, New South Wales in 2006, South Australia and Victoria earlier and Western Australian more recently. We seek to bring us in line and, if the government cannot bring this lifesaving legislation into being, then we will at least attempt to do so. Through the debate which will occur in this House, we will try to convince not only the member for Nelson, but the government, to support our legislation.
This legislation is modelled on existing Queensland legislation. You have to say Queensland has the right idea; it sees the value and necessity in providing safety for not only the bulk of its residents but also young people, the elderly, disabled people - be it any sort of a disability; if they are bedridden, partially deaf or whatever - this legislation tries to help all of those people.
Prior to the Australian Building Code coming into being on 1 January 1997, approximately 35% of residences in the Northern Territory had smoke alarms. The recent figures I have been able to get suggest that currently about 73% of residences in the Northern Territory have installed smoke alarms. That includes not only residences built since 1997, but also many residences which are pre-1997. That is a great percentage; however, we should strive for 100% if possible. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory still has the lowest uptake in Australia.
If this legislation is supported by government, we propose an 18-month compliance period for people to install smoke alarms. There would be a requirement that if you sell a house the vendor will have to ensure a smoke alarm is fitted to the property prior to settlement. Once the 18-month compliance period expires, all residential premises will be required to have smoke alarms fitted in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.
The Coroner’s report on 16 December 2008 deals with the tragic loss of a life, and we have not seen any action since. Houses built after 1997 are required to have hard-wired smoke alarms, as required by the Building Code of Australia. The Coroner’s recommendation, and I am going to read it again, is:
The government seems to have sat on its hands in relation to this legislation and we have not seen anything which resembles a bill of any kind. The only other places in Australia not to have this legislation are the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania, although I believe they are looking at similar legislation to what we are presenting today, which will bring us into line with the rest of the country.
Smoke alarms are part of a broader fire plan for every dwelling. The public has been encouraged, through education campaigns and a range of things, to create a plan of their own. There is a great little booklet put out by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Fire Protection Association of Australia; it is a 2006 document. You open this booklet, it has a bit about how fires start and then you get to the contents page. The contents page lists a number of things. The first section deals with smoke alarms. Obviously, the Fire Protection Association of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission agree that smoke alarms are the most important part of your fire plan.
Of course, early warning is an essential part of any plan. If you are going on a driving trip you see your mechanic, get them to check the car, and they tell you the tyres need replacing, may need a new bearing or two. It is that early warning which prevents tragedy and disaster from striking. With cyclones we have early warning systems where we implement a range of public education requirements for people to do this and that. Early warning is seen by most of the population to be an essential part of any plan.
If you go to page 16 of this same document it has a great photograph of a house and a yard and it lists all the things you do to prevent fire. There are seven sections and numerous dot points. When you look at the first part of this document it has a general section even before you get to number one. At the seventh dot point it says:
These people, as you would expect, know a great deal about fires. The Fire Prevention Association of Australia is a peak body which presents its cases to governments and the community and it sees this as an essential part of your fire plan. On page 12 of this document the title is ‘Your Home Escape Plan’. It says:
I will come back to the Coroner’s report in relation to some of these issues. The pertinent part of page 12 is that, in the middle of it, in big red print with a big box around it, it says:
If you are in a caravan, you have about 15 seconds. If a caravan goes up - I have been to a couple of caravan fires - they are absolutely terrible. In the case of a house fire, they are suggesting you have about two minutes to leave, so it is essential that you have early warning. If you are asleep, you need something which is going to wake you. If you are in a part of the house where you are not suffering from a great deal of smoke inhalation while the rest of the house is burning, your only way out may be to go through the fire. So early warning is an essential element of not only saving your life, but possibly saving others.
I am sure people have read in the newspaper about situations where smoke alarms have gone off and dogs have started barking or when people who are hard of hearing have not heard smoke alarms and others have been able to come to their rescue very quickly and advise them to evacuate with great haste.
The Coroner’s report I referred to earlier talks about the tragic situation where the person was unable to reach the keys to unlock a door and get out of the house. The keys were close to where the fire is believed to have started. Had there been a smoke alarm this person may have been alerted earlier and may have been able to reach the keys before the heat and smoke became so intense they could not get anywhere near them. The spare keys which were normally kept in the unit were also in a position where the person did not have sufficient time to reach them before flames and fire overtook the entire lounge area. It is very sad that this person did not have the opportunity to be warned in a timely manner.
So I reiterate, early warning is an essential. Those people who are sleeping, the elderly, the disabled, need all the warning they can get. If you are at home and have a disabled person or an elderly person you need to help, it is going to take more than two minutes to get that person to safety. If a fire has just started or is smouldering it essential that you are able to extinguish it before it destroys property or a life.
There will be those who say this will be an imposition on landlords, property owners and households. The editorial of today’s NT News says:
There may be some in our community who will say that. I say to them when you compare it with pool fencing, you do not drown in a pool while you are sleeping at night. If parents could fit an alarm to children which went off every time they went near a pool or a water hole where they may drown - if that invention was durable I would be interested in having them for my kids and grandkids to alert me they were possibly going to drown. You cannot get something durable like a smoke alarm which is going to work for those times and, as a result, it is probably one of the reasons we have pool fencing. Given smoke alarms save lives, they are probably one of the cheapest prevention and early warning devices a person can buy.
Landlords are required to provide safe environments for their tenants. They are required to provide locks and windows which work so premises can be secured, to ensure the electrical wiring is up to standard, ensure there are no dangers such as cracked floors or things which can injure people, debilitate them, or even worse, cause death. They are required to provide those things under community occupational health and safety standards. In this instance we would require owners of premises to install smoke alarms and there are a number of triggers which would require other people to install smoke alarms.
There are three basic types of smoke alarms. I did some phoning around yesterday to get some prices. There is a basic smoke alarm which has a 9 volt renewable battery which has to be changed every 12 months. The second type of smoke alarm has a 10-year life lithium battery unit. It is sealed and you cannot replace the batteries; the whole unit has to be replaced. The third type is a hard-wired 240 volt unit with a backup 9 volt battery. It has to be installed and hard-wired by an electrician, so there is the cost of an electrician to install it.
To meet the requirements of this legislation you only have to install one smoke alarm. The fire officers and the people from the Fire Protection Association recommend you install two alarms. If you have a two-storey house, a split-level home or an elevated home with something downstairs you may want to install three: one in the bedroom area, one near the kitchen area and one downstairs if you live in an elevated or split-level home. The basic thing you need is a single smoke alarm.
People say this is a terrible cost imposition. The average pool fence costs in the thousands. A basic model smoke alarm, with a 9 V battery which has to be changed every 12 months, can cost as little as $8.70. They range from $8.70 to $27.40. They all meet Australian standards and they all work. They have testing facilities so they comply with everything in this booklet which is published by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Fire Protection Association of Australia. You can buy triple packs of the battery-operated smoke alarms - with a 9 V battery which has to be replaced every 12 months - for as little as $39.50. Fire officers recommend the 10-year life lithium battery model which does not need to be hard-wired. You can just put these things on. I am sure there a number of ways to fit them, one may be double-sided tape. The average person can buy one of these and install it for as little as $8.70.
During our proposed 18-month compliance period, vendors of pre-1997 houses will be required to fit smoke alarms prior to final settlement and landlords commencing or renewing a tenancy agreement will be required to fit smoke alarms prior to granting occupancy. Once the 18-month compliance period is over, all residential premises in the Northern Territory are to have smoke alarms fitted in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.
During or after the compliance period, landlords are to test smoke alarms and install fresh batteries prior to a new tenant taking occupancy. Once occupancy has commenced, it will be the tenant’s responsibility to ensure smoke alarms remain operational. If they are not operational due to more than just flat batteries, it will be the landlord’s responsibility to repair or replace the unit.
The cost of providing smoke alarms pales into insignificance when you consider the benefits to the community. We already have a 73% take-up rate of smoke alarms in homes. It is sad, though, that the others have not. As a community we owe it to those who are not in a position to have a say, such as children and the elderly. When elderly people cannot care for themselves and we put them into facilities we still have to look after them and ensure their safety. As a community, we should ensure these places have smoke alarms and fire systems. We see the value there. We owe it to the rest of our citizens in the Northern Territory to ensure they enjoy that same level of protection.
This legislation for the requirement to install smoke alarms needs to be introduced in conjunction with a wide-ranging education campaign. Booklets like this, and television and radio advertisements, would be needed so the community can realise the value of early warning and seek these devices out prior to the end of the 18 months. Some people have asked me – and it is in the paper today - I quote from today’s editorial in the NT News:
There are legal requirements to do many things in our everyday lives but we do not see the police checking on us all the time. The police do not follow you down the road to make sure you do not speed. There is a time when it comes to the attention of people like police or fire officers that there may not be compliance with legislation in relation to smoke alarms. It is at that time when you would look at it. I do not expect that the police, fire inspectors or government inspectors are going to run around to everyone’s homes making sure there is a fire alarm fitted, or going around testing them. So, to those who might say: ‘That is terrible, who is going to do that?’ I say there is a requirement for all of us as part of a community to do certain things to keep us and others safe. It is in that vein that we expect the community to comply with the requirement to install lifesaving devices.
I acknowledge the Fire and Rescue Service. It does a great job. Firies have to deal with loss of property and see families devastated by the loss of their cherished possessions. Even worse, it is the firies, ambulance officers and police officers who have to go to fires and see unnecessary deaths which occur due to something as simple as a smoke alarm not being fitted to a residential premise. Having been to a number of fires in my life as a police officer, I have to relive that emotion each time I talk about it. I have to live it right now - some of the images I have in my head of charred bodies, so tragic, and then you have to deal with the loved ones. Anyone who does not get a tear in their eye when they are trying to deal with that sort of stuff probably comes from another planet because it is devastating, not only for the families, but for those people - although nowhere near as great - from the services which have to attend to these things.
Any time that we as a community can help our emergency workers, across all those services - be it at the hospital, accident and emergency, surgeons, people who have to put these people back together again, or the people who have to do post mortems on the unfortunate souls who lost their lives. It is absolutely terrible, and if it is preventable, then it is distressing not only for those people but for the rest of the community. I applaud the people from the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service who put together a lovely fact sheet which is quite simple. It does not read like a book; it is succinct, to the point, it explains what people’s options are and gives some great advice.
There are some great things in here. It is very similar to the booklet by the Fire Protection Association of Australia. These people are trying to give people information which is going to save their lives. It talks about installing smoke alarms. The first heading is ‘Fire Escape Plan’. It says:
So the first line in this document which is produced by people who have to deal with fires and inform the community contains the words ‘smoke alarm’. It is about alerting people and what you do next.
If you do not have a smoke alarm and you are asleep and you do not know your house is on fire, there is a good chance you will die in your sleep through asphyxiation. The sad thing is that I lost a good friend of mine when we were teenagers. This incident triggered a change in legislation in Western Australia. He was living in a unit and he came home one night; he would have had a couple of drinks, and he turned the shower on and was waiting for the hot water to come through. He lay down and the gas heater was on. It went up and consumed all the oxygen in the unit. My friend was asleep with no fire alarm and he died of asphyxiation. It was really sad. We had to go to the funeral of a very good friend.
Years later I find myself thinking about that when doing research to put this bill forward. The same thing happens again and again and you only need to search on the Internet to find tragic stories of deaths which could have been averted if a smoke alarm had been installed at a minimum cost of $8.70.
The Fire Safety at Home booklet is great. I recommend people read it. Fire investigators have said in the newspaper and other media releases that deaths could have been averted if smoke alarms had been fitted to residential properties. There was a recent death which could have been averted by a smoke alarm. I am saddened, and the whole community is saddened, when we lose anyone, but those who need our help more, as a community and as legislators, are the young, the old and those with disabilities. It is beholden on all of us - especially those of us in this House where we are able to consider lifesaving devices, especially when they are so cheap. I do not see how we cannot require people in our community to install lifesaving devices.
I will quote from the last paragraph on page 5 of the Coroner’s report:
That is a fairly clear observation made by the Coroner and I will repeat the recommendation which goes with that paragraph:
That was in December 2008 but we still have not seen any movement in an effort to bring legislation before this House. That is the main reason I am introducing it from this side of the House. The legislation is about protecting all Territorians, especially those who do not appear to have a voice. I ask that government and Independents support this bill in an attempt to prevent any further tragedies from occurring.
In 2005, the government identified the necessity of installing lifesaving smoke alarms. This was demonstrated by Territory Housing installing smoke alarms with fixed 10-year batteries in all its rental properties. Having clearly exercised the duty of care to its tenants, and understanding and identifying the necessity for these lifesaving devices for its tenants, I will be very surprised if the government does not support this bill as it has already identified the necessity. It has installed alarms in all of its properties and as such I ask the government and the Independent member for Nelson to support this lifesaving legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
SIHIP – Request for Northern Territory Government to Present Details
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory Labor government:
This is a large and complex area. It is common knowledge that SIHIP is a debacle and a failure. I know and respect the minister for Affordable Housing. I believe he is genuine in wanting to see things improved. He has been handed a basket case by the member for Daly, the previous minister for Housing, who set the model up incorrectly in the first place. I recognise it is difficult to manage these programs; however, I am surprised things could go so horribly wrong. This was, after all, money for an emergency to protect children after the handing down of the Little Children are Sacred report.
This motion presented today is not necessarily to debate every nook and cranny of SIHIP. In a nutshell, it is a call for the minister to be open and honest and remove the culture of cover-up the Labor government of the Northern Territory so wilfully holds and present a model of transparency, not just to the Country Liberal or Independent members on this side of the Chamber, but to all Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, so we can have an understanding of the program, what it looks like, how much is being spent, how much is being committed and what the end goal is.
Recently I was afforded a briefing by the minister, his CEO and another staff member. Generally, every time I have requested a briefing the minister has made one available to me. The staff have attempted to respond to my questions, although I understand not everything can be answered all the time. I had a briefing recently on outstations and one on SIHIP a few days later.
The briefing on the outstations was brought about for a number of reasons. The minister will be across this because an incident occurred in the electorate of Macdonnell at John Holland Bore where the house of a resident of an outstation burnt down. I wrote to the minister and asked him what the process was for a house which burns down at an outstation. The response I received in the letter and through the briefing about how these things work was that outstation houses are not insured. People do not pay rent on outstation houses; they pay a service fee because they are not within the Territory Housing management framework. If people pay rent you need to have secure land tenure. I recognise these are complex issues, but the point we got to at the end was that you pay a service fee to the shire, there is no asset management program, no capital program, such as doing your bathroom every nine years and your painting every eight years and the things you could put in a cyclical asset management program in the housing framework. There is no insurance. Normally, with a public housing model, governments around Australia, and in different jurisdictions, self-insure, but there is no self-insurance of the public housing.
So, for this family who live on an outstation, is now without a house; it just disappeared; there is nothing. This house, funded by ATSIC or any of the other funding providers in the past through the many years of CLP governments where we built houses, member for Johnston, has now disappeared and that family does not have a house.
That was one of the reasons why I sought the briefing on outstations. I was interested to hear from the CEO - who was open and honest - and his staff that there are around 2500 homeland houses in the Northern Territory. There are around 150 - the government thinks – which are vacant. There are around 300 of them that do not fit within the management system of the shires managing those houses. In the transition to this debacle of a model which is known as the shire, not all the houses were handed over to the shire. There are about 300 houses left in limbo and not handed to anyone.
My questions during the briefing were: who manages those? Who tries to do any sort of repair and maintenance at all? The response was: ‘No one, we have given up those houses’. So no one is looking after those houses at all. That is a very sad situation, not just because Australian taxpayers have paid a stack of money to build 300 houses on homelands or outstations, but because there are people in those houses who need to be assisted in the upkeep and the amenity of those properties. People need to be assisted and educated in paying rent and maintenance of properties. As Territorians, we need to ensure, if taxpayers’ dollars have gone into housing, the housing stock is appropriately managed so it represents the housing need.
What will happen, and what is happening now, is that 300 stock, not to mention the other 2200 stock, is deteriorating because people are not looking after it. There is no one making sure the power points are working, or the tiles are not broken through the recent storms we have had throughout the Territory. That is not happening, so those 300 houses are disappearing. They may disappear in three months, or it may be immediate like the house that burnt down at John Holland Bore. It may be in three months time through a debilitating breakdown, or three years, but those 300 houses are disappearing.
We take into the context of those 300 outstation houses which are disappearing, comments which were put on the record by Andrew Kirkman, who is a government official, along with the minister and the CEO throughout the estimates process. When pressed - and I am not reading from Hansard so this is not verbatim - during estimates on how many houses will have to be demolished because they are beyond economical repair, the minister and his departmental staff, in particular, Mr Kirkman, said there would be well over 200 houses. My question was: ‘What is the number of houses which will be demolished in communities which are getting new houses?’ He said: ‘Well over 200’. I asked if he could be more specific. I was expecting him to say 210, 220, or something similar. He said: ‘There are 170 now but we expect that number to increase quite a lot’. I thought, gee, 170 houses are going to be knocked down. Then I asked how many houses would be knocked down in communities which were not getting new houses. He said: ‘Oh, 180 at this point in time’. So all of a sudden we have 170, plus 180, plus the 300 outstation houses.
I have done some calculations, based on Mr Kirkman’s original estimate that there would be well over 200. I have taken 200 for granted. Say they are three-bedroom houses - I know there are a number of four- and five-bedroom houses; in Ngukurr, for example, there is a five-bedroom house which is going to be demolished. If we said they are all three-bedroom houses, that means 600 bedrooms will be knocked down in the communities which will receive new SIHIP houses, and in the non-newly-constructed housing communities, 170 houses are going to be knocked down which equates to 510 bedrooms.
So 1110 bedrooms will disappear because the houses are being knocked down or are beyond economical repair or, more importantly, as described by the staff through the department of Housing in estimates, houses which the alliance deems will be unable to be appropriately managed after a period of two years; not that they are debilitated now, in two years they will be hard to manage. Then you add on the 300 outstation houses, three bedrooms, which is 900 beds in total. All of a sudden - and for those who read Hansard, you will work this calculation out - we have 600 bedrooms plus 510 bedrooms plus 900 bedrooms giving a total of 2010 bedrooms which will disappear from Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
Then you have a look at the SIHIP program and what it will deliver. It was supposed to be about emergency housing, but the government saw it as some sort of cash cow and pork barrel where it could try to fix up some of its failures in housing management and maintenance over the last few years. There will be 750 houses built. Fifty per cent of those will have three bedrooms. Fifty per cent of the houses equals 375 houses, times three bedrooms equals 1125 bedrooms. Forty per cent of the 750 houses will be two-bedroom houses, or duplexes, lean-tos and so forth, that equals 600 bedrooms, and 10% of the 750 houses will be one-bedroom houses, or one-bedroom bedsitters or apartments, which equals 75 bedrooms. So, in total there will be 1800 new bedrooms as part of the SIHIP program.
That sounds a bit wrong. On that assessment there will be 210 fewer bedrooms than what will be knocked down. Two-thousand-and-ten bedrooms will disappear and only 1800 will come back as part of the SIHIP program. That is a real mathematical argument. That is 2010 bedrooms versus 1800 bedrooms. That is a real problem, and that is why it is important for this motion to move forward.
If we look at the financial report of SIHIP as at 13 April 2010 - I believe this is the report which was handed down to the Council for Territory Cooperation at the time. I do not have any new figures because the government has this culture of cover-up and has not been transparent. That is why I have asked for the figures as part of this motion. It is interesting when you go through the report and do some calculations. I did not realise the numbers I had until yesterday when I played with the figures a bit. For example, it talks about Package 4 – I know this is old now because this is a Groote Eylandt package. To date, $19.3m has been spent and the only work completed is 19 refurbishments as at 13 April 2010. I know there are start-up costs but that equates to $1m per refurbishment. There are reasons why we ask for the figures and ask for transparency.
In Package 6, at Palumpa, Peppimenarti and Wadeye - I know things have progressed since then and houses have been completed - they have spent $17.8m on six refurbishments and three houses. Six refurbishments and three houses and they have spent nearly $20m.
For Package 3a, which includes Ali Curung, Tara, Ti Tree Station, Six Mile and Willowra, 50 refurbishments were completed and handed over for $14m. The refurbishments are supposed to cost $75 000 each. We know they cost about $10 000 to $15 000 but the charges go up to $75 000 as an average to cover the other costs the government has wasted money on. Fifty refurbishments for $14m equates to $282 000 each. I have been in all of these houses and that is not value for money.
Package 7 includes Gunbalanya, Acacia Larrakia and Belyuen with 14 refurbishments done at Gunbalanya and three at Belyuen. On a total of 17 refurbishments they spent $7.2m which is an average of $423 000 per refurbishment. People ask: ‘Why do you keep questioning this?’ These are serious questions.
If you want to look further, in Package 5, which is Maningrida and Minjilang, there were two houses refurbished for a total of $10m. You have to ask questions when you see those figures. You are not spending $75 000 on a house. We have those figures now. We know how much you actually spend. We have the invoices and all the scoping documents. We have all the consultants’ costs and the names of the workers and the consultants and the hotels in Darwin where they stay. We have all those things now and we will slowly release them. It is important for government to be open, honest and transparent in this process. It beggars belief how you can have a $60m package at Wadeye and spend $20m on consultants. I would like to know how that can be done. I would like to know how you can have so many interstate consultants on a fly in/fly out basis.
Yesterday we debated a statement on jobs. I think it was the member for Sanderson who said we are the only fly in/fly out capital city in the Territory. The consultants who fly in/fly out as part of SIHIP are on $450 000 packages. The amount of money which is being spent is ridiculous. We have proof of that. I will not be tabling the proof tonight but we do have proof of this stuff. What is happening is crazy and I want the minister to be fair dinkum with Territorians and with this parliament and tell us exactly where the money is going. Tell us what is going to change because at the moment I can see a program which was going to cost $672m now costing $1.2bn with another $400m supposedly going towards tenancy and property maintenance. That is $1.6bn to build 750 houses and 50% of them have fewer than two bedrooms, including the 10% which have one bedroom. We will have fewer bedrooms than before we started the program.
This is the worst program. There are all these jokes about what is the worst thing around. This is the worst program. This is far worse than the pink batt scheme, albeit the unfortunate loss of the lives of four people in the pink batt scheme. This is the worst administrative bureaucratic scheme which anyone has heard of. You are lucky it is only operating in this outback outstation called the Northern Territory because if this was in Sydney or Melbourne this would be everywhere and people would be horrified. Now we are getting to the point where the racial undertones are coming into this program which is unfortunate because people are now saying: ‘Why are they building those black people houses?’ That is where we are getting to now. I have tried to keep that debate aside but that is exactly where we are going because people are seeing the failures in this program.
You have had opportunity after opportunity and review after review to come clean on things and then we see photos like this of a lovely bloke in the Hidden Valley Town Camp on the front page of The Australian on Monday, 11 October. Johnny Possum Brown, brother to Clifford, is living in a tin shed in the middle of Alice Springs. I am not blaming you for this, minister. However, you see consultants flying in from interstate on their regular trips; they get their cars, they stay at the Mantra, they have big salaries, all the TA and the meal allowances. Johnny Possum Brown gets water from a tap, he has a bath full of water and those are his essential services; that is all he has. I understand there needs to be reform across a range of areas but there is no way this gentleman should be living like that. It is sad, and his story is replicated across the Territory.
If you go to the caravan park at Ti Tree, which I think is in the member for Stuart’s electorate, it is the same situation for those people. I know there are fundamental social problems which people experience; however, they should not be living like that when we have all of these people increasing their frequent flyer points from Perth, Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne all the time. That is why it is important.
The Auditor-General’s report has a table which describes how much money has been spent to date. Page 17 of the Auditor-General’s report says that of the 750 new houses to be built, 623 have been allocated and of the 2500 refurbishments, nearly 2000 have been allocated. Those allocations are in the Tiwi Islands, Groote, Maningrida, Wadeye, Gunbalanya, Galiwinku and Alice Springs. They are supposed to be building houses in other communities including Gapuwiyak, Milingimbi, Yirrkala, Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Lajamanu and Borroloola. There are only 127 houses left to be allocated. Where are they going? We have already heard that in Ngukurr they are building 50 houses which means there are only 77 houses left to build in all of those communities. The numbers do not add up.
Member for Stuart, you will be interested in this. In my briefing, I asked: ‘How are you going with the leasing?’ ‘This is where we are at with this one, and Lajamanu is in principle, Hermannsburg is in principle. Yirrkala and Yuendumu is a bit of a way out because it has been held up by the land council’. I do not hate the land councils but I believe we need a different model of regional land councils for a competitive basis for economic reform. I said: ‘Right, they are being held up by a land council?’ ‘Yes, they are being held up by a land council’. The comment added was: ‘We do not need Yuendumu or Yirrkala to sign up at this point in time, because if they sign up they will be on false promises because we cannot build their houses. ‘What?’ That was my response. ‘We have a backlog; we have a problem with the money coming in. We cannot build their houses’. What is going to happen there?
I feel sorry for the minister, the member for Johnston. He has to deal with this. I am sorrier that his advisor came along to the recent briefing because things were going well until he stepped in. Things were calm, and then Brenton had to open his mouth and get political and fire things up. When you have people who are unhappy in politics get a good advisor from the government to fire things up and really bring some solidarity - Brenton has fired me to get back onto the SIHIP debate and drive home those reforms for Indigenous Territorians who need housing. I find it hard when people have an attitude and are a bit smart in that environment. Brenton really did it. He can galvanise people to be focused on the target - which is attacking government over SIHIP. Well done; thank Brenton for me, minister.
I have raised several concerns and it is important that this motion goes through because it is not just about me or us. It is about how we are going to get housing solutions for Indigenous Territorians. Yes, I want land tenure reform; yes, I want private sector housing on Indigenous communities. Private sector housing on Indigenous land in Indigenous communities is the only way to solve the housing problem in Indigenous communities. It is the only way to get off the welfare drain of Indigenous housing and come forward with a new model. Yes, we need a suite of services - public, private community, rental, home ownership. We need all of these things and SIHIP is only one element. Unless we have transparency, we will continue to be worse than the pink batts program - far worse than the pink batts program from an administrative perspective. There will be a reduction in housing in Indigenous communities as a result of this program because it did not focus on emergency; it focused on trying to fix a few places - pork-barrelling some consultants and paying too much for bureaucracy and administration. Now, we are getting a nett decrease in housing in Indigenous communities.
There would have been a far better way to have done this. Give the money to local communities; they would have achieved better economies of scale and better bang for your buck. There would have been more housing than we are getting now. Instead, this government has brought in a shire model which takes away any representation from local people, any opportunity for local communities to build or replace their own houses and create their own workforce. Now we are in this position where $1.8bn in national partnership agreements will dwindle away, no one will have a job, and there will be fewer houses than before we started. That is a sad indictment on a poor-performing Labor government.
I encourage the minister, the member for Johnston, who I believe in his ageing political life is growing a heart. He has been very helpful to me in a number of areas. I was just commenting to the member for Daly about how you have helped me in a number of areas. That is in all sincerity. I encourage the minister, the member for Johnston, to consider being open and transparent on SIHIP. I have not stood here and attacked you or your program; I have raised problems which are in the program. Yes, that is correct; I have raised problems. There will be fewer houses at the end of SIHIP than before the start of SIHIP. $1.8bn in national partnership agreement money will be spent. There may be a few improvements here or there around the edges, but the number of bedrooms will decrease. Still, to date, there is no plan for Johnny Possum, who was on the front page of The Australian, to get any accommodation.
A member: Shameful!
Mr GILES: I know. The only option is to get a tent or a swag in the new tent city, in the new town camp which is being built. The new town camp may be able to house Johnny Possum but, apart from that – and I use this as an example because I speak to him fairly often, as I do with many people - there is no solution and it is tremendously sad. Kevin Rudd can say sorry, the whole nation can weep, we can try to bring out some constitutional reform but, at the end of the day, Johnny Possum Brown still sleeps under a dirty blanket, under a sheet of tin, with a leaking tap into an old bath as his only essential service. That is what motivates me, far more than a negative advisor in a briefing, although that does help as well.
Minister, I look forward to your contribution. I hope you take my comments with some tongue in cheek, but with the wish to know what is going on. I will be happy to go back into my shell and help you guide this program along, unless Brenton comes back out. I am very keen to see what your plans are. While I welcome the opportunity to jump in front of the media and tell everyone about how bad you are at managing things, it would be far better to get houses for Indigenous Territorians than get me in the media.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I reply to this very detailed motion. The member for Braitling is asking for very detailed information about SIHIP. He has alluded that he may even have some information up his sleeve which he may lay on the Table at a later time. I look forward to that information, member for Braitling. However, I remind this parliament that there is a committee called the CTC in which members can ask all sorts of questions directly of public servants …
Mr Elferink: Of ministers? No. Human shields can come in but not the ministers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Come on, you have had your go. Brenton does not attend those meetings, so there are just the public servants and you can ask them the questions. The opposition decided it did not want to be part of the CTC. This was part of its political agenda. It was getting unparalleled access to public servants and information. It was going on site with the CTC. Some of the members even tried their hand at construction, I am told. The member for Port Darwin got a spirit level out at an Angurugu, and he was promptly told by the contractor: ‘Mate, you are holding it the wrong way’. The member for Port Darwin was seeing that everything was on the square and level.
You have complex questions; that is fair enough. Avail yourselves of the CTC. I will try to turn to the things which have been raised by the member for Braitling. He talked about SIHIP, the national partnership agreement, as being money for an emergency. I say this to the member for Braitling: First, these arrears in housing have been building up over decades through successive governments, whether they were Coalition or Labor governments. SIHIP has always been a five-year program; it has been a five-year program from the first tranche of $672m, and its targets for that $672m have always been five-year targets.
He talked about transparency. That is an important element and SIHIP has probably been one of the most reviewed projects. There have been at least two reviews, there has been a Northern Territory Auditor-General’s review and, as I understand it, there is currently a Commonwealth auditor investigation into SIHIP. This is already a heavily audited and reviewed program. It is important that we have transparency in this program. We also have to remember that the Northern Territory Auditor-General said in his review that there are benefits and disadvantages with the alliance method of contracting. One of the advantages, as I will come to a little later, is flexibility.
One of the other disadvantages, and I believe the Council for Territory Cooperation has also alluded to this, is that it is sometimes hard to determine exact costs for a dwelling. I know the department has undertaken, with the CTC, to provide costs for each package within SIHIP. That is appropriate, because that gives a broader view of all the costs - what you might call the sunken costs for work crews establishing themselves at a location, particularly the larger locations and all the costs attributed to SIHIP.
The targets for SIHIP in terms of the $672m have always been clear: 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds, although the total for rebuilds will vary a bit as some of the refurbishments turn into rebuilds. That is reasonable; as the cladding comes off some of those buildings and reveals the steel frames there is no doubt some of those houses will have to be rebuilt.
From the beginning of this program the member for Braitling has been dancing around saying: ‘Oh, you have built one house, and one house has cost $672m, and now you have built three houses and each one of those houses is $200m and you have only done so many refurbishments, and this is what it has cost’. So I have become a bit wary of some of the assertions made by the member for Braitling. I have become very cynical and sceptical of his assertions about SIHIP. I will give a major example of this. I am getting older. I was a year older on 12 August, member for Braitling. It was my birthday but I was in parliament listening to you. You talked about the overall program. You quoted the Housing minister, saying:
You said it: ‘over the next five years’:
You said:
You went on to say:
You were asserting that somehow $230m had been ripped out of the SIHIP program. I say to you, member for Braitling, as I said on the record around that time, either you did not read the memorandum of understanding or you did not care to see what it said where it talked about existing commitments of that overall agreement. Under (2) it says:
So, there you go. I can talk to you about where the $30m or $40m is, but you are racing around saying $200m is missing. You were wrong then and you are wrong about most of what you talked about tonight.
I will start to demonstrate that. One of the points you have been running around with in the last week or so is in relation to evidence which was given to the Estimates Committee this year by the Housing department and Mr Kirkman in particular. You went to the ABC, got the journalists and provided evidence – evidence, you said - that there were to be 180 houses demolished throughout the Territory, plus a further 170 houses, plus the 300 you were talking about tonight. You are wrong. You added all these figures up to say: ‘That adds up to about 750 new houses, so we are not going to have any nett gain from SIHIP’. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Let me go back to what Mr Kirkman actually said in the Estimates process. You said:
This is in regard to the number of houses which needed to be demolished in the communities which were receiving SIHIP. Mr Kirkman said:
You replied:
Then Mr Kirkman said:
You said:
Mr Kirkman said:
That 170 figure is the number of houses which are beyond repair. It did not mean they are going to be demolished. You made the assumption, whether wilfully or mischievously, that those 170 were going to be demolished. Those 170 will continue to be used. They will have some maintenance. We will maintain those houses and they will continue to have tenants in them.
In relation to the 300 you mentioned in a briefing with the department, you asked a question about outstation houses and you were told there is - and I have asked the CEO about this – he told me what was meant was that there were 300 out of the 3500 houses in outstations. That was the figure you used tonight and it is approximately right. There are approximately 300 houses which from time to time during the year are completely unoccupied. Those of us who have spent time in the bush will know of the mobility of Aboriginal people, particularly those in remote areas who may go to major centres during the Wet Season, otherwise they are cut off in their outstation and cannot do a range of things such as access services or shop. They go into town and those houses are vacant.
I agree that there is a problem with houses for outstations. That is why this government, with the Commonwealth, is reviewing outstation housing infrastructure, what is required to maintain that infrastructure, the value of the infrastructure and the supporting infrastructure around it as well as its utility. Over the past 40 years or so since we have had the returning to country movement, which was supported by Labor and Coalition governments, there has not been a wise investment of money - as you said, by the Australian taxpayer - in the buildings at outstations.
I do not want anyone to misunderstand me and think I am not a supporter of the outstation movement. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen houses built which are hardly utilised for a variety of reasons. That money, paid by the Australian taxpayer, could have been better utilised. That is why SIHIP concentrates on the main communities because we know when people come in from the outstations, particularly in the Wet Season and to access services, the pressure comes on the main towns. That is why we have targeted the main towns with a major build of 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds.
In relation to there being no nett gain of houses, the advice I have from the department is that figure of 180 has been revised down to approximately 150. If you take 150 away from 750 you get 600 new houses. You also alluded to the extra approximately $400m invested jointly by the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government which was announced within the last few weeks. There is $316m from the Commonwealth government, $190m of that is for infrastructure to support houses and construction in those communities, and $120m for more housing. I will come back to that $120m.
The Northern Territory government has brought forward $140m for infrastructure to support, along with the Commonwealth money, the building of those houses. The $120m I spoke of is for 180 new houses plus 180 rebuilds. I mentioned 150 bringing 750 back to 600, so add another 180 onto that. We are getting new houses. We are getting new bedrooms. The program is rolling out and I can inform this House that we are very confident of meeting the target of 150 new houses by the end of this calendar year. I am informed there is a very strong likelihood that we will exceed the 150 target. I commend the alliances for that. I am advised that we are likely to reach our target of 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments, all being well and weather allowing. We will certainly, I am advised, exceed 900 rebuilds and refurbishments.
We are moving forward with what we are delivering through SIHIP. The latest update is that 232 new houses are complete or under way with 93 complete and 130 under way, and 891 rebuild and refurbs are complete or under way with 786 complete and 105 under way. We have about six weeks until the end of the year. As you can see from the number of refurbishments and rebuilds, we will be striving to reach our 1000 figure. I hope we come close. It was a very ambitious target we set earlier this year which I have stuck to, through thick and thin, and it appears we will meet those targets.
I am very pleased with the way in which the Commonwealth is bringing forward some of the spend of the national partnership agreement. As everyone is aware, the first tranche is $672m over five years. Overall, it is $1.7bn. Some of that second tranche has been brought forward, as I alluded to previously. This is all about supporting infrastructure, and building and rebuilding houses. This means many more Indigenous people in remote areas of the Northern Territory will get into a house sooner - either a new house or a rebuild house. Many more Indigenous people in the remote parts of the Northern Territory will have refurbishments of their kitchens, bathrooms, toilets, plumbing, and the electrical works of their houses.
We were criticised about the standard of the refurbishments and why we did not paint the houses. As I said to Julia Christensen on her show, of the approximately 80 refurbishments at Maningrida we had a choice of refurbishing those 80 houses or rebuilding those houses and only giving a benefit to approximately half of those families. It is a very difficult proposition. I suppose politically it is a difficult one to communicate to the public and the media. However, that was the rationale behind it. We could have rebuilt all of those houses to the rebuild standard of $200 000, but we have not. We have gone for that average of $75 000. It is actually two-and-a-half houses; probably less rebuilds when you divide it by that factor.
Member for Braitling, I take what you say but, regarding your motion and the expenses and commitments, no doubt you have further information which I am sure you will be bringing forward in Question Time over the next few weeks. I have to say to you - and I will be up-front; it is not Question Time, we do not have the media up here now - I am very sceptical of any claims you bring forward based on what you did with the $230m and that you could not read the national partnership agreement to see there were existing commitments. You spun that up. You are completely wrong in your calculations of the 180, 170 and 300. You can come at me in Question Time. I will listen carefully to what you have to say and what information you put on the Table, but I have a real problem with the way you interpret information and your inability to read national partnership agreements and understand what is being said to you in estimates and in briefings. I wonder whether you are wilful, sometimes.
You have had a go at poor old Brenton. Brenton tells me you were starting to get on political territory and asking public servants political questions. Quite rightly, Brenton was saying: ‘Hold on a minute here, member for Braitling, you are getting into that political arena with public servants’. Having been a senior public servant yourself, member for Braitling, I believe you know where that borderline is. I commend Brenton for protecting our public servants from being verballed and being put on the political spot.
I say again, member for Braitling, you need to get back onto the Council of Territory Cooperation. The member for Fong Lim should get on there. He is out there by himself, the loneliest backbencher in the nation and probably one of the most experienced backbenchers in the nation. His talents are not being utilised properly by the opposition, so maybe the CTC is the place. He knows how to ask questions, he has been around enough and been on enough committees to know how to ask a pretty good question of a public servant. I encourage the member for Fong Lim to become engaged with the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I have tried to explain where the member for Braitling has gone wrong in some of his assertions. The first point of his motion is that the government presents all expenses and commitments to date for SIHIP. I have said it is heavily audited and we have given an undertaking that when each package is complete all the costs will be published. I have alluded to our Auditor-General’s report and the investigation or audit which is being carried out by the Commonwealth Auditor-General.
The second point of his motion is that the government:
I reckon you need to get a clipboard and get out to those communities and try to ascertain some of that information. If you were to go to those communities as I have - all over the Territory I am seeing new suburbs. There is a new suburb at Wadeye. There is a new suburb at Maningrida which I went to with my very old friend, Mr Reggie Wurridjal, one of the traditional landowners of Maningrida. Reggie has been a friend of mine for 30 years. I do not think Reggie is a very political sort of bloke; he is Reggie, he is a traditional owner. But the happiness about those houses - I suppose the major problem for that community is the allocation of the houses. We are trying to work through the allocation of houses with every community based on need and the housing reference group within each community.
I went to Gunbalanya and inspected some of those houses. I know you drove past when the houses were being cleaned and completed prior to allocation as transitional housing. I think you said they were all vacant and nothing was going on there. I have to say, member for Braitling, you have impeccable timing. There is a great deal going on at Gunbalanya. I have inspected housing at Angurugu and other locations. It is like Lucky Starr, I’ve been everywhere, man. I have alluded to the town camps in Alice Springs. There is plenty of good work going on there. I urge you to try to see the positive of this program instead of confecting, confabulating and fabricating your wild arguments. I already alluded to one you brought forward on my birthday. I think you will keep bringing them on, and I will keep having an explanation for them. Keep trying, member for Braitling.
I am not saying it is a perfect program. I am not saying it got off to a very good start, it did not. The start could have been much better, but as minister, I am endeavouring to work with the Commonwealth. We are seeing results with this program, and I agree, and have said publicly, that SIHIP, particularly in the delivery of the refurbishments, needs to take a further step with local organisations with the capacity to undertake those refurbishments, whether as a sub-alliance model as they have on Groote Eylandt, or through a classical tender process. That is something we are in discussion with the Commonwealth about.
There are further steps we can take with the refurbishments; I acknowledge that. I want to work with the Commonwealth and with Indigenous organisations which are gaining capacity through the SIHIP program in the delivery of housing. I want to see that capacity sustained through repairs and maintenance. I want to see it sustained not only through the present government in Canberra but through future governments in the decades to come. We need to sustain our effort in remote Indigenous communities.
There is a large challenge with tenancy and tenancy management in these communities. We are dealing with people who have never had a tenancy before and do not really understand what a tenancy is and what their responsibilities and rights are. We need to impress upon people the importance of looking after their houses. I have said publicly I understand there is wear and tear on houses and we are not going to solve the overcrowding problem overnight. But where there has been wilful damage, my department has been instructed, in collaboration with the police, to pursue those people who have caused the damage. I want to see wilful damage paid for and there are a couple of instances now where people are paying for wilful damage to houses. People need to realise they have an obligation to look after those houses.
SIHIP is very important issue. I have charge of it and I take responsibility for it. I am open to constructive criticism. I am open to working with you but I see you coming from a very political stand point. That is fair enough; we are politicians. You are a politician and you have a job to do but my focus is on delivering those houses, successful completion of the five-year program and extension into the next stage of the national partnership agreement.
I have tried to answer the main points of the member for Braitling’s motions. I am imploring him and the opposition to become involved in the Council for Territory Cooperation once again. That is a great avenue for them to ask questions directly of public servants and the alliance partners. Member for Braitling, be careful of the figures you present because you are starting to get a reputation as someone who cobbles together information from various sources, either without thought or with a great deal of mischievous thought, to try to present something that is not so.
Let us have a debate on the issues; I am prepared for that - well, I think I am prepared. No doubt you have some information to table and we will see what happens in that debate.
Madam Speaker, I cannot support this motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, the minister is getting delirious as he comes to the end of his political career. He must be delirious to come to some assertion that the figures are wrong when I read straight from Hansard. He read from Hansard exactly what I have said and they are exactly the same. I will read them back to him so he can listen to what I said. When he was talking about Mr Kirkman’s comments in estimates, the member for Stuart was saying: ‘Well, it sounds like that is exactly right’. If you have them in front of you it would pay you to read them. I said:
Mr Kirkman said:
That is plain and simple, a couple of hundred houses. We can go through all the fluff there; let us do that so the minister can try to understand it? Mr Kirkman’s next sentence is:
That is in direct contradiction to you saying they were going to stay there and you would try to repair them. I then said:
It is quite plain and simple to add 170 and 180 - and it is going to go up more.
Dr Burns: Read further down where it says:
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: You already said it was only going to last for 24 months. I am not reading anything into it. That is exactly what he said. The delirious nature of this government and its culture of cover-up with SIHIP are unbelievable.
Tell us how much you are spending! Tell us how many houses you are building and how many houses you are knocking down! You are knocking down more houses than you are building. We will have a nett deficit in bedrooms after spending $1.7bn of the national partnership agreement. I have a copy of the MOU, I know what it says. The figures you read were right. The figures I stated were right, because when Mal Brough first announced this emergency program it was $750m, and then it became $672m. Those two figures are right. You know those figures and I know those figures.
If you want to go into a breakdown of what it says here and take credit for the previous Howard government’s housing programs and the work they did - I know you and Jenny Macklin did that at the start of SIHIP when things started going terribly wrong under the former leadership, if you could call it that, of the member for Daly when he was Housing minister - go for it! The fact remains that Mal Brough had $750m emergency money for housing for Indigenous child protection. It became $672 when Kevin 07 took over. It was a five-year program from 2008 to 2012.
Your last update - not tonight’s update of 93 - was 88 houses. Some $500m is being spent on 88 houses. Tell me how much money has been spent to date and how much has been committed? They are two simple questions. You cannot answer the question of how much money has been spent on SIHIP. Just one line, how much has been spent? You will not even answer that question. Take all your fluff and guff away from the CTC - the member for Nelson held that gun to your head to keep you in government - take that away, just tell us how much has been spent. It is a simple question. I could ask it in Question Time in front of the cameras. You would squiggle and squirm, you would move around like a slippery snake trying not to tell us what is going on. This is a culture of cover-up on the SIHIP dollars.
Tell us how much Territory taxpayers’ money you have spent! Tell us how much you have spent on interstate consultants while not housing the neediest! Tell us how much money has been wasted on dilapidated dwellings! Tell us how many houses have been wrecked, minister. End the culture of cover-up! Tell us what it is all about!
Poor Johnny Possum Brown, on the front cover of The Australian, who lives in a tin shed, does not care what you say. He still lives in that tin shed. He still drinks out of an old bath from a running tap. He does not have any power or sewerage; he has to go into the bush. Those consultants who fly in from Perth and stay at the Mantra have lovely little dwellings. They have good lives. They have new cars. Old Johnny walks around – a Warlpiri man – it is a tough life for him, like it is for so many other people in the Territory.
I really thought you had compassion. You know this program is dodgy in its administration. The people at Wadeye will say how good this program is and the people at Maningrida may say how good this program is because they will see houses being built. They do not see that at Wadeye one-third of the money was spent on administration when it could have been spent on houses.
Under this alliance, the SIHIP program will not be for the betterment of reducing administration and bureaucracy in the delivery of housing. SIHIP should have been managed by local communities to get more houses and better bang for its buck on economies of scale. We would have had more than 750 houses. The infrastructure could still have been delivered. It beggars belief that you will not acknowledge that the administrative component of SIHIP has killed it. The administrative component of SIHIP has killed the program so that deliverables will not be there.
You were honest in some of your commentary in what you believe is right. You said we will make the 2500 refurbishments. That is different language to what was in the briefing which said: ‘We may not make the 2500 refurbishments’, or: ‘We do not think we will because we are having to put more money into refurbishments’. I have not said that publicly but that is what was said in the briefing: you are not going to make the 2500 refurbishments because you have to try to save money.
The Council of Territory Cooperation’s report, which you referred to, talks about how you are using money from the shires, from the repairs and maintenance budgets, to do the refurbishments. I have the comments here.
There are some amazing comments in here. I still have a fair bit of work to do to go through it all. It has a good focus on Santa Teresa. It talks about other organisations having to do the work using CDEP labour. They are using Ingkerreke there. They are using shire services’ money to fill the hole SIHIP has left. You have $75 000 per house and you are using the shire money - it says it here somewhere. I know these houses at Santa Teresa. They are lucky if they were painted - barely any of them did. They are lucky if they had any electrical work done. It says here:
You are not even putting in the stainless-steel kitchens in Santa Teresa; they are being paid for by the shire. So, your $75 000 per house cannot even put in a stainless-steel kitchen bench. I cannot believe the member for Nelson’s commentary on this. Has anyone here ever worked in the building industry? It does not cost $75 000 to paint a house, change a few light switches and put in a stainless-steel bench. You know it costs about $10 000 to $20 000 and you are getting charged $75 000. That is exactly what is happening with this. When I produce the figures you will have to explain it.
Why do you not stand here and tell people what is happening with the alliance in Tennant Creek? Are they pulling out at the end of November? Is it true there was a report given to Julalikari which said barely anything done in the houses there met the Building Code of Australia? Did you say Julalikari is now being paid millions more to fix the mistakes of the alliance and bring things up to the Building Code of Australia - things such as not putting the earths into the ground properly so kids can be electrocuted in the houses? Did you talk about how they are not putting overflows in the hot water systems so boiling water is dripping on kids’ heads? These are Building Code of Australia things. You are paying $75 000 to refurbish a house, or $200 000 to rebuild it, and you cannot even get the simple things right. It is all written in the schedule.
You flew your interstate junior consultants in to write the scope of works. You have not done that work. Why did you not tell us that the infrastructure costs at Tennant Creek have blown out so much that you cannot do the houses any more? Not that you have built any houses in Tennant Creek, you have just tried to refurbish a few. I think you may have done half, now you are leaving and you will fund someone else. Why don’t you talk about that sort of stuff? It is all right to stand here high and mighty and be in some delirious state in your retiring political career, but you need to have some fundamental principles about how you are trying to assist people with housing in Indigenous communities. You have not done that.
The position is that SIHIP is overseen by a culture of cover-up and a lack of transparency so no one knows where any of the money is going. No one knows how much anyone is being paid or what the outcomes are going to be. It is terrible that you have not put it upon yourself to come forward and say you will be transparent to Territorians and taxpayers and let us know where our money is going. That is what we want to know.
I know you are not going to support this motion. It does not surprise me, because you are going to continue the cover-up of SIHIP, the worst program in Australia, above and beyond all the solar programs, the pink batts programs, and all the BER mistakes. The only thing to rival it at this point is the NBN and I do not think the NBN can be as bad as SIHIP. We will wait and see what happens.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Yuendumu – Government Actions
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its actions in relation to residents at Yuendumu.
Last night I gave a speech in my adjournment and I explained the situation of the people at Yuendumu who moved to Adelaide and came back. I put on the Parliamentary Record that the level of involvement I had was very minimal. I only called in after the people who had fled Yuendumu in a difficult situation and decided to move to Adelaide needed some assistance. They advised me their local member refused to help and their other local member, who is very happy to extract their Indigenous votes …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not refuse to help. I was out bush in my electorate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, resume your seat!
Mr GILES: They also advised me that their other local member, who is very keen to attract their votes, the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, would not return their calls. So they asked me to help and I had a good, long chat with them.
I made it clear last night that Tracey Brand, an employee of the Northern Territory government - a lovely lady, nothing against Tracey - she was there trying to help these people, as was Samara Hanley, an employee of the federal government. They were there, under direction of their agencies and ministers, trying to assist in the transition of these people to Adelaide - a very smooth transition, arranging blankets so the kids were warm, calling in Centrelink so people could access their payments and use the BasicsCard when in Adelaide.
I did not talk about the issue publicly at the time. I did not think it was necessary or appropriate to be in the public sphere about this issue. I know the media was trying to chase it. I stayed out of it, but it was interesting to see that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Central Australia, the member for Stuart, were very keen to get involved in the media. The Deputy Chief Minister also got quite involved in that process. I said to the media: ‘It is a sensitive issue. Let us keep it out of the media’. I tried to avoid the media, without being disrespectful and not returning their calls. I said I did not think we should talk about it. People would get hurt in the process. I remember saying to the member for Greatorex, one of my colleagues: ‘If these people are forced back, it will get bad, blood will be spilt and it will not be good. It will be a terrible situation’.
I tried to stay out of it, but I continued to hear the derogatory remarks made by the Chief Minister and the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, and the Deputy Chief Minister.
I know we are short on time so I will go to an article by Anna Henderson of ABC News who was hot to trot on this issue, chasing stories about the plight and misery of these poor people who went to Adelaide. On 23 September at 1.38 pm, she filed a story with a quote from the Chief Minister:
Those people chose to go of their on volition. Six cars drove down with their own people in them. These people arranged their own buses, as I said last night. These people did everything themselves and chose to go that way to protect themselves and their families. They chose to seek asylum in South Australia.
The Chief Minister asked what sort of reckless idiot would encourage people to move to a harmful environment. Well, the Chief Minister is a reckless idiot. The Chief Minister has moved people back to Yuendumu and put them in a harmful situation. He had a responsibility to guarantee the safety of these people and he has put them in harm’s way. I know the member for Stuart knows it is a difficult situation. Everyone in this Chamber knows the issue of tribal law is tough. That is why it is important to keep it out of the media and keep it quiet. The Chief Minister’s question about what sort of reckless idiot - he is the reckless idiot who put this into the media in the first place.
His mate in South Australia, the South Australian Premier, the dog whistler, the racist who did not like the idea of Aboriginal people coming across the border, can put up with illegal maritime arrivals - 323 to South Australia in 2009-10. He does not yell and scream about a detention centre coming to the hills of Adelaide.
The Chief Minister wants to talk about reckless idiots who are giving people safety, who are trying to help people and calm a situation down. He wants to explode it into the media. I cannot believe he would do that. Then they brought these people back, put them in a harmful situation and the local member did not talk about it - did not want to get involved with the media. He acts like a gutless coward and goes overseas. If there is a time when anyone needs leadership it is now when these people are going back to Yuendumu …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to moderate his language.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it was intemperate.
It is now 9 pm. Member for Braitling, do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes or do you wish to have your speech adjourned until the next General Business Day?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will leave my comments about the South Australian Premier and the Chief Minister until next sittings.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: That being the case, the Assembly is now adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister for mines and energy, or whatever his title is, is here tonight, because one of the things I have been complaining about relentlessly since this government formed is the cowardice shown by ministers when it comes to taking responsibility for their portfolio areas by fronting the media and talking about it.
Today we had another example of the standard process: if it is not a good news media release, if it does not require a hard hat to be screwed onto your head, then the minister ain’t going to front. What have we today? National press on the disgraceful operation of the Northern Territory government when it comes to the Montara oil spill; and what does the minister do in relation to the press? He issues a statement, and that is it.
Mr Henderson: There was a speech in Question Time for an hour, you goose.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, they have bunkered down into that little bunker and are hiding. Front the cameras …
Mr Henderson: He was on his feet for an hour.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection from the Chief Minister. Front the cameras. Put your minister in front of the cameras so the minister ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are far too many interjections, and the volume is extremely loud.
Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I encourage the Chief Minister to put his minister in front of the cameras and start answering questions. A demonstration of political cowardice by this government yet again ...
A member: The worst government in history.
Mr ELFERINK: The worst government in history has continued to appear before the people of the Northern Territory as a bunch of disinterested, distant ministers who are only interested in the good headline. We saw the minister for Housing on television tonight, with the member for Fannie Bay, with their hard hats on - good news story. Where was the minister for mines and energy? Nowhere to be seen. There was simply a statement. These ministers would rather see this House called Pyongyang than a parliament because of their desire to avoid being responsible to the people of the Northern Territory.
This is about responsible government, yet on every occasion, if they are under any pressure, they head for the hills. This minister has applied that attitude to the way he runs his department.
Mr Knight: How many times has Terry been to the media to deny his involvement in the preselection?
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the member for Daly, the minister for disappearing. The moment some cattle died on a cattle station in the Northern Territory, where did he go? Disappears for 10 days, off to the hills. There is difficulty in Yuendumu. Where does the minister pop up? New Caledonia. Nice work! These guys are absolutely gutless.
Who is this minister Ivanovski who keeps passing comments on the CLP opposition? I do not know a minister Ivanovski. Do you know, Madam Speaker? Apparently, she exists. Every time there is a criticism to be made about a difficult issue, minister Ivanovski gets trotted out, and she is speaking to the people of the Northern Territory as their elected representative. I would be interested to see where this minister sits in this Chamber.
That is the problem we have; and this is the approach used across the Australian Labor Party in this House - used everywhere they can. Even the issue of some televisions disappearing, and we see a public servant trotted out rather than the responsible person in charge actually fronting the media. You guys are cowards when it comes to anything but a good news story. What a disgrace you people are! National press, national media - and where do we see the minister? Nowhere. He says: ‘I come into parliament’. Only because he has to.
Thank God for the Westminster system of responsible government, because I can tell you, if it was not for that demand placed on these people, you would never see them. They would be standing on some balcony as the people of the Northern Territory walked past, waving gently saying: ‘Ja, comrade, this is very good’. That is how they would run this place if they had the opportunity. It is just disgraceful what they do. Guess what? The public servants, yet again, are trotted out - the human shields are there.
They executed Breaker Morant for what you guys do on a daily basis. It is just disgraceful what goes on. The attitude is you go out after these public servants, you chase these public servants down, and you blame the departments. It is the department of Resources on this occasion that is responsible. ‘Nothing to do with me’, says the minister. Each and every time, it is some public servant’s fault. It is someone else’s fault, and it always the fault of a third party. When is this government going to govern for the people of the Northern Territory? It won’t. Why? Because they are the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory. They are a shame.
As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, I wait with anguish and bated breath for the next Northern Territory election so the people of the Northern Territory, like the people of New South Wales are waiting for their next election, to pass judgment on this government.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak this evening on a very sombre note because, earlier today, we all received the tragic news that there was a second explosion in the Pike River mine in New Zealand. It has been a tough day for everyone in New Zealand and, of course, all the families, friends and relatives of those miners. The second explosion lasted 30 seconds and was caused by gas in the remote mine, and has led officials to concede there is no hope of survival for the 29 miners.
Communication was lost with the miners last Friday after a methane explosion ripped through the coal mine near Greymouth on the west coast of the South Island of New Zealand. Amongst the 29 miners were two Australians: Townsville-born Joshua Ufer, 27, and father of two, William Joynson, 49, from Tanawha on the Fraser Coast, north of Brisbane. As reported in the NT News yesterday, one of the miners, Terry Kitchin lived and worked in Humpty Doo for many years before returning to New Zealand with his wife.
To the friends and the families of the miners, I offer both my condolences and the condolences of this parliament.
This has been a very tragic event and a very sad time for everyone in New Zealand. I saw John Key, the Prime Minister, on the news tonight, very distressed and upset as a result of these miners losing their lives, and coming on the back of, I suppose, the hope those families would have had after the rescue in Chile recently, and the Beaconsfield mine disaster in Tasmania a couple of years ago; I think the families held out great hope.
I have a small personal experience here, Madam Speaker, I spent some time underground working in my trade in Rosebery on the west coast of Tasmania, and when these events happen, I put myself in their shoes and cannot begin to imagine how horrific it must be to be trapped underground, pitch black, not knowing whether anyone is going to find you. It must be the most traumatic of traumatic experiences I can begin to imagine. This is very tragic.
To our friends and colleagues across the Tasman in New Zealand, as the Chief Minister, on behalf of the Northern Territory, I express and offer my condolences and the condolences of this parliament.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition stands with the Chief Minister and the government in also expressing its sincere condolences to the families, and to the nation of New Zealand, and all those miners who, around the world, would have been waiting with bated breath. I am pleased the Chief Minister acknowledged the sense of hope that would have been established as a result of recent successes in retrieving trapped miners, which would have buoyed those families, hoping against hope; and for that to be dashed is a crushing blow for those families and for those who go underground, and for those who made every effort to retrieve.
We also add our sincere condolences in support of the condolences placed by the Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to continue where I left off in Question Time, because questions still remain unanswered by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the serious allegations made that he broke the law in breach of the Australian Electoral Act. As I advised members of the House, I have written to the Australian Electoral Commission requesting an investigation into these very serious allegations that continue to be unanswered by the member for Blain.
As a result of a newspaper article today I dare say, I received an e-mail, and I think it is important that I read the contents of that e-mail to this Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote from the e-mail:
Not well worded, but you get the drift.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I confirmed to the person who sent me the e-mail that I received it. I have also decided this is such a serious matter, and it did lead to the resignation of a Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, that this weak and hopeless Leader of the Opposition is hiding from the media. Have you categorically, in public, denied you offered a bribe, that you offered a job to Leo Abbott if he would step down as a candidate in the seat of Lingiari? You certainly have not denied it in this House, and you have had plenty of opportunity to come into this House and make a personal explanation.
We are still waiting to hear from you whether you broke the law and offered a job as a bribe to Leo Abbott not to run in the seat of Lingiari. We are still waiting.
Mr CONLAN: (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish tonight to express some concerns I have about the advice provided to the Northern Territory government regarding the aeromedical tender Like many in the aviation industry and, indeed, the author of the report which government is hanging its advice on, I find that advice questionable at the very least and, essentially, I find it flawed.
Aviation by its very nature is technical, it is specialist, and it is quite easy to accept technical phraseology and jargon as the truth because, unless you have some involvement in the industry, it is almost impossible to dispute. I believe this is where the process has fallen down. I am not an aviation expert; in fact, I wonder how one does become an aviation expert. I think it is essentiality a self-appointment
Mr Chandler: You are a pilot, I hope so.
Mr CONLAN: I am, as the member for Brennan pointed out, a private pilot. I have worked for an aerial agricultural company, albeit mostly ground-handling work, but there was some ferrying flying involved.
My immediate family is involved in aviation. My brother was a Macchi pilot, he was a Skyhawk pilot with the Royal Australian Navy, before flying Mirages with the Air Force, and before going on to accumulate some 2000 hours in FA18 Hornet aircraft. My brother-in-law is chief pilot on 737s for Qantas, and many of the guys I flew with in aero clubs around the country have since gone on to fly for various airlines, Cathay Pacific and Qantas, and the like. I am also a very keen enthusiast, so while I do not call myself an expert, there is some depth to my knowledge of aviation. It is this pathway that has led me to question the so-called expert advice provided to this government, and many other governments around Australia.
Of particular concern is the recommendation of twin engine turbine aircraft over single engine turbine aircraft, and the government savings for single engine only amount to some $88 000 per year. That is an extraordinarily low figure when you are comparing such aircraft, particularly very high performance aircraft such as the PC12 and the King Air. $88 000 is very low, and questionable.
The tender board may choose a twin engine turbine aircraft, indeed, in this case, it may well be the Beechcraft King Air over the single engine Pilatus PC12. But it is my hope this is done on merit and done for the right reasons rather than on what I believe to be skewed advice provided to the government.
Some of the areas which I believe have propped up this very low figure of $88 000 is the insurance loading. It has been put to me that there is insurance loading of 26% for a single engine turbine aircraft over a twin engine turbine. This claim is false. I have made inquiries and there is no loading for single engine turbine aircraft in Australia.
Another claim was the time before overhaul costs; that a King Air operating PT6-42 turbine engines can run those out to 5000 hours time before overhaul, whereas a Pilatus PC12 operating PT6-67B engines has to be overhauled at 3600 hours. If that were the case, it means more overhauls and more costs adding to that extraordinarily low figure, in my opinion, of $88 000. This is not the case. There is an airworthiness directive from CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which says the PT6-67B engine on the PC12 can be run out to 5000 hours. When put to the so-called aviation expert the government is hanging its whole advice on, he conceded that was correct, but then went on to say not a single operator in the country would do it for reasons which I will not repeat here today.
A couple of calls to operators of the PC12 showed yes, they are indeed overhauling those engines at 5000 hours. The simple answer was: ‘Yes, we are. We are allowed to do it under a particular airworthiness directive and why wouldn’t we?’ Why would they not, indeed?
Another claim was the direct route planning with a single engine aircraft over a twin engine aircraft. The author claims to maintain direct route planning over land, a single engine turbine will have to cruise at 21 000 feet to comply with a particular CAR, a Civil Aviation Regulation. When asked about that CAR, the author was unable to provide me with the particular regulation. I did some of my own investigations and found a regulation in keeping with what the author was saying; however, the argument is incorrect.
The author states to comply with this particular CAR, a single engine turbine aircraft over land must maintain 21 000 feet to direct route plan - that is going from point A to point B in a straight line; and that would compromise a sea level cabin. A sea level cabin is necessary for particular aero medical operations. This is not true. This argument is put forward and the regulation is there in the event of an engine failure in a single engine aircraft so it can glide to a suitable landing area.
The fact is, and it is omitted by the author, the only requirement for a single engine turbine aircraft with a charter air operator certificate, which will be the operating certificate under which our aeromedical aircraft will operate, is this particular formula: distance travelled in 15 minutes at normal cruise speed, plus the glide distance of your height. Let us take a single engine PC12 aircraft cruising at approximately 270 knots, 4.5 miles per minute equals 67 nautical miles, plus the glide distance of your height, say, 14 000 feet which is the highest you can to maintain a sea level cabin. That is 39 nautical miles plus 67; that is well over 100 nautical miles at 14 000 feet. At 30 000 feet, that would blow out to about 150 nautical miles. You do not have to be a flying ace in the Northern Territory to fly in a straight line and still be within 100 nautical miles of a suitable landing area. I stress ‘suitable landing area’ does not mean an aerodrome; it does not even mean an airstrip; it could be a road, a paddock, or anywhere you can put the aircraft down safely.
They are three examples, and time is against us with adjournments of 10 minutes. They are three examples where I have been able to question the advice put to government. They are some of the arguments put to me by the so-called expert and the author of the report that the government is tying itself to.
One wonders what else is contained in this report to the Northern Territory government that is skewed towards a particular favoured aircraft by the author. It is either misleading or just plain false, or it is both. All we are looking for is an open and competitive tender process to deliver the best results for the taxpayer.
I say in closing, if it is safety the government wants, then they should open the process to single and multi-engine turbine aircraft. Then, they can choose the organisation and the operator with the highest safety record without eliminating a possible contender for, what I believe, to be invalid reasons.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is something about Tennant Creek that both inspires and delivers, and as their local member, I take great delight in acknowledging the town as my home and centre point of the electorate. As an MLA, I am privileged to travel extensively researching issues, meeting constituents, and representing government, and I formed the opinion that, when you drop Tennant Creek into the conversation, you get a more genuine interest and reception than if you come from Darwin or even Alice Springs; there is just something about old Tennant Creek.
Over the past few weeks, I have had plenty to talk about in relation to home, as the town and its talented residents never cease to amaze me, such as the recent Relay for Life, one of the Cancer Council’s major fundraising events. The Tennant Creek Relay for Life represented over 100 people, seven teams and many volunteers who raised over $16 000 for the Cancer Council NT. This outstanding effort was even more special, in my opinion, as the organising committee was made up of four young women from our community who drew the support of other young people from our town to organise and operate a really hip event that had the feel of a Generation Y carnival and truly delivered on the incredible fundraising challenge.
The Tennant Creek Relay for Life committee was made up of four young women from the community: Cassie McLellan, Karina Files, Kirsty Stevens, and Kara Lake who, in just over two months, pulled together local businesses and individuals in Tennant Creek to create the event. Thousands of dollars worth of sponsorships from local businesses made the event possible, and it was run completely on a volunteer basis. The end result was 100-plus people, seven teams and many volunteers raising over $16 000 to go directly to Cancer Council NT. As usual, copious local businesses provided sponsorship for the event that contributed to the generous community outcome. I table the list of sponsors as an attachment to this adjournment speech.
Thanks to: Barkly Shire Council and depot staff; T & J Contractors; Dexter Barnes Electricals; and Buffs Club.
Sponsors: Tennant Creek Supermarket; Bluestone Motor Inn; Nik Naks; Oz Phil Connections; Central Service Station; Allan Scott Builders; Salmons Warehouse; Westpac Banking Corporation; United Service Station; Orlando Furnitures; Rod and Helen Ruger; Civic Video; Peter Kittles; Barkly Quality Butchers; Tennant Creek Post Office; Tennant Creek Memorial Club; Lions Club; Tennant Creek Pharmacy and Newsagency; Noor from Memories Restaurant; Tennant and District Times; Tennant Security Service; Leading Edge Computers; Auto Pro; BJ Trading; Indian Asian Boutique; Tennant Creek Printing Service, Tony Filmore; Outback Fashions Group; Barkly Hardware and Gas; ANZ; Lin Andrews Real Estate; Lavery Plumbing; Sporties Club; Fire Department; UBX and Longtails; Anyinginyi Council; and Barkly Regional Arts.
For me, it was the ever-present young people in both the organisational and participatory roles that made the Relay for Life truly special. I do not think the hard-working more senior members of our community events are quite ready for the rocking chairs as yet; however, it was certainly inspiring to see the new generation at the helm for the Relay for Life.
The Northern Territory Teacher of the Year, Melanie Baldwin, from Barkly College, was next to grab the headlines for Tennant Creek as a dedicated and innovative educator, most recently recognised for the development of a girls program attracting 60 girls to participate in sports, life skills, and personal development programs. Melanie is also noted as a positive mentor for her teaching colleagues; she inspires both staff and students to have a go and to strive for success at whatever they undertake, and that reflects a sound educational philosophy for broadening one’s horizons.
When talking of broadening one’s horizons, what about Tennant Creek’s own ‘Queen of Rap’, Kylie Sambo, who brilliantly performed at the 2010 Island Vibe Festival in Queensland. Kylie took the Desert Harmony Festival by storm this year, followed by radio gigs and performances in Alice Springs which got rave reviews about her outstanding lyrical content and powerful messages about young Indigenous women growing up in Tennant Creek.
Keep up the good work, Tennant Creek; you are an incredible lot with the sort of can-do attitude that inspires others to try that bit harder and do just that bit better.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to the rather desperate, dubious and unsubstantiated allegations we just heard from the member for Karama, and the aspersions made against the Leader of the Opposition.
As the shadow minister for Child Protection, there are damning pieces of evidence which might make the member for Karama think twice before throwing stones. Cast your minds back to when the member for Karama was the minister responsible for Child Protection Services in the Northern Territory between July 2005 and August 2007; it is a damning report of failure, inadequacy and maladministration.
Early in the term when the member for Karama was the minister responsible for Child Protection Services, we had the death of seven-week-old Peter, who starved to death in the back of a hot car on the Stuart Highway. This child was known to the Child Protection Services, and through the negligence of the Child Protection Services, this child died. This case was presented in the Four Corners report on 8 November, and the case is well-known throughout Australia, thanks to Dangerous Territory, the documentary featured by Four Corners.
On 15 May 2006, Dr Nanette Rogers, the Northern Territory prosecutor, highlighted the problems of violence and sexual abuse of children in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. This was also during the reign of minister Lawrie. In June 2006, Clare Martin announced the inquiry into child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities under the Inquiries Act, and from that we saw the Little Children are Sacred report. This was a damning time for Northern Territory people, a time of great despair and instability at what this government was not doing to protect children of the Northern Territory.
In June 2007, the Howard government implemented the Northern Territory Emergency Response in response to the Little Children are Sacred report. In 2006, the Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse brought to the attention the many failings of the Northern Territory government in protecting children. This was a damning time in the history of the Northern Territory, and certainly a damning indictment of the minister’s incompetence to manage Child Protection Services.
The point I make is: people in glass houses should certainly not throw stones. Minister Lawrie failed in her duties to protect Deborah Melville, who died in July 2007. This young girl was almost 13 when she died, and was known to the child protection authorities from the year 2000 to July 2007 when she passed away.
In the Coroner’s report pertaining to Deborah Melville, the Coroner stated that there were systematic breaches of the law by FACS under the ministry of the member for Karama. There were five key breaches of the act in the death of Deborah Melville: the requirement to visit the child at least once every two months; the requirement to report to the minister after each visit concerning the child; the requirement to provide a written review of the circumstances of the child every three months; the requirement to renew the registration of the carer every 12 months; and the requirement to be satisfied every 12 months that the children, or the child in this case, received an adequate standard of care as specified in the act.
During those years, minister Lawrie did not provide Deborah Melville with the basics required of her as the minister. Deborah Melville was protected by the minister, or supposedly protected by the minister, and that means the minister had an obligation to provide all the rights and requirements any parent should: the requirement of accommodation, maintenance, education and recreation, and the obligation to provide medical care.
Not once has the member for Karama, in her capacity as the former minister responsible for Child Protection Services, addressed this parliament to apologise and accept responsibility for the death of Deborah Melville, or for the death of seven-week-old baby, Peter; or, indeed, other children who were neglected during the time she had that onerous responsibility.
Once again, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have a number of issues I want to talk about. I sincerely believe I would be negligent in my responsibilities as the shadow minister if I did not respond to some of the things I heard today in this House regarding the complete disregard and the appalling attitude this government has again shown and demonstrated for our environment.
I could clearly be forgiven for missing what I heard today, but I do not think I am. I heard the Resources minister refer to the Montara oil spill as not being a major environmental concern. In fact, the entire government seems to have this apathy towards what has occurred. I read from Hansard of Question Time today; the answer from the minister was:
The minister said that today as if the oceans are not important at all. I bet the Environment Centre would love to know the minister’s only concern is for the land and not the water. In fact, who really cares? It is only oil, for goodness sake. No wonder you are not worried about the water, because it is evident from the way you do not seem to be worried about the poo that goes into our harbour. You do not think of waterways or that our oceans matter. Minister, you have oil on your hands. Along with the ministers of this government, and the way they seemingly wash their hands of any responsibility, let me tell you, minister, you are going to need Solvol because that is the only soap with the ability to remove the amount of oil you have on your hands.
We are about to debate improvements to environmental penalties in this House tomorrow, but what confidence can Territorians have in the ability of this government to take any action against unwanted pollution? No confidence whatsoever. Just look at what has occurred recently. I have a list. We can talk about the harbour pollution, E. coli, enterococci; harbour pollution from copper concentrate, Gove, and what has occurred out there; the Montara oil spill - the worst oil spill this country has ever seen. The list goes on - all under the watch of this government.
I cannot believe the minister responsible for our environment can just sit there and accept this from his own team, his own Cabinet colleagues - this blatant disregard for our environment. It is just not acceptable.
Karl, mate, stand up for something I know you believe in. Stand up, be a man, and join me here on this side, join me so we can hug like two good greenies, stand with me and, together, we can condemn this useless, uncaring and seemingly lost-in-space government, which we all know by now is the very worst government the Northern Territory has ever seen. As the minister who is responsible for protecting our environment, I implore you to join me so we can condemn this government for its action - or lack of action.
I have another couple of issues I will raise. I have had a number of people come into my office to complain about the new Ochre Card and the process involved in their particular circumstances. I have letters here from people complaining about the same issue. No one who has complained about the Ochre Card process is complaining that we should not be doing all we can to protect children in the Northern Territory. For goodness sake, we deserve to do that at the very least. It is the seemingly ignorant bureaucratic process involved.
I am talking in particular of bus drivers, who have to have an H endorsement to get a bus licence to drive children, and that involves this Clearance Form E, which I have here, it is a Northern Territory Police form. Then there is a Criminal Check C for the Ochre Card. Both cost, I believe, about $50 and both do exactly the same thing. These bus drivers not only have to get one form which goes to the police, but the other form also goes to the police, and both cost $50 - and both do exactly the same thing. They are both for a criminal history check - one to get an endorsement on a licence, and one to get the Ochre Card. They need both. Tell me why, minister, they need two for the same thing.
The complaints go further. A lovely couple came into my office the other day, both proud to be known as Grey Nomads travelling around the country. Both have a history of being very good bus drivers and, wherever they go, they pick up some local work; and they have picked up work with Buslink. However, they find themselves in a situation where they have complied with interstate regulations, they have done criminal history checks, but that means nothing here in the Northern Territory. Again, they are up for another $50. Not a lot of money but, for the Grey Nomads - and this was a couple - it was $100. But then, it doubled with the Ochre Card - the H endorsement as well as the Ochre Card. A double-up of bureaucracy.
I ask the minister to look into this. As I said, it seems to be doubling up. Both go to the same police stations, both have the same checks, both cost $50 and do exactly the same thing. There has to be a level of common sense bought into this if we possibly can. It is not a biggie.
The other issue I have many complaints about lately - and I will not go into it as other people want to do adjournment debates - is the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme. It is $33 a night, it says here, for accommodation whilst interstate. I seriously believe this is something the government needs to look at; the number of people who come in to complain about the service level provided by this government. I would not be mentioning it here if it was a one-off thing, but it is just time and time again. Many of these people are pensioners who do not have the funds. In fact, one gentleman who came in is out-of-pocket for around $2000, which he had to borrow from his daughter to put himself up in accommodation while his wife was in hospital in Adelaide.
Perhaps in future the government could look at buying into a motel, or build something close to the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide. I am sure there are ways we could provide a better service than we do today. You have to remember these people are not travelling because they want to travel; they are travelling because we are not offering the services in the Northern Territory. It is not their fault the service is not offered and, in that case, they have to travel interstate.
The other issue is the taxi fares. I believe they only get $40 towards taxi fares and, in most cases, it is around $37 to $38 just to get to the Flinders Medical Centre from the airport in Adelaide. They have to get back to the airport, and from the airport when they are back in Darwin. I seriously think the government needs to put more effort and thought into what the real costs are for people who have to travel interstate.
As I said in an earlier debate yesterday, there would not be a government employee, or a politician for that matter, who would hop on a plane and go interstate for two or three days if they were only receiving $30 or $33 a day to pay for their accommodation. You might get a park bench for that somewhere, but you are certainly not going to get a motel, or even a caravan. The caravan park close to the Flinders Medical Centre charges about $75 a night. Again, $33 does not go anywhere near covering those costs.
These are people who are in need, who are suffering in most cases, because that is why they are down there. Surely, the government can see their way to providing a little more assistance. As I said, there would not be a public servant in any level of government, local, state or federal, who would go interstate for $33 a day. It just does not cover anywhere near enough, and we need to look into this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure tonight that I congratulate, as the shadow minister for Tourism, the winners of the 2010 Brolga Awards. The Brolgas have been around now for some 24 years and are there to encourage tourism businesses to strive for excellence, and to recognise their efforts and their successes. The competition is open to a broad variety of businesses and individuals who are involved in the tourism sector. The Brolga submissions are designed to provide a measure of business excellence, and are judged on a table top and also through site visits.
Winning a Brolga Award is Northern Territory industry’s highest honour, and recognition of the best tourism products and services in the Northern Territory. Over the many years of Brolga Awards history, the calibre of entrants continues to grow and reflect the changing diversity of tourism products in both type and quality. There are 26 business categories and three individual categories in the awards. It is noteworthy that the winners of the 2010 Brolga Awards automatically become finalists in the 2010 Qantas Australian Tourism Awards. To all the winners, I wish them all the very best of luck when they attend those tourism awards for Australia later this year.
This year, the awards were held at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was a shame I was unable to be there on the night; unfortunately, I had other commitments that prevented me from being in Darwin and attending the awards. I hope to get along next year to be part of this great event, show my support for the entrants and the broader tourism sector, and further cement the fine relationships I have within the tourism industry.
In the broader tourism sector, one cannot overstate the value of having an excellence awards program for operators within the industry. While the measure of success of a business in tourism, or any other industry, is generally held in broad terms to be measured in profitability, or somewhere around the dollar figure, it is the pursuit of excellence that gives so many businesses and individuals the edge over their competitors, and adds to their competitiveness in the marketplace.
It is this that adds depth to the tourism sector in the Northern Territory. The focus of businesses in the tourism industry must be on providing the very best product, the very best service, and the very best experience to those who pay us the honour of coming across our borders. Just as individual businesses must compete against each other in the marketplace, so must the broader Northern Territory tourism sector compete against other states, and so must Australia compete in the global marketplace for the very lucrative tourist dollar. I can safely say the efforts of individuals and small business in striving for excellence really does contribute to the big, global tourism picture and Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s place in that market.
Consequently, I urge all those who can, all those who are willing, and all those who have the time and inclination, to strive for that excellence and make the tourism experience for visitors to the Northern Territory the very best it can be.
What we have in 2010 is a bunch of very special individuals and businesses who have stepped up to the plate to make that experience for tourists the very best it can be within the sphere of their operations. Indeed, they have striven for excellence and they are the winners of the Brolga Awards for 2010.
I acknowledge the following winners and the categories in which they have excelled:
Specialised Touring Services - AAT Kings; Meetings and Business Tourism - the Darwin Convention Centre; Visitor Information and Services - Tourism Top End - and congratulations to TTE, Tony Clementson and Sylvia Wolf and all the team; for Ecotourism - the Alice Springs Desert Park; for Heritage and Cultural Tourism - Venture North for History, Heritage and Cultural Tours; for Tourism Education and Training - Gagudju Dreaming; for Tourist Attractions - the Alice Springs School of the Air Visitor Centre; for Major Tourist Attractions - Nitmiluk National Park and Nitmiluk Tours; for Indigenous Tourism - Katherine Cultural Experience; for Top Tourism Marketing - Tropical Summer Campaign, the Ghan; for Tourism Restaurants and Catering Services - the historic Daly Waters Pub; for Tourist and Caravan Parks - the MacDonnell Range Holiday Park; for Tour and/or Transport Operators - Way Outback Desert Safaris; for Major Tour and/or Transport Operators - Intrepid Connections Northern Territory Tours; for Backpacker Accommodation - Haven Backpackers Resort; for Unique Accommodation - the Ghan Platinum Accommodation; for Hosted Accommodation - Eden at Fogg Dam; for Standard Accommodation - another Katherine business, Knotts Crossing Resort; for Deluxe Accommodation - Quest Alice Springs Serviced Apartments; for Luxury Accommodation - SKYCITY Darwin; for New Tourism Development - Best Western Darwin Airport Gateway Motel; and the Qantas Award for Excellence in Sustainable Tourism - Crowne Plaza Alice Springs.
For Outstanding Contribution by an Individual - the winner was Warwick Rock from APT, well done, Warwick; for Outstanding Interpretive Guide - the winner was Luke Paterson of Intrepid Connections; Young Achiever - Kelly Vrolyks from Nitmiluk Tours in Katherine, congratulations Kelly; Judges Highly Commended Awards - Crocosaurus Cove, SEIT Outback Australia, Yellow Waters Cruises, Lord’s Kakadu and Arnhemland Safaris, and Adventure Tours Australia Group; Chairman’s Choice - MacDonnell Range Tourist Park; Tourism NT Business Growth Award - Turtle Tracks from Sea Darwin; and Tourism Minister’s Perpetual Trophy - Frances Fausett.
Having acknowledged all those Brolga winners, I make an observation and offer some special congratulations to some of those winners. Amongst that list are four individuals or businesses which are domiciled and/or operating in Katherine, with a further business that falls within the Katherine region.
Those are: for Standard Accommodation - Knotts Crossing Resort, what a great place for visitors to stay when they go to Katherine. They are a five time Brolga winner, and also the winner of the 2004 AHA Award for Mid-range Accommodation. They are a great bunch of people there and I get to see the staff there quite regularly. To Jo and Amy, a couple of the people who look after me there regularly, well done, and it is your contribution that certainly helped Knotts Crossing achieve the award this year.
For Major Tourist Attractions, the winner was Nitmiluk National Park and Nitmiluk Tours; and what can I say, a cutting edge business run by the Jawoyn Association. They are cutting edge in Indigenous tourism and Indigenous business, and they employ Indigenous people from the region in that very successful business and, of course, they look after what is the jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory - the Katherine or Nitmiluk Gorge.
In Indigenous Tourism, the winner was the Katherine Cultural Experience, or Top Didj, as it is also known, run by Petrena and Alex Ariston, and it is their business, but they also operate with a young Aboriginal man by the name of Manual Pamkal,who I have known for many years from my days at Barunga, and he is an outstanding artist. Congratulations to them.
The Young Achiever was Kelly Vrolyks, who is an outstanding young lady who really contributed a significant amount to Nitmiluk Tours. I have known Kelly for a number of years, and she is one of those who has taken Nitmiluk Tours to the heights it has reached in the last few years.
The Tourism Restaurants and Catering Services winner was the Daly Waters Historic Pub. What an outstanding place to go to, such an interesting place. I have been around that part of the country for many years, and I urge everyone who travels up and down the track to call into the Daly Waters Pub for a drink and to check out some of the paraphernalia on the walls. It is absolutely fascinating, and something not to be missed.
My congratulations to all, and I hope to see them all in the awards next year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Nelson
Member for Nelson
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, be granted leave of absence for Wednesday, 24 November and Thursday, 25 November 2010.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BILL
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Public health is a matter which concerns everyone in the Northern Territory, whether a resident or a visitor. Public health is a cornerstone of our high standard of living in the Northern Territory. We seek to replace outdated, prescriptive public health legislation with a modern, flexible legislative framework which caters for the needs of today’s Territorians and our future generations.
It is proposed that the Public and Environmental Health Bill 2010 becomes the main instrument for monitoring and regulating public and environmental health in the Northern Territory. The bill has been framed to provide effective mechanisms for protecting public health at the enforcement level and by stakeholders assuming a greater degree of responsibility for improved public health outcomes.
The objects of this bill are to:
protect and promote the health of individuals and communities in the Territory;
The Public and Environmental Health Bill 2010 was drafted in compliance with national competition policy principles and is consistent with this government’s commitment to regulatory reform. If you are familiar with the current Public Health Act you will be aware of its complexity and lack of clarity. The current Public Health Act relies on a narrow view of risks to public health and remedies to control these risks.
The bill before you contains new legislation which has a broader public health base and an integrated approach to public health issues. The bill is supported by a range of health professionals in both medical and environmental health, and acknowledges that some groups in our society will, from time to time, need extra assistance to meet specific public and environmental health challenges.
This bill recognises the maintenance of public health as a necessary investment and an ongoing challenge for the government of the day. Considerable consultation has gone into the preparation of this bill and it has benefited from the extensive input received. Best practice public health legislation was examined in the formulation of the bill.
In June 2010, an exposure draft to the bill and a discussion paper were widely advertised and circulated, inviting written submissions from stakeholders. Meetings were also held with representatives of the Commonwealth, state health departments, Northern Territory government departments, medical groups, non-government organisations, the general public, industry, and some regional centres to facilitate community input.
I draw your attention to some of the significant changes in the approach to public and environmental health in this bill. The Chief Health Officer has been vested with wider powers to take a leading role in a public health emergency where no ‘state of disaster’ or ‘state of emergency’ exists. These powers will protect the community from major public health risks. An example of this is the potential spread of disease through increased mosquito breeding following flash flooding. This new provision will enable a more timely response, such as aerial spraying and the mobilisation of resources to prevent transmission of diseases such as Murray Valley encephalitis, Kunjin, or Ross River virus.
The bill introduces the concept of ‘declared activities’. Any activity which may result in transmission of disease or may otherwise pose a risk of harm to public health may be ‘declared’ by the minister. Examples of these activities could include: commercial visitor accommodation; tattooing; body piercing; and hairdressing, including mobile hairdressing. It is proposed that premises which carry out these declared activities will be registered and appropriate conditions placed on the registration. All relevant businesses will then be issued with a registration notice which should be conspicuously displayed on the premises to provide additional assurance to clients of compliance with minimal public health standards. The proprietors of these declared activities may be subjected to public health notices and, in extreme cases, public health orders if the circumstances dictate this level of control.
Traditional public health nuisances will also continue to be managed, particularly through education and conciliation. Public health notices and orders are available under this bill if the satisfactory resolution cannot be reached. This can also be followed by an order issued by the local court. The nuisance provisions in this bill will create an offence which attracts a penalty for allowing a public health nuisance to exist. For example, unsanitary conditions such as the accumulation of putrescible waste which gives rise to infestation by vermin, flies, and other animal pests.
Natural justice is served in this bill by an appeals mechanism. Appeals may be made directly to the Chief Health Officer for matters surrounding registration of businesses, public health notices, and public health orders. If a person is aggrieved by the outcome of such an appeal, they have the right to take the matter to the local court for hearing. The Chief Health Officer may obtain health information and use that information for monitoring, protecting, maintaining, or promoting public health. For example, analysis and reporting of factors impacting on public health including lifestyle and chronic, acute, or emerging health conditions, as well as information currently collected and required under the Public Health (Cervical Cytology Register) Regulations.
The powers of entry for authorised officers under this bill are necessarily wide in the interest of public health. They are similar to the powers of police officers. Under this bill, the consent of the owner, reasonable grounds or a warrant will normally be needed to enter property.
Penalties proposed in this bill are higher than those in the current Public Health Act to better reflect the seriousness of the offence and current community values. Under this bill, a magistrate may impose fines on a person of between $2600 and $52 000, or two years imprisonment in extreme cases.
The minister has the power to conduct an inquiry into any matters which affect public health in the Northern Territory. The bill requires that a suitably qualified and experienced person conduct the inquiry, and that the person has protection and immunity from liability.
The bill is necessarily broad-ranging in nature. The bill goes far beyond the traditional role of policing nuisances by progressing modern public health thinking and providing a flexible approach to emerging public and environmental issues.
The current Public Health Act is a daily frustration to authorised officers who are working with it and members of our community who need to understand it. Environmental Health Officers who are in the field every day trying to interpret the law in a practical sense are frustrated by many of the narrow, outdated, and prescriptive regulations associated with the current act.
This bill is outcome based, and has deliberately moved away from its previous prescriptive nature. The regulations from the current Public Health Act have been retained in this bill and will be progressively repealed or updated, as new regulations, guidelines, and standards are developed, within two years following the enactment of this bill.
Minimum public and environmental health standards will be developed with industry and government to protect the public and provide benchmarks for the operation of the declared activities carried out by businesses. These documents will stipulate outcomes which are legal and enforceable. Guidelines will act to inform the development of these minimum standards. The guidelines will also be developed in consultation with industry and government, and will provide clear advice to businesses to protect the public and provide benchmarks, particularly on the operation of activities which have not been declared by the minister. The new regulations, guidelines and minimum standards to support this bill will uphold the direction of public health in the Northern Territory well into the future.
This bill seeks to protect people in the Northern Territory from factors in the environment which can, or will, cause harm to human health. The bill supports the government’s strategic direction in improving the health of all Territorians and visitors alike. The vigilance of the health professionals who enforce this legislation carries the government’s vision forward for the benefit of all of our community. Under this bill, public health staff will be aided in their work by modern legislation which takes a proactive approach to emerging health concerns. In addition, developing programs to minimise the health risk from communicable disease in industries which were previously not registered, and recognition of the risk posed by vectors, is possible under this bill.
The Chief Health Officer will continue to ensure the quality of drinking water in the Northern Territory under this bill through the provision of appropriate guidelines to advise water providers not covered by the Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act.
This modernisation of public and environmental health legislation in the Territory is long overdue. The bill will further enhance public health conditions and better reflect change in community attitudes and lifestyle. This is an important bill which has been consulted on widely over a number of years to accommodate the many and various concerns of Territorians. It affects all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members, and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT (CHIEF MINISTER’S AND OTHER PORTFOLIOS) BILL
(Serial 138)
(Serial 138)
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 Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Bill 2010 continues the process of converting penalties in all NT legislation from dollar amounts to penalty units.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 have converted most of the penalties in the Department of Justice and Treasury legislation. The purpose of this bill is to amend penalty provisions in the acts administered by the Department of the Chief Minister and NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
The Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 provided for penalty increases of no more than 15%.
This bill maintains that principle. As was the case for the Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010, the conversion factors are based on a penalty unit value of $133, rather than $130, as the value of the penalty unit increased on 1 July this year in accordance with a formula in the Penalty Units Act 2009 and based on the Darwin CPI.
For penalties of a significant size, the conversion process is:
current monetary penalty is increased by 15%; and
Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in a decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied:
Amendments have not been made to amend any act which is either proposed to be repealed or amended in some other way. The Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act; Inquiries Act; Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act; AustralAsia Railway Corporation Act; AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act; AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act; Fire and Emergency Act; Fire and Emergency Regulations; and, the Weapons Control Regulations are not amended by this bill because other bills intend to amend, may amend, or have amended, the penalties in those legislative instruments.
This bill provides for the conversion of seven Department of Chief Minister acts and four NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services acts. The balance of all remaining NT acts is expected to be reviewed by mid-2011.
This approach in bringing in penalty units does not solve all penalty-related issues. For example, it does not fix differentials across the statute book concerning like offences. Differences in specific offences will be individually reviewed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages – Water Amendment Bill (Serial 137)
Pass Bill through all Stages – Water Amendment Bill (Serial 137)
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Water Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 137) passing through all stages on Thursday, 2 December 2010.
Mr Elferink: Are you going to explain that? You have made a motion; explain to us why you want this motion.
Mr HAMPTON: I will go through that now.
Mr Elferink: Good. Now is the time to do it.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my second reading speech, the Water Act has been thought, since its enactment in 1992, to provide a legal power to issue waste discharge licences where a facility …
Mr Elferink: He has to learn his job.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I will continue. As I said, the Water Act has been thought, since its enactment in 1992, to provide a legal power to issue waste discharge licences where a facility needs to release waste to a natural body of water. Recent legal advice from the Solicitor-General indicates that the provisions in the act do not sustain this long-standing practice and the manner in which the act has been thought to operate for the last 17 years or so …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, minister. I remind people in the galleries there is no photography allowed. I ask you to put that away or we will have it removed. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: My office has circulated that advice to the opposition and the Independent members. As you would be aware it is not unusual for government to distribute the legal advice it receives. I have done so because there is a problem which needs fixing, there are no games being played here and I am bringing forward this bill in good faith that the Assembly will see the urgency. Clearly, from the Solicitor-General’s advice, the Water Act needs fixing. The reason it is urgent is threefold.
First, the discharge licences already issued to industry are now invalid. Those licences afford legal certainty to the licensees and those operators make decisions based on the legal protection afforded by a licence. The validation of licences provided by the bill I have introduced can quickly resolve the uncertainty created by the recent advice.
Second, waste discharge licences are a key regulatory tool. The setting of conditions enables risk to be managed and environmental impacts to be reduced. If this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months. If an incident occurs during this period there will be limited legal remedy.
Third, there are eight applications for licences which are currently under consideration and new activities requiring a licence often crop up, particularly during the Wet Season. For example, a cyclone could dump heavy rain over a mine site, overwhelming the on-site retention ponds and requiring controlled release of waste water from the mining tenement.
Without this amendment there would be no capacity to issue a licence during much of the forthcoming Wet Season and there would be no controls which would usually be in place to limit environmental impact and require appropriate monitoring. Without this bill being considered on urgency we will be crossing our fingers that no incidents happen until February. I do not think that is a risk worth taking and we will be asking industry, which has operated under those licences on a reasonable expectation they were valid, to operate with a high level of uncertainty for three months due to an issue which was not of their making.
Madam Speaker, it is for these reasons that I commend the motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I am a tad confused by all of this. Not so much by what we have been told but by how this has unfolded. Yesterday, I expected we would have had the motion on urgency. Why was it not urgent yesterday but urgent today? The process we are unrolling here does not seem to fit with what was first described. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect there is more to this because you are asking us to have confidence in you that we need to do this on urgency. Alarm bells start to ring.
I appreciate that, from time to time, legislation will be tested. Not taking anything away from the Solicitor-General and the advice they have given, was this ever tested in court? Has this gone through a court process and been fully tested to see whether the legislation stacks up? I do not believe it has been tested; I cannot recall anyone being prosecuted in the Northern Territory, at least in the last 10 years, for any pollution.
It should be pointed out that I am aware a media release went out from the minister’s office suggesting the opposition and the Independents had been offered briefings on this matter. I received the call after seeing the media release; so I believe it is like the process here today: it is slightly back to front. Perhaps the Independent members were offered briefings before the shadow minister was, but there are questions in regard to the process.
I understand the intent of the original legislation. I also understand, from the briefings so far, why there is a need to make the change. My concern is we are doing this on urgency but I have not been overwhelmed by this government’s performance in the last two years, which is why I am a tad cynical about why this needs to be done on urgency. We have amended legislation in the two years I have been in this House and it has gone through a normal process. Alarm bells start to ring when there is a need for urgency. The process in this House is to adequately cover all bases; our job in opposition is to ensure you guys are doing it right. That sometimes takes time. You guys have the support and resources of government. We do not have the resources of government, and sometimes it takes time to unwrap things, to unpack things, to ensure we are not having the wool pulled over our eyes and Territorians do not have the wool pulled over their eyes.
We need to be convinced that this needs to happen on urgency. My understanding to date, and please correct me, minister, if I am wrong, is the original legislation is in place to allow for water discharge licences - let us be frank, this is all about a licence to pollute. On a number of occasions in this House we have raised the issue of what pollutants are going into our harbour, our environment, and many times we have raised the conditions in those licences. We all agree there are some real concerns.
As I mentioned to my colleagues yesterday, I have raised a number of times where Power and Water has exceeded its licence conditions. It has a licence to discharge waste, which we now find is invalid in the opinion of the Solicitor-General; however, I remember reading a report where Power and Water exceeded its limitations in the Palmerston sewerage treatment plant eight days out of 10. I was advised at a briefing, when this was raised, that it did not exceed its licence conditions if you average it out over a 12 month period. As I explained to my colleagues yesterday, that would be like arguing with a police officer when caught speeding between Palmerston and Darwin that, if you averaged out the speed I had been driving at between Palmerston and Darwin, because I was only driving 60 km/h earlier, I would be under the speed limit, and therefore not guilty. When I am caught by a police officer for driving 10 km/h over the speed limit I get a ticket. I do not get the chance to argue that my speed between Palmerston and Darwin, because I was going 60 back there and 70, and 40 and I had to stop for traffic lights, was, on average, less than the speed limit. I do not have that option. We all agree there are real potholes in the conditions applied in these licences.
The second important thing to note today, from my understanding of the briefings, is the legislation provides five or six areas where people can be given water discharge licences. I also understand Power and Water is outside those prescribed areas. That being the case, for many years we have had Power and Water polluting our harbour by discharging waste into it and it does not have a licence. It moves on to mine sites, private businesses which are now outside the scope of legislation.
This is all on one opinion which, to my understanding, has not been tested in court. There has not been a successful prosecution of this law. The reality, if I understand from the briefing - and I appreciate the briefing - is if we can fix this loophole now then we can continue to allow people to pollute, to discharge waste, into our environment. My only confusion today is the process we are using. The alarm bells are ringing on this side because of the urgency. I appreciate we have a Wet Season coming. I appreciate we have industry and mine sites which will need to discharge at times because of heavy rain.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry for being cynical on the urgency. To convince me we need to pass this on urgency - based on the track record of this government alarm bells start to ring because we do not get the amount of time required to scrutinise this to a deeper level. I look forward to the briefing next week by the Solicitor-General on this matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I can well understand why government is seeking urgency on this matter. To edify members who are not familiar with what is going on, the Northern Territory government, since 1992, has been issuing licences for the discharge of water to the various industries which discharge water into our waterways and harbours. This is normal practice, and the intent of the legislation, I imagine, was always to authorise the minister of the Crown to enable certain people to discharge, from mine sites or, for argument’s sake, the Power and Water Corporation, certain waste waters into our harbour.
The description by the member for Brennan that it is a licence to pollute is correct. The law in the Northern Territory says you cannot pollute unlawfully. The way to pollute lawfully is to find a legal mechanism - perhaps a licence - to set aside that unlawfulness. If people need to know about the principles of authorisation, section 26 of the Criminal Code is where to look. When these licences are issued by the minister, the minister is saying to the Power and Water Corporation, or a mine, or whatever else: ‘You may discharge water under certain conditions’. Those conditions can be found in the water licence issued by the minister; there are terms and conditions applied. Checking those licences is part of the role of government to ensure the levels of pollution are within acceptable boundaries.
It now transpires from the legal advice - and I thank the minister for having provided that legal advice from the Solicitor-General - that the operation of section 74 of the legislation is probably - in fact, almost certainly - not valid in reference to how section 73 is drafted. That anomalous situation means certain relevant offences are not covered by the licence which is purported to be issued under section 74. Without going into the technical and legal arguments of it, it means there is a high degree of likelihood that these licences will have to be confirmed by an act of this parliament, which means we have to do something parliaments do not like to do; that is, issue retrospective legislation. What the minister wants us to do during the course of these sittings is to come in here and say: ‘Not only are the licences which will be issued in the future valid, all licences issued by the minister since 1992, whoever that minister was, will be valid from 1992 as per the original intent of the legislation’. No problem with that; that I understand.
I sense the urgency comes from a slightly different place to what the minister explained. I think the urgency is that, if the Solicitor-General is correct, everyone who is currently discharging water with pollutants in it into our waterways and harbour is doing so unlawfully because they are not licensed to do so.
I listened to the member for Brennan use a driver’s licence as an example and that works in this instance. If every driver’s licence issued by the Motor Vehicle Registry was not actually valid, then all of us with driver’s licences would be offenders the moment we jumped in our cars and drove down the street. As a consequence, government would move, and I think quite correctly, to fix the anomaly in the Traffic Act to ensure all driving which was done under licences issued under the Traffic Act was legal from the day the licences were issued. That is certainly what the minister has so far explained.
However, what he scooted around is an important issue. At the moment, everyone who has a water discharge licence does not have a water discharge licence. As a consequence of that, they are discharging water unlawfully and are subject to prosecution. Whilst it is the government’s purview, as a general rule, to be the representative of the Crown and the prosecutor in these matters, nothing prevents a third party entering into a prosecution if they can demonstrate standing. I would not be surprised if there were elements in our community which would be more than happy to start lodging prosecutions whilst all of our water discharges are unlicensed. Moreover, those people would seek to use this anomaly nefariously to their advantages and their own causes, and it could cause any amount of grief.
Retrospectivity at this point would not lead to a major problem, but if you look at something like the Ward decision, where certain subsequent court cases were lodged or dismissed as a result of assumptions about the operation of retrospective legislation, you very quickly start to realise that where actions are on foot and we try to legislate retrospectively, the courts are not comfortable with that idea and the government finds itself exposed.
I understand what the original intent of the government was, and I understand what the intent of government is today to fix this issue; I get that. Then we come to the decision. How long ago was the government informed this was a problem? I understand that the government was informed at least three weeks ago; on 28 October 2010, the Solicitor-General advised government this problem was on foot.
The minister has a duty and a responsibility, when he seeks a motion of urgency, to explain to this House why the matter is so urgent and to seek the assistance of all members of this House to enable him to do something which operates outside of the normal rules we apply to ourselves; that is what this motion is all about. Let us set aside standing orders, change the way we make law, make this law in a hurry so we can close this loophole and prevent exposure of, let us say, the Power and Water Corporation. Why did the minister not inform us on this side of the House, let alone the rest of the Northern Territory, in the nearly four weeks since he became aware of the Solicitor-General’s advice? Moreover, when were the polluters, or the people with water discharge licences, advised of this anomaly? Or did government allow them to continue discharging water without advising them of this anomaly? The minister has been silent on this issue so far.
I am interested to know if the Ranger Uranium Mine, or any of the other mines for that matter, has been blissfully ignorant of this situation when discharging water in the time since the minister became aware of it. The first we heard about it was on Monday.
If the minister wants support from this side of the House, in a spirit of cooperation, to close a loophole he has discovered - it is the proper process of government to review legislation from time to time and I acknowledge this has been discovered as a result of the department’s efforts - but to sit on an item like this for a month without telling us until Monday that urgency would be sought and then come into this House yesterday, move the bill and say you would be seeking urgency, but seeking it today rather than yesterday, is an uncomfortable way to proceed to say the least.
Why would this matter of urgency engender suspicion in the member for Brennan? I listened to the member for Brennan and asked myself that question. He is quite right to be suspicious. I become suspicious when legal advice dated a month ago is not brought to the attention of members of this House when the assistance of members is needed to pass the urgency motion so the bill can be passed.
Have they told the Power and Water Corporation and, if so, on what date was it informed of this problem with its water discharge licence? Was a general advice sent to all people possessing water discharge licences as to the situation they were in? If not, why not? If the minister has issued such a notice to people discharging water under licences, then table the information which was issued. Did you send an e-mail, a letter, a telegram? Did you send it by pony express? We would like to see that the minister has acted in good faith in his approach to this issue - or has he done the usual thing and taken the political ‘how do we manage the politics of this issue’ approach? ‘I tell you what, we will drip feed it out at the last moment, say we have discovered this anomaly, am I not a good minister, I will do the little interview in front of the television and I will have this problem fixed’.
That is a political way of dealing with a political problem, not an effective way of dealing with a real problem. If the minister has failed to advise those people discharging water under their licences and they have continued to discharge water under those licences, does the liability suddenly transfer to the government for pollutants released whilst the government knew the licences were invalid and discharge continued to occur? What liability has government brought upon itself? There was no explanation of those issues. I would like to know, from this government, when the dischargers were informed.
We now deal with the rather cumbersome process of pursuing this urgency motion through the House today. The first I heard of this was on Monday. On Monday, the member for Brennan made some comments to me and that night on television we see the minister saying: ‘Yes, we will deal with this anomaly and by that process we have controlled the issue’ - we have controlled the issue of how this thing is dealt with publicly. The problem is, in the process, they may well have exposed other people.
Then the minister came into this House yesterday, after his own staff had been briefed, and said: ‘I am going to move this bill,’ and gave a second reading speech. He mentioned twice during the second reading speech that he will be seeking urgency but moved no urgency motion. This House gave him leave yesterday, unusually, to introduce a bill for which no notice was given. We were happy to do that, having been briefed. Then we were told afterwards: ‘We are not going to move urgency until tomorrow when this stuff has been explained to you guys’, hence the arrival of the Solicitor-General’s opinion. We are grateful to the minister for releasing the Solicitor-General’s opinion to us.
Why did he not do all of this yesterday? Why were we not briefed last week on this issue and given the Solicitor-General’s opinion last week so we could prepare for the normal process of bringing on an urgency motion? Because the minister was sitting on it. He was sitting on it because he was dealing with a political issue. All he had to do was prepare us the week before, come into this House and go through the normal process of seeking urgency: bring the bill in and say you would also like to ask this House for urgency.
We now have this ridiculous situation where the minister says: ‘This is urgent, but I will tell you how urgent it is tomorrow’. It does not wash and, if you drill into what is happening, it is because this minister does not run his own department, he does not run his own office. Everything is done for him. The speeches have to be written. If, yesterday, he had to negotiate his way on his feet as to how this matter was to proceed - if he was a competent minister he would have been able to do that. Okay, the words would not have been quite right and he may have had to be more thoughtful about how the words came together, but because the speech was not written for him in the first place - all that was written and prepared for him was the second reading speech - he could not negotiate the urgency motion until today.
That is the hallmark of how this government operates. It finds a problem, sits on it until it finds the political solution, keeps as many people in the dark for as long as possible and has a house-trained minister, who reads whatever is shoved under his nose, come into this House and read what he has been given.
That is one of the problems people have with this government. Recently, someone raised an issue with me which pertained to one of the minister’s portfolio responsibilities. I said: ‘Have you spoken to the minister’s office, yet?’ They said: ‘You are kidding, aren’t you? Have you ever spoken to minister Hampton? Have you ever spoken to that bloke? It’s a waste of time; we may as well talk directly to the department. We do not waste our time talking to this bloke any more’.
This is the type of governance the Northern Territory has under this Henderson Labor government; and this government wonders why it is considered to be the worst government the Territory has ever had …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is all about the managing of the message. If a minister cannot negotiate his way without having a written speech in front of him for something as simple as an urgency motion, it demonstrates how absolutely useless these guys have become.
Madam Speaker, this is the worst government the Territory has ever had; and whilst we understand the need for this urgency motion, its advocate is not up to the job.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan asked whether there had been any court cases - has it been to court and if it has not been to court, why are we doing this on urgency. The answer is simple, member for Brennan. I believe the member for Port Darwin answered that question. We cannot allow potential illegal activity to continue. It may not have been to court but, as a government, we have a duty to ensure potentially illegal activity does not continue.
I agreed with almost everything the member for Port Darwin said until he got to the end and became political; however, he made some points. This issue has been going on since 1992, it came about because of some question marks over drafting and dissonance - it is probably not a legal term, it is probably a scientific term - dissonance between certain clauses within the act around authorisation to discharge into waterways.
I commend the legal officer in the department who discovered this as they were reviewing the act; I will come back to the review of the act soon. The matter was brought to the attention of the minister; the minister rightly sought advice from the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General, as the member for Port Darwin said, provided advice some three weeks ago. Subsequent to that advice, the minister did the right thing; the minister looked for the remedy for the situation. His first priority was to find the remedy for the situation. Of course, that involves bringing the matter to Cabinet; it also involves the parliamentary drafters drafting legislation which could be moved in this House on urgency.
I believe most people here today - I do not know what the members for Nelson or Macdonnell will say, but I believe even the member for Port Darwin is acknowledging the need for urgency in this motion.
The minister has to bring the remedy to Cabinet. Cabinet considered this matter and made a final decision towards the end of last week. I assure this House, as Leader of Government Business, I give any minister, including the Chief Minister, a grilling if they want to bring something in here on urgency on any matter. I do not want to see too many bills brought into this House on urgency: only those bills which really are urgent and have to have a result within a sitting. The process we have as a parliament - the Westminster system – is right, and most bills should sit on the Table for the statutory period. I am a great believer in that. Therefore, I put many questions to the minister about this issue of urgency. The sort of questions I had were the questions the member for Brennan had. It has been going on since 1992 so why do we have to act now? What is the imperative? The answers which came back to me, and the Solicitor-General’s advice, made it very clear we had to act to remedy this situation.
The member for Port Darwin is trying to fabricate some cover-up or political spin in all of this. The processes of government move as the processes of government, member for Port Darwin, and the Cabinet process is square and central to that. As a Cabinet, we need to consider these matters before we start consulting with the opposition and Independents, and we before we start communicating with other people involved, including those who have discharge licences.
You can have the flat earth - did the minister pick up the phone and ring those people discharging? Well, it is not as simple as that. We have an 18-year history here. Some companies would have come and gone; there are some companies currently discharging. As the minister said in his speech, there are a number of applications before him which need to be settled. Those people would want those applications to be settled. The only responsible way for this parliament to go is to deal with this matter on urgency. Given the fact we are a minority government, and this parliament is in that situation, the debate could go any way. As a government, we have a responsibility to try to introduce this on urgency and, if that is successful, debate it on urgency and see where that debate goes.
Regarding government liability and all the rest of it, member for Port Darwin, that liability stretches back some 18 years. You talked about the worst government. The opposition is saying at every opportunity: ‘This is the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As soon as you said that, do you know what my first thought was? Mt Todd, Edith River, and what you mob did during that time. You were discharging, and potentially discharging, cyanide and other heavy metals into the Edith River …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are debating urgency. I know there has been a bit of latitude but, from memory, the Speaker has always been fairly strict on the debate around urgency. This is drifting into other realms.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. There was a fair bit of latitude given, particularly to the member for Port Darwin. Minister, if you could come to the point very quickly?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson has made his point; it is a very valid point. I will stop there. I have made the point I wanted to make about who is the ‘worstest’ of the ‘worstest’.
We can engage in this, but let us try to engage constructively on this issue. Let us try to solve it for the benefit of the Northern Territory. We are presented with a situation. Let us, as a parliament, try to work through this situation. I commend this motion on urgency and I hope it is passed.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this motion on urgency. I take this opportunity to thank you and your office for briefings, minister. The member for Nelson and I had a briefing from the minister’s office yesterday and were informed of the Solicitor-General’s advice to the government.
It is very important that at this stage - I am not reading from notes; I can see the member for Port Darwin looking at me, Madam Speaker - I thought that the briefing was thorough. This has been around for 16 or 17 years. At this time you have new eyes, legal eyes, which can see the impact into the future if we do not correct this now.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know the theme for this sittings will be the worst of everything, but the briefing I had from the minister’s advisors yesterday was probably one of the best I have had. It gave me a good indication that there is a need for urgency in this case.
I do query urgency motions, and anyone who has been in parliament in the same period I have knows I have challenged urgency motions before. They should only be brought on when absolutely required. I remember getting clobbered by the then Treasurer for objecting to an urgency debate on the dry towns motion for Alice Springs, which I felt was not an urgent case because the 2 km law already existed in Alice Springs.
So I do take it seriously when the government comes before parliament and asks for something to become an urgent matter. I sometimes wonder how these things slip through for 17 years. The previous government had this legislation; why did the Solicitor-General not pick up these issues in the previous government’s time? I suppose with a lot of legislation, until someone actually sees the error, it continues until it is picked up, or picked up in court. You do not want it picked up in court because then it starts to cost a great deal of money and I imagine there is action taken against the government for having a faulty piece of legislation.
I believe there are other risks if the government does not act now. If the government did not act and continued to allow this fault in the legislation to continue, saying: ‘Well, we will not prosecute anyone’, and someone became ill or injured because of a discharge licence being granted by the government, then I think that person would have a reasonable case for suing the government for being negligent. That is one of the major reasons this legislation needs to be fixed.
I do not know whether you are allowed to have a committee stage when you have an urgency debate. The member for Port Darwin raised a number of questions. I know the Leader of Government Business answered many of them, but could the Speaker give me a ruling on whether you can have a committee stage during urgency debates where some of the specific questions can be answered by the minister? That may not be the case because we do not have a bill before us as we would normally.
I know there are some issues. The member for Brennan obviously has some concerns about the record of government in these matters. That may be reasonable. However, we are debating a specific issue about whether these amendments should be brought forward urgently. Regardless of whether there have been issues before or will be issues ahead, regardless of whether in these sittings it will be found that some of the worst coffee ever made is made in my office - because there will be a lot of that going on. We need to take some of that political argy-bargy out and look at the issue as it is.
From my point of view, and from the good briefing I received, I agree with the member for Macdonnell. Regardless of the cynicism sometimes in this place, and I understand why that is from time to time, I take the minister on his good word that this is important. He has not brought it forward simply because it is a nice thing to do. He has been given advice. The Solicitor-General’s advice has also been given. I have not seen that advice but I believe the opposition has seen it. The minister would be derelict in his duty if, after being given all that advice, he did not bring it on in urgency. You can work this argument in reverse and then we would be criticising the minister for allowing people to keep operating with illegal licences.
Madam Speaker, I support the urgency motion. If there are other issues people would like to debate they will have their chance next week when we can have a more open debate on some of the matters the member for Brennan was concerned about.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I understand the requirement to have this amendment to the Water Act put through but I still do not have information as to what the trigger was. Was it one of these eight applications under consideration for discharge licences? I understand the discharge licence system with regards to the mining industry, not so much for Power and Water, but what was the trigger which prompted the department to seek the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General? I have no issue with the fact he has delivered the information, but I am concerned with the potential for legal vulnerability of mining companies because over the last 10 to 17 years they have been discharging at the peak flow times of the Wet Season, believing they have been doing so legally. We know that happens with all the major projects, plus the smaller projects, and to no detriment to the environment, contrary to what the member for Johnston was trying to claim. So, minister, what was the trigger which caused the department, or you, to seek the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General?
How many discharge licences have been issued in the mining industry over the last 17 years for current and past projects? Whilst a project might have ceased to operate, the company may still exist elsewhere in the Territory or in an exploration mode. Will they be legally vulnerable to external stakeholders seeking some kind of redress once it is in the public domain that this company has been putting contaminants or pollutants - call them what you like - discharging water from the mine site? Is the minister going to release some factual information to industry and the broader community so they can have confidence as to why it has been done and that there has not been any detriment to the environment.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing it to the attention of the House but I want a little more clarification as to what started it, and how many companies are going to be affected. Have you contacted all the mining companies? If so, was it done formally, and what were their responses? Have you had any working groups with them to try to address this issue?
When there is urgent action, being in opposition you cannot help but test whether that is the case. There are high levels of cynicism we have to work through to ensure we are being called upon to do something that is, in fact, urgent.
We discussed, with the little amount of information we had - the alarm bells had rung. We found the briefings, which we were told the community had been provided, had not been provided. Then we had a limited briefing, so we are to take it on faith. It is very difficult to have faith in a government which has such convoluted processes that we lose our confidence in its capacity to use a process for the public good. There seems to have been, over these 10 years, an inclination to use processes for political benefit. We are cynical.
We come into this Chamber to test this. If it is urgent, it must be compelling and require immediate action. That is what I understand urgent to mean. Therefore, having alarm bells rung across the community, by way of a media conference, this must be urgent. Therefore, I would have expected when we come into the parliament all is cleared aside, it is made front and centre, first cab off the rank. Explain this because it is so serious. However, that did not occur. It was like he who hesitates is lost, which caused cynicism to grow. That has given rise to this discussion. That cynicism would have been reduced by the minister being decisive yesterday.
I cannot say cynicism just goes away. We have an obligation to respond and work our way through that. That cynicism would have been reduced if you had been very specific about the nature of the risk in very real terms - if you demonstrated to us you were galvanised to action by talking to this parliament about the very specific risk we face as a community, given you have already rung the alarm bells in the community and we are now going to meet together on a Tuesday to sort this out because it is so serious.
What is the specific risk? Explain it to us! Persuade us, so we can consent to the call you have made. How did this specific risk we now face as a community remain unnoticed for 17 years? That needs to be explained to us clearly so we can handle our apprehension about working with this government when it makes such a call. We need to be persuaded. The ball is in your court. We will come with you, but you have to play it and recognise the difficulties we have after working with you for 10 years. We do not have that much confidence in you. By hesitating, by telling the world you had briefed us when you had not, by not being specific about the nature of the risk and explaining how this remained unnoticed for 17 years – that is a concern. How did it occur? How was it identified? What happened? Walk us through it. What happened to identify this? How was the alarm bell raised? Build our confidence so we can give you this consent, minister. You need to stand up and deliver this so we can follow you and understand we are following you in good faith. That has to be re-established. The things we have discussed here erode our confidence in this hopeless government.
To call upon us to follow you, you need to deal with these matters because, make no mistake, on this side of the Chamber we have real difficulty working with you. We have lost confidence in this government and the community has lost confidence in this government. You come in here and require urgency; you do not even make the case. You do not explain to us in specific and real terms what the nature of the risk is. We had media releases, we had small briefings, we had a media conference to alert the whole community, but we have no coherent explanation. We have a mumbled response and a call to arms, but we do not know exactly what it is.
I have a sense through all of this that there is a problem which needs a response. However, I have to say, lift your game so we understand exactly what it is you are asking this Chamber to do, because this is a matter that …
Mr Knight: You need to grow a brain.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … raises a number of questions.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Minister for Essential Services, I ask you to withdraw. I remind everyone you must stand when you are speaking to the Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Honourable members, I am very concerned about the parliamentary standards in this parliament and the level of interjections. This is only the second day of the last two weeks of parliament, and I am very concerned about the rudeness and unparliamentary behaviour generally. I will be putting more people on warnings, including you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We do not want to be a compliant and meek opposition. We are not weighing into this because it gives us joy. We have to protect the interests of the community. We have to test this government which we do not have confidence in, and we are calling upon you, minister, to state your case. Explain this to us, persuade us of the view, recognise there is a very real level of cynicism on this side of the Chamber; it does not exist because we were born that way; you have helped us to establish a very significant level of cynicism.
The big question is: how did this occur? It is a real question - not just political terms. I know that is the only way you blokes see things. How does a system we have in place, which allowed this risk which requires an urgent and galvanising response of the parliament, remain unnoticed for 17 years? The learned member for Johnston probably knows but we all need to know it. Respect the Chamber! Explain this to us so we can attend to it! That is what this is about.
Madam Speaker, we could have taken the alternate path and said: ‘Yes, whatever you say’, but we are not tame. We know our duty and will test you so we can be sure. When the alarm bells ring we will heed the call if it is an emergency.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I raise the same concerns as other colleagues. I am concerned why, after 17 years of operation of these laws, we are now being called to do something on urgency. When you look around the Northern Territory at the failures in SIHIP, the failures in child protection, you would think there is a range of other things …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow a little deviation but I am sure the member for Fong Lim will come to the point.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am speaking to this motion. What I am saying is there is a range of other things which are just as urgent - probably more urgent – to which this parliament should be devoting its time. The government has clearly failed in the areas of child protection and building houses for Indigenous people but now we have to debate an urgency motion about changes to the Water Act.
We have been led to believe the government has received advice from lawyers that there is a loophole which may be exploited, or someone could hurt themselves, or there is some other group with devious motives which is going to leap at this opportunity, drag the government into court and shut down businesses.
The member for Brennan made some very good points. We are talking about Power and Water Corporation, miners, and many other private operators which discharge water into the environment. If what we are led to believe is correct, almost the total economy of the Northern Territory is threatened by this legislation which stood for 17 years without challenge. Now we are dragged in here because some lawyer says he has found a loophole in the law which says someone can take the government or these organisations to court, and thereby sabotage the whole of the Northern Territory economy.
I ask the minister: who are these economic terrorists the government has identified? Who are these people who are lining up, ready to seize on this opportunity to take the government through the courts and sabotage the whole Northern Territory community and economy? It has been mentioned to me by some, in passing, that these people are in the community, very well-resourced, well-funded, environmental green activists ready to go.
Minister, as members of the Labor Party, you guys are best placed to know who these people are. You are in bed with groups which have obvious connections to these economic terrorists. Federally, the Australian Labor Party is in bed with The Greens; they have a formal coalition agreement with The Greens. The Greens may well be behind some of these activities. Your government funds the Environment Centre in the Northern Territory. I am sure you have very close contacts with groups like Greenpeace. I am sure there are other militant environmental activists out there to which your government and members of the Labor Party are very close.
Minister, when you sum up this debate, I would like you to explain which of these organisations is plotting the overthrow of the Northern Territory economy. Which of these groups is ready to go, has a pot of money and is ready to drag the government through the courts if we do not act on this matter urgently? Why is this matter so much more urgent than issues pertaining to child protection, Indigenous housing, and law and order in our community? When I talk to Territorians, that is what they are concerned about, and they are upset that this parliament is not acting on their concerns more urgently.
Now we are told legislation which has stood for 17 years unchallenged needs to be changed urgently because someone can, in effect, sabotage the Northern Territory economy by shutting down organisations like Power and Water, mining companies, and a range of other businesses which discharge water into the environment. You would never trust conspiracy theorists, but there has to be a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the government if it believes there is a group out there ready to quickly trot us into court.
Minister, it would be great if you could explain that. I, like the other members on this side of the Chamber, have reservations as to why this is so urgent. It would be very good if you could outline in a forthright manner exactly some of the concerns members have raised. What has triggered this investigation into the legal standing of this act? What prompted the Solicitor-General to look at it? Why did the Solicitor-General suggest it needed changing urgently? What groups are prepared to sabotage the Northern Territory economy and why? What information do you have on those groups?
It seems a bit bizarre to me to think there is a group like that. Greenpeace, even the Australian Greens and the Environment Centre are looking for public support. I would have thought sabotaging the Northern Territory economy would be a way of guaranteeing you get no public support. If there are people or organisations prepared to sabotage the Northern Territory economy, please explain who they are because Territorians have a right to know. Explain to us whether the Labor Party’s close coalition with the Australian Greens has given you inside information about some of these groups.
Madam Speaker, it is a bit rich to come in here demanding urgency on legislation given some of the circumstances in the Northern Territory, particularly in the area of child protection. You have a big report here. You said you are about to implement all 147 recommendations. I would have thought to do that would require a significant amount of the time of this parliament. Many of those recommendations are said to be urgent. We do not seem to be getting around to too many of them but we are quite prepared to act urgently on a law which has stood for 17 years without challenge.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, without doubt this is going to be a very important motion. First, it has demonstrated to the entire Northern Territory public how inept the minister is, how poorly advised and directed on parliamentary processes he is, and how ill-prepared he was when he came into this Chamber yesterday knowing he had a matter of urgency. He bungled his way through it. It is disgusting and disgraceful to see a highly paid minister of this Territory government botch a matter of urgency. One would have thought he would have been rehearsed to the letter so he got this right and we could get this through as a matter of urgency.
Next week, on 2 December, is when you want to finish this. That is when you want to finish it off as a matter of urgency. Not today, not tomorrow, but next week on 2 December. That is what is in our papers. I find it bizarre it has come through as a matter of urgency. This act has been in place, unchallenged, for a very long time. Unchallenged bar the member for Brennan who has done a fantastic job this year of prosecuting this poor government for its waste management and environmental control. The only reason this government has found anything is because the member for Brennan has done an amazing job of prosecuting this disgusting, disgraceful, worst government in the Northern Territory’s history, particularly when it comes to its management of these fine details. They are only fine details. It is not urgent because we are going to deal with it next week, not now.
I have great respect for the Solicitor-General’s position; however, I am concerned this letter he wrote on 28 October, over 20 days ago, had such urgency that the minister must bring it upon this parliament to change the act. In paragraph six of his letter he indicates:
- I have not investigated whether the activities in respect of which waste discharge licences have purportedly been granted would be unlawful in the absence of authorisation …
That paragraph leads me to suggest that even the Solicitor-General did not see it as such a matter of urgency because he did not further investigate how bad a problem this was. He could see that the intent of the act …
Mr KNIGHT: 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 in attendance.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of urgency and it is disgraceful the government has not stood by their man. Most of us have spoken on this because we see it is urgent. We also see there have been grave failings on the part of the government in dealing with this part of the act and the way this matter of urgency has been brought to parliament. The Solicitor-General brought this to the government’s attention on 28 October 2010. The government said it was a matter of urgency, yet the Solicitor-General has stopped short of investigating if it is that bad. I would have thought the minister would have big red lights in his office flashing: ‘Help, we have something really bad happening. We need something done urgently. Let us throw our entire department into finding out how bad this is’. The Solicitor-General stopped short of taking that further investigation step when he has the power to do so.
I am not saying it is not important to change it. I am questioning how urgent it is seeing it has not been contested, whether it is that important, whether the member for Brennan has done such a great job prosecuting this government on its poor performance this year it knows it is the one most likely to be acting unlawfully. It is the one most likely to be acting unlawfully because it is the biggest stakeholder in the Power and Water Corporation, which is pumping sewerage into the harbour and has come under great strain at the waste which has been floating around our harbour, onto our beaches and causing closures.
Yesterday, I spoke to visiting students. They all knew the beaches had been closed; they knew about the problem and where it was coming from. It is coming from your own corporation. The reality is, because of the fantastic prosecution by the member for Brennan of this government, the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory …
Mr Knight: He is too scared to meet Power and Water. Too scared to talk to the professionals there.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: I cannot hear when the member for Daly keeps interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Essential Services, you will cease interjecting. Member for Drysdale, please keep to the motion about urgency. It is not about all these other things. There has been enough deviation, thank you. It is about urgency.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, certainly. Can I make a point of order regarding the unparliamentary comments made by the member for Daly in relation to the member for Brennan? The comments were terrible.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear them. Minister for Essential Services, can you withdraw the comments, please. I did not hear them.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, very much. Member for Drysdale, remember it is about urgency.
Mr BOHLIN: As a matter of urgency, this government has realised it is most likely to have legal action taken against it. As a matter of urgency, it has seen the need to amend this act to prevent prosecution of the government. After a fantastic prosecution from the member for Brennan, this government has identified it is the one most likely to have legal action taken against it for the waste discharge. It is the one most likely to be in court. It is about covering its own tail, not about whether it needs to be changed, because it has not been challenged.
As a matter of urgency …
Ms Lawrie: If you do not pass on urgency, you cannot take it to court.
Mr BOHLIN: I doubt that is so. It is quite strange, as the member for Fong Lim said, that child protection should have been at the forefront as a matter of urgency. Yesterday, as a matter of urgency, we spent over five hours gloating about what the government believes it has done when we heard a statement on jobs. We should have been dealing with fixing child protection. As a matter of urgency, next week this will come before us again to go through all its stages.
The letter from the Solicitor-General was sent on 28 October 2010. This government has had over 20 days to prepare itself for a matter of urgency, prepare the legislation, and to prosecute that argument in this House. We would have supported it, without a doubt! But you failed to deliver. You failed to deliver a good argument …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Knight: I am glad you are not carrying a gun around any more …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Essential Services, cease interjecting!
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of urgency, apparently. We will soon see what comes out in a vote. The government has had since 28 October to get its business in the one sock and present its case so this parliament could undertake its business. However, we wasted five hours yesterday debating the statement. Child protection is in the forefront of every Territorian’s mind. I believe this government’s real motivation is to ensure it protects its tailbone; it is the most liable because it is the stakeholder of Power and Water Corporation which has been polluting our harbour uncontrollably and unchecked for a long period of time, including the last 10 years and beyond.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I highlight to all those in the gallery, all the public servants, and all the Territory citizens that today we are witnessing history. Territory history is unfolding as we speak. This is the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory and, once again, it is proving it in spades.
The minister was on television on Monday night saying: ‘Okay, this is a pretty big deal. It is big on my agenda. I have to get in there and pass this on urgency tomorrow so we can square up bits of this act which have been anomalies for 18 years. I have to get in there and do it’. We saw him fluff over the process yesterday. Today, we are no closer to this being passed on urgency. It flies in the face of the definition of ‘urgency’, when we saw a day pass yesterday and we are no closer to it, and saw another five hours taken up with, yet again, another political puff piece on jobs. When challenged on that at 8.30 pm last night, after five hours of debating it, the minister said: ‘This is a pretty important statement’. Yes, jobs are pretty important to Territorians. I do not believe five hours spent on a political puff piece is good use of taxpayers’ money. It flies in the face of the definition of ‘urgency’ when even today it is item No 3 on the Notice Paper for ‘Mr Hampton to move so much …’ etcetera, of the debate we are undertaking now.
We have already had two notices introduced. It hardly seems urgent and that is the concern of the opposition. It is a little suspicious; it is supposed to be urgent, but it is anything but urgent. There are many other areas in the Territory which require urgent attention. Law and order is one of them. Anyone from anywhere in the Territory will tell you law and order is out of control in so many areas and, once again, the latest crime statistics illustrate that. We talk about jobs; well, it is very hard to create and sustain jobs when you do not have the capacity for affordable housing for low- to middle-income earners. Child protection, of course, is hot, it is …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This motion is about the urgency of the Water Amendment Bill. There is a high level of irrelevance in the comments from the member of Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. I have given a great deal of latitude to a number of members but I remind you of what the motion is: that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Water Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 137) passing through all stages on Thursday, 2 December 2010. Member for Greatorex, I remind you that that is what the bill is about.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am using the time allotted to me to develop my argument to prove and illustrate that while this motion is about urgency, the government seems to have no understanding of the definition of urgency, considering this is day two of parliament and the minister said on Monday night he was going to do this first thing on Tuesday morning.
I highlight law and order, which I believe is urgent. It is an urgent matter facing Territorians. I highlight the housing crisis and the land shortage crisis we are facing in the Northern Territory. These are urgent needs which this government should be focusing on. Again, child protection - which is right across the country. Tasmania is facing some serious issues with child protection. The Northern Territory has, once again, been dragged into the spotlight because of its failure to act on child protection matters. Five failed Child Protection ministers. There is no doubt that you have failed as Child Protection ministers …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that in an urgency motion you are only allowed to speak about the motion. You are not speaking to the motion.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, as I am using the time allocated to me, I am developing my argument to illustrate that this government has no understanding of the word urgency. I am utilising this time, the 15 minutes I have …
Madam SPEAKER: It has to relate to the motion, which relates to none of those things you have spoken about. There has been a great deal of deviation allowed.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, if I am allowed to develop my argument, you will see it will relate to it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a long-standing procedure in this House, member for Greatorex, that when we are debating a motion on urgency, the debate only relates to the motion before us. So I call you, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, we are talking about urgency, you are absolutely right, but while we are talking about urgency, I cannot ignore the fact we have had five failed Child Protection ministers in this House.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: If you were that good, and that adept at your job …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Greatorex has clearly not heard your ruling in terms of relevance. He is digressing again from the motion on urgency for the Water Amendment Bill.
Mr Mills: They are sensitive about this one.
Madam SPEAKER: As the Leader of the Opposition has made an interjection, you will recall, Leader of the Opposition, as one of the two longest-serving members in this House, that a debate on urgency relates only to the motion. While I and previous Speakers have allowed a level of latitude in debating a motion on urgency, we have certainly gone well beyond that at this stage. Member for Greatorex, I remind you that the motion is about the Water Amendment Bill.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can see this is very sensitive. There will be plenty of opportunity to highlight the failures of this government over the next couple of days, in particular its failures in child protection and the five failed Child Protection ministers it has had. If it was adept why would it have had five ministers?
As I have highlighted, there are so many pressing issues facing the Northern Territory: law and order; housing; child protection; hospital waiting lists; a raft of things, yet here we are …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. You have directed the member to confine his remarks to the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: I assume the member for Greatorex is winding up.
Mr CONLAN: I am, Madam Speaker …
Dr Burns: He is wound up already.
Mr CONLAN: I am wound up …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: You are dead right because again we come into this parliament and see such time wasting as yesterday and here we have a government with the audacity to say: ‘This is urgent, let us bring it on’. When are we going to get around to it? There is plenty of time to highlight the failures of this government because there is no shortage of them.
Madam Speaker, this whole thing is a little suspicious. It is grossly incompetent of the minister. It highlights that we are witnessing the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, as the minister for the Environment I have found this debate very important. I have said on the record that I was not happy to bring this on, on urgency because I know the Westminster system. I know the testings and the role we all have to play as legislators in this Assembly. As minister I did not want to bring this in on urgency but I had to on the advice of the Solicitor-General and I take that advice very seriously.
For me it is a matter of listening to the debate; it is a matter of testings. When I was first made aware of this - a number of speakers have given out the running time line on this - the Solicitor-General’s advice was provided on 28 October, a little less than four weeks ago, and I have acted responsibly as the minister. As a government, we have acted in the appropriate manner and in the time frame we were able to do it. This is the first sittings since receiving that advice on 28 October and as my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business articulately pointed out, the process - I know the members opposite have not been in government, maybe the member for Blain has as the oldest member on that side of the House, but when you are in government …
Ms Lawrie: And Port Darwin.
Mr HAMPTON: … and Port Darwin, sorry member for Port Darwin, but those two would understand the processes and the member for Port Darwin acknowledged there is a process when you are in government, which, as a minister, you have to go through to test the advice you receive. There is a number of tests you go through …
Mr Elferink: When did you finally make a decision as a Cabinet?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Why were we not told last week?
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I am trying to respond to this debate.
Mr Elferink: You said last week, so why were we told on Monday?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: It is all about you is it, John?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The minister has the call, not you, member for Port Darwin, or you, Treasurer! The minister has the call.
Mr Elferink: It is about competence.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, we received the advice on 28 October and my colleague, the Leader of Government Business, explained the processes which government and ministers go through when you receive this type of advice. This is the first sittings since we received that advice. If we do not pass this motion on urgency during these sittings, as I said in my second reading speech yesterday and my contribution today, we have to wait three months during the Wet Season until the next sittings in February. That is why it is on urgency. I have acted responsibly as the minister. This government has acted in the appropriate manner and in the quickest time frame we could.
I will take the Solicitor-General’s advice on board. This motion is about the urgency. If this motion is passed today we have plenty of time to debate the other elements of the amendment bill next week. That is the whole idea of it. There have been a number of good points raised by members opposite and I especially thank the independents because they have put on record that they will support this motion. I am not sure about the opposition. I thank the member for Macdonnell. She is a former Environment minister and understands the complexities of the portfolio and the urgency of this motion. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and support for this motion. I am not sure where the opposition stands on this. I urge them to pass this and support this motion on urgency. Next week we can debate fully some of the points raised by the members opposite.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 125)
(Serial 125)
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which seeks to amend three pieces of Territory legislation: the Superannuation Act; the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund Act; and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities’ Superannuation Scheme Rules, all through a number of significant amendments and minor administrative amendments. I thank the Treasurer and Treasury staff for providing a briefing on this legislation. I indicate the opposition will be supporting this bill.
In the first significant part of this bill is a proposed repeal of Part 4, Division 3 of the Superannuation Act which includes sections 45J, 45K and 45L. These sections deal with the requirement for a medical classification upon entry to the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme established under section 45G, and where membership is provided for under section 45H.
Under the sections which it is proposed to repeal there is currently a requirement for new members - those employed on or after 1 July 2007 - to submit a medical declaration to the Commissioner for Superannuation. The commissioner could accept the medical declaration or direct the member to either provide further medical information or undergo a medical examination or examinations. This was for the purpose of defining a member into a reduced benefit classification, or otherwise, for the purpose of reducing the death or invalidity benefit payable to a member whose pre-existing medical condition contributed to the death or invalidity of that member within a 10 year period.
The history of the implementation of that scheme was borne out of a perceived disparity between members with and without pre-existing medical conditions and the benefits they should receive if that pre-existing condition contributed to their death or invalidity. This amendment removes those provisions so all members of the scheme will be treated equally. The Treasurer has also cited other reasons for disbanding this part of the scheme.
There is apparently a cost reason: to rid ourselves of what has become a rather inefficient cost and cumbersome requirement. I am advised, and the Treasurer raised this in her second reading speech, these provisions cost the Territory government around $100 000 per annum, and that is not taking into account the additional costs to community in medical time spent on conducting examinations where the time of medical practitioners could be spent dealing with more critical issues.
According to the statistics provided by the Treasurer, and the second reading speech, since 2007 more than 1000 new members to the scheme have been required to undergo further medical assessment, with around 250 of those people having their cover reduced. It is noteworthy that only one person has received a reduced benefit from the scheme since its inception in 2007. With an annual investment of $100 000 and only one benefit, to the tune of $12 000, received by the Territory, the inefficiencies of the scheme are quite apparent.
There are some further amendments to the act, along with some transitional arrangements for the NTGDI scheme. There are a number of other significant amendments to the legislation in this bill. One revolves around the capacity of a person to take a superannuation benefit while they continue to work, even if part-time. This is an initiative agreed to by the opposition in general terms, in that it encourages mature-age employees to work for longer. These changes apply to people who have choice-of-fund superannuation arrangements; however, they will not apply to members of NTGPASS or NTSSS. Those people would have to resign to take their superannuation benefit.
Looking at how these changes occur in the legislation - and this applies to other parts of the legislation as well - one needs to look at the definition at section 3 of the word ‘adherent’. It goes on to define adherent of the NTGPASS scheme as:
- … a person who is not an eligible employee (and hence not a member of that Scheme), but in whose name an accumulation account exists in the Fund.
One then has to dissect the definition of ‘eligible employee’ and some changes to that to see how the effects take place in legislation. The nett effect of those changes to the superannuation rules allows an employee of the NT government to transition to retirement; that is, remain employed by the Northern Territory government and access their superannuation, unless the person is a member of NTGPASS or NTSSS. In the case of those members, they have to resign from the NT government before they can access their superannuation.
The next significant proposed change to the legislation in this bill involves a change in the Superannuation Act with respect to fees which may be charged by the commissioner. Section 50A of the Superannuation Act is amended to allow for an account-keeping fee to be charged to a person who is an adherent. Currently, as I understand it, NTGPASS account-based pension members are charged a variety of fees on their accounts, including account-keeping fees. This amendment brings into line with other superannuation funds, particularly the superannuation choice funds, the concept of an account-keeping fee for retained members where, at the present time, one does not exist. I note this change to the provisions relates only to retained members, who are those who have an accumulation fund with NTGPASS, and who are no longer employed by the NT government.
During the briefing, I was advised these legislative reforms are Stage 1 of a two-stage process of superannuation reform being undertaken by Treasury and the Northern Territory government. In saying that, and in talking about fees being applied to certain members of funds, I hope this is not the thin edge of the wedge in bringing out other fees which might come in for members of NTGPASS who are still employed by the Northern Territory government. As I understand it, currently there are no account-keeping fees for members of NTGPASS if they are employed. I will be seeking a guarantee from the Treasurer that in Stage 2 there will be no further fees sneaking, incrementally or otherwise, into accounts of currently employed NTGPASS members.
The other significant changes to legislation in these amendments relate to the consolidation of the three existing superannuation boards. These are the Superannuation Investment Board, established under the Superannuation Act and responsible for NTGPASS members; the second is the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Trust, responsible for LAMS; and the NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, which is responsible for the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme. In total, I believe approximately $750m is administered by these three schemes.
Given the complexities around Commonwealth legislation and changes to trustee obligations and responsibilities, there have been moves to rationalise trustee arrangements in other parts of the country. The moves in this bill to achieve consolidation, a bit of streamlining, and even simplification of the structure of superannuation boards of the Northern Territory are consistent with moves elsewhere. The information provided to me at the briefing, and I have to admit, I did not get a chance to chase it up personally, was that the move by the government to consolidate these boards is supported by members of those boards. I take that on face value; I have no reason to believe otherwise.
To me it seems like sensible legislation as part of an overall move by the Northern Territory government to rationalise and reform superannuation across the Northern Territory. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what stage 2 will bring.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasury staff for their briefing. It was most informative and they were very frank in answering questions, even outside of the specific purview specifically of the act.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and I thank the opposition for their support of the bill. Superannuation is a very important topic. It is one of the most important things people can have. Often people do not know how much they have in super, it just ticks away, going in each pay. They do not know their balance, but when it comes to their retirement years, their sunset years, it is one of the most important things you can have, with your health, to get you through. Often people do not know what is going on with their super and, as you know, that is what we are talking about today.
Government manages some super funds, and we do that responsibly. Part of being a responsible manager of a super fund is to look at it from time to time, see how you can review it and reform it, and what fixes you can put in place which will deliver a greater return on the investment without risking the benefit. A superannuation fund should be rock-solid, safe and stable. You get the occasional hits that come along, like the global financial crisis, which collect everyone on their way, but superannuation funds need to be managed responsibly and, as part of managing our super funds responsibly, we are debating this bill.
It is a sensible bill which reduces red tape and administration costs for running government super. It restructures governance arrangements by creating a single trustee board for three super funds with no loss of benefits or conditions for existing members. The Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer have already spoken about the three boards and how they operate. I know the shadow Treasurer mentioned the members of those current boards and whether they are happy to be merged into a single board. I understand through the Treasurer that they are happy with that new governance arrangement. I am sure the Treasurer will touch on that when she wraps this bill today before we go into passage.
Perhaps more importantly for the new members of the scheme, the requirement for a medical examination has been dropped. I am not a member of a government scheme, I am with the CareSuper fund, a legacy of an earlier job, and I was quite shocked to learn about the requirement for a medical examination. I was not required to have a medical exam to become a member of the CareSuper fund. I was quite surprised that some super funds do require you to have a medical test. It was an odd thing to learn. I am happy to speak to a bill which will see that requirement for entering a super fund removed, and other onerous paperwork requirements reduced.
These reforms modernise super schemes so they are, as the Treasurer commented in her speech, the first step in our reforms. Today’s bill proposes four separate reforms:
1. removing the medical provisions required for new members of the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme;
3. improve the ability for members to retire or transition to retirement by opting out of their scheme when they reach the preservation age, which is currently 55; and
4. simplifying the governance structure by creating a single trustee board to oversee the Territory’s defined benefit funds.
Four simple reforms , the effects of which will be to reduce the cost of the scheme, which in turn improves benefits and improves the returns for members.
The third reform, making it easy for people to transition out of this fund when they reach preservation age - it is not always the easiest thing to roll over super or do whatever you want to do with your super. As I mentioned before, I am a member of the CareSuper fund. When I was working at Big W stacking the shelves, working my way through uni, I was a member of the REST Super fund, a great super fund; I know because I have a very small amount of money with them. I tried to roll it over a couple of years ago. I wrote to them, filled out all the forms and said I would like to roll my REST into my CareSuper fund. They wrote back eventually and said: ‘I am sorry, Big W says you still work for them and you cannot roll your funds over’. It has been 10 or 12 years since I worked for Big W. I am glad it still claims me; I am very proud of my years at Big W. It was a great job and helped me get through uni, but apparently I still have a job there and I cannot roll my super funds over. I am sure I could clear that up if I tried again now, but it is something I will look at when my super is going to come to fruition; I will get around to it eventually.
Super funds do a great job. It was good of REST in many ways to say: ‘No, we want to look after your money and we want to look after you as best we can. We think we can do that best and you are still working in the retail industry’, which of course I no longer am.
To return to that first reform around the new entrant medical requirements for the NTGDIS, I quote the Treasurer’s summary of the current process.
- The current legislative regime, as set out in the Superannuation Act, requires new employees who have been employed since the scheme was established in 2007 to complete a medical declaration before they are eligible for full cover from the scheme. Where a new employee is assessed as having a high risk of death or invalidity, a medical examination is undertaken to determine if their cover should be reduced in their first 10 years of employment. Members employed prior to 2007 are retrospectively assessed if they die or become an invalid in their first 10 years of employment. After 10 years, all employees are entitled to full cover.
That is a bit of a mouthful. It is a complicated process, as members can appreciate, and as the Treasurer has costed, this is an expensive process, about $100 000 per agency. It is costly to have a medical examination when you first enter the scheme. As the Treasurer said, it is an impost on our medical services and doctors to have a medical check with - you know I am fully healthy today, go and get a check to see if I can enter the scheme or not, that is a tick in the check-in book at the doctors where someone else who is genuinely sick may want to get in that day. In the three years there have been 8500 medical examinations which would not have otherwise been required. The outcomes of those 8500 medical examinations, and the shadow Treasurer and the Treasurer spoke about this too, have not reduced the Territory’s liability. For all that effort and imposition there has been no measurable benefit to the scheme. A benefit to the scheme is a benefit to members and the return members receive. So we are going along to the doctor, getting a check, assessing the liability, 8500 visits, $100 000 per agency and there has not been a measurable benefit to the scheme. So it is a very sensible reform to remove that.
The second reform is aimed at keeping our senior public servants in the workforce; we do not want to lose their talents or corporate knowledge. As the scheme sits at the moment there is an incentive to retire at 55 when their super benefits are maximised. I am sure plenty of members have had these conversations with public servants when they talk about trying to work out the right time to do this and do that. We do not want them doing that, we want them to stay; we need them. It is very important to retain our senior public servants. I have never quite understood money because I have never been part of the scheme. I have not had to work it out for myself - it is many years away anyway. But it is good to see we are fixing that through this bill, because it always has been a bit of an issue and you talk to good public servants who move on and end up doing other jobs or other things to benefit their retirement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, given that there is a committee meeting, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to continue after Question Time.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangements – Member for Nelson and Member for Macdonnell
Pairing Arrangements – Member for Nelson and Member for Macdonnell
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received an e-mail from the member for Nelson regarding pairing:
- I would like to advise you that during my leave of absence on 24 and 25 November 2010 the member for Macdonnell, Ms Anderson, has agreed to be my pair in the event of a division.
It is signed by Mr Wood. I table that document.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government – Montara Oil Spill
Proposed Censure of Government – Montara Oil Spill
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Northern Territory government for its completely incompetent handling of its duties regarding the Montara oil facilities and other facilities under its command and protection.
Contained in the media release from the federal minister for Resources regarding the Montara report is a very short sentence saying ‘Montara was preventable’. All accidents, all incidents, are preventable and the minister knows that. The minister also knows there is not one single action which contributes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, it is impossible to hear. It is an important motion; I would like to hear what is going on.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister would also be aware that apart from accidents being preventable, there is more than one action which contributes to an incident or accident. In this case, the commission has identified many contributing factors. One of them was the company and its processes and procedures failings and systems failings, but the other one clearly identified in the report, in the minister’s statement to the House and his media release, is the Northern Territory Designated Authority, quote:
- If either, or preferably both, PTTEPAA or the Northern Territory Designated Authority had done their jobs properly and complied with requirements, the Montara blowout would never have happened.
Saturday, 7 March 2009 will go down as the day it all went wrong with the Montara oil field. The inquiry commissioner, David Borthwick reports, and I will make selective quotes - this is what happened in the lead-up to the incident:
- … pumped an amount of cement into the 95/8” casing shoe (the shoe being located within the bottom-most lengths of the casing). At that point, the casing was located inside the reservoir at a point 3 m, (10 feet) above the oil-water contact, thereby providing a pathway for hydrocarbons to enter the well through the casing shoe. The cementing procedure was intended to set the casing shoe in the wellbore, and thereby provide a primary barrier against the blowout.
Following pumping of the cement, pressure was held in the casing to 4000psi. Upon release of the pressure, 16.5 barrels of fluid returned. The return of this fluid indicated that there was a problem with the float valves in the casing shoe. The 16.5 barrels of fluid were pumped back down the casing, and the top of the casing was then closed-in so as to maintain pressure in the casing whilst the cement set.
On 7 March 2009, conditions were set which resulted in the eventual blowout of the Montara well on 21 August. If the minister was leading his department properly, people would have been on the Montara platform talking to the company personnel either offshore or onshore, so some of these issues with their systems, procedures and case management would have been picked up.
- Australia’s third largest oil spill after the Kirki oil tanker in 1999 and the Princess Anne Marie oil tanker in 1975.
That is not a good record: the third largest oil spill. The commissioner then reported:
- … the blowout is the worst of its kind in Australia’s offshore petroleum industry history.
It is good news the government is working with the Commonwealth government to make things better because in any industry we learn from accidents and from mistakes so they never happen again. It was only by the good grace of Our Lord that no one was hurt or killed in this incident. The potential was there; thankfully, it did not happen. What would have been the situation if people were hurt or killed? Would the minister still be saying: ‘It is not really my responsibility. It is not my government’s responsibility’? How would you say that to the families if they had lost someone, minister?
It was this Labor government’s failure to resource the regulatory body to a sustainable level over an extended period of time. All it could do late on a Friday afternoon, on receiving a call from the well operator that a plan of work was required, was a tick-and-flick assessment of the hazards and the risks. It was all the department could do to sign off on a program of work, sight unseen, the following week.
The Northern Territory government departmental people can go onto offshore facilities. They have been on the floating production facilities, I know, but very few times have they ever been to a facility such as Montara - probably because they are not encouraged to, directed to, or because they do not have the funding or resources to allow them to do their jobs properly. It was an absence of oversight, a lack of resources, and a lack of will by this government to do the right thing which allowed the Montara well closure to slip through the system. Mr Borthwick reported:
- For a period of just over 10 weeks, oil and gas continued to flow unabated into the Timor Sea, approximately 250 km off the northwest coast of Australia. Patches of sheen or weathered oil could have affected at various times an area as large as 90 000 km.
And the minister says it is not an environmental issue! What was one of the key findings of the Montara inquiry report? The report says the Northern Territory regulator ‘was not a diligent regulator’. At the beginning of the report - and I quote from the executive summary:
- Although the likelihood of a major blowout occurring is relatively low, the consequences can be very grave. However, the likelihood is relatively low only because well integrity is (or should be) scrupulously observed by industry and those who regulate it.
There was a joint partnership between the company and those who regulate it, which is the Northern Territory government, and they failed to regulate, and assist the company in going about their business.
- … it should not have approved the Phase 1B Drilling Program for the Montara oil field in July 2009 …
This is what the report is saying about the Northern Territory government agency and the way the minister went about the work:
- … as it did not reflect sensible oil field practice; it also adopted a minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities.
Even today, I rang the government switchboard to be put through to the Director of Energy and I was told by the operator no such position exists.
- The way the regulator … conducted its responsibilities gave it little chance of discovering PTTEPAA’s poor practices.
It is one thing for the company to have poor practices; it is another thing for the regulator, regardless of the industry, to assist the company through regulation, education, or cooperation so it implements best practices, not poor practices. What did the commissioner say about the Northern Territory? I quote:
- The inquiry is of the view that PTTEPAA engaged with the regulator as if it were a ‘soft touch’.
That is how the department was seen, which I am very sad about, because I know there are some very good, decent, hardworking people there.
The Territory regulator was soft, it was weak but, more importantly, it was understaffed, under-skilled and undeserving of the failure of this government and this minister has to go into bat for his department to give it the necessary resources. Over the last 10 years, I have seen how that department, the Resources department, mines department, call it what you like, has been dumbed down. It has not replaced the level of skill, professionalism and expertise we need going into the next phase of development in the Northern Territory in the minerals industry and the offshore oil and gas industry.
We are talking of billions of dollars of project coming onshore in the form of INPEX, and yet we have this report, right around the country now, telling everyone, telling industry, that the government is not up to the job. I am reminded of the winding back over the last 10 years of the Energy division of the Department of Resources, a stand-alone director and staff across the field of energy management and regulation. Experts and four staff, not as we have seen reported before. I quote:
- The Northern Territory Department of Resources regulatory regime was totally inadequate, being little more than a tick and flick exercise.
To show just how in the dark the department was, the commissioner reported:
- Mention has already been made of multiple deficiencies in terms of PTTEPAA’s own well construction management systems and to numerous specific failures. Yet the fact is that none of this was apparent to the Northern Territory Department of Resources. It also appears unlikely that the Northern Territory Department of Resources would have become aware of most of these deficiencies if this inquiry had not uncovered them.
So if this inquiry had not taken place, we could well have a project, an operation similar to Montara, with systems not as good as they should be, operating under the Northern Territory government’s watch.
The department was not looking in the wrong place; it was not looking, full stop. The reason it was not looking is because this government has gutted the Energy division of its department over the last five to 10 years. It has failed in its duty to provide the resources and, as a consequence, it has failed the people of the Northern Territory, offshore oil and gas industry, and Australia.
The offshore oil and gas industry is an international industry. Every time there is an incident or accident of this proportion offshore, it goes around the globe in regard to what happened, why it happened, what can we learn from it and how can we ensure it never happens again. Part of that analysis will go clearly and very specifically to the regulator of the operation, as it has done in other cases where there have been accidents and incidences. The most notable, which some members of this House may be familiar with, was the Piper Alpha accident, which was an exceptionally tragic accident. At the heart of that accident in the North Sea was the intense and systematic breakdown of procedures, processes and the role of the regulator.
Following the Piper Alpha accident, industry around the globe changed how it went about its business. It changed technically, engineering-wise in regard to safety case management, it changed across the board for the benefit of people and their safety, the environment and the industry. No doubt there will be changes similar to that, on a smaller scale, perhaps, given that there were no people hurt or killed in this incident, which will go across the country. The commissioner tells us the reason why this is so:
- The inquiry formed the view that the resources and expertise that the Northern Territory Department of Resources devoted to its task as delegate of the DA were inadequate (effectively only one person, who appeared to have a limited ability fulfilled this task).
One person working with the offshore oil and gas industry in their operations; one person assisting in the regulation of the offshore gas industry. The recommendation about this is that the federal minister takes the responsibility away from the Northern Territory government. Let us have a look.
Members: No he hasn’t.
Ms PURICK: He wants to. The minister would like to. I know minister Ferguson is not pleased with the Northern Territory government on many fronts, notably – well, we will not go into why he is not pleased, but this certainly will not please him. Yes, the Northern Territory government has been fully cooperative, as you would expect both from a political level and a departmental level. But point 37 of the minister’s speech says:
- … more robust approval assessment processes to ensure integrity and consistency of decisions relating to well activity with co-assessment by the ….
Not by the Northern Territory government and Western Australia, by the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum. You are not capable or competent enough to do the assessment yourselves. You have to get the big brother or big sister from Western Australia. I have no issue with Western Australia. Effectively, you have handed over management of our offshore oil and gas industry. Are we going to have to use the Western Australian Department of Mines and Energy to help us with the INPEX project? Based on this, I can draw the conclusion that we will.
The Northern Territory government has demonstrated it is so incompetent it cannot manage a billion dollar offshore oil and gas industry. It does not have the oversight, did not provide the resources to the department, and quite clearly did not do its job. It has been stated in the report. The minister stated it in the parliament. What comfort are we, as the Northern Territory, going to give to future oil and gas operators, whether they are partners in INPEX, Greater Sunrise partners, Evans Shoal or the proposed offshore floating Methanex plant? They will get no comfort from this decision which will be all around the country. The national oil and gas industry group, APPEA, has already made statements it will be working with industry. It has already been working with industry. Clearly the Northern Territory government has not been doing much with industry because we have not heard anything from the minister about the problems which have arisen because of the Montara fire and spill.
A couple of points in the minister’s speech to highlight again how the Northern Territory government has failed Territorians, the industry, Australia, and our reputation as a desirable destination for offshore oil and gas investment. Point 17:
- … the Northern Territory Department of Resources was not a diligent regulator and its minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities gave it little chance of discovering these poor practices.
That is a pretty damning statement. Yes, the company has much to answer, and all of its operations in Australia are being reviewed. It may lose its licence to operate, but it is not for me to comment on that. That is between the governments and the operators.
Further into the minister’s statements he has instructed his department:
- … and Geoscience Australia to provide ongoing assistance to the Northern Territory in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities more generally.
So it is not just about this incident and the oil and gas industry offshore. It is about fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities more generally. What does that mean? We have another part of the federal department coming into the Territory to assist. I have no issue with Geoscience Australia. It is an eminently qualified and reputable organisation within government, but it shows that this government has taken its eye off the ball with what should be their premier government agency, the resources agency.
I have spoken about the fact we will have to work with the Western Australian government more closely because this government does not have the necessary skills or leadership to undertake the important task it has in the offshore oil and gas industry, which is very different to the onshore hard rock mining industry. Perhaps the minister needs to explain to the House whether he knows the difference.
There are many comments about the Department of Resources in the major report: not a sufficiently diligent regulator; should not have approved the production or certain things the company did; the manifest failures within PTT extended to the interactions the company had with the regulator, or perhaps it should be that the company did not have with the regulator. The Department of Resources, in the inquiry’s view, had become far too comfortable:
- The inquiry is of the view that PTTEPAA engaged with the regulator as if it were a ‘soft touch’.
Clearly, the company did not take the Northern Territory government seriously because there had been no relationship building with them. The company was probably not even aware it should have a relationship with the Northern Territory government. It probably thought it had to report to the Western Australian government rather than the Northern Territory government.
- The Northern Territory has also contended that ‘at all material times prior to the [blowout], the Territory appropriately administered the licence area within which the Montara Wellhead Platform is located’.
That is what the Northern Territory government told the inquiry. However, the inquiry:
- … has no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
Clearly, the commissioner, and the inquiry, could see that what was being put to them was blatantly incorrect. The Northern Territory Department of Resources made a major error when it approved the Phase 1B drilling program in July 2009. Yes, the company put the drilling program together and it was obviously flawed, but compounding the problem was Northern Territory government approval.
Probably the reason they approved was they did not know what they were looking at. They probably did not know what they were reading and the consequences of how that drilling program had been put together. There is much in this report; it is nearly 400 pages long. The federal minister has lost faith in the Northern Territory government and would be disappointed in delivering this report to the federal department because he is a person who has to promote and sell Australia as a desirable destination for investment in the oil and gas industry. The Northern Territory is blessed with oil and gas - more gas than oil at this point in time - and again it raises the issue of this government putting itself and the Territory in the position where we are becoming less attractive to these large-scale companies.
Mr Vatskalis: Pull the Territory down. Talk the Territory down.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I take up on the minister’s interjection. Yes, the government has done much work with INPEX, as have many people in this town, the business community notably. However, recently, under the current minister we have seen Arafura Resources take their proposed processing plant to South Australia. They were there for five minutes and received major project status. You really did not help them. You did not help …
Mr Henderson: Wrong, that is not what they have said. They have publicly said they had extraordinary help from the Territory.
Mr Bohlin: South Australia gave it major project status straightaway.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: Extraordinary help.
Ms PURICK: Is that why they went to South Australia and received major project status?
Mr Henderson: Best place to do business in Australia.
Mr Elferink: Which is why they went to South Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, please direct your comments through the Chair. Members, cease interjecting!
Ms PURICK: We saw Arafura take their processing plant, their jobs and their investment to South Australia. We saw the environment department stymie the Batchelor project. Area 55 - you know this to be correct, minister - the environmental conditions put on the company will never be able to be met. They will not be able to be complied with; you have effectively written them out of the equation. This was one of the companies you actively encouraged to have a Chinese investment partner. I was there for the big signing. The minister was there with the Chinese partners: this is going to be the best thing since button up boots. Now the project is on permanent care and maintenance. That is in their media release. We have seen Arafura leave town.
We have seen Browns and Area 5 shut down. We have seen jobs go out of the Territory and a major exploration company in Darwin is closing its office in February. They are taking 20 staff out of the Northern Territory. The minister knows this company is leaving town, the department knew this company was leaving town, yet has done nothing to encourage them to stay in the Northern Territory. They will keep their tenements active in the Northern Territory, but they are leaving town. What has the minister done about it? Nothing! Previously, ministers would have been on this company’s doorstep. The company told them back in January it was looking to leave town, and they have done nothing. This company has a salary bill of $6m to $8m; it employs about 20 staff; it employs Aboriginal people on its tenements in Arnhem Land. It will be gone by about February/March next year. This company is disappointed with the way the Northern Territory government has been dealing with it …
A member: Really, that is not what they have told me.
Ms PURICK: Yes, and it is the same company which has the Angela project in Alice Springs. Hand on the heart, Chief Minister: ‘I feel it in my blood, the people of Alice Springs do not love this company or this project’ ...
Mr Henderson: Do you support the Leader of the Opposition’s position?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Cease interjecting! Order! The member for Goyder has the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, three years ago, the current minister for Resources invited companies from around Australia and internationally …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Ms PURICK: The current minister invited companies to bid for the right to explore Angela Pamela …
Mr Henderson: Do you support Terry’s position or not?
Ms PURICK: He was out there. The Chief Minister is on the public record saying: ‘This is a good prospect; I welcome this economic contribution if and when it happens’ …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is very difficult to hear with all these interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed. There are a great many interjections. Please cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: So, two-and-a-half years down the line, the company and its joint venture partner have spent upwards of $12m in the Central Australian community and the Chief Minister turns around and says: ‘You can still explore but if you find something we are not going to support you’.
Take the politics out of it, Chief Minister. How does that look to the international community? The Fraser Institute has dropped us in ranking in regard to sovereign risk, based solely on that decision. That does not send good signals to the international community. This Montara report does not send good signals to the offshore oil and gas industry or the investment community.
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of time for the minister. I spoke in the last sittings about how he has done an exceptional job for the industry and he is a great champion of the industry. However, I believe he has taken his eye off the ball and the game. He has not only let the industry down, he has let the Northern Territory down. More importantly, he has let Territorians down in regard to the future of our Territory. He should be sacked, or resign.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I believe our minister for Resources is the best minister for Resources the Territory has ever had. I was minister for Resources for a while. I acknowledge that the passion for the industry and the huge amount of work the minister has put in to promote the industry, not only here in Australia but around the world, is unprecedented. I totally support and endorse the minister for Resources and his handling of this portfolio.
I will go to a number of the comments made by the shadow minister in a moment. First, this report is not a good report and does point to very significant failings of the company. Significant mistakes were made in the department of Resources in the regulation of the drilling program for this project. I acknowledge mistakes were made.
If you look at this issue in the context of the history of the offshore industry in Northern Australia, this is an incident which should not have happened. It is very regrettable that it did happen. Our responsibility, both nationally and in the Territory, is to ensure we learn from this and it does not happen again.
I also point out that around a similar time - six or eight months earlier - the Varanus gas field in Western Australia had a very significant explosion which cut off gas supplies to virtually all of Western Australia for a significant period of time. The comprehensive and transparent way the Territory has cooperated with the inquiry and the Commonwealth is in contrast with that of the Western Australian authorities. The Western Australian government’s report into the Varanus explosion was completed 12 months ago; it has yet to see the light of day. The Commonwealth, which co-funded this report, has tried to access it, and the Western Australian government will not release it because of so-called commercial issues. We have been transparent, open and cooperative with the inquiry because we want to learn from this experience and not see it repeated.
The Territory and all of the states have agreed there should be a new national regulatory regime, that this industry now is too important, too big; we are talking about a multibillion dollar international industry. The regulation of that industry should be a national effort, not left with different regulatory regimes in different states. In trying to recruit and retain professional people to regulate this industry, the reality is there is enormous competition globally for these resources. The international oil and gas industry can offer globally-competitive salaries and conditions to work in the industry. All Australian jurisdictions find it very hard to compete within public wage terms and conditions with the international oil and gas industry.
One of the reasons to promote a national regulatory authority is the authority will stand outside the public service and, on an industry user-pays basis, will be able to pay for top-line people to recruit to the industry. The Commonwealth acknowledges if it employs these people as public servants there is no way it is going to be able to compete with industry. It will be established as a national statutory authority that, in a user-pays industry, is going to pay for the new national regulatory authority and will pay industry rates to regulate the industry. That is the reality of the situation. One has to ask what the Western Australians have to hide, because they are saying: ‘We do not want to be part of a national regulatory authority’. It is the Western Australians who are putting the results of their inquiry into the Varanus incident into the public arena. We all have a responsibility to people who work in the industry, as well as to the environment, to ensure we learn from accidents and incidents, and that inquiry reports are made public so there can be public scrutiny of government’s response.
Moving on to the report which was tabled in the federal parliament today by the minister for Resources, I can say we have cooperated fully. The minister came to visit me and the minister for Resources in July this year with interim findings. We agreed at that meeting that there were significant shortcomings in the agency and we needed to move immediately to ensure improved regulation of the industry via the agency. We acted immediately and were cooperative.
Let us look at the report – and we can all pick out the juicy quotes in regard to the Northern Territory. First, as my colleague, the minister for Resources said, in 2004, instead of a prescriptive regulatory approach to this industry offshore, there was a move to an industry-regulated approach. As a result of that, all of the approvals processes are now done as a paper-based process where work programs are put together by the company. The company has to put those work programs together to the level of international standards, they are provided to regulatory authorities to endorse and authorise based on the papers, not based on visiting the fields and conducting visits and observations.
The main findings of the report go to the failure of the company. Those findings state that:
- The Inquiry determined that the source of the blowout was the result of the primary well control barrier failing. The Inquiry noted that initial cementing problems were compounded by only one of the two planned secondary well control barriers - pressure containing anti-corrosion caps - being installed. The report concluded that PTTEP Australia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (PTTEPAA) did not observe sensible oilfield practices at the Montara oilfield.
- … the widespread and systemic shortcomings in PTTEPAA’s procedures were a direct cause of the loss of well control.
Well control practices approved by the regulator would have been sufficient to prevent the loss of well control however PTTEPAA did not adhere to these practices or its own well construction standards.
- … the Northern Territory Department of Resources was not a diligent regulator and its minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities gave it little chance of discovering these poor practices.
Mr Elferink: This is the weakest defence you could possibly run.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: You laugh, member for Port Darwin, but as I have said, the responsibility to visit rigs, conduct inspections and spot audits was moved away in 2004 and was replaced by approvals based on the papers. The report says the company used poor practices. It did not adhere to practices or its own well construction standards and the department had little chance of discovering these poor practices. The primary responsibility for the failure of this well is with the company, and the secondary responsibility was the failure of the regulator to identify the poor practices of the company.
When those reports came to us in July we agreed to have additional resources immediately seconded from Commonwealth authorities to work with the Department of Resources staff to ensure there was an additional level of approvals and oversight given the interim findings. The report says the Territory has cooperated fully and goes on to talk about the ways we have cooperated. I acknowledge there was poor oversight of this project and individuals, if they had their time again, would probably make different decisions. Our responsibility is to ensure these things do not repeat themselves, and we will. I urge Western Australia to get on board and commit to a national regulatory authority and regulatory system. It would make more sense from industry’s point of view to work with one regulatory authority and system as opposed to different authorities and systems in different states.
I condemn the shadow minister for trying to use the political opportunity this report provides the opposition to try to scare industry and investment from the Northern Territory. That is an outrageous thing for the member to do and shows that the members opposite will use every opportunity to talk the Territory down. They are not taking this report with the gravitas and seriousness with which it should be taken. It is a political opportunity for the opposition and it will use it to scare industry from the Northern Territory.
The industry can have confidence in the regulatory approvals in place. What the Commonwealth wanted us to fix, and we agreed needed to be fixed, as a result of this incident has been fixed. We are fully supportive of a national regulatory authority to provide a single national regulatory system for all projects around Australia rather than a hodge-podge and mismatch of different regulatory regimes in different states. It makes sense for industry and the vast majority of industry supports it.
In regard to projects operating in the Northern Territory, or which will come to the Northern Territory, you can have every confidence in the regulatory regime because it is the responsibility of companies and regulatory authorities that when accidents happen there are independent and thorough inquiries, and when those inquiries conclude and report, governments take action. We are taking immediate action, as we did in July, on what was identified as shortcomings in our system.
I am surprised the opposition allowed the shadow minister to lead debate on this because we are a government committed to the safe regulation of this industry. People in the Northern Territory trust this government with protecting the environment. They will never trust the CLP. That came through in spades again today when the member for Fong Lim, in debate earlier in the day, spoke about his attitude to environment groups and environmental regulation. The member for Fong Lim is always colourful; however, an amazing speech to the House - and this is the real attitude members opposite have to the environment. He stated:
- Minister, as members for the Labor Party, you guys are best placed to know who these people are. You are in bed with groups which have obvious connections to these economic terrorists.
He went on to say:
- Minister, when you sum up this debate I would like you to explain which of these organisations are plotting to overthrow the Northern Territory economy.
Anyone concerned for the environment, according to the member for Fong Lim and the deeply held and ingrained attitudes of members opposite, is an environmental terrorist. When the shadow ministers talk about the Territory government being a soft touch, well, goodness gracious, if the Territory government is a soft touch …
Mr Elferink: No. No, the commissioner described your department as a soft touch.
Mr HENDERSON: If the Territory government is a soft touch, heaven help what it would be if the CLP was to return to the government benches. Not only would it be a soft touch, it would roll over like a puppy and say tickle my tummy to the industry. That is exposed by the shadow minister for Resources during her position as the head of the Minerals Council in the Northern Territory. She clearly outlined her opposition to the establishment of an EPA in the Territory, and further opposition to the EPA being independent. At the time she said the current system of environmental assessment and management by government for the resource industry is objective, fair, open to scrutiny and relevant to contemporary operations.
This is what we would go back to: an industry regulated approach with no oversight from independent authorities because industry can look over itself. She went on to say major changes to current arrangements cannot be justified and she did not want it to be independent. She said: ‘I think the word independent is grossly misused; it is devoid of meaning these days’.
In the lead-up to the 2005 election, she took the CLP line that an EPA was not required. She went on to say on ABC radio on 11 February:
- We have some of the better legislation in Australia whether it be the Environmental Assessment Act or whether it be the Mine Management Act.
She also said:
- I think people seem to get hung up on this word ‘independent’.
So, it is not what they say - yes, this report provides a wonderful political opportunity. I will be telling Territorians to be very careful because you can see this government’s commitment to protecting the environment, establishing an independent EPA, establishing proper reporting and monitory regimes compared to the inbuilt attitudes and the reality of the position of members opposite who did not support an EPA. They never would support an EPA. I doubt the EPA would last a change of government. If it did last it would last in name only. The real attitude of those opposite is, let industry do what it wants to do.
I found astounding the open and hostile challenge the shadow minister and Deputy Leader of the Opposition made to her leader today about the decision not to support any application for mining at Angela Pamela. I have been saying for a number of weeks now that the Leader of the Opposition is leader in name only; there is open hostility to his position on any number of issues. There is open defiance of the Leader of the Opposition on any number of positions he holds. He is constantly contradicted by members. To have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stand here today and say she does not support his decision to oppose any application for mining at Angela Pamela leaves me aghast. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can sit there as leader with such open defiance from his own deputy on a matter of such importance to the people of Alice Springs.
It is not about the divine right for any company to dig up whatever it wants in the Northern Territory to the total opposition of the people of the Northern Territory. Mining and resource companies have a social licence to operate that is issued to them through the government of the day, given that they comply with a range of requirements for safety, environmental management and their contribution to the economy. It is not a carte blanche advertisement to operate.
I was pleased when the Leader of the Opposition came out so quickly - after the member for Greatorex bolted straight out of the door - to say the CLP had heard the same message from the residents of Alice Springs. The CLP holds all the seats in Alice Springs. You guys know what the people in Alice Springs are telling you. Our Minister for Central Australia lives in Alice Springs. He knows what residents are telling him. I am a regular visitor to Alice Springs; I know what people tell me ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a censure motion on government over their appalling handling of the Montara oil spill. Why are we talking about Alice Springs? Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the shadow minister raised this in the debate.
Mr HENDERSON: I am responding to the shadow minister’s prosecution of the censure motion. I point out there is an open and hostile challenge active against the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a matter of if, but when and what the issue will be. We acknowledge and accept - and I accepted it in July this year when I met with Martin Ferguson – that the department needed to lift its game in its regulation of the industry.
Regarding the independent investigation to this incident and the draft recommendations which were being devised, we agreed we should not wait until the full conclusion of this report to act. We acted immediately.
Any objective reading of this report shows the majority of the blame for this incident lies with the company. That is why the minister today has given the company an opportunity, in terms of natural justice, to put forward its position as to why it should continue to have a licence to operate in Australian waters. The federal minister will give the company due process and natural justice to respond to this report. At the end of that period the minister will make a decision about whether he issues a show cause notice as to why the company should be allowed to continue to operate. That is the process which will work through the system.
Having a national authority makes sense. It is supported by the industry and by this government. As an interim measure, until a national regulatory authority is established, we have additional checks and balances in place to ensure there will be a co-assessment of all approvals from now on, with either Western Australia or Victoria, given the difficulty in recruiting top-line people from industry. The co-assessment process will give added protection to the decision-making process.
I suppose the policy issue for the CLP to advance in regard to the rest of this debate is do they support a national authority or not? They will probably stand with their colleagues in Western Australia and try to pretend that the little old Northern Territory can compete in salaries and conditions with a global industry of this size and scale and with the wealth these players have. If that is your position you live in cloud cuckoo land. That does not happen in the real world.
In regard to the recommendations in the report, the inclination is to support all of them. We have only seen them today; we need to take stock of them, but in regard to cooperating with industry, cooperating with Commonwealth, providing certainty for industry and ongoing investment, that certainty is there – what the opposition is doing, via this motion, particularly in trying to scaremonger amongst the industry, is outrageous. Obviously the government will not be supporting the censure motion but we acknowledge the agency was at fault. The faults which have been identified were rectified. I believe the minister for Resources is the best minister for Resources the Territory has ever seen. I have every confidence in him.
Madam Speaker, this was an isolated incident, primarily caused by a company which was not operating up to industry best practice. The regulation and oversight of that certainly fell down. The issues that have been identified have been resolved.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I listened with great fascination to the offerings and feeble defence of the Chief Minister. Were that his defence in a court of law, I suspect very quickly the jury would not even bother to retire.
This is a disgraceful indictment of this government for a couple of reasons. I will start by agreeing with the Chief Minister on one issue. The company involved - and I will not try to quote the acronym, I will just say the drilling company involved - did not do its job. But why did it not do its job? This part is the part where the Chief Minister, and the minister for mines and energy in the Northern Territory, have been slippery, to say the least. The reason that company did not do its job is the same reason so many other people and organisations do not do their jobs when they do not feel there is a sanction upon them for failing to meet the requirements, legislative or otherwise, to do that job effectively.
The sanction which should be brought to bear should be investigated by a policing body of some sort, aka, the regulator. In this instance the regulator was that person over there in the dock. The accused has failed to give any form of argument and his lawyer gave no argument which would give any cause for a court to find anything other than guilt. The defence lawyer for the accused decided it was better to talk about things happening on this side of the House than justify the appalling response this government gave to one of Australia’s worst pollution disasters.
How bad was that disaster? You could see it from space; that is how bad. If you want to know what the Northern Territory government’s policy on environmental protection is and making sure its role was completed, look at the photographs from the satellites which were passing over the Timor and Arafura Seas. Whilst no oil washed up on the Indonesian beaches, the fishing industry had something else to say about it in Indonesia. They had much to say about it. This is the Territory’s Piper Alpha.
The regulatory responsibility rested with one person in one government. That is the simple finding of this government. It has been trying to avoid its responsibility on this since day one. We heard in evidence during the inquiry that the approach was pretty much a tick-and-flick approach. That was the evidence given. That is why the company involved was described by the commissioner in his report, if I am not mistaken, as having a ‘cosy relationship’ and saw them as a ‘soft touch’. These are not my words; these are the commissioner’s words. The regulatory authority was a ‘soft touch’.
Imagine this: my name is Lucio Benito, I work in New York City and I have a special cosy relationship with the New York Police Department. Don’t worry about it. Forget about it, they are a soft touch. That is the approach and attitude we are seeing from the company and that was the way it saw the regulator in this instance. I am not alleging corruption. I am alleging indifference through governance. It is not just me who is making that allegation; it is also being made by the inquiry commissioner.
I found it very interesting to hear the Chief Minister say twice today that they had met with Martin Ferguson in July. That is supported by Martin Ferguson in his statement of today. Curiously though, the question was put to the minister on 12 August 2010 about the report which Martin Ferguson had received. The minister, Mr Vatskalis said:
- I have not received a copy of the report for the simple reason that Martin Ferguson said he was going to study it, by that time they went into caretaker mode, and he announced the other day in Perth that he will release it soon after the new government is established in Canberra.
July was not a caretaker period for the federal government. So why was this minister in here saying Martin Ferguson was not going to give it to us? ‘Oh, he wanted to study it.’ Can you imagine how this meeting went? It would have gone like this: Here is the minister for mines and energy in the Northern Territory sitting there with his ears back, looking a little sad, replicated by the Chief Minister sitting there looking twice as sad because Martin Ferguson is saying: ‘What on earth are those clowns in Darwin up to?’. If I was the minister for mines and energy and the federal minister said: ‘I have this report with the results of this inquiry and I am going to keep it to myself’, I would say: ‘Show me a copy’. Did you ask for a copy, minister? No. You report back to this place that you have not received a copy because Martin Ferguson said he was going to study it. You sat there, listened to what he had to say, walked out of the room and said: ‘Oh, he has a report. My goodness, I wonder what is in it. I wonder if it reflects on the appalling approach I and my government have taken on this issue. Hmm, maybe he will tell me at some point after the next federal election. They will be in caretaker mode shortly’.
Is that the sign of a responsible minister who is thinking to himself: ‘I need to know what is going on in my department’? One of the first things a minister must do when they meet with their departmental heads, is say: ‘What are the administrative arrangements of my department? Which acts do I have governance over?’ And as a consequence of the answers to those questions: ‘’What are my reporting and policing responsibilities for each of those acts?’ A minister of the Crown should be making sure the policies of the Northern Territory government, as expressed through the legislative instruments of this House, are being properly policed. That is far from the capacity of this government and this minister. Why? Because we know, time and time again, their failings in these areas.
We do not see annual reports until they are two or three years late. We do not see policing bodies doing any sort of policing, and a regulatory body of any description is a policing body. Here is the investigation run by the Chief Minister’s department. ‘I have this responsibility’, he says. Well, he denies it: ‘It is the department’s responsibility. Nothing to do with me!’ The Pontius Pilate group over there is incredible. Their hands are so clean they probably go through buckets of Palmolive lavender oil soap every day whilst trying to avoid their responsibilities. Once again this is what is occurring.
The answer from the minister today was: ‘Not my job. It was the department’s job to look after this’. What was the minister doing – going to the window, standing there, looking out: ‘Nice view, wonder why I turned up to work today. Yawn. I may go home later on’.
That is not how to run a department. You sit in charge of it, you run the damn thing, and you ask: ‘What are our responsibilities? How do we run these departments? What are my regulatory responsibilities?’ One of the answers was we are overseeing rigs out at sea. The minister says: ‘I do not think that is appropriate’. Okay, move on that issue; however, whilst it is your responsibility stay in charge of that responsibility. What are we doing to police those rigs? When did we last visit them? No, that is not a requirement; we just have to check the paperwork. Okay, that is fine; all you have to do is check the paperwork; that is okay. If that was the case why would the commissioner be dumping buckets of criticism over this government and the way the regulatory authority took, and I quote, a:
- … minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities.
Could you imagine if the Northern Territory Police Force took this attitude to its policing role? I have a mask on, I have my swag, I have my striped shirt and beret and a five o’clock shadow. ‘Hi, I am here to look after the bank’. ‘Oh’, says the policeman, ‘Okay, off you go, you look like you are dressed for it’. That person robs the bank. ‘Did not have anything to do with me’, says the minister for Police. ‘We have a tick-and-flick approach; he filled out the right form, off he went’. Rubbish. It is not believable. It is an incomprehensible approach and an abrogation and abandonment of your responsibilities as a minister of the Crown.
For that reason you should resign because you are ashamed of your calamitous failure to do your duty. That is what drives this issue: the calamitous failure of this government to do its duty. If you want to see the results of that calamitous failure, look at the satellite photographs from space of the results of the tick-and-flick attitude, not of the department, of this minister.
He was happy to do it, and I hear: ‘We should look at Mt Todd, you guys were no better’. That is your argument. We did not do anything worse than the CLP, but you want to fix it. How often have I heard the minister come into this House and say: ‘Mt Todd was really bad, should not have happened, we are going to fix it’, and now his defence is: ‘We did exactly what the CLP did, so you guys cannot complain’. You were going to fix it. You were going to come into government and all this was going to change; it was going to be a brave new world. That was the promise and this is the evidence of the lie.
I turn to these documents and you cannot but be thunderstruck that this is a friendly comment about what is happening. Friendly - this is a Labor government talking about another Labor government.
- … that the Northern Territory Department of Resources was not a diligent regulator, and its minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities gave it little chance of discovering these poor practices.
There is the regulating authority sitting in his office saying: ‘A bit of paper, okay we will read that. Oh, my goodness, gracious me, we had better approve that. Okay, there is the approval. Thanks for coming, have a nice day’. That was the scrutiny we saw through this process, and the minister denies the tick-and-flick approach which was given in evidence. He said in April this year:
- There must be something else, Madam Speaker. Let us wait until the inquiry finishes and, before we make statements that we read in the newspapers - despite the fact they accuse us if we respond to editorials - let us find out what the situation is about the 30 minutes approval and the tick and flick. What these people do not say is that, when something is produced for drilling to the department and the petroleum minister, it is not given in bits and pieces. It is given as a whole plan of what is going to happen and, as things happen, they seek our approval. Our department looks at the package as a whole when the application is first received and, as different things happen, the company requests approval and the department gives it.
The company requests approval and the department gives it. It is a consent authority; it puts the consent into consent authority.
- The 30 minute tick-and-flick is absolutely untrue.
Here is the defence from the minister in April this year: ‘They come to us with this whole plan and you have to see the whole plan in its beautiful entirety to appreciate how beautiful it is. We sit there and say, “Oh, that is beautiful!”, and we give it our approval. But we will not ask about a single critical aspect of that skull and crossbones over there in the plan because it is a whole plan and that is what we look at, the whole plan’. Nonsense! That is not how a department works; that is never how a department works. It is not how a regulatory body should work. If that is what the minister believes then he is merely incompetent - not dishonest, just incompetent.
That is the problem; these ministers of the Crown struggle with the basic principles of their jobs in government. It is their job to ensure the policies of this House and their government are properly adhered to. To do that, if you impose a regulatory framework, you must anticipate a need to govern that framework. The delegation for this duty was granted by the federal government to this government. This government accepted that duty.
I find it interesting that this government chooses to deny it has done anything wrong whatsoever, with the exception of recent comments from the Chief Minister who changed the position of the defence during Question Time saying: ‘Oh, yes, there was a problem with the regulator, but we fixed it’. I wait with bated breath to hear what the fix is. How many more regulators do we have in place? The Chief Minister’s response is to say: ‘We are going to tax the mining companies so they can inform the policing body, which is at arm’s length from government, to police itself’. I would like to know much more about a police force which is paid by the organisations …
A member: Paid by the industry it is supposed to police.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, okay, let us go and check with the regulatory - I think I understand what the Chief Minister was talking about. He has come in here and said: ‘We are going to tax the industry so they can then pay for their own regulatory body at arm’s length from government’. That is something we are supposed to sign up to. And he says Western Australia is being ignorant for failing to cheer that approach on! Goodness, gracious me! I believe there is a potential issue here which needs to be looked at more closely and explained more fulsomely than the Chief Minister has on this occasion.
The absence of the endorsement of the minister for mines during Question Time was resonating throughout this room. It is not at all surprising the endorsement, lamentably, came at the last moment when a censure motion began: ‘Yes, of course, I support my mines minister. Why wouldn’t I?’ He did it at the end of the speech – a pity he did not do it during Question Time. He doubtlessly was very nervous. That belated endorsement should have the minister feeling slightly concerned about the situation in which he finds himself. The agreement with the Independent member for Nelson which keeps this Chief Minister in place, despite his own party’s desires, is predicated on …
Mr Westra van Holthe: The Labor member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, that is a very good point. I pick up that interjection up from the member for Katherine: the Labor member for Nelson who will not challenge government decisions and will support their legislative instruments - is based on a single presumption or condition, well, actually a whole bunch of conditions, but one which really resonates through that process is maladministration. If the member for Nelson does not start to realise how profound the maladministration of the Northern Territory is, sooner rather than later people will start to identify him as an apologist for the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory.
SIHIP, as the second intervention into the Northern Territory because of this government’s calamitous incapacity to run a simple housing program, an expensive one, saw $42m-worth of expenditure without a single house being built. The local government reform was another disaster which befell the people of the Northern Territory and has made no one happy. The first intervention of the federal government saw the federal government roll its people into this town because of the disastrous and lamentable condition of the children which was identified in the Little Children are Sacred report.
Gaol visits anger resonating across the headlines. Whistle-blowers are now actively pursued by this government. If you in any way criticise this government, you will be bullied, and that is the answer. Hell, yesterday, I saw my superannuation details being dragged through this House simply so the Treasurer could make some sordid little point. Well, I am an open book. I do not care that she decides to make my personal superannuation details public, but I will not be bullied by a pack of schoolyard bullies, and that is exactly what this government is about. If I get wind of the people in the department who were abandoned by this minister, who have had to cop it in the neck and have been accused by this minister of abrogating their responsibilities - ‘It is nothing to do with me, it is the department’s fault’, he said. If I hear one word that they have been bullied, I will be screaming it from the rafters, and you can talk about my superannuation until you are blue in the face, I do not care. The whistleblowers on the Health department - Sue Mansfield, berated by her own department. This is the way this minister deals with people. He sits there and is Mr Nice Guy, but in the background beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
A spin doctor is the best paid person on the fifth floor, with the exception of the Chief Minister. $200 000 so he can get the message right. Here is a thought: get the job right. The Power and Water Corporation, Tiger Brennan Drive, it is all about maladministration. This government has collapsed into a hole and the moment the member for Nelson realises it – and some of its own members realise it - and gets honest, the sooner we can get to an election and let the people of the Northern Territory resolve this issue once and for all.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, one thing I do not enjoy much in parliament is listening to the tripe which comes out of the member for Port Darwin’s mouth. One thing I agree with the member for Goyder is that the Montara accident was preventable. Every accident is preventable. I totally disagree with everything else she said for the simple reason the report and the commissioner’s findings point the finger at the company. The company had a number of faults. It did not adhere to its own practices and processes, it did not adhere to common practices, and did not have the competent people on the rigs and on the operations. And when things went wrong, it failed to advise the authorities.
The member for Port Darwin said the first thing he heard about our department’s fault was from the Chief Minister. I said at Question Time that our department was at fault. I said at Question Time that the department should have done better, it could have done better.
One thing reported by the commissioner on page 7 of the summary is:
- Despite any deficiencies in the administration by the Northern Territory Department of Resources of its designated authority functions, the report concluded that the incident could have been avoided if the company had adhered to the well control practices approved by the regulator and its own well construction standards.
So, even if the department does not do the right job, if the department had adhered to their recommendations, all of the department resources instead could have been appointed. What the commissioner also says is that:
- The information that it provided to the regulators was consequently incomplete and apt to mislead.
So it was a litany of errors, intentionally or unintentionally, of the company which led to this issue of the Montara incident.
We identified the faults of the department and we moved very quickly to rectify them. Yes, Martin Ferguson came here and, despite the fact they did not give us the report because he had not started it yet, he discussed with us the issues identified during the inquiry. We immediately moved to rectify these issues. There was not an invasion by the Commonwealth here. We agreed to find a way to improve the process of the department, which we did immediately. Not only did we agree to that, we also decided to seek assistance from Geoscience Australia - the peak body in Australia - with geological information and processes. We also decided to have another level of assessment by the Western Australia department of Resources because that is the department with the majority of oil rigs and oil wells in Australia.
We heard the member for Goyder talk about the department’s year of neglect and not enough staff, but the departmental unit looking after oil and petroleum was fully staffed at the time of the assessment. Four people were working there when everything was assessed. We recognise we need more skills which is why we moved quickly to advertise to get more people with higher qualifications. We are prepared to offer a package which offers over 30% more than equivalent positions to attract the most appropriate people.
The member for Goyder mentioned that the company was not working with the department. The member for Port Darwin says they had a ‘cosy relationship’ with the department. Which one is true? We either did not work with it or we had too close a relationship with it. The reality is the department worked with the company the way it worked with every other company.
According to the 2004 changes in the regulation, the department was required to approve plans submitted by the companies and the information from the companies to make assessments. The difference between the regime controlling oil and gas, as changed by the Howard government, and our own regime here in the Territory is this: the regime put in place by the Howard government does not require a prescriptive approach, does not require us to be there all the time or to visit the oil rigs or gas fields. However, our legislation differs; it requires an inspection of mines. Last year my officers from the department of mines visited the 10 mines in the Territory 262 times because our legislation requires investigation of the mines at regular intervals. Our legislation requires a hands-on approach to the mining industry. The 2004 change does not require this kind of approach. For the member for Goyder to blame this government for that is unbelievable because she knows that very well – she was the CEO of the Minerals Council at the time. She is well aware of the requirements of the federal legislation.
They raised environmental issues. Four independent reports say that the Montara report, despite the fact that a significant volume of oil escaped into the sea, did not pose any environmental danger to Australian or Indonesian waters. The member for Port Darwin said it was a disaster; you could see it from space, from a satellite. The only photographs seen from space or satellite are of the Mt Todd mine disaster. You are talking about disaster - 700 000 litres of high potency cyanide left on site; 17 tonnes of copper going down the Edith River every year appears in the water in retention pond 2. I suggest you do not put your hand in that water unless you want a skin replacement. That was a disaster which happened in our back yard, not 3000 miles away from Darwin, in our back yard.
This is the government that believes in controlling mines. This is the government that introduced environmental bonds, assessed independently, and demanding a sufficient bond to rectify any environmental damage should a mine close down or withdraw.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Didn’t Daryl Manzie introduce that years ago?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: This government introduced that bond, to respond to the interjection by the member for Katherine. This is the only government that decided that the bond would be assessed by an independent person, not by the minister. That is the reason why some of the mines now have environmental bonds as high as $150m. This is why some of the mines in the Territory have bonds which may exceed $0.5bn.
If you look at the history of the CLP government, there are still 2000 legacy mines around the Territory. No one knows who owns them, no one knows who is going to fix them, and no one knows how much it would cost to fix them. We are working very hard to rectify the situation.
We looked at the situation and said it was not good enough. It should not have happened. Now we have identified the weakness in our system and moved very quickly to close all the loopholes. We have taken a number of measures to address these issues. We have moved quickly to strengthen the unit. We moved quickly to have a second tier of assessment of any approval by an independent third party to avoid any accusation of tick-and-flick, as the member mentioned.
The member opposite mentioned the tick-and-flick approach and how we did not really assess the application of the company. That is not true. The department did assess the application of the company. However, many times in the industry the application we assess today is exactly the same or very similar to applications assessed a month ago. Since you have assessed them before, the level of assessment for the second application is not as rigorous as the first because you have already done the job. You have already assessed and approved something for exactly the same situation. The assessment process is quite rigorous and fast, which is why it comes down to a 30 minute approval. Otherwise you would be assessing the same thing time after time.
We recognise that we have to improve our situation. It is not that we deny any responsibility; we say we have been more rigorous, there were shortcomings, and the skills probably were not there. We have moved very quickly to address this situation. We have worked very closely with the federal government to address the situation because we believe we have to ensure the people of the Northern Territory and Australia are confident with the job we are doing.
The member for Goyder said we do not look after the mining industry. Let me tell you how much we look after the mining industry, and the oil and petroleum industries. I have been travelling to China for the past few years with a specific China Investment Attraction Strategy and Japan Investment Attraction Strategy. We started with seven mines. We started in 2001 with 700 exploration licence applications sitting on the minister’s desk. He refused to sign them because he was playing politics with Aboriginal people’s rights.
When we came to government in 2001, mines were closing down and we were left to pick up the pieces. We had to ask taxpayers to fund the rehabilitation of mines. We took government when exploration was going down hill. In 2010, the Territory exceeded the expenditure of New South Wales, Victoria, and we are slightly behind South Australia. Three years ago, expenditure and exploration in South Australia was three times the expenditure in the Northern Territory. In the past two years Chinese companies have invested $140m in exploration, and $40m has been invested by Japanese companies. Is this expenditure a sign of no confidence in the Territory government?
I recently visited China and was impressed when I met with the Minister for Commerce, the China National Development and Reform Commission, and the Minister for Lands and Resources. We presented them with information about the opportunities in the Northern Territory and our investment guide. I was taken aback when the minister personally asked permission to incorporate our material in the official ministry’s website. I was taken aback when the Minister for Commerce commented that the material we had provided them was miles ahead of any other jurisdiction in Australia. I was taken aback when the commissioner from the National China Development and Reform Commission asked permission to incorporate our material into their official website. Is this a lack of confidence in the Territory?
We have oil and gas companies coming to the Territory all the time. We had Falcon Petroleum and Central Petroleum talking to us about exploration in the Territory. They would not be here if they did not have any confidence in us. Companies which act diligently, comply with international standards and comply with their own standards do not have the kind of accidents we had in Montara. I have no problem being criticised by the federal minister, Martin Ferguson. He gives it to me the way I give it to him. It also gives me the opportunity to identify some of our shortcomings and fix them.
The CLP used to be criticised, look at the shortcomings and close its eyes, and ignore them. We have seen it once again today. The member for Goyder asked why the Department of Resources does not require a rigorous environmental assessment at Area 55 in Batchelor. The simple reason is we want to protect the environment. If it was you, it would be a free for all, go for it, do not worry about it.
We have heard the allegation that ConocoPhillips will close their office in Darwin because it does not have confidence in our government. Well, I am sorry, I spoke to the ConocoPhillips executive and they clearly told me the reason the office in Darwin is closing is because they cannot attract suitably qualified personnel in Darwin. You mentioned Arafura. Arafura came to us and asked for some land, resources and services which, at the time, were too expensive and we were unable to provide, or it was totally unsuitable because of the process employed to position Arafura where it wanted to be. We offered to work with them, and our extensions are still with them to find suitable land to bring them here to work. Our invitation is open. It is a commercial decision it has made. You have to remember that Arafura will open a mine in Ti Tree which will provide the raw material for the processing plant, wherever they decide to place it.
We heard about the intervention, SIHIP and everything else. It is easy to talk about the intervention. One of the things I have to remind the member opposite is the real roadblock behind the intervention was not ‘come to save the poor people of the Northern Territory’, it was ‘come to save the poor skin of John Howard’. That was said by none other than Alexander Downer, who said they were desperate to try anything to see their polling go up. The intervention was good because it was going to attract the doctors’ wives. Well, it did not work for them and they abandoned it. How good was the intervention? Let me tell you, member for Port Darwin, you have to ask the previous Leader of the Opposition. She was not even advised of the intervention and I know that very well because she admitted it to me. The federal government did not even consult its allies in the Northern Territory.
With SIHIP, the years of neglect by federal governments culminated in the requirement for the significant expenditure of money to provide housing for Indigenous Territorians. Even when the federal government decided to spend money, it was not enough to cover one-quarter of our need. Despite that, our government agreed to provide extra money to address the serious issue of lack of housing in the Northern Territory.
I commend Martin Ferguson because he was the one who agreed to work with us to address these issues. He agreed to work with us for the simple reason that the federal government is not in a position to administer offshore oil and gas installations because it does not have the organisation nor the legislation. By his own admission, he had to commence some serious amendments of the legislation. On the other hand, every time something goes wrong, how much are you going to take from any jurisdiction?
It is better to build capacity rather than to say: ‘I will take it away and run it from Canberra’. We know very well things run from Canberra do not run very well. It has been tried before and it never worked. The best thing to do is build the capacity. That is what we are doing here. Our capacity was not as it should have been. When we provided a plan of progress to Martin Ferguson, he agreed to provide any support we needed. He agreed with us when we told him we were prepared to work with other jurisdictions in Australia to meet the demands.
Following the situation with Montara, my department immediately commenced an assessment and requested that the Commonwealth provide a detailed assessment of all the oil wells under production or exploration in the waters off the shore of the Territory. The Commonwealth provided this information. They have been assessed, and we found these oil wells are considered to be safe.
In conclusion, it was something which should not have happened but it has happened. The main reason defined by the commission was the failure of the company to follow its own processes and procedures. The blowout could have been prevented if the company adhered to the well control practices approved by the Department of Resources, and it says:
- Even with the shortcomings of the department, if the company had followed advice, the well would have never failed
Madam Deputy Speaker, our government identifies if there is something wrong, learns from mistakes and fixes the problems. We do not close our eyes, try to cover it up, or say to the taxpayer: ‘Well, we stuffed it up, you pay for it’. We try to fix it. But there are stragglers who will stay behind. It does not matter how much the member for Port Darwin plays theatrics, the reality is that people know the environmental record of the CLP very well, they know what the CLP did in the mining area and how they used the mining industry to blackmail Indigenous people and withdraw their rights.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There is a long-standing convention agreed between the parties that a censure motion has two and two. I understand two members of the opposition have spoken. Is there a view to break the convention?
Mr Mills: It was yesterday, and it has been done many times before.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, over recent times it has been somewhat abandoned by this House and it has been dealt with as a normal motion. Now they are trying to reassert a convention which will have the effect of gagging members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Whilst it is a convention of this House, member for Katherine, if you do wish to participate in the debate, there is nothing which prevents you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ordinarily, the term ‘facet’ is used to describe something you may consider precious, such as a diamond. Everyone would be familiar with the facet of a diamond - something which sparkles. You facet a diamond to make it look nice and present well. I am at a loss to find another word to describe this government’s reprehensible record in governing the Northern Territory. The Montara report is another facet of what is, unquestionably, the worst government the Northern Territory has ever had.
I am going to start where the member for Port Darwin left off and talk a little about the Labor member for Nelson. When I talk about the facets of this worst government the Northern Territory has ever had, it does not take too much effort to think about what the other facets are.
Child protection and SIHIP - I will talk about those two for a moment. If we go back a little, the Little Children are Sacred report is what prompted the first intervention into the affairs of the Northern Territory by the federal government. The first intervention happened under the Clare Martin Labor government. The intervention has been debated up hill and down dale for a long time and I am not going to belabour the point. The second intervention was with SIHIP. Originally, the Northern Territory government had carriage of the SIHIP program with minimal involvement from the federal government, but the handling of SIHIP by this Labor government was so appalling that the second intervention …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call relevance, Standing Order 67, Digression from Subject. This motion reads:
- That this Assembly censure the Northern Territory government for its completely incompetent handling of its duties regarding the Montara oil facility and other facilities under its command and protection.
We seem to digressing. I know the opposition has a line it wants to peddle but I call relevance on this.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister and the minister ranged widely and broadly and barely mentioned Montara.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In speaking to the points of order, the debate has been fairly wide-ranging. It is about the Montara oil facilities and other facilities under the government’s command. Member for Katherine, if you could focus on Montara oil facilities and other facilities, please?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Deputy Speaker, it will become apparent that I am developing an argument to contribute meaningfully to this debate. You will find that there are a number of arrows which need to go into the quiver before they can be fired. They will hit the target on the other side of the House and it will relate to the Montara oil spillage.
I am not going to belabour the issues around the second intervention into this government’s handling of SIHIP - a major project in the Northern Territory. We will move quickly to the third intervention, which is the intervention the federal government is imposing on the Northern Territory with respect to the Montara oil spill and its capacity to provide a reasonable, safe and robust regulatory framework around the offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling industry.
I have a copy of the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP. In talking about the intervention the federal government is imposing on the Northern Territory, I need to set the scene by going to paragraph 17. There is a dot point here. It has been mentioned before in this debate. It says:
- … that the Northern Territory Department of Resources was not a diligent regulator and its minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities gave it little chance of discovering these poor practices …
That was in reference to the poor practices of PTTEP Australasia.
I am going to use a word the member for Arafura has used in this House and that is the word ‘decode’. She was quite happy to decode an article from the NT News. I am going to decode for this House and for this government what Martin Ferguson has said in his statement to the federal parliament. In another dot point in paragraph 17 he says:
- … at a minimum the proposal to establish a single national offshore petroleum regulator should be pursued.
- … that the existing legislative regime be adjusted to further reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring.
So that will be an adjustment to the legislative regime.
By way of further decoding this, there is a delegation in place and paragraph 33 says:
- Under these arrangements, my powers as the Designate Authority for the 42 petroleum titles, including the Montara development, located in the External Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, were delegated to officers of the Northern Territory Department of Resources. This delegation made the Northern Territory Department of Resources responsible for overseeing the regulation of well integrity matters at the Montara Wellhead Platform.
Paragraph 34 says:
- While the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 does provide me with the ability to revoke the Northern Territory Department of Resources’ existing delegation for this external territory, I consider that doing so would not address the full range of systemic issues identified by the inquiry.
Decoding that, even if he did take the delegation away, it would not do enough to solve the problems of Montara. And:
- Given the Northern Territory’s ongoing responsibility as the Designated Authority for the Northern Territory’s own principal offshore area, which includes a further 23 titles, these systemic failings must be addressed. I cannot revoke the Northern Territory’s responsibility for the Northern Territory’s principal offshore area without an amendment to the act to rescind their powers.
I suggest the change to the legislative regime the federal minister is referring to is an amendment to the act to rescind their powers. It would not surprise to see that occur.
I have heard the Chief Minister and the minister for Resources attempt to defend the indefensible today. Those two speeches were probably two of the lamest speeches I have heard in this House regarding a matter of such importance to the Territory. During the course of debate today the minister for Resources alluded to all sorts of things. During Question Time today he said the department was fully staffed at the time the Montara leak occurred. I questioned the minister during estimates this year on matters relating to resourcing. I am critical of myself. I probably did not hit the nail on the head because we talked about resourcing in the department from October of that year and it was just after the Montara spill.
I want to emphasise one of the things minister Ferguson said was the Department of Resources had a minimalist approach to its regulatory responsibilities.
Also during estimates this year, I questioned the minister about the responsibilities of the department with respect to regulation. I asked the minister how many regulators, or people working in the department, he had checking the work on the ground of oil and gas explorers. I was referring to the offshore industry. Mr Alistair Treier replied:
- Under the current offshore regime we do not conduct rig site visits, but we do conduct visits of exploration vessels when they are in the Port of Darwin from an environmental point of view. In terms of officers, we have two positions. At this stage, those positions are externally contracted.
The minister then went on to talk about the fact that when the Coalition government was in power there were some changes to the regulatory regime at the federal level, which changed the legislation so the system was more self-regulating. When I further questioned the minister about whether anyone from his department bothered to conduct site visits on an oil rig - which goes to the minimalist way the department was conducted under the stewardship of this minister - the minister said:
- We are not required by legislation to have anyone on the rig to do it. The legislation requires the industry to self-regulate.
I then said:
- And when you say it is non-prescriptive, the capacity still exists for you to be able to do that work, but you chose not to because it is non-prescriptive.
The minister said:
- No, there is no requirement for us to do it and, in addition to that, to give you an example, some of these oil fields are 300 km offshore and in Commonwealth waters. In some cases, just outside Western Australia. You can understand the logistical difficulties if someone from there, living on the rig, came here. We act within the requirements of the current legislation as it stands. We cannot exceed our authority, but we have to operate …
Then there is an inaudible word:
- … for us to do and we do that.
I then said:
- Does the legislation say that you cannot perform that work, or just that there is no requirement for you to do it?
The minister said:
- There is no requirement for us to do it and the legislation does not say anything.
What I point out to the minister, even though there is no requirement to go out there - in the vein of the minimalist attitude this government had with respect to Montara, cited from the report – his department does have the power to do it. It just chose not to exercise it.
I draw the minister’s attention to section 126 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of the Northern Territory which says:
Powers of inspectors
- (1) For the purposes of this Act and the Regulations, an inspector, at all reasonable times and on production of the certificate furnished to him under section 125:
- (a) shall have access to any part of the adjacent area and to any structure, ship, aircraft or building …
And so forth. He:
- (b) may inspect and test any equipment that, in his opinion, has been, is being or is to be used in that area in connection with any of those operations; and
- (c) may enter any structure, ship, aircraft …
And so on, for the purpose of doing that.
The Department of Resources could have conducted inspections; it could have gone out in the field and done what it was supposed to do. However, according to the minister, because it did not have to do it, it did not bother. That is the minimalist attitude the Montara report talks about: ‘Oh, we will do the minimum we can possibly do, try to stay out of trouble and hope for the best’. Well, the best did not work.
I stood in this House some time ago during Question Time and said that the chickens for the minister would come home to roost over Montara. The chickens have come home to roost, not only for the minister but also for the Labor member for Nelson. The chickens have come home to roost for him as well because he is now propping up a government which cannot regulate the oil and gas industry.
If you read through minister Ferguson’s statement it is highly critical of the way the Northern Territory government handled this process. I do not know what it is going to take for the member for Nelson to realise. Perhaps there are people in the Northern Territory who need to get on to the member for Nelson and up him for the rent over this. You have a so-called Independent member supporting this government which fails on child protection, SIHIP, housing and land release. There is a raft of things. It cannot manage the offshore oil and gas industry; there is no doubt about that. I see ministers across that side of the House dodging responsibility all the time. And it is in this House, in the Northern Territory, and by the people of the Northern Territory, that they will be held responsible. It is a shame that we are probably going to have to wait until an election for those people on that side of the House to be held responsible for their failings. Their list of failings is getting longer and longer by the day.
It is only a few weeks since the Bath report came out, another failing of this Northern Territory Labor government. We now have the Montara report. I am surprised the federal minister released it at this time. I was expecting to see it probably next Friday, at the end of these parliamentary sittings, so we would not have a chance to debate this until February or March next year …
Mr Mills: Like the Mataranka one.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, as they did with Mataranka, left it until the last day of sittings in the last parliamentary sitting period to table that report.
Effectively, what the federal minister has done today is left this crowd to hang out to dry. He could have sat on this for another week-and-a-half. I do not think anyone would have batted an eyelid. But, no, he chose to release it today, which gave the opposition and the people of the Northern Territory an opportunity to properly scrutinise and put this mob under some pressure, make them account for their actions. All we get from that side of the House is a lame attempt to defend the indefensible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am appalled. I will tell you right now that we are not ready for statehood in the Northern Territory because we have a childlike government. It likes to pull all of the toys out of the toy box - the minister for China and all that, that is great, it is all good fun - but it does not pick up the toys at the end of the day. It does not attend to the finer detail and it certainly cannot attend to the finer details of the regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry. They should be ashamed of themselves. This minister should do the right thing and resign. I call on him to resign, or the Chief Minister should sack him.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 125)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we now resume debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the call with 22 minutes remaining.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said before the luncheon interval, I support the bill. Superannuation is one of the most important things people have. Many do not think about it. It just ticks away earning money for them, but it is possibly the most important thing, as well as your health, that you have post-retirement which needs to be responsibly managed. As a government we have our own super funds and we responsibly manage those, and part of that responsible management is looking at possible reforms. We are here today to talk about the first stage in a series of reforms we are bringing in for our funds.
I spoke previously about the health requirements, the 8500 medical examinations required in the last three years, and the impost that has on doctors and their medical practices; the fact if you have healthy people going to see the doctor when, unfortunately, everyone can pick up the common cold and they want to see the doctor. We are looking at removing the medical examination requirement because it has had no meaningful impact on the liability the Territory government is faced with and as a result we will see greater returns to members of the super funds.
We are looking at merging the three boards into one single board. The shadow Treasurer asked this morning if the members of those three boards were happy with that merger. The advice I have is that they are. We are going to a single board which makes sense when you consider the complexities which exist when you manage super. Super is meant to be a very solid, safe investment. You need important obligations on boards to ensure that money is managed properly. To duplicate that across three boards does not make sense when one board can manage those complexities. We could probably predict that those complexities will become more complex as we go forward. We are looking at getting one board of talented people with the right expertise to manage this rather than having three boards of people with the right expertise and skills. That is an important reform in addition to the removal of the requirement for medical examinations and the cost impost that would impose of about $100 000 per agency. That was the costing in the Treasurer’s first speech - sensible steps, sensible reforms.
We also talked about the importance of a better way to manage super when people reach preservation age so we do not lose senior public servants and people with corporate knowledge, which is very important, especially in a small place like the Territory. Most public servants do not need their computer or their files; they have it in their head. They know most things that are going on so it is really important we keep them in the public service. We have reforms around how we handle that preservation age stage. I have had conversations with public servants talking about how they maximise their retirement, what is the best time to retire. We do not want them to retire. We do not want to lose them so it is important we manage that stage better. We are doing that with reforms to opting out around the preservation age - another sensible reform. We need to be in a good position to maintain our senior workers; we do not want to lose them, especially as the Territory goes through a growth period as we face challenges around planning and the future of the Territory. We are going through a period where we need a plan for the future; we are planning for the future. We need to keep planning for the future. We do not want to lose those talented, experienced public servants.
There are three boards; I mentioned them earlier - the Superannuation Investment Board, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Trust and the NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme Trust. We are looking at replacing those three boards with one single board, which makes sense.
We are talking about the life savings of some members, perhaps their only life savings. The house you own can also be your forced savings, as some people call it, but you have equity in the house so you can have your house and your superannuation. Very often they may be the only things you have going into retirement to help you through. As you go into your sunset years it is important you manage those properly and have responsible management of our superannuation process - those funds we are responsible for.
Before lunch I mentioned REST and the difficulty I had rolling my fund over from REST to CARE. I should clarify that REST is an excellent super fund. I do not want to leave REST for any reason apart from the fact the majority of my funds are with CARE. REST has been voted number one super fund in Australia several times. It is a great fund.
We are talking about government super funds and the importance of reforming them, managing them well into the future, reducing risk to members, increasing returns to members, making sensible changes to the government’s arrangements as the Treasurer has noted, and those changes which have occurred throughout the superannuation industry. It does not make sense to have boards duplicating each other’s work. That is a clear example of where savings can be found by streamlining, pulling together one board of people with the right skills and experience to the work which is normally done by three separate boards, the removal of the medical examinations, and the changes to how we manage people opting out from their retirement schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they are very sensible reforms brought forward by the Treasurer. I commend her for that and the process. I welcome the support from the shadow Treasurer; he spoke about similar things the Treasurer and I have spoken about. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The member for Fannie Bay took us through some of the realities of superannuation, the difficulties people often have in rolling over funds, and the importance of the process Treasury has been undertaking in streamlining our different superannuation funds and making them more consumer friendly, particularly in this legislation where we are taking out the entrant medical provision and reducing red tape. I note the opposition has indicated its support for these reforms and I thank the member for Katherine for that. He also went through some of the key aspects of these reforms, which I will touch on in my wrapping up.
I reiterate, as I did in my second reading speech, this is a first tranche of significant reforms the government is undertaking in superannuation in the Territory. I thank the Treasury staff who, I know, have been working tirelessly on these reforms and ensuring they are keeping pace with any federal changes to superannuation. There is a significant administrative burden in managing the variety of different super schemes we have operating in the Territory which are managed, essentially, by my Treasury staff. I am delighted with this first tranche of reforms we have before us in legislation today. They are sensible, fair, and will result in a more sustainable and cost-effective administration of our superannuation law and policy, but will also provide flexibility, importantly, to respond to any changing superannuation law and policy.
In summary, this bill is making amendments to the Superannuation Act, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund Act and the Northern Territory Government and Public Authority Superannuation Scheme Rules to implement Stage 1 of the superannuation reform project. A key objective is to modernise our defined benefits superannuation framework to allow for more sustainable and cost-effective administration and to provide flexibility so we can respond more proactively to any changes in super law or policy.
We remove - and I believe this is a great initiative coming through in these reforms - the new entrant medical provisions for the Northern Territory Government Death and Invalidity Scheme, which will result in less red tape for new Territory public sector employees and, good news from a Territory perspective, lower administration costs.
We are also introducing an account-keeping fee for retained members of the Northern Territory Government and Public Authorities Superannuation Scheme, commonly referred to as NTGPASS. This is a fair approach. Retained members are former Territory public sector employees who have chosen to leave their superannuation in NTGPASS.
The bill will also assist in the retention of mature-age workers - the members for Fannie Bay and Katherine talked about this - by allowing active NTGPASS members to opt out of the scheme when they reach their superannuation preservation age, which is currently 55, without having to resign from the public service. Many of our valuable and esteemed public servants are reaching that age now. It is no secret when we look at the age data on our public service profile. We have a cohort of highly experienced Territorians in the middle to upper ranks of the public service. They have vast amounts of experience and specialist expertise in their respective areas of the public service. We would not want superannuation to be the key driver for their retirement, so it is a great initiative coming through in these changes.
The bill also restructures governance arrangements for NTGPASS, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Fund and the Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme. We will create a single trustee board to manage the investments of these funds. I thank the governance members of those funds. They have been fully consulted every step of the way on these proposed changes and, ultimately, the actual changes by my Treasury officers. I can assure the member for Katherine who asked whether they in favour and supportive of these changes that the answer is yes.
Lastly, the bill will make minor amendments to the NTGPASS rules to clarify that unclaimed NTSSS benefits can be retained in NTGPASS, extending this to include unclaimed benefits from the NT Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme to improve efficiency in the administration of lost superannuation accounts.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to go through the key features of the bill again. This has been a fully supported debate and I am aware there is no desire by the opposition to take this into committee stage. I again put on record my sincere thanks to the officers of Treasury who have worked tirelessly on these reforms. They thought long and hard about the reform process when they brought the reform process suggestion to me, as Treasurer. I saw the sense in what they were proposing to do and was fully supportive of that and received full Cabinet support. Stage 1 is about to be passed in the Chamber today. We have a great deal of work ahead of us in Stage 2 of the reforms, but a great job has been done to date. I am very confident about how we will be able to proceed from here. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Note Statement - Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Continued from 28 October 2010.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to working with the community to reduce the level of alcohol harm in the Northern Territory and ensuring our communities are safe for all people. We recognise that alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory are at unacceptable levels and are the source of much distress for families across the Northern Territory. Moreover, the Henderson government recognises the importance of dealing with alcohol abuse as part of an overall strategy aimed at reducing the number of our children in need of care and maximising opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities.
Conquering substance abuse and alcoholism was a priority identified in the 2007 inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Little Children are Sacred report, and the subsequent Northern Territory emergency response. The Little Children are Sacred report made it clear that we, as Territorians, and with government leadership, must take on and overcome the problem of excessive alcohol consumption and the harm it causes to our communities. The report described how excessive consumption of alcohol negatively impacts on the social fabric of Aboriginal communities and contributes greatly to family and cultural breakdown. The inquiry co-Chairs, Rex Wild and Patricia Anderson, concluded that only radical, determined and wholesale alcohol reform will make a difference.
The Henderson government’s new alcohol reforms are the most comprehensive reforms in the Territory’s history to curb alcohol-fuelled violence and crime. They are radical and determined. These reforms will build on the successes of the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework, which was introduced in 2004. Since the release of this alcohol framework, much has been achieved in targeting alcohol abuse and harm, including: supporting communities to develop their own responses to alcohol issues through regional alcohol management plans; targeted trading hours and product restrictions; electronic alcohol management enforcement systems; extending dry area legislation so individuals can declare their private property a dry area; the establishment of the Alcohol Court regime; a moratorium on takeaway licences; and the announced buy back of three liquor licences in Alice Springs.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will go further to tackle violence and antisocial behaviour by banning problem drinkers from purchasing takeaway alcohol, introducing court ordered voluntary and mandatory treatment orders for problem drinkers; investing in community education campaigns to promote safe and responsible drinking practices; working with the Australian government to further increase rehabilitation and treatment options; and ensuring bans on drinking takeaway alcohol can be effective across the Northern Territory.
AMSANT, the Northern Territory’s peak Aboriginal group, has welcomed these reforms as:
- A comprehensive package on alcohol and a consistent approach across the Territory that combines consequences for the drinkers as well as supply reduction measures and treatment and rehabilitation.
AMSANT has confirmed that the new package of reforms is a good way forward which builds on successes which have been identified throughout the Territory.
A number of key community organisations in the Northern Territory have also endorsed the suite of measures announced by the Henderson government to combat alcohol abuse. NTCOSS president and Amity Community Services CEO, Bernie Dwyer, said:
- These initiatives represent an important step forward in addressing the human misery and financial cost inflicted on Territorians every year by the misuse of alcohol.
Importantly, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory is strongly supportive of the Northern Territory government’s efforts to restrict supply and consumption of alcohol which are currently being developed together with community education around the harms caused by alcohol abuse. The Growing them strong, together report identified grog as being a key contributor to child neglect and abuse and domestic violence in many remote communities and town camps across the Territory. We are committed to effectively dealing with alcohol abuse as part of an overall strategy to improve child, family and community wellbeing.
I take the opportunity to remind all members that when we talk about problem drinkers we must be careful not to revert to the flawed stereotype that all problem drinkers are Indigenous. The 2005 ABS national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health survey found that the proportion of Indigenous adults who reported drinking at high levels, 15%, was similar to that of non-Indigenous adults at 14%. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s national health and welfare statistics and information agency, reported in 2009 that Indigenous Australians were also more likely to abstain from alcohol compared with non-Indigenous Australians. That is 23% compared with 17%.
These statistics also highlight that, in addition to turning off the tap for problem drinkers, we need to support non-drinking family members who want to do something to help a problem drinker in their family. Our government, in partnership with NGOs, the legal sector and other stakeholders will develop a range of interventions to support not only problem drinkers but also their families who are affected by the SMART Court framework, the alcohol bans and supply controls being introduced across the Territory. We will also be putting in place prevention and early intervention initiatives and will work to link families to existing support programs and initiatives such as accommodation, health services and community support services.
As Minister for Local Government, Regional Development and Indigenous Development, I want to focus today on the alcohol management plans which are being developed between communities and government to respond to specific alcohol-related issues. Earlier this year, AMSANT made a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee’s Inquiry into Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009 and related bills. In their submission, AMSANT noted that the ability to tailor local alcohol solutions was important and identified successful alcohol management plans as ones which are driven by locals.
The need for strong community engagement in relation to alcohol management strategies was echoed in a report prepared for the Department of Justice by Menzies School of Health Research in June this year about the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. In this report, Peter d’Abbs and others explained that local community efforts to reduce alcohol problems require genuine community engagement if they are to have any chance of sustained impact.
Alcohol management plans have been introduced in every regional centre outside of the Darwin region. These alcohol management plans are negotiated between local communities, community organisations, local governments, government agencies, licensees and other key stakeholders. Rather than being a set of rules imposed upon a community, the alcohol management plans are tailored to be locally appropriate. In this way, alcohol management plans are delivering local responses to address alcohol issues specific to each community or region based on input from the community, industry and other stakeholders.
The 10 alcohol management plans which are already in place are overseen by local alcohol reference groups with representatives from local government, key service providers and relevant Northern Territory agencies such as NT Police, Justice and Health. These local alcohol reference groups are responsible for generating ideas for action, coordinating the activities of local agencies, and negotiating the local rules relating to alcohol use.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy has described some of the examples of positive outcomes arising from the development of alcohol management plans, one of which is the alcohol management system introduced on Groote Eylandt in 2005. As the member for Arnhem, I am pleased to stand in the House, not only on this occasion but also on previous occasions, to inform the House of the success of this system on Groote Eylandt. On 1 July 2005, the Alcohol Management System was implemented on Groote and Milyakburra. The system requires every person in the region to hold a permit to buy or consume takeaway alcohol. Permits are recommended by a local permit committee and issued by Racing, Gaming and Licensing within the Northern Territory Department of Justice. The system was soon reported by local community leaders and key stakeholders, including police, to have led to marked improvements in community function, including reduced violence. In the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage 2009 report prepared by the steering committee for the review of government service provision, the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System has been listed as one of the things which works in relation to alcohol consumption and harm.
I have seen, from direct experience with the families on Groote Eylandt, the importance of that system in reducing the high rates of violence, particularly domestic violence. While with any system there are always ways of doing things better, one of the things I have noticed in my time as the local member is the coordinated effort between the traditional owners, government agencies and other groups, including GEMCO as the main mining company on the island, to ensure this permit system works effectively for the people of Groote.
In 2006, the University of Sydney was invited to conduct a review of the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management System on behalf of the NT Licensing Commission. This review is a comprehensive overview and evaluation of the development, operation and effectiveness of the Alcohol Management System on Groote Eylandt, and includes not only the Groote communities of Umbakumba, Angurugu and the town of Alyangula, but also Milyakburra. As Peter d’Abbs and the other authors point out in the review, the success of this system was due to the high level of engagement between the key stakeholders and the community, and the efforts put into the effective coordination of a response at a local level. The report states:
- The Groote Eylandt AMP appears to be effective and to have community support. The success appears to be due as much to the processes involved in developing and implementing this system as to the system itself. It is a product of sustained engagement and collaboration on the part of GEMCO, both community councils, Anindilyakwa Land Council, and also of active involvement on the part of the NT Licensing Commission which, at the request of community leaders, conducted several hearings and meetings on the island prior to formalising the management system.
That was in 2006. With strong local boards and alcohol management plans, if things are not working local people can now manage the problem. Borroloola is one of the regional centres where an alcohol management plan has also been developed. It has been endorsed by the Borroloola Alcohol Reference Panel. In my submission to the NT Licensing Commission in relation to the application by the Borroloola Hotel Motel to vary its licence conditions, I said history has clearly shown the negative impact alcohol has had on the community and its people. We all accept we have to live with alcohol, and I am pleased the Licensing Commission has attached stringent conditions to the 12 month probationary hotel licence focused upon the prevention of harm and antisocial behaviour associated with excessive alcohol consumption.
I am also pleased the Licensing Commission has imposed a precondition of refurbishment on the grant of the hotel licence, requiring the bar and beer garden to be upgraded to project and promote a community focused environment. This is about creating a community friendly environment, incorporating the responsible service of alcohol and providing mid- and light-strength beverages sold in conjunction with substantial food and snacks. Another important component of the Licensing Commission’s decision is that the grant of the hotel licence is conditional upon the licensee’s adoption of strategies contained in the Borroloola Alcohol Management Plan which are aimed at reducing the consumption of alcohol and include the introduction of two alcohol-free days per month.
The other key strategies contained in the alcohol management plan for Borroloola include the introduction of an electronic linked ID system for takeaway sales from licensed venues in and around Borroloola; a variation to the local store liquor licence to limit takeaway sales to 18 cans of light- or mid-strength alcohol per person per day; a variation to the liquor licences of the Highway Inn, Daly Waters Pub, Heartbreak Hotel, and Mataranka Pub to limit the sale of alcohol to residents of Borroloola to 18 cans per day; continued support of recreation and diversionary activities aimed at adults and young people; increased access to services for people who are affected by alcohol misuse; and the establishment of the men’s cooling-off place or sobering-up shelter.
The alcohol management plan for Borroloola has been developed following intensive community consultation and is based on input from local people, local government, industry and other stakeholders. Again, as the AMSANT and Menzies report into the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan has highlighted, successful alcohol management plans are ones driven by locals.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will address the issue of alcohol and violence against women. Violence against women is one of the key risk factors for women slipping into poverty and disadvantage. Nearly one in three Australian women experiences physical violence, and almost one in five women experiences sexual violence over their lifetimes. In Australia, up to one quarter of young people have witnessed an incident of physical or domestic violence against their mother or step-mother. The statistics tell us alcohol is a significant factor in violence against women. In particular, the 2005 Personal Safety Survey found that 45% of women who reported a physical assault of them by a man in the last 12 months also reported that alcohol or drugs was a factor.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy has also told this House that 67% of all domestic violence assaults are alcohol related. This is why our government is targeting both alcohol and domestic violence. Our government took the innovative and bold step of introducing mandatory reporting of domestic violence and investing $15m to help reduce this crime over a three- to four-year period with an educational campaign to alert the people of the Northern Territory that enough is enough and violence is not on.
We have introduced alcohol management plans across many areas of the Territory to respond to alcohol-related violence and we have increased rehabilitation beds and awareness campaigns. By no means can we rest; we have to keep going. It is a system and an issue across the Northern Territory which requires vigilance for decades to come.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will curb alcohol-fuelled violence by turning off the tap to problem drinkers in our community who continuously commit alcohol-fuelled violence. These reforms align with the draft national plan to reduce violence against women and their children which has been developed to support all women experiencing violence, and their children. The national plan will build on COAG’s commitments under the Closing the Gap framework. In particular, the national plan has identified the need to foster community initiatives to reduce alcohol abuse as a key priority for Australian governments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the new package of alcohol reforms, including the introduction of a Territory-wide banned drinker register and electronic ID systems will have little impact on visitors being able to access alcohol, but it will make a difference to their experience in the Northern Territory. I commend the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s statement to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, in closing debate, note that at 5.30 pm we will be going to General Business.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I probably will not be able to finish by 5.30 pm, so I dare say I will have to continue my remarks at a later date. I will commence anyway.
It has been an interesting debate. The debate started in the October sittings and coincided with the tabling of the draft exposure legislation where the government stuck to its word by providing the details of the Territory’s most significant alcohol reform package in its history. The Enough is Enough package is built and based on evidence-based research, but also on the success of the alcohol measures this government has implemented.
We are targeting the problem drinker to turn the problem drinker off tap - a direct health intervention rather than indiscriminately affecting all of those Territorians, the majority of whom are doing the right thing and do not have a problem. We have heard through successive opposition speakers that they do not support this program of turning off the tap. They do not support the ID system, which we understand is the only mechanism of enforcement you can have to identify a problem drinker and turn them off tap. We are still waiting to find out what the opposition would use as a tool to support a ban system to prevent problem drinkers accessing alcohol.
Under the rivers of grog of the CLP, the grog would still flow. Not only would they still flow but they would increase, particularly into the problem area of Alice Springs which is being inundated with people coming in who are following the path of grog. I think they are way out of step with reality. They are certainly out of step with the third parties which have seriously considered these reforms, whether it be AMSANT or the Law Society, credible spokespeople across this debate believe these are the right reforms to meet the social needs of the Territory. We do not believe the CLP is committed to tackling crime in the Territory - if it was it would show some bipartisan approach to these reforms.
As I said, the reforms have been built on evidence-based research and the success of the alcohol measures this government has already implemented through alcohol management plans in different parts of the Territory. We recognise, though, that there needs to be some consistency. Whilst we are still fully supportive of alcohol management plans suited to the circumstances of particular localities, we are overlaying alcohol management plans with these Territory-wide reforms.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, given that it is 5.30 pm, I will interrupt you. In accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm. Minister, you will have the opportunity tomorrow to resume your closing remarks.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to Investigate the State of the Current Telecommunications Services in the Northern Territory
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to Investigate the State of the Current Telecommunications Services in the Northern Territory
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory parliament tasks the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee with:
investigating the state of the current telecommunications services in the Northern Territory in regard to hardware and assesses the intentions of the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in the Northern Territory;
investigating competitive and technological alternatives to the NBN in delivering high-speed broadband across the Territory; and
reporting back to parliament by 31 January 2011.
I know that is a short time frame. The reason I put this forward is because I believe information technology, and improvements to broadband in particular, present potential significant benefits to the Territory, across all four pillars of sustainable development, those being social, economic, cultural and environmental. Some would think the purpose of bringing this on is more of a political position but it is actually about trying to determine the best model of broadband information technology we can have for the Northern Territory. There has been plenty of discussion about this matter, especially in recent times, at the federal level and in the federal parliament.
In the Northern Territory, it is something which has gone relatively quiet, apart from a few dorothy dixers here or there. It is important to reflect on a few of those dorothy dixers so we can put into context the conversation government has had to date. I reflect on Hansard 21 October 2010 when the Chief Minister, in responding to a question from the member for Nhulunbuy said:
- With the NBN, every home, every business, every school, every doctor’s surgery will have access to faster, affordable Internet access. It is not just faster …
That is completely false. There is not one bit of accuracy in that statement.
The minister for Information Technology, the member for Stuart, in responding to a question from the member for Arafura, when asked:
- Can you please update the House on what the National Broadband Network means for Territorians in the bush?
said:
- The NBN will allow us to deliver our e-Health and e-Business services in the bush in a way no other government has been able to do before.
As a bush member, like the member for Arafura and other the bush members on this side of the House, we understand how the NBN will open up opportunities for remote Territorians in the digital economy - to use the Internet for new business opportunities that have never existed … before.
He went on to say that Internet cafs will be able to be established and will allow people to have access to families via video conferencing or web cams. He even said they will be able to:
- … read the NT News, watch parliament live in action, or even share information on Facebook with their friends.
$43bn to share information on Facebook. That is great!
It went further. There were dorothy dixers all the way through. But the important point on the NBN is to be aware of what it will actually deliver and where it will actually go. I am sure the members on the other side of the Chamber will be very interested to know where it will go because, from the NBN Co website and information received from the federal government, we can identify that the only places in the Northern Territory where the NBN will go are Alice Springs, Darwin, Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, McMinns Lagoon, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Palmerston, Robertson Barracks, Tennant Creek, Tindal, Virginia and Bees Creek. On top of that is an addition of the next generation wireless which will go to Amoonguna. Those are the only areas which will receive the NBN.
It is also important to note what type of service those people will receive in those areas. I hold up for illustration a copy of a map of the National Broadband Network and, for those who are not watching I can tell you that in Tennant Creek and Katherine the optical fibre footprint will cover the towns themselves. In Nhulunbuy it will also cover the town. But in Alice Springs and Darwin the optical fibre footprint will not cover the greater Darwin or Alice Springs regions. There will be a small component of the optical fibre footprint in Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston. Outside those two larger parts of that area it will be a fixed wireless footprint and anywhere else in the Territory beyond that is not national broadband, it is just a standard satellite footprint.
When you look at that and put into context the dorothy dixers the government threw out before you can understand that the NBN is not going to every corner of the Territory. It is not going to every community or every bush school. It is important to note that bush schools already have broadband. There are plenty of places in the Territory which already have broadband. There are health centres which already have broadband.
Work is being done by this government putting out tenders before getting broadband into the bush. There was a $20m tender awarded to Amcom. I am reading from a statement by Ben Grubb on zdnet.com.au on 8 February 2010, when he spoke about telecommunication provider Amcom scoring a $20m contract to provide telecommunication services to the Northern Territory government over a five-year period:
- The agreement would see Amcom extending its existing fibre networks in both Darwin and Alice Springs to provide data services to government agencies and schools, according to the company. It said its estimated capital expenditure would be ‘in the order of $10m’ and that it expected to complete the project by September.
Which has already gone. We can see from that statement alone that there is already broadband in schools and government agencies across the Territory. The NBN will not change that. There will be no difference at all with the NBN.
The thing we do not know about the NBN is how much money is going to go into the Northern Territory to roll out the NBN. The minister will not give me a briefing on this despite having asked for four weeks. He will not give me a briefing, refuses to return telephone calls from staff in his office - maybe they are busy moving people to and from Yuendumu. We need to know how much money will be spent on the NBN in the Northern Territory and what we are going to receive from that service.
I know the government likes to defend Senator Conroy in Canberra, the Communications minister; however, a few of his bush members should be very concerned. So should the man who holds this government together, the member for Nelson. If you look at the seat of Daly, which the current Minister for Essential Services holds, according to the information I have, nowhere in that electorate will people receive the National Broadband Network. Some places already have broadband, some have wireless downloadable broadband through current technology such as iPhones, and the remainder are on satellite. In the seat of Nhulunbuy, the township of Nhulunbuy will have part footprint of the National Broadband Network, but outside Nhulunbuy town, nowhere in the seat will receive the National Broadband Network.
In the seat of Barkly, the only place to receive it is Tennant Creek. If you live in Elliott, on the Stuart Highway where the fibre-optic cable goes past, you will not get it. If you are at Aileron you will not get it. If you are at Ali Curung, Borroloola, Epenarra, Murray Downs, Ngukurr, anywhere outside the main highway, you will not receive it. In the seat of Nelson you will not receive the National Broadband Network. If you are in the seat of Goyder you are stuck as well.
The reason this motion is presented is because it is important to identify how much money is coming, what levels of technology are supposed to be there, what the alternatives are, and how we can put something to Canberra, as a committee of parliament, to say: this is what will help us the best with our four pillars of sustainable development, those being social, cultural, economic and environmental. Surely government needs to respond rather than just say the NBN will allow people to use Facebook and read the Northern Territory News in the bush, because that is clearly not the case. In most places you can do that now, even if it is only by fixed line.
Speaking of fixed line, people in the electorates of Goyder, Nelson, Daly and many other areas of the Northern Territory, particularly those in the greater Darwin region, still have to use dial-up network. In the 2007 federal election, the Coalition put up a model called OPEL. The OPEL model would have reached about 98% of the country. It would not have all been fixed line; it would have had a combination of the remaining 2% satellite, fixed line and wireless technology. The NBN only looks at reaching 90% of the population, which leaves out just about everywhere in the Northern Territory.
If the Coalition was elected in 2007, most people who live in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Berry Springs and Bees Creek would have proper broadband now. Technology changes so quickly it is always hard to be in front of the debate; however, 10 years ago there was barely anything in broadband and here we are now. Had the Coalition been successful in the election in 2007, OPEL would be out now and if you lived in Howard Springs you would not need a dial-up connection.
The benefit people have now in some of the rural communities or townships of the greater Darwin region is the opportunity to use telephones, albeit not always mobile telephones because they do not have mobile coverage - which is part of this debate - but people can use fixed line phones. If the NBN was to come in and there was a blackout - which happens when snakes are on lines and donkeys hit poles, and all the failures of the government with power in the Top End - people would not be able to use telephones, let alone the Internet. This is all part of the telecommunications debate in the Northern Territory. That is why it is important we have proper and sensible analysis and debate about what type of IT services we want in the Territory. It is not being debated in Canberra by the minister, Senator Conroy. That is not happening. We need to stand up and be mature about a debate on how we can improve IT and telephony services in the Northern Territory.
I am a person who believes that wireless technology is the way to go. I am a mobile person; I do not like the idea of a desktop. I like the idea of what they call ‘fibre to the node’, where there is fibre in every street corner and little wireless things on the street corner - I will keep it in layman’s terms so everyone can understand - so anyone can log on with their own systems. That way it can be done much more cheaply and less intrusively, without having to put people’s phones through the system, without having backup battery systems in your house for the power outages which happen in the Northern Territory. If you think there is a problem now with not having power, imagine what happens when you do not have your phone as well.
There are much better opportunities. A model of fibre to the node - and I am giving my preference of model here - would allow for the roll-out to be much cheaper and much faster to Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Bees Creek, and all of those places. You could roll it out to Dundee, Cox Peninsula, Wadeye, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Elliott, and Borroloola. All of these places could have this much cheaper.
This model of moving towards a fixed-line system to a few select places - albeit the greatest populations - in the Northern Territory is not the way to go. We need connectivity across the Territory. We are not even talking about new technology and the way copper wire which is currently there can be used from the node to the house. There are people who are talking about how advancements in technology can increase download speeds across those lines. We are not talking about that. This motion is about taking that to the committee and letting the committee look at all the technical expertise.
Rather than having some political debate on the floor of parliament, let a bipartisan committee - which has a majority of government people on it anyway - come up with what the best model is for the Northern Territory, so we can ensure the people who live at Daly River, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Wadeye, Dundee Beach, Dundee Downs, Bynoe Harbour and Cox Peninsula and all those places can have access to phones, mobile phones and fast Internet. People do not have that access now and, more worrying, people do not understand the technology.
Many people in the general public say: ‘With the NBN we will all be able to have fast computers’. Well, that is not the case. If your computer is not built for fast speeds it will not change anything. If your lines do not have fast speeds it will not change anything. If you are not living in the right area it will not change anything. If you are buying an Internet access product from a supplier which is an on-seller, there is every chance you will be signing for 10Mbs, but this person is selling packages of 10Mbs he has purchased from someone else and is selling it to 20 people so you are only getting one-twentieth of what you thought you were getting. You are all competing for the same speed. People think: ‘Oh, my computer is slow’.
It is like this very poor computer I have here. I can sit at home on wireless from a router in my house and the computer works very quickly. I go into the office at work and it takes me five minutes to open an Internet page. That is part of the problem with the IT systems of this government – well, it is the main the problem of the IT system of this government. Because it passes through VPNs and all these different servers, nothing works. People sit in situations like that and say: ‘Why doesn’t it work?’ People in the northern suburbs who are still on dial-up say: ‘Yes, I want faster speed’. Well, NBN is not necessarily going to deliver you a faster speed. What would help you is if you were not on dial-up for a start, if you were on ADSL2 and were not going through a provider which was splitting up the speeds you are receiving now.
There needs to be analysis and rigour put through the IT debate in the Northern Territory, but there also needs to be education campaigns to explain to people why their computers are so slow and why it is so tough to open things. There are further debates which need to happen in places much further abroad than here, particularly Canberra. If everyone in Australia had access to 1000 Mbps and they all jumped on the line at the same time or tried to access servers in America, could the overseas cables handle that? I am not an IT expert, but I am told they cannot.
This does not just affect my electorate. People in the rural and bush electorates of Goyder, Daly, Nelson, Arafura, Arnhem, Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Macdonnell and Stuart are going to be ripped off with this system. In Alice Springs, there will be some people in the electorates of Braitling, Greatorex and Araluen who will get the NBN and will get faster speeds, albeit intrusively into their house. Whether you are a 17-year-old kid who wants to get access to the computer or an 80-year-old person who has never even seen a computer, you will all have the NBN knocking down your front fence, digging trenches and putting holes in your wall. Then, if there is a blackout, you will be stuck. There will be people in those three electorates who will not have the NBN, and they will still have to use some form of wireless or satellite because the NBN will not go to everyone’s house.
I will leave the debate there. I am very interested to hear what the government has to say. As I said, for the last four weeks, or since my promotion to ICT, I have not been offered the privilege of having a briefing from the department because the minister’s office refuses to return my calls. Perhaps they are as cooperative as one of the advisors in the minister for Housing’s office is, I think it is Brendan Higgins - completely unhelpful.
Madam Speaker, I will leave that and I will listen to the debate by government. I will be happy to provide some summation to this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the member for Braitling on this important motion. There is no doubt about it, the NBN is a dog. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money - $43bn for the re-nationalisation of telecommunications in Australia, a country which is probably the wheeler and dealer in the world. We are into free trade, competition, providing commercial opportunities, we talk about entrepreneurialism and getting out and having a go, that sort of stuff, and it has paid benefits for Australia over a long time. It is not just Coalition governments in Canberra which have had that desire but past Labor governments. I well remember the Hawke and Keating years, floating the dollar, deregulating the banking industry. All of those reforms were very, very helpful.
It was the Labor government which first started privatising Telstra, and there was a recognition that telecommunications was no longer an industry which needed to be run solely by governments. More and more players were coming into the marketplace and it seemed wrong then, and it does now, that government would not only be the regulator but also the operator of the largest monopoly in Australia. It is like being the chief steward at the racetrack and owning the favourite. At the same time there was a severe conflict of interest. Credit needs to be paid to former Labor administrations in Australia - the Hawke and Keating administrations - for their recognition in privatising Telecom, now Telstra, and taking some of the shackles of government off that company’s back. It has gone on to grow in a marvellous way. Millions of Australians are now shareholders in that great telecommunications company.
Recently, we have had a complete turnaround by federal Labor; it seems that the socialists are back. I know the Chief Minister likes to deride me and other people when we talk about socialists in Canberra and the socialists here, but to me there is no better example of socialists at work than what they are doing with the NBN. $43bn is more than the value of the complete capital assets of Telstra now. It will be the largest telecommunications business, if you can call it that, in Australia. It will be a government-owned monopoly. As the member for Braitling said, people will be left without options. Whether you want it or not, the NBN is coming to you and it seems to me it is being done in the most destructive way possible.
Government fails to put forward a business case for the NBN. It was only last week when it refused to have proper scrutiny of the NBN. It refused to have a cost benefit analysis done. I think government is scared of the results because the more Australians are coming to understand what federal Labor has planned for them in relation to this NBN fiasco, the more Australians are becoming certain it is a dog.
The tide is turning. The way Kevin Rudd put it in the election of 2007 it gave great hope to Australians. John Howard was an old man and he seemed to reflect old school views in Australia. Kevin Rudd was a younger version who had many of the same qualities but seemed much more tech-savvy. He was on pages like Facebook and he was doing talk-back radio much more than the then prime minister was and he seemed to be a sort of a hip John Howard.
Dr Burns: I haven’t heard him described like that before.
Mr TOLLNER: He seemed to be a bit hip - and I note the member for Johnston is laughing at that. I think he would even agree with that. At the 2007 campaign, many people were talking about ‘me too-ism’. Whatever John Howard said, Kevin Rudd agreed with. Kevin Rudd said: ‘There is not a sliver of difference between my economic views and those of the Coalition. I am an economic conservative’. What he said and what he did, of course, were two separate things. Politicians, not only in Australia but all over the world, would have taken note of the way Labor and Kevin Rudd ran that 2007 campaign because it was a very slick, well-run campaign on Labor’s behalf and I have to say, all credit to them.
The trouble is it created such an expectation, such a desire, that people are now feeling let down that some of the things promised are not bearing fruit. Without going into all of them, one of the big ticket items, the greatest moral and social challenge of our time, was saving the environment. People in the community identified with that. I would say that 99.99% of Australians care about their environment and want to see our environment protected. Kevin Rudd in some way gave them hope there would be more focus put on the environment than what it was perceived the previous government had. I said ‘perceived’ because the previous government did much more for the environment than the Labor administrations we have had since.
It was time for a change for Australians and they wanted a new tech-savvy prime minister who did not seem that much different from the current one. The hallmarks of John Howard were he was good at managing the economy, keeping our borders protected, and keeping the country safe and secure. People like that in a Coalition government. They wanted to see that preserved but they also wanted to see someone who had more flare and more of an eye on the future. The NBN was one of those things where Australians said: ‘Oh, beauty, here are people who really want to throw us into the 21st century, bring us all up to speed.’ The promise of high-speed broadband sounded wonderful at the time. At that time Mr Rudd was talking about a $4.5bn investment in international broadband and that was a big chunk of money. If we went back to 2007 and Kevin Rudd said he wanted to make a $43bn NBN, Australians would have had quite a different view of the economic credibility of Kevin Rudd.
Since 2007, his election commitment of $4.5bn has exploded into a $43bn plan to connect Australians to fibre. It has gone from fibre to the node to fibre to the home. As the member for Braitling said, for those people who are listening and reading Hansard, the node is a box on the end of every street corner; however, the new Labor government is taking it further, it is not just taking it to a box on the street corner, it is taking it into the home, which means a big change to the way telecommunications are delivered into our homes.
Currently, you do not need a power supply to run a telephone or hook into your computer, but the minute you have fibre, the power has to be on if you are going to get a signal to your home computer or phone. With this government, power to the home is not guaranteed, as many Territorians know. When the power goes out, how many Territorians are going to be able to pick up the phone? There will not be too many. Well, there may be quite a few who have access to mobile phones, but some of the senior members - Madam Speaker you are very in touch with seniors in our community; you are well known for getting out and about in the seniors’ community and you will know that very few seniors are in possession of a mobile phone and still rely on landlines in their houses. Those seniors will be connected to fibre-optic and will have to plug their home phone into a power source to make phone calls from their landline. When the power goes out, those seniors who do not have mobile phones are isolated as far as communications go unless they can shuffle across to the neighbour’s house or yell out the window for someone to call and advise the power is off they will be isolated without power. That is one of the big drawbacks.
People who do a little research in this area say copper cable will carry exactly the same speeds as optic fibre will, just not over such long distances. Once you get past 500 m or 1000 m it starts to fade away on a copper wire. There is no problem at all putting nodes a couple of hundred metres apart. Using the existing infrastructure, you can connect many copper cables to a node with distances of less than 500 m to the house. Connecting fibre to houses means ripping out the existing infrastructure and rewiring the whole place. In many cases, as the member for Braitling said, ripping up people’s front yards and punching holes through their walls – not an ideal situation for many people. In some cases that will not be required; there will be lines which can be drawn through the existing piping and the like. However, in many cases, front yards are going to have to be dug up and holes punched in walls to install this.
It is happening whether you want it or not. It is happening across Australia. I look at Peter Garrett with his solar hot water systems. This Labor government has a penchant for means testing every government grant, even for solar power. So people on decent incomes cannot access the solar panel grant for hot water systems from the current government because they are what the government considers to be high-income earners. The government wants to means test the private medical cover rebate. It is into means testing everything, but will not be means testing, or even giving anyone a choice, as to whether they get the NBN.
The other side of the coin is that 3% of Australians will not get the NBN because they are outside of the network. You have to ask where that 3% of Australians live. They will not be living in Darwin and probably not in Alice Springs or even Katherine. They will be living in some of the further flung places, predominantly places in remote Australia in the Northern Territory.
This promise that every home - that is another joke in itself, every home - in communities around the Northern Territory will be connected to the broadband is a joke. There are many homes in the Northern Territory in remote communities which cannot get water or power. They cannot get water or power but we are going to plug fibre optics in there - if you believe the member for Stuart. Lovely bloke as he is, I believe he has been misled on this issue.
I know it is Labor’s job to talk this thing up. I do not even think they know what they are talking up, but they feel obligated to help Julia in Canberra cement her spot as the Prime Minister of this country. They feel that obligation deeply; that they have to, in some way, legitimise her existence. Somehow, it seems to these guys on the other side that the only bright spot the federal Labor government has now is the NBN. They have turned their back on saving the planet. They have forgotten about the greatest moral challenge of our time, global warming. That is something they can put off. Their stimulus package has fallen in a heap. Money for school halls across …
Dr Burns: Including the BER?
Mr TOLLNER: We see the Education minister fire up at the BER. He seems to think because he has a few good schools in the Northern Territory that all is roses. It seems he does not read the papers. I have to tell you, minister for Education, the BER is not seen as something good around the rest of the country, mate. It is marred with failure and wasted spending. It has been a terrible program. It is right up there with the pink batts scheme. It is derided by Australians.
Most Australians are starting to see that all of this stimulus spending was, in many cases, just burning money. It was no more than that. Tax Australians, take their money off them, give some of it to them and burn the rest. We have seen so many promises come out of this federal Labor government when it agreed to the Northern Territory intervention. I tell you what, it grinded that intervention on the members in the Northern Territory because they did not believe in it, and they still do not believe in it. They do not believe in the intervention at all. It was described as the black kids Tampa by one member in this place. Federal Labor came in and said: ‘No, we agree with the intervention, we will just do things a little differently’, and what has it done differently? It has wasted more than $1bn on SIHIP. How many new houses do we have?
A member: Eighty-eight.
Mr TOLLNER: Eighty-eight, so we are not at the 100 mark yet and we have spent $500m. It seems that the cost of a house is coming down because I remember about 12 months ago in this place we were talking about $100m spent and fewer than 10 houses were built. So at that time it was $10m per house. Now we have 88 houses and $500m spent, what is that? $6m or $7m a house, so the price of these houses is coming down. For that sort of money though, you could buy that beautiful house on East Point. Why we do not have Indigenous people all over the Northern Territory living in those sorts of houses beats me when you are spending the sort of money this government is spending.
In any case, the government is building these houses for these extraordinary amounts of money, and now it is telling us the only light on the horizon left for it is the NBN. It is dead keen to get it out there, get it right, and they are going to connect every house, whether you want it or not, with fibre-optic. When the power goes out - when Mr Knight, the most aptly named man in the parliament, Mr Knight, it is dark, it is night time - when the lights go out, the power goes off, Mr Knight will not have you ringing him because you will not be able to under the new NBN.
This scheme is the socialists at work. This is the heart of socialism coming to light. These guys are intent on creating a nationalised telecommunications system. Goodness me, we have had decades of Labor governments federally, followed by Coalition governments, a good 30 years of economic growth in Australia, and along comes this mob. Julia, I think, is from the extreme left of the Labor Party. I do not know whether it is true, but I did read an article saying she was from the extreme left of the Labor Party but had previously been in some sort of communist sect in her university days. It does not seem to me that she has moved too far because she still believes in the nationalisation of telecommunications. It is a real worry. In the Northern Territory we have so many different things which need attention, and what we could do with our portion of the NBN money is enormous. The opportunities are there. If only a portion of that money were to be spent in the Northern Territory we could do such wonderful things.
As the member for Braitling said, this is about fibre to the home, fibre into your houses. It is interesting that these days, in this new age of telecommunications, people are not looking for fixed line services so much. In the last few years Telstra has seen a reduction in landline services in Australia. People are going away from their landline telephones and are opting for mobile phones. It is similar with computers. Computer sales for desktop PCs are not as high as they are for laptops. People want mobility; they want to be able to pick up their laptop and take it somewhere.
These gadgets we have, these USB wireless broadband connections, are the greatest things ever, Madam Speaker. I thank you and your department for providing my office with one because I use that permanently in my Winnellie office. In fact, Madam Speaker, I am sure you will be aware that my electorate officer has asked if we can get one for her PC because I get far greater speeds from my wireless plug-in than we can possibly access through the Winnellie Shopping Centre. I understand the Winnellie area is in a bit of a black spot; Telstra has confirmed that. There is a lot of …
Dr Burns: Didn’t you try to fix that at one stage?
Mr TOLLNER: We did try to fix it. We have been out of office for a little while and this new beaut, tech-savvy Labor government we have federally still has not fixed it.
These things are marvellous and they allow people all sorts of wonderful opportunities. I know when I travel interstate and I take the computer I am not hunting around for a landline to plug it into anymore. Whether I am sitting in an airport or pulling up at some park, it does not really matter where you are providing you have a signal. You can plug that thing in, you are on broadband and you are getting pretty good speeds through that little plug-in on the side. These are the wonders of modern technology. I believe that is the way Australians are going more and more.
I understand if you are running an Internet betting agency, are one of the big four banks and you have a branch, are one of these other high-tech businesses, or are a government, you may well need superior speeds and the stability and certainty of service a fibre-optic cable will give you. I am not disputing the need for fibre optics but it should not be mandatory for everyone. It should be there for those organisations and people who actually need it and they should be able to access that stuff. But for the vast majority of people and small businesses mobility is the key. Having access to an Internet connection, whether it is wireless or fibre, is the main thing. They are not necessarily chasing the speed. I do not believe Australians are prepared for what the cost of that speed will be.
When you talk to the federal government it cannot give you an answer. It cannot tell you how much it is going to cost for a weekly, monthly or annual plan. It cannot tell you what it will cost you or what the plans are going to be like. One thing is for sure, these things are not going to be free. They are going to cost significantly more than people are currently paying for their copper service and in many cases that copper-wire service is providing adequate speeds for their needs.
Any way you cut this NBN it turns out to be a dog. It is a massive waste of taxpayers’ money. That is one of the hallmarks of Labor governments; they do not really care what it costs. We see that time and time again in this place. You stand up, throw questions at members of the other side asking what they have done about this and that and what are they doing. They pull out a chart and say: ‘This is how much money you spent; this is how much money we are spending’. It always comes back to money. They tell you they spend more. That is what they do. They never say: ‘Look how much we have saved you’. They never say: ‘We have saved you this amount of money’. They say: We spent this amount of money’, like that is an outcome. It is an outcome in the minds of Labor people. To them, spending money is an outcome.
It was certainly an outcome for Kevin Rudd in the global financial crisis. It was like manna from heaven for Kevin Rudd. He could not throw the money away quick enough; he had to keep spending. For some reason Kevin Rudd believed spending was going to save us - get out there, spend, spend, spend, spend and that will save us. People who are economic conservatives, as Kevin Rudd once said he was, do not share that philosophy. They believe in spending money to get the best value for your buck, ensuring you get a return on your money, being fiscally responsible. That is something Labor governments never are. That is the case even with the Hawke and Keating years, and is certainly the case now with the Rudd and Gillard years. They are quite prepared to throw money around like crazy.
In the Northern Territory we have seen it over and over again. Every day in Question Time we are reminded of it; we are constantly told how much money this government spends. It is proud of the fact it continues to spend, spend, spend, spend. Get the money out the door, spend! That is what it is doing with the NBN. It started off as a $4.5bn scheme which was fibre to the node. It decided that was not good enough; let us spend $43bn on the NBN, something on which we could have spent $4.5bn. That is where you see the obvious difference between the Coalition policy and the Labor policy. Federally, we have Malcolm Turnbull saying: ‘Let us offer Australians a top-notch service, but we do not have to spend $43bn to do it’.
Madam Speaker, this scheme is a dog. I support the member for Braitling for bringing on this motion and urge all members to support it.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on this motion. In the last 12 months particularly, and since his promotion, it has been great to discuss ICT, particularly the NBN, on a regular basis. I welcome the motion; I will not be supporting it and will outline why. I welcome the opportunity to discuss information, communications and technology in the House. Looking back over Hansard, ICT was not a very commonly discussed subject in the Assembly. It was in 2004 - it might have been Peter Toyne as ICT minister who talked about the electronic divide which existed, particularly in the bush and in Darwin and Alice Springs. I welcome this motion brought on by the member for Braitling.
ICT, until the last 12 months, has not been discussed enough in this Assembly. It is vital to the future of the Northern Territory, as it is to this country, that we discuss important issues such as ICT. We need to move forward with the times. We need to invest in this type of technology and infrastructure, not only in the Northern Territory but in Australia, if we are going to keep up with other countries, particularly those in the OECD, in driving the economy. The economy of the 21st century has been discussed many times, and so much will be built on having this type of infrastructure, this type of technology. That is why the NBN is such an important national project. As I said, it is important nationally that we have this type of infrastructure. There are debates happening at the federal level regarding the costing and business case of the NBN.
I listened closely to what the members for Braitling and Fong Lim had to say. I value the contribution the member for Fong Lim made. Given his time in federal politics, his experience is a very important thing which he brings to the Territory parliament. I see a clear difference in what we are doing on this side of the House to what they say on that side of the House when it comes to ICT and delivering for the Territory. I really believe - I am a true believer in the NBN - the NBN is fantastic news for the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about it; it is actually being delivered as we sit in this Chamber and debate it. The member for Braitling wants to form another committee: ‘Let us have a committee and talk about the NBN and what the values are’. However, it is being rolled out. The fibre is being rolled out across the Northern Territory as we sit in the Assembly discussing it.
There is a clear difference between what the John Howard government did for the Territory and what the Kevin Rudd, and now the Julia Gillard government, is doing for the Northern Territory. We are delivering. With a Labor government in the Northern Territory and a Labor government in Canberra there is a clear difference. We are delivering for the Northern Territory. You only have to look at Tiger Brennan Drive and the oncology unit; they are things that, under a John Howard government, were not delivered for Territorians. Look at OPEL. The member for Braitling raved on about the Coalition’s grand plans for ICT when they were in government for - what was it? - 12 years. Did they deliver that? I do not think they did. There is a clear difference between what they are saying and what we are doing.
The NBN is fantastic news for the Territory. It is going to bring us up to the 21st century with the digital economy. It will deliver across all elements of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Bohlin: Most people in your electorate won’t have it.
Mr HAMPTON: The NBN is not just about fibre; it is also about wireless and satellite technology. That is where the coverage is coming from. It is not only about fibre to the home, it is about those other elements which are going to be delivered through the NBN …
Members interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I am having trouble hearing the minister speak. I ask that there be fewer interjections.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Members for Drysdale, Braitling, and Fong Lim, you have made your contributions. You were heard in silence. I ask you respect the minister’s reply to this motion in silence.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in all fairness I never made a comment and I was interrupted constantly during my contribution.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I was just saying that you made a contribution; I was not saying you were disruptive. I pointed out that the members for Drysdale and Braitling should keep silent while the minister responds to the motion which was brought on by the member for Braitling …
Mr Elferink: I apologise for my constant interjections …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it may pay for you to listen to the minister in silence as well, thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. As I said, I am a true believer in the NBN and I believe it is going to deliver fantastic things for the Northern Territory, particularly in growing jobs in the Northern Territory. We love looking at ways we can develop the green economy, and there are many jobs in that green economy. The NBN is going to be very much the basis of those jobs. In generating a creative economy, many of the other countries around the world are rolling out fibre. On my trip to New Caledonia there was a ship rolling out fibre from Sydney to Noumea. That is what the French government is doing: rolling out fibre from Sydney to Noumea. It is not waiting for anything else to come along, it is doing that as we speak. It is important that Australia keeps up with the 21st century and we continue to grow our economy. We will look at creative ways we can develop the economy and keep up with many of those other countries.
Japan is another believer in fibre to the home. It is being rolled out in Japan. By the end of 2010, Japan’s investment in laying fibre to the home will be worth around $908bn to its economy. That goes to show how important it is to a growing economy and to keeping up with the times. I am glad Julia Gillard and the Labor government are not going to lose that opportunity to keep up with the times, build our economy, and lay fibre to the home as well as improve the satellite and wireless technologies throughout Australia.
The member for Braitling has called on this motion to set up a committee, but the NBN is a Commonwealth government initiative; it is developed and paid for by the Commonwealth government. The Territory government’s role in this is to get the best possible deal from Canberra for Territorians. That is something which I, as a minister in this government, have worked very hard on for the last couple of years. The crazy thing about this motion is that the member for Braitling seems to be unaware of the work being done in Canberra to prepare some of the very material he is asking the Territory Legislative Assembly to prepare and examine through a committee. I will go through those points of the motion now to clearly articulate those pieces of work which are being done as we speak.
Point one of the motion is:
- … investigating the state of the current telecommunications services in the Northern Territory in regard to hardware and assessing the intentions of the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in the Northern Territory;
Since the Labor government came to power in 2001 in the Northern Territory it has worked very hard with partners in the private sector, the community sector, and both local and federal governments, particularly since Labor came into power in Canberra, to improve telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory, with great results. There is a clear difference between what we are delivering on this side of the House with our colleagues in Canberra compared to what happened with the John Howard government in Canberra. I pointed out Tiger Brennan Drive, the oncology unit, and rolling out the NBN. The Coalition, with John Howard, talked about its type of ICT infrastructure project for 12 years and did not deliver it. It had about 18 failed policies on ICT.
There are other examples of what this government has done since coming to power in 2001. It has worked with its partners, Telstra - which has made a massive contribution to telecommunications infrastructure in the Northern Territory - and the Northern Land Council. I know the member for Braitling despises the land councils but there has been no better champion for rolling out this type of infrastructure through Aboriginal land, particularly through Arnhem Land, than the Northern Land Council. It has been a great champion for better telecommunications infrastructure in its region. I also congratulate Rio Tinto Alcan. Those three partners, along with the Territory government, have put Arnhem Land in touch with the 21st century. It is an infrastructure project which is internationally recognised for improving the lives of Territorians. We now have fibre going to Groote Eylandt - a fantastic initiative, working with partners such as those I have mentioned. We also have fibre going into 17 growth towns with upgrades to exchanges in all of those towns - a very important part of A Working Future and growth towns’ initiatives which will drive the creative economy which is needed in those growth towns.
We also have a competitive, second fibre backhaul network going in through Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston. We talk about the great conservative people on the other side here, but they do not want competition. They want to block all of this by closing down the NBN and going back to the 20th century type of technology. The second fibre means competition. We have a few more choices so people can access cheaper broadband than what they currently have. In the Territory we are paying something like 12 times the price of what people are paying in Sydney or Melbourne. We also have fibre going into homes – some 3000 households - and businesses in Casuarina next year.
Since 2007, when Labor won government federally, the pace of telecommunications infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory has increased. Suddenly we have telecommunication infrastructure projects happening across the Territory – something which was in the doldrums for 12 years under the Howard Coalition government - not only the NBN but those projects I have just outlined of ICT infrastructure being delivered. There are also private investments such as what Nextgen is rolling out, the huge job Telstra has been undertaking, and local government and communities are investing in local telecommunications infrastructure. What a difference three years of a federal Labor government and a Northern Territory Labor government have made.
The second point of the motion is:
- … investigating the costs of the roll-out of the National Broadband Network;
This is one we can deal with straightaway. We do not have to set up a committee. The cost of the NBN to taxpayers is $26bn or less, or 10 to 13 a day per household. The real worry is that the opposition does not understand or know this. The business case for the NBN which sets out the costs for the roll-out was released months ago.
The third point of the motion is:
- … identifying the locations the National Broadband Network will be delivered to with the download capabilities and the type of infrastructure utilised;
The opposition thinks we need to refer this to another committee to waste time. All this information is on the NBN Co website. It takes a bit of time to have a look it.
The fourth point of the motion is:
- … analysing the impacts on the Northern Territory regarding the impending changes to Universal Service Obligation;
Currently, the USO is delivered by Telstra with the assistance of $145m of funding it receives from levies imposed on the telecommunications industry based on its revenue and market share. Under the government’s plan, Telstra will be relieved of its responsibilities to supply basic telephony services and pay phones to users in the bush and a new entity called USO Co will become responsible for the program. Telstra will be contracted by USO Co for a period of 10 years to continue delivering phone services while its copper network is switched off. The bottom line is that referring it to a committee in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly adds nothing to a matter which is scheduled to be debated in federal parliament.
The fifth point of the motion is:
- … detailing the anticipated costs of residents in different locations accessing National Broadband Network services in a residential and business capacity across a range of data downloads;
Residents do not access NBN services. It is retailers which access NBN services. One of the objectives government has set for NBN Co is uniform national wholesale pricing. This means retail service providers, or RSPs, will have to pay the same amount, irrespective of where they are based, to deliver their services to households and businesses throughout Australia. NBN Co plans to charge the same amount for its basic access product across all three technologies: fibre, fixed wireless and satellite. NBN Co will also charge uniform national wholesale prices at higher speed tiers across its entire fibre footprint which will be servicing 93% of premises. The pricing policy is based on wholesale price levels allowing comparable or better retail prices than the current market for equivalent performance.
The pricing structure and pricing levels have been set to achieve a viable internal rate of return, based on NBN Co’s estimates of the take-up of different speed tiers and connectivity capacity usage. Based on take-up and speed usage growth assumptions, NBN Co anticipates being able to reduce real prices for all products and nominal prices for all products, except the basic service offering, while maintaining an internal rate of return above the government long-term bond rate.
The sixth point of the motion is:
- … investigating competitive and technological alternatives to the NBN in delivering high-speed broadband across the Northern Territory.
There are three components to the NBN. It is not just about fibre to the home, it also includes wireless and satellite technology. There are no competitive alternatives to a mix of optic fibre, wireless and satellite in delivering high-speed broadband across the Northern Territory. This is the really funny thing about this point. The member for Braitling and members opposite are caught up in being parrots for their masters in Canberra; there is no alternative to a mix of optic fibre, wireless and satellite. We may as well waste the committee’s time examining other things rather than the NBN.
I am a true believer in the NBN, as I stated in my opening. This government has supported it from day one, with the Labor government in Canberra, which means we stand for access to the digital economy for all Northern Territory businesses, opening up huge new opportunities for green jobs and creative economies. We stand for $1bn of new infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory over the next eight years on top of what we have already been able to achieve in such a short time. We stand for productivity super gains for the Northern Territory economy. We stand for e-Health solutions for Territorians, particularly those in remote communities and many bush electorates, and we stand for distance education solutions for Territorians, which I am sure the minister for Education would be pleased to hear about.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not only for Territorians in the towns; 100% of Territorians will receive access to broadband whether it is through fibre, wireless or satellite technology. I do not support this motion, and I recommend the House votes against this very cynical and useless waste of time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the backflip we heard from the minister was astounding. He saved it for the last sentence but he came through with a backflip because we know from the dorothy dixers put forward in this Chamber some time ago that with NBN, every home, business, school and doctor’s surgery will have access to faster, affordable Internet access. He has just backflipped. No, it is satellite now; it is satellite and wireless and some fibre optic. I do not believe he understands the difference between NBN and fibre optic. He said: ‘The NBN is rolling out across the Northern Territory as we speak’. Where is it rolling out?
Today the business case was released under pressure from Nick Xenophon, Malcolm Turnbull and the shadow Regional Communications spokesperson from the Nationals. Page 9 of the 36 page report we see coverage in the Northern Territory. It is just the road from Adelaide to Darwin and across to Nhulunbuy, that is it. If you do not live there, you do not get any of coverage from the NBN. There will be some satellite stuff and some wireless, but that is there now.
You have to understand the difference here. How much money will be spent in Australia? How much will be spent in the Northern Territory, and what the NBN is going to mean. What will our productivity gains be? What will our economic advantage be? We know there is broadband in these locations now across the Northern Territory. How will people who live at Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Berry Springs, Bees Creek, Dundee Beach and Cox Peninsula benefit? What about the Tiwis? There is no mention of the Tiwi Islands on this. There is no fibre-optic cable for the Tiwis under the NBN model, only the Internet stuff which is there now. How will that service people in Oenpelli and Maningrida? Are we going to see the NBN going to those communities? Are we going to see it go into Ali Curung, or is that the fibre optic which is already there?
The people who sit on dial-up services in the rural area now are being hard done by. This was not a political thing or any direct correlation with the puppet masters - I think was the term you used – in Canberra. They do not know I am even speaking about this, minister; they have no idea. This was about how we can improve things. This is about asking whether fibre optic, under NBN Co, would be more important for productivity gains and servicing the Northern Territory, or would we be better laying a highway? Would we be better laying a highway between Docker River and the Olgas? Would that be more important as a productivity gain for the Territory? Is the outback highway more important? Could we seal the Central Arnhem Highway for the same amount of money? Will we get better gains by saving the lives of people considering the road toll on the dirt road? These are the things we need to be considering? Where is the best bang for our buck in the Northern Territory?
You have completely gone against that. There are arguments against the NBN; I know those arguments. I have not tried to play all those arguments here. I have spoken about alternate models for better connectivity in the Northern Territory. You thought this was political and you wanted to be smart about it, minister. I do not know if you fully understand the difference between fibre optic and the NBN, because there is no one in the Territory who is accessing the NBN now. I would be very happy for you to point out to me any household which is accessing it now.
What we are seeing now is the differences between brownfield and greenfield sites. What is happening with the uncertainty in the market, and has happened for years, is Telstra is now, in parts of the country, considering what sort of a role it will play under the Universal Service Obligation in installing cable to houses. Should it be installing fibre optic or copper in a greenfield site for a new housing development? Why would it install fibre-optic cable when it is not going to own it because it is going to be taken over by the NBN? Is it going to put a new line in there? These are the things you have to consider. You have new developments at Lyons, Muirhead and Bellamack - if they ever get power at Bellamack in Stage 4. These are things which need to be considered as part of the debate.
Think about the people in the rural area. I am disappointed the member for Nelson has not spoken in this debate on the National Broadband Network. There are people in his electorate who still sit on dial-up, whose mobile phones drop out all the time. The minister has not spoken about these people. He has complete disregard for the people in the rural area and the drop-outs in phone coverage, the poor Internet service, and the power outages they have. To think, when the NBN comes in, people are not going to be able to use their telephones unless they have some big generator battery back-up system so they can power up their phones. This is absolutely ridiculous!
There is a common thread here. We see the NBN here - we go from Adelaide straight through to Darwin. It covers a little of Darwin city and a little of the Darwin area. There will be a bit more wireless, because we are only talking about 93% of the population’s fibre coverage here. We sit in the last 2%, so there is a big gap there. However, they have a 4% wireless margin on page 9 of the 36-page report for the business case study if anyone is interested. There is a common theme; outside of Darwin, in the Lingiari electorate, what happens? We fall over again.
It seems nothing is delivered on anything Warren Snowdon has to do with in the Lingiari electorate - SIHIP, nothing is happening, roads have not been served, been there for 25 years. Now, we have NBN Co and that is falling over as well, not delivering services.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on Standing Order 51!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I just called for order. Minister, allow the member for Braitling to finish his reply.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
We are now talking about a fixed-line service protruding into every home which is fortunate enough to get it. I spoke earlier about the benefits of mobile wireless technology. It was on 29 September this year that Telstra reported that its wireless broadband business had grown by 109% per year over the last three years. In the year between mid-2009 and mid-2010, the number of wireless broadband subscribers in Australia rose from two million to 3.5 million and that excludes smartphones such as the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4. If you includes those iPhones, by one company and all the other companies which are now onto this smartphone technology with their wireless broadband - like the phone I use - you would see millions more people. People are mobile; people are business-orientated. You do not need a fixed line straight into your house, protruding through your driveway, into the wall …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Braitling knows the NBN has always been a mixture of fibre, satellite and wireless.
Mr GILES: There is no point of order. What is your standing order number? There is no point of order here. Sit down! You cannot just come up here and talk. This is not a time to debate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, the minister has called a point of order. I am listening to that. There is not to be any quarrel across the Chamber. Continue, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you. It is my understanding that when you call a point of order, whether it is about the broadband or otherwise, you need a standing order number. I am always inflicted with those rules and the same rules should apply. There is no standing order on the broadband process.
The fact remains that wireless broadband subscribers in Australia rose from two million to 3.5 million, excluding smartphones, and that is how people are these days. We have the NBN Co trying to tunnel into everyone’s house, if you are fortunate enough to get it, which in the Territory not many people will be fortunate enough, particularly those in the rural area. I believe this is part of some greater plan by Senator Conroy and the Gillard/Rudd government where they want to be intrusive and tunnel into everyone’s house. They have this new Internet filter where they are trying to check what people are doing. It is almost like the communist regime is coming back - one and all the same, want to see what is happening in every person’s life.
We have seen debate this week on the interception, on the telecommunications rules. We have the Internet filter, you combine those together, and all of a sudden Big Brother is watching you. It is disappointing the member for Nelson did not the speak on this debate and it is disappointing that no one else in government did. This could affect, potentially, so many bush seats. The member for Daly has not said one word. It is not even going to touch his electorate. NBN Co will not go anywhere in Daly. It will not even go to the minister’s electorate of Stuart. It is not going to Yuendumu, so we know he does not look after the people in Yuendumu. There is already fibre-optic cable there. NBN Co is not going, unless you are going to pension off Telstra. There is nothing happening there. He is not looking after Stuart or Macdonnell.
The member for Barkly is fortunate that people in Tennant Creek will get some NBN Co, but if you live in Ali Curung, Elliott, Borroloola, Epenarra or Alpurrurulam, sorry, no good. The minister will not help these people. If you live in Arnhem, you are stuck. You are fortunate if you are the member for Nhulunbuy, because you will get a bit, but the member for Arafura, no NBN Co. You are not allowed to be connected; you are not allowed to have those opportunities for economic advancement and business development.
We know the member for Casuarina, the minister for mining and Resources, has been fighting against development on the Tiwis, fighting against port development, and the minister for telecommunications will not even stand up for the Tiwis, the people in Maningrida, Oenpelli or Ramingining; he will not stand up for Indigenous Territorians. They made a statement here yesterday about jobs. Here is a perfect opportunity to get jobs through IT. He will not stand up for these people. If it is beneficial for all other Australians, it should be beneficial for all Territorians. But no, he will not stand up for that. We know he will not stand up for the people in Yuendumu because we saw the dilemmas which happened with those people.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, please direct your comments to me, the Chair. Minister, please allow the member to finish his reply in silence.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I have not taken my vision off you the whole time I have been speaking, so thank you very much. I have been directing my comments to the Chair. I am facing you. That is the way my desk faces. It is pretty hard for me to talk crossways unless I am turning around, but thank you. I do take those comments on and it has been over the last few minutes that the murmurings from the member for Stuart have been occurring. I can understand why he would be murmuring because he is disappointed that NBN Co has left his electorate aside. He is disappointed that he is the minister for ICT and he can do nothing about it. I know his dreams of getting people in his electorate on Facebook and video conferencing with their families or having the ability to read the NT News.
The point of this motion today was not about politics. It was about making sure there is the best opportunity for the people of the Northern Territory to get the best outcome for IT services in the Northern Territory. It would have had a focus on improving services for people who are in non-NBN Co areas - those that were to receive the wireless and satellite technology. But the purpose of the committee having a review would have also enabled the parliament to have an understanding of what the economic gains would be from the NBN plan for the Territory. It could also have provided a cost comparison with what other infrastructure services could have provided in the Northern Territory, whether that is roads, housing, building or any other processes.
There are plenty of things which could be done to improve productivity in the Northern Territory and not keeping in question the idea about throwing out the Labor government. That would improve productivity no end. This was a very sensible motion. I am disappointed the minister was so reluctant to provide any sort of consideration for how things may be improved under this motion. He saw it as a political stunt when it was not a political stunt at all, and I have not spoken to anyone in Canberra about it. I just wanted to make sure we got the best bang for our buck in the Territory with what was coming here. He has not seen it that way but then he has turned his back on his electorate, turned his back on Yuendumu, and I suppose he has turned his back on the rest of the Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT (SMOKE ALARMS) BILL
(Serial 130)
(Serial 130)
Smoke alarms form part of a very serious plan and issue. There is nothing more final than fire and fire has a profound impact on families by destroying their most cherished possessions. That pales into insignificance when a life is lost. Those are the tragedies people never recover from.
This bill has been introduced as a result of a Coroner’s report dated 16 December 2008, which deals with the tragic loss of a life. I read the Coroner’s report, and it is a sad situation where someone was possibly asleep and was not roused when the premises caught fire. When they did wake it appears it was too late to get to the location in the house where the keys were kept. This person went into the bathroom and turned on the water to try to get away from the heat. The very sad situation is that the poor person died of asphyxiation due to carbon monoxide and a number of other toxic gases.
It is been nearly two years since that Coroner’s report was released. I will quote from page 6 of the Coroner’s report. There is one recommendation from this sad event, and that is:
- That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
This is another example of where this government appears to have sat on its hands for two years. We still do not see any action on the recommendation of the Coroner. The member for Nelson is quoted on page 4 of the NT News on Tuesday, 23 November 2010. It says:
- And Independent MLA Gerry Wood, who holds the balance of power, said it was the job of the government, not opposition, to bring in new laws.
We could have a debate on that issue alone. We have introduced legislation in the last 12 months which has been passed through this House. Indeed, over the time the member for Nelson has been in this House, he has introduced legislation of his own. So, for him to say it is the job of government and not opposition - I am assuming he would include himself as someone who is not in the government; although one wonders whether he is in charge of the government because he holds the balance of power. It is something the paper and people in the community recognise. We in this House recognise he holds a great deal of sway over what does and does not happen on the government benches.
This legislation seeks to bring the Northern Territory in line with other states in Australia. New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia already have mandatory smoke alarm legislation for pre-1997 properties. In 2006, the Australian Building Code was passed federally. That required that all premises built from 1 January 1997 be fitted with hard-wired smoke alarms; that is, they are connected to the 240 V electrical system in the home and must have a back-up battery. Queensland came on board in 2007, New South Wales in 2006, South Australia and Victoria earlier and Western Australian more recently. We seek to bring us in line and, if the government cannot bring this lifesaving legislation into being, then we will at least attempt to do so. Through the debate which will occur in this House, we will try to convince not only the member for Nelson, but the government, to support our legislation.
This legislation is modelled on existing Queensland legislation. You have to say Queensland has the right idea; it sees the value and necessity in providing safety for not only the bulk of its residents but also young people, the elderly, disabled people - be it any sort of a disability; if they are bedridden, partially deaf or whatever - this legislation tries to help all of those people.
Prior to the Australian Building Code coming into being on 1 January 1997, approximately 35% of residences in the Northern Territory had smoke alarms. The recent figures I have been able to get suggest that currently about 73% of residences in the Northern Territory have installed smoke alarms. That includes not only residences built since 1997, but also many residences which are pre-1997. That is a great percentage; however, we should strive for 100% if possible. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory still has the lowest uptake in Australia.
If this legislation is supported by government, we propose an 18-month compliance period for people to install smoke alarms. There would be a requirement that if you sell a house the vendor will have to ensure a smoke alarm is fitted to the property prior to settlement. Once the 18-month compliance period expires, all residential premises will be required to have smoke alarms fitted in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.
The Coroner’s report on 16 December 2008 deals with the tragic loss of a life, and we have not seen any action since. Houses built after 1997 are required to have hard-wired smoke alarms, as required by the Building Code of Australia. The Coroner’s recommendation, and I am going to read it again, is:
- That the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties in the Northern Territory.
The government seems to have sat on its hands in relation to this legislation and we have not seen anything which resembles a bill of any kind. The only other places in Australia not to have this legislation are the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania, although I believe they are looking at similar legislation to what we are presenting today, which will bring us into line with the rest of the country.
Smoke alarms are part of a broader fire plan for every dwelling. The public has been encouraged, through education campaigns and a range of things, to create a plan of their own. There is a great little booklet put out by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Fire Protection Association of Australia; it is a 2006 document. You open this booklet, it has a bit about how fires start and then you get to the contents page. The contents page lists a number of things. The first section deals with smoke alarms. Obviously, the Fire Protection Association of Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission agree that smoke alarms are the most important part of your fire plan.
Of course, early warning is an essential part of any plan. If you are going on a driving trip you see your mechanic, get them to check the car, and they tell you the tyres need replacing, may need a new bearing or two. It is that early warning which prevents tragedy and disaster from striking. With cyclones we have early warning systems where we implement a range of public education requirements for people to do this and that. Early warning is seen by most of the population to be an essential part of any plan.
If you go to page 16 of this same document it has a great photograph of a house and a yard and it lists all the things you do to prevent fire. There are seven sections and numerous dot points. When you look at the first part of this document it has a general section even before you get to number one. At the seventh dot point it says:
- Install smoke alarms and check regularly.
These people, as you would expect, know a great deal about fires. The Fire Prevention Association of Australia is a peak body which presents its cases to governments and the community and it sees this as an essential part of your fire plan. On page 12 of this document the title is ‘Your Home Escape Plan’. It says:
- Create a fire escape plan for your home. Know how you will escape.
- You must be able to escape from your home in the event of fire. When at home, keep a key in the inside deadlock to ensure that you can leave quickly.
I will come back to the Coroner’s report in relation to some of these issues. The pertinent part of page 12 is that, in the middle of it, in big red print with a big box around it, it says:
- You may only have two minutes or less to leave.
If you are in a caravan, you have about 15 seconds. If a caravan goes up - I have been to a couple of caravan fires - they are absolutely terrible. In the case of a house fire, they are suggesting you have about two minutes to leave, so it is essential that you have early warning. If you are asleep, you need something which is going to wake you. If you are in a part of the house where you are not suffering from a great deal of smoke inhalation while the rest of the house is burning, your only way out may be to go through the fire. So early warning is an essential element of not only saving your life, but possibly saving others.
I am sure people have read in the newspaper about situations where smoke alarms have gone off and dogs have started barking or when people who are hard of hearing have not heard smoke alarms and others have been able to come to their rescue very quickly and advise them to evacuate with great haste.
The Coroner’s report I referred to earlier talks about the tragic situation where the person was unable to reach the keys to unlock a door and get out of the house. The keys were close to where the fire is believed to have started. Had there been a smoke alarm this person may have been alerted earlier and may have been able to reach the keys before the heat and smoke became so intense they could not get anywhere near them. The spare keys which were normally kept in the unit were also in a position where the person did not have sufficient time to reach them before flames and fire overtook the entire lounge area. It is very sad that this person did not have the opportunity to be warned in a timely manner.
So I reiterate, early warning is an essential. Those people who are sleeping, the elderly, the disabled, need all the warning they can get. If you are at home and have a disabled person or an elderly person you need to help, it is going to take more than two minutes to get that person to safety. If a fire has just started or is smouldering it essential that you are able to extinguish it before it destroys property or a life.
There will be those who say this will be an imposition on landlords, property owners and households. The editorial of today’s NT News says:
- The CLP will put forward a legal amendment in parliament that would force homeowners to put in alarms within 18 months. Coroner Greg Cavanagh suggested exactly that two years ago. But the swimming pool fence debacle surely demonstrated that interfering in people’s lives in such an intimate and intricate way doesn’t go down well with Territorians.
There may be some in our community who will say that. I say to them when you compare it with pool fencing, you do not drown in a pool while you are sleeping at night. If parents could fit an alarm to children which went off every time they went near a pool or a water hole where they may drown - if that invention was durable I would be interested in having them for my kids and grandkids to alert me they were possibly going to drown. You cannot get something durable like a smoke alarm which is going to work for those times and, as a result, it is probably one of the reasons we have pool fencing. Given smoke alarms save lives, they are probably one of the cheapest prevention and early warning devices a person can buy.
Landlords are required to provide safe environments for their tenants. They are required to provide locks and windows which work so premises can be secured, to ensure the electrical wiring is up to standard, ensure there are no dangers such as cracked floors or things which can injure people, debilitate them, or even worse, cause death. They are required to provide those things under community occupational health and safety standards. In this instance we would require owners of premises to install smoke alarms and there are a number of triggers which would require other people to install smoke alarms.
There are three basic types of smoke alarms. I did some phoning around yesterday to get some prices. There is a basic smoke alarm which has a 9 volt renewable battery which has to be changed every 12 months. The second type of smoke alarm has a 10-year life lithium battery unit. It is sealed and you cannot replace the batteries; the whole unit has to be replaced. The third type is a hard-wired 240 volt unit with a backup 9 volt battery. It has to be installed and hard-wired by an electrician, so there is the cost of an electrician to install it.
To meet the requirements of this legislation you only have to install one smoke alarm. The fire officers and the people from the Fire Protection Association recommend you install two alarms. If you have a two-storey house, a split-level home or an elevated home with something downstairs you may want to install three: one in the bedroom area, one near the kitchen area and one downstairs if you live in an elevated or split-level home. The basic thing you need is a single smoke alarm.
People say this is a terrible cost imposition. The average pool fence costs in the thousands. A basic model smoke alarm, with a 9 V battery which has to be changed every 12 months, can cost as little as $8.70. They range from $8.70 to $27.40. They all meet Australian standards and they all work. They have testing facilities so they comply with everything in this booklet which is published by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Fire Protection Association of Australia. You can buy triple packs of the battery-operated smoke alarms - with a 9 V battery which has to be replaced every 12 months - for as little as $39.50. Fire officers recommend the 10-year life lithium battery model which does not need to be hard-wired. You can just put these things on. I am sure there a number of ways to fit them, one may be double-sided tape. The average person can buy one of these and install it for as little as $8.70.
During our proposed 18-month compliance period, vendors of pre-1997 houses will be required to fit smoke alarms prior to final settlement and landlords commencing or renewing a tenancy agreement will be required to fit smoke alarms prior to granting occupancy. Once the 18-month compliance period is over, all residential premises in the Northern Territory are to have smoke alarms fitted in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.
During or after the compliance period, landlords are to test smoke alarms and install fresh batteries prior to a new tenant taking occupancy. Once occupancy has commenced, it will be the tenant’s responsibility to ensure smoke alarms remain operational. If they are not operational due to more than just flat batteries, it will be the landlord’s responsibility to repair or replace the unit.
The cost of providing smoke alarms pales into insignificance when you consider the benefits to the community. We already have a 73% take-up rate of smoke alarms in homes. It is sad, though, that the others have not. As a community we owe it to those who are not in a position to have a say, such as children and the elderly. When elderly people cannot care for themselves and we put them into facilities we still have to look after them and ensure their safety. As a community, we should ensure these places have smoke alarms and fire systems. We see the value there. We owe it to the rest of our citizens in the Northern Territory to ensure they enjoy that same level of protection.
This legislation for the requirement to install smoke alarms needs to be introduced in conjunction with a wide-ranging education campaign. Booklets like this, and television and radio advertisements, would be needed so the community can realise the value of early warning and seek these devices out prior to the end of the 18 months. Some people have asked me – and it is in the paper today - I quote from today’s editorial in the NT News:
- Who would enforce the law? The police? Government inspectors? What rights of home entry would inspectors have?
There are legal requirements to do many things in our everyday lives but we do not see the police checking on us all the time. The police do not follow you down the road to make sure you do not speed. There is a time when it comes to the attention of people like police or fire officers that there may not be compliance with legislation in relation to smoke alarms. It is at that time when you would look at it. I do not expect that the police, fire inspectors or government inspectors are going to run around to everyone’s homes making sure there is a fire alarm fitted, or going around testing them. So, to those who might say: ‘That is terrible, who is going to do that?’ I say there is a requirement for all of us as part of a community to do certain things to keep us and others safe. It is in that vein that we expect the community to comply with the requirement to install lifesaving devices.
I acknowledge the Fire and Rescue Service. It does a great job. Firies have to deal with loss of property and see families devastated by the loss of their cherished possessions. Even worse, it is the firies, ambulance officers and police officers who have to go to fires and see unnecessary deaths which occur due to something as simple as a smoke alarm not being fitted to a residential premise. Having been to a number of fires in my life as a police officer, I have to relive that emotion each time I talk about it. I have to live it right now - some of the images I have in my head of charred bodies, so tragic, and then you have to deal with the loved ones. Anyone who does not get a tear in their eye when they are trying to deal with that sort of stuff probably comes from another planet because it is devastating, not only for the families, but for those people - although nowhere near as great - from the services which have to attend to these things.
Any time that we as a community can help our emergency workers, across all those services - be it at the hospital, accident and emergency, surgeons, people who have to put these people back together again, or the people who have to do post mortems on the unfortunate souls who lost their lives. It is absolutely terrible, and if it is preventable, then it is distressing not only for those people but for the rest of the community. I applaud the people from the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service who put together a lovely fact sheet which is quite simple. It does not read like a book; it is succinct, to the point, it explains what people’s options are and gives some great advice.
There are some great things in here. It is very similar to the booklet by the Fire Protection Association of Australia. These people are trying to give people information which is going to save their lives. It talks about installing smoke alarms. The first heading is ‘Fire Escape Plan’. It says:
- The smoke alarm will alert you to fire, but what you do next is a matter of life and death.
So the first line in this document which is produced by people who have to deal with fires and inform the community contains the words ‘smoke alarm’. It is about alerting people and what you do next.
If you do not have a smoke alarm and you are asleep and you do not know your house is on fire, there is a good chance you will die in your sleep through asphyxiation. The sad thing is that I lost a good friend of mine when we were teenagers. This incident triggered a change in legislation in Western Australia. He was living in a unit and he came home one night; he would have had a couple of drinks, and he turned the shower on and was waiting for the hot water to come through. He lay down and the gas heater was on. It went up and consumed all the oxygen in the unit. My friend was asleep with no fire alarm and he died of asphyxiation. It was really sad. We had to go to the funeral of a very good friend.
Years later I find myself thinking about that when doing research to put this bill forward. The same thing happens again and again and you only need to search on the Internet to find tragic stories of deaths which could have been averted if a smoke alarm had been installed at a minimum cost of $8.70.
The Fire Safety at Home booklet is great. I recommend people read it. Fire investigators have said in the newspaper and other media releases that deaths could have been averted if smoke alarms had been fitted to residential properties. There was a recent death which could have been averted by a smoke alarm. I am saddened, and the whole community is saddened, when we lose anyone, but those who need our help more, as a community and as legislators, are the young, the old and those with disabilities. It is beholden on all of us - especially those of us in this House where we are able to consider lifesaving devices, especially when they are so cheap. I do not see how we cannot require people in our community to install lifesaving devices.
I will quote from the last paragraph on page 5 of the Coroner’s report:
- Rather the evidence is that she was doing everything she could to preserve her life. I find that this was an accidental death. I note that there were no smoke alarms installed in the flat. I consider this may have contributed to the death as, had the deceased been alerted earlier to the fire, it is possible that she may have been able to retrieve her keys and escape from the flat.
That is a fairly clear observation made by the Coroner and I will repeat the recommendation which goes with that paragraph:
- … that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure introduce legislation requiring smoke alarms to be installed and maintained in all residential properties. The necessity to do this is clear.
That was in December 2008 but we still have not seen any movement in an effort to bring legislation before this House. That is the main reason I am introducing it from this side of the House. The legislation is about protecting all Territorians, especially those who do not appear to have a voice. I ask that government and Independents support this bill in an attempt to prevent any further tragedies from occurring.
In 2005, the government identified the necessity of installing lifesaving smoke alarms. This was demonstrated by Territory Housing installing smoke alarms with fixed 10-year batteries in all its rental properties. Having clearly exercised the duty of care to its tenants, and understanding and identifying the necessity for these lifesaving devices for its tenants, I will be very surprised if the government does not support this bill as it has already identified the necessity. It has installed alarms in all of its properties and as such I ask the government and the Independent member for Nelson to support this lifesaving legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
SIHIP – Request for Northern Territory Government to Present Details
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory Labor government:
- (1) presents all expenses and commitments to date for the SIHIP program broken down into head office costs, package costs, site costs, and details of whether those costs are incurred by departmental expenses, alliance expenses or outsourcing expenses;
(2) in presenting this information it also presents details of every location within a prescribed community on the numbers of houses that will be constructed, rebuilt or refurbished and an explanation of the address of each of these properties and also details the numbers of houses or dwellings or other that are to be decommissioned or knocked down or removed and the changes to the numbers of bedrooms in each community whether an increase or decrease; and
(3) explains how the SIHIP program will actually improve the housing situation in Aboriginal communities particularly given the fact that approximately 300 homeland houses have been given up and no longer managed and that the remaining approximately 2200 homeland houses remain uninsured and without appropriate asset management process.
This is a large and complex area. It is common knowledge that SIHIP is a debacle and a failure. I know and respect the minister for Affordable Housing. I believe he is genuine in wanting to see things improved. He has been handed a basket case by the member for Daly, the previous minister for Housing, who set the model up incorrectly in the first place. I recognise it is difficult to manage these programs; however, I am surprised things could go so horribly wrong. This was, after all, money for an emergency to protect children after the handing down of the Little Children are Sacred report.
This motion presented today is not necessarily to debate every nook and cranny of SIHIP. In a nutshell, it is a call for the minister to be open and honest and remove the culture of cover-up the Labor government of the Northern Territory so wilfully holds and present a model of transparency, not just to the Country Liberal or Independent members on this side of the Chamber, but to all Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, so we can have an understanding of the program, what it looks like, how much is being spent, how much is being committed and what the end goal is.
Recently I was afforded a briefing by the minister, his CEO and another staff member. Generally, every time I have requested a briefing the minister has made one available to me. The staff have attempted to respond to my questions, although I understand not everything can be answered all the time. I had a briefing recently on outstations and one on SIHIP a few days later.
The briefing on the outstations was brought about for a number of reasons. The minister will be across this because an incident occurred in the electorate of Macdonnell at John Holland Bore where the house of a resident of an outstation burnt down. I wrote to the minister and asked him what the process was for a house which burns down at an outstation. The response I received in the letter and through the briefing about how these things work was that outstation houses are not insured. People do not pay rent on outstation houses; they pay a service fee because they are not within the Territory Housing management framework. If people pay rent you need to have secure land tenure. I recognise these are complex issues, but the point we got to at the end was that you pay a service fee to the shire, there is no asset management program, no capital program, such as doing your bathroom every nine years and your painting every eight years and the things you could put in a cyclical asset management program in the housing framework. There is no insurance. Normally, with a public housing model, governments around Australia, and in different jurisdictions, self-insure, but there is no self-insurance of the public housing.
So, for this family who live on an outstation, is now without a house; it just disappeared; there is nothing. This house, funded by ATSIC or any of the other funding providers in the past through the many years of CLP governments where we built houses, member for Johnston, has now disappeared and that family does not have a house.
That was one of the reasons why I sought the briefing on outstations. I was interested to hear from the CEO - who was open and honest - and his staff that there are around 2500 homeland houses in the Northern Territory. There are around 150 - the government thinks – which are vacant. There are around 300 of them that do not fit within the management system of the shires managing those houses. In the transition to this debacle of a model which is known as the shire, not all the houses were handed over to the shire. There are about 300 houses left in limbo and not handed to anyone.
My questions during the briefing were: who manages those? Who tries to do any sort of repair and maintenance at all? The response was: ‘No one, we have given up those houses’. So no one is looking after those houses at all. That is a very sad situation, not just because Australian taxpayers have paid a stack of money to build 300 houses on homelands or outstations, but because there are people in those houses who need to be assisted in the upkeep and the amenity of those properties. People need to be assisted and educated in paying rent and maintenance of properties. As Territorians, we need to ensure, if taxpayers’ dollars have gone into housing, the housing stock is appropriately managed so it represents the housing need.
What will happen, and what is happening now, is that 300 stock, not to mention the other 2200 stock, is deteriorating because people are not looking after it. There is no one making sure the power points are working, or the tiles are not broken through the recent storms we have had throughout the Territory. That is not happening, so those 300 houses are disappearing. They may disappear in three months, or it may be immediate like the house that burnt down at John Holland Bore. It may be in three months time through a debilitating breakdown, or three years, but those 300 houses are disappearing.
We take into the context of those 300 outstation houses which are disappearing, comments which were put on the record by Andrew Kirkman, who is a government official, along with the minister and the CEO throughout the estimates process. When pressed - and I am not reading from Hansard so this is not verbatim - during estimates on how many houses will have to be demolished because they are beyond economical repair, the minister and his departmental staff, in particular, Mr Kirkman, said there would be well over 200 houses. My question was: ‘What is the number of houses which will be demolished in communities which are getting new houses?’ He said: ‘Well over 200’. I asked if he could be more specific. I was expecting him to say 210, 220, or something similar. He said: ‘There are 170 now but we expect that number to increase quite a lot’. I thought, gee, 170 houses are going to be knocked down. Then I asked how many houses would be knocked down in communities which were not getting new houses. He said: ‘Oh, 180 at this point in time’. So all of a sudden we have 170, plus 180, plus the 300 outstation houses.
I have done some calculations, based on Mr Kirkman’s original estimate that there would be well over 200. I have taken 200 for granted. Say they are three-bedroom houses - I know there are a number of four- and five-bedroom houses; in Ngukurr, for example, there is a five-bedroom house which is going to be demolished. If we said they are all three-bedroom houses, that means 600 bedrooms will be knocked down in the communities which will receive new SIHIP houses, and in the non-newly-constructed housing communities, 170 houses are going to be knocked down which equates to 510 bedrooms.
So 1110 bedrooms will disappear because the houses are being knocked down or are beyond economical repair or, more importantly, as described by the staff through the department of Housing in estimates, houses which the alliance deems will be unable to be appropriately managed after a period of two years; not that they are debilitated now, in two years they will be hard to manage. Then you add on the 300 outstation houses, three bedrooms, which is 900 beds in total. All of a sudden - and for those who read Hansard, you will work this calculation out - we have 600 bedrooms plus 510 bedrooms plus 900 bedrooms giving a total of 2010 bedrooms which will disappear from Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
Then you have a look at the SIHIP program and what it will deliver. It was supposed to be about emergency housing, but the government saw it as some sort of cash cow and pork barrel where it could try to fix up some of its failures in housing management and maintenance over the last few years. There will be 750 houses built. Fifty per cent of those will have three bedrooms. Fifty per cent of the houses equals 375 houses, times three bedrooms equals 1125 bedrooms. Forty per cent of the 750 houses will be two-bedroom houses, or duplexes, lean-tos and so forth, that equals 600 bedrooms, and 10% of the 750 houses will be one-bedroom houses, or one-bedroom bedsitters or apartments, which equals 75 bedrooms. So, in total there will be 1800 new bedrooms as part of the SIHIP program.
That sounds a bit wrong. On that assessment there will be 210 fewer bedrooms than what will be knocked down. Two-thousand-and-ten bedrooms will disappear and only 1800 will come back as part of the SIHIP program. That is a real mathematical argument. That is 2010 bedrooms versus 1800 bedrooms. That is a real problem, and that is why it is important for this motion to move forward.
If we look at the financial report of SIHIP as at 13 April 2010 - I believe this is the report which was handed down to the Council for Territory Cooperation at the time. I do not have any new figures because the government has this culture of cover-up and has not been transparent. That is why I have asked for the figures as part of this motion. It is interesting when you go through the report and do some calculations. I did not realise the numbers I had until yesterday when I played with the figures a bit. For example, it talks about Package 4 – I know this is old now because this is a Groote Eylandt package. To date, $19.3m has been spent and the only work completed is 19 refurbishments as at 13 April 2010. I know there are start-up costs but that equates to $1m per refurbishment. There are reasons why we ask for the figures and ask for transparency.
In Package 6, at Palumpa, Peppimenarti and Wadeye - I know things have progressed since then and houses have been completed - they have spent $17.8m on six refurbishments and three houses. Six refurbishments and three houses and they have spent nearly $20m.
For Package 3a, which includes Ali Curung, Tara, Ti Tree Station, Six Mile and Willowra, 50 refurbishments were completed and handed over for $14m. The refurbishments are supposed to cost $75 000 each. We know they cost about $10 000 to $15 000 but the charges go up to $75 000 as an average to cover the other costs the government has wasted money on. Fifty refurbishments for $14m equates to $282 000 each. I have been in all of these houses and that is not value for money.
Package 7 includes Gunbalanya, Acacia Larrakia and Belyuen with 14 refurbishments done at Gunbalanya and three at Belyuen. On a total of 17 refurbishments they spent $7.2m which is an average of $423 000 per refurbishment. People ask: ‘Why do you keep questioning this?’ These are serious questions.
If you want to look further, in Package 5, which is Maningrida and Minjilang, there were two houses refurbished for a total of $10m. You have to ask questions when you see those figures. You are not spending $75 000 on a house. We have those figures now. We know how much you actually spend. We have the invoices and all the scoping documents. We have all the consultants’ costs and the names of the workers and the consultants and the hotels in Darwin where they stay. We have all those things now and we will slowly release them. It is important for government to be open, honest and transparent in this process. It beggars belief how you can have a $60m package at Wadeye and spend $20m on consultants. I would like to know how that can be done. I would like to know how you can have so many interstate consultants on a fly in/fly out basis.
Yesterday we debated a statement on jobs. I think it was the member for Sanderson who said we are the only fly in/fly out capital city in the Territory. The consultants who fly in/fly out as part of SIHIP are on $450 000 packages. The amount of money which is being spent is ridiculous. We have proof of that. I will not be tabling the proof tonight but we do have proof of this stuff. What is happening is crazy and I want the minister to be fair dinkum with Territorians and with this parliament and tell us exactly where the money is going. Tell us what is going to change because at the moment I can see a program which was going to cost $672m now costing $1.2bn with another $400m supposedly going towards tenancy and property maintenance. That is $1.6bn to build 750 houses and 50% of them have fewer than two bedrooms, including the 10% which have one bedroom. We will have fewer bedrooms than before we started the program.
This is the worst program. There are all these jokes about what is the worst thing around. This is the worst program. This is far worse than the pink batt scheme, albeit the unfortunate loss of the lives of four people in the pink batt scheme. This is the worst administrative bureaucratic scheme which anyone has heard of. You are lucky it is only operating in this outback outstation called the Northern Territory because if this was in Sydney or Melbourne this would be everywhere and people would be horrified. Now we are getting to the point where the racial undertones are coming into this program which is unfortunate because people are now saying: ‘Why are they building those black people houses?’ That is where we are getting to now. I have tried to keep that debate aside but that is exactly where we are going because people are seeing the failures in this program.
You have had opportunity after opportunity and review after review to come clean on things and then we see photos like this of a lovely bloke in the Hidden Valley Town Camp on the front page of The Australian on Monday, 11 October. Johnny Possum Brown, brother to Clifford, is living in a tin shed in the middle of Alice Springs. I am not blaming you for this, minister. However, you see consultants flying in from interstate on their regular trips; they get their cars, they stay at the Mantra, they have big salaries, all the TA and the meal allowances. Johnny Possum Brown gets water from a tap, he has a bath full of water and those are his essential services; that is all he has. I understand there needs to be reform across a range of areas but there is no way this gentleman should be living like that. It is sad, and his story is replicated across the Territory.
If you go to the caravan park at Ti Tree, which I think is in the member for Stuart’s electorate, it is the same situation for those people. I know there are fundamental social problems which people experience; however, they should not be living like that when we have all of these people increasing their frequent flyer points from Perth, Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne all the time. That is why it is important.
The Auditor-General’s report has a table which describes how much money has been spent to date. Page 17 of the Auditor-General’s report says that of the 750 new houses to be built, 623 have been allocated and of the 2500 refurbishments, nearly 2000 have been allocated. Those allocations are in the Tiwi Islands, Groote, Maningrida, Wadeye, Gunbalanya, Galiwinku and Alice Springs. They are supposed to be building houses in other communities including Gapuwiyak, Milingimbi, Yirrkala, Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Lajamanu and Borroloola. There are only 127 houses left to be allocated. Where are they going? We have already heard that in Ngukurr they are building 50 houses which means there are only 77 houses left to build in all of those communities. The numbers do not add up.
Member for Stuart, you will be interested in this. In my briefing, I asked: ‘How are you going with the leasing?’ ‘This is where we are at with this one, and Lajamanu is in principle, Hermannsburg is in principle. Yirrkala and Yuendumu is a bit of a way out because it has been held up by the land council’. I do not hate the land councils but I believe we need a different model of regional land councils for a competitive basis for economic reform. I said: ‘Right, they are being held up by a land council?’ ‘Yes, they are being held up by a land council’. The comment added was: ‘We do not need Yuendumu or Yirrkala to sign up at this point in time, because if they sign up they will be on false promises because we cannot build their houses. ‘What?’ That was my response. ‘We have a backlog; we have a problem with the money coming in. We cannot build their houses’. What is going to happen there?
I feel sorry for the minister, the member for Johnston. He has to deal with this. I am sorrier that his advisor came along to the recent briefing because things were going well until he stepped in. Things were calm, and then Brenton had to open his mouth and get political and fire things up. When you have people who are unhappy in politics get a good advisor from the government to fire things up and really bring some solidarity - Brenton has fired me to get back onto the SIHIP debate and drive home those reforms for Indigenous Territorians who need housing. I find it hard when people have an attitude and are a bit smart in that environment. Brenton really did it. He can galvanise people to be focused on the target - which is attacking government over SIHIP. Well done; thank Brenton for me, minister.
I have raised several concerns and it is important that this motion goes through because it is not just about me or us. It is about how we are going to get housing solutions for Indigenous Territorians. Yes, I want land tenure reform; yes, I want private sector housing on Indigenous communities. Private sector housing on Indigenous land in Indigenous communities is the only way to solve the housing problem in Indigenous communities. It is the only way to get off the welfare drain of Indigenous housing and come forward with a new model. Yes, we need a suite of services - public, private community, rental, home ownership. We need all of these things and SIHIP is only one element. Unless we have transparency, we will continue to be worse than the pink batts program - far worse than the pink batts program from an administrative perspective. There will be a reduction in housing in Indigenous communities as a result of this program because it did not focus on emergency; it focused on trying to fix a few places - pork-barrelling some consultants and paying too much for bureaucracy and administration. Now, we are getting a nett decrease in housing in Indigenous communities.
There would have been a far better way to have done this. Give the money to local communities; they would have achieved better economies of scale and better bang for your buck. There would have been more housing than we are getting now. Instead, this government has brought in a shire model which takes away any representation from local people, any opportunity for local communities to build or replace their own houses and create their own workforce. Now we are in this position where $1.8bn in national partnership agreements will dwindle away, no one will have a job, and there will be fewer houses than before we started. That is a sad indictment on a poor-performing Labor government.
I encourage the minister, the member for Johnston, who I believe in his ageing political life is growing a heart. He has been very helpful to me in a number of areas. I was just commenting to the member for Daly about how you have helped me in a number of areas. That is in all sincerity. I encourage the minister, the member for Johnston, to consider being open and transparent on SIHIP. I have not stood here and attacked you or your program; I have raised problems which are in the program. Yes, that is correct; I have raised problems. There will be fewer houses at the end of SIHIP than before the start of SIHIP. $1.8bn in national partnership agreement money will be spent. There may be a few improvements here or there around the edges, but the number of bedrooms will decrease. Still, to date, there is no plan for Johnny Possum, who was on the front page of The Australian, to get any accommodation.
A member: Shameful!
Mr GILES: I know. The only option is to get a tent or a swag in the new tent city, in the new town camp which is being built. The new town camp may be able to house Johnny Possum but, apart from that – and I use this as an example because I speak to him fairly often, as I do with many people - there is no solution and it is tremendously sad. Kevin Rudd can say sorry, the whole nation can weep, we can try to bring out some constitutional reform but, at the end of the day, Johnny Possum Brown still sleeps under a dirty blanket, under a sheet of tin, with a leaking tap into an old bath as his only essential service. That is what motivates me, far more than a negative advisor in a briefing, although that does help as well.
Minister, I look forward to your contribution. I hope you take my comments with some tongue in cheek, but with the wish to know what is going on. I will be happy to go back into my shell and help you guide this program along, unless Brenton comes back out. I am very keen to see what your plans are. While I welcome the opportunity to jump in front of the media and tell everyone about how bad you are at managing things, it would be far better to get houses for Indigenous Territorians than get me in the media.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I reply to this very detailed motion. The member for Braitling is asking for very detailed information about SIHIP. He has alluded that he may even have some information up his sleeve which he may lay on the Table at a later time. I look forward to that information, member for Braitling. However, I remind this parliament that there is a committee called the CTC in which members can ask all sorts of questions directly of public servants …
Mr Elferink: Of ministers? No. Human shields can come in but not the ministers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Come on, you have had your go. Brenton does not attend those meetings, so there are just the public servants and you can ask them the questions. The opposition decided it did not want to be part of the CTC. This was part of its political agenda. It was getting unparalleled access to public servants and information. It was going on site with the CTC. Some of the members even tried their hand at construction, I am told. The member for Port Darwin got a spirit level out at an Angurugu, and he was promptly told by the contractor: ‘Mate, you are holding it the wrong way’. The member for Port Darwin was seeing that everything was on the square and level.
You have complex questions; that is fair enough. Avail yourselves of the CTC. I will try to turn to the things which have been raised by the member for Braitling. He talked about SIHIP, the national partnership agreement, as being money for an emergency. I say this to the member for Braitling: First, these arrears in housing have been building up over decades through successive governments, whether they were Coalition or Labor governments. SIHIP has always been a five-year program; it has been a five-year program from the first tranche of $672m, and its targets for that $672m have always been five-year targets.
He talked about transparency. That is an important element and SIHIP has probably been one of the most reviewed projects. There have been at least two reviews, there has been a Northern Territory Auditor-General’s review and, as I understand it, there is currently a Commonwealth auditor investigation into SIHIP. This is already a heavily audited and reviewed program. It is important that we have transparency in this program. We also have to remember that the Northern Territory Auditor-General said in his review that there are benefits and disadvantages with the alliance method of contracting. One of the advantages, as I will come to a little later, is flexibility.
One of the other disadvantages, and I believe the Council for Territory Cooperation has also alluded to this, is that it is sometimes hard to determine exact costs for a dwelling. I know the department has undertaken, with the CTC, to provide costs for each package within SIHIP. That is appropriate, because that gives a broader view of all the costs - what you might call the sunken costs for work crews establishing themselves at a location, particularly the larger locations and all the costs attributed to SIHIP.
The targets for SIHIP in terms of the $672m have always been clear: 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds, although the total for rebuilds will vary a bit as some of the refurbishments turn into rebuilds. That is reasonable; as the cladding comes off some of those buildings and reveals the steel frames there is no doubt some of those houses will have to be rebuilt.
From the beginning of this program the member for Braitling has been dancing around saying: ‘Oh, you have built one house, and one house has cost $672m, and now you have built three houses and each one of those houses is $200m and you have only done so many refurbishments, and this is what it has cost’. So I have become a bit wary of some of the assertions made by the member for Braitling. I have become very cynical and sceptical of his assertions about SIHIP. I will give a major example of this. I am getting older. I was a year older on 12 August, member for Braitling. It was my birthday but I was in parliament listening to you. You talked about the overall program. You quoted the Housing minister, saying:
- A total of $640m which includes $100m from the Territory will be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program over the next five years.
You said it: ‘over the next five years’:
- We have agreed to implement what is called a Strategic Alliance Model.
You said:
- That is seven months after a change of federal government; seven months after the change in MOU. We have lost $230m-odd out of the program …
You went on to say:
- The MOU said $793m, plus $100m from the NT government. The $647m spoken about by the member for Casuarina, who was Housing minister at the time - he talked about $647m, including $100m, so $547m from Commonwealth dollars. This is the minister’s statement of 1 May 2008. We have gone from $793m to $547m.
You were asserting that somehow $230m had been ripped out of the SIHIP program. I say to you, member for Braitling, as I said on the record around that time, either you did not read the memorandum of understanding or you did not care to see what it said where it talked about existing commitments of that overall agreement. Under (2) it says:
- Included with the total funding of $793m is $279.2m in existing commitments …
So, there you go. I can talk to you about where the $30m or $40m is, but you are racing around saying $200m is missing. You were wrong then and you are wrong about most of what you talked about tonight.
I will start to demonstrate that. One of the points you have been running around with in the last week or so is in relation to evidence which was given to the Estimates Committee this year by the Housing department and Mr Kirkman in particular. You went to the ABC, got the journalists and provided evidence – evidence, you said - that there were to be 180 houses demolished throughout the Territory, plus a further 170 houses, plus the 300 you were talking about tonight. You are wrong. You added all these figures up to say: ‘That adds up to about 750 new houses, so we are not going to have any nett gain from SIHIP’. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Let me go back to what Mr Kirkman actually said in the Estimates process. You said:
- Thanks, Mr Kirkman, would you have a figure more than just at least a couple of hundred, more accurate.
This is in regard to the number of houses which needed to be demolished in the communities which were receiving SIHIP. Mr Kirkman said:
- The figure at the moment is 180.
You replied:
- One hundred and eighty?
Then Mr Kirkman said:
- I would expect once we get to the end of the housing program you will find that it is in excess of that figure.
You said:
- In excess of 180? Mr Kirkman, how many of those in excess of 180 do you expect to be in communities that are not getting new houses constructed?
Mr Kirkman said:
- The figures that we have are around 170 in those communities that are not getting new houses.
That 170 figure is the number of houses which are beyond repair. It did not mean they are going to be demolished. You made the assumption, whether wilfully or mischievously, that those 170 were going to be demolished. Those 170 will continue to be used. They will have some maintenance. We will maintain those houses and they will continue to have tenants in them.
In relation to the 300 you mentioned in a briefing with the department, you asked a question about outstation houses and you were told there is - and I have asked the CEO about this – he told me what was meant was that there were 300 out of the 3500 houses in outstations. That was the figure you used tonight and it is approximately right. There are approximately 300 houses which from time to time during the year are completely unoccupied. Those of us who have spent time in the bush will know of the mobility of Aboriginal people, particularly those in remote areas who may go to major centres during the Wet Season, otherwise they are cut off in their outstation and cannot do a range of things such as access services or shop. They go into town and those houses are vacant.
I agree that there is a problem with houses for outstations. That is why this government, with the Commonwealth, is reviewing outstation housing infrastructure, what is required to maintain that infrastructure, the value of the infrastructure and the supporting infrastructure around it as well as its utility. Over the past 40 years or so since we have had the returning to country movement, which was supported by Labor and Coalition governments, there has not been a wise investment of money - as you said, by the Australian taxpayer - in the buildings at outstations.
I do not want anyone to misunderstand me and think I am not a supporter of the outstation movement. Those of us who have been around long enough have seen houses built which are hardly utilised for a variety of reasons. That money, paid by the Australian taxpayer, could have been better utilised. That is why SIHIP concentrates on the main communities because we know when people come in from the outstations, particularly in the Wet Season and to access services, the pressure comes on the main towns. That is why we have targeted the main towns with a major build of 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds.
In relation to there being no nett gain of houses, the advice I have from the department is that figure of 180 has been revised down to approximately 150. If you take 150 away from 750 you get 600 new houses. You also alluded to the extra approximately $400m invested jointly by the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government which was announced within the last few weeks. There is $316m from the Commonwealth government, $190m of that is for infrastructure to support houses and construction in those communities, and $120m for more housing. I will come back to that $120m.
The Northern Territory government has brought forward $140m for infrastructure to support, along with the Commonwealth money, the building of those houses. The $120m I spoke of is for 180 new houses plus 180 rebuilds. I mentioned 150 bringing 750 back to 600, so add another 180 onto that. We are getting new houses. We are getting new bedrooms. The program is rolling out and I can inform this House that we are very confident of meeting the target of 150 new houses by the end of this calendar year. I am informed there is a very strong likelihood that we will exceed the 150 target. I commend the alliances for that. I am advised that we are likely to reach our target of 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments, all being well and weather allowing. We will certainly, I am advised, exceed 900 rebuilds and refurbishments.
We are moving forward with what we are delivering through SIHIP. The latest update is that 232 new houses are complete or under way with 93 complete and 130 under way, and 891 rebuild and refurbs are complete or under way with 786 complete and 105 under way. We have about six weeks until the end of the year. As you can see from the number of refurbishments and rebuilds, we will be striving to reach our 1000 figure. I hope we come close. It was a very ambitious target we set earlier this year which I have stuck to, through thick and thin, and it appears we will meet those targets.
I am very pleased with the way in which the Commonwealth is bringing forward some of the spend of the national partnership agreement. As everyone is aware, the first tranche is $672m over five years. Overall, it is $1.7bn. Some of that second tranche has been brought forward, as I alluded to previously. This is all about supporting infrastructure, and building and rebuilding houses. This means many more Indigenous people in remote areas of the Northern Territory will get into a house sooner - either a new house or a rebuild house. Many more Indigenous people in the remote parts of the Northern Territory will have refurbishments of their kitchens, bathrooms, toilets, plumbing, and the electrical works of their houses.
We were criticised about the standard of the refurbishments and why we did not paint the houses. As I said to Julia Christensen on her show, of the approximately 80 refurbishments at Maningrida we had a choice of refurbishing those 80 houses or rebuilding those houses and only giving a benefit to approximately half of those families. It is a very difficult proposition. I suppose politically it is a difficult one to communicate to the public and the media. However, that was the rationale behind it. We could have rebuilt all of those houses to the rebuild standard of $200 000, but we have not. We have gone for that average of $75 000. It is actually two-and-a-half houses; probably less rebuilds when you divide it by that factor.
Member for Braitling, I take what you say but, regarding your motion and the expenses and commitments, no doubt you have further information which I am sure you will be bringing forward in Question Time over the next few weeks. I have to say to you - and I will be up-front; it is not Question Time, we do not have the media up here now - I am very sceptical of any claims you bring forward based on what you did with the $230m and that you could not read the national partnership agreement to see there were existing commitments. You spun that up. You are completely wrong in your calculations of the 180, 170 and 300. You can come at me in Question Time. I will listen carefully to what you have to say and what information you put on the Table, but I have a real problem with the way you interpret information and your inability to read national partnership agreements and understand what is being said to you in estimates and in briefings. I wonder whether you are wilful, sometimes.
You have had a go at poor old Brenton. Brenton tells me you were starting to get on political territory and asking public servants political questions. Quite rightly, Brenton was saying: ‘Hold on a minute here, member for Braitling, you are getting into that political arena with public servants’. Having been a senior public servant yourself, member for Braitling, I believe you know where that borderline is. I commend Brenton for protecting our public servants from being verballed and being put on the political spot.
I say again, member for Braitling, you need to get back onto the Council of Territory Cooperation. The member for Fong Lim should get on there. He is out there by himself, the loneliest backbencher in the nation and probably one of the most experienced backbenchers in the nation. His talents are not being utilised properly by the opposition, so maybe the CTC is the place. He knows how to ask questions, he has been around enough and been on enough committees to know how to ask a pretty good question of a public servant. I encourage the member for Fong Lim to become engaged with the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I have tried to explain where the member for Braitling has gone wrong in some of his assertions. The first point of his motion is that the government presents all expenses and commitments to date for SIHIP. I have said it is heavily audited and we have given an undertaking that when each package is complete all the costs will be published. I have alluded to our Auditor-General’s report and the investigation or audit which is being carried out by the Commonwealth Auditor-General.
The second point of his motion is that the government:
- In presenting this information also presents details of every location within a prescribed community on the numbers of houses that will be constructed, rebuilt or refurbished and an explanation of the address of each of these properties and also details the numbers of houses or dwellings or other that are to be decommissioned or knocked down or removed and the changes to the numbers of bedrooms in each community whether an increase or decrease.
I reckon you need to get a clipboard and get out to those communities and try to ascertain some of that information. If you were to go to those communities as I have - all over the Territory I am seeing new suburbs. There is a new suburb at Wadeye. There is a new suburb at Maningrida which I went to with my very old friend, Mr Reggie Wurridjal, one of the traditional landowners of Maningrida. Reggie has been a friend of mine for 30 years. I do not think Reggie is a very political sort of bloke; he is Reggie, he is a traditional owner. But the happiness about those houses - I suppose the major problem for that community is the allocation of the houses. We are trying to work through the allocation of houses with every community based on need and the housing reference group within each community.
I went to Gunbalanya and inspected some of those houses. I know you drove past when the houses were being cleaned and completed prior to allocation as transitional housing. I think you said they were all vacant and nothing was going on there. I have to say, member for Braitling, you have impeccable timing. There is a great deal going on at Gunbalanya. I have inspected housing at Angurugu and other locations. It is like Lucky Starr, I’ve been everywhere, man. I have alluded to the town camps in Alice Springs. There is plenty of good work going on there. I urge you to try to see the positive of this program instead of confecting, confabulating and fabricating your wild arguments. I already alluded to one you brought forward on my birthday. I think you will keep bringing them on, and I will keep having an explanation for them. Keep trying, member for Braitling.
I am not saying it is a perfect program. I am not saying it got off to a very good start, it did not. The start could have been much better, but as minister, I am endeavouring to work with the Commonwealth. We are seeing results with this program, and I agree, and have said publicly, that SIHIP, particularly in the delivery of the refurbishments, needs to take a further step with local organisations with the capacity to undertake those refurbishments, whether as a sub-alliance model as they have on Groote Eylandt, or through a classical tender process. That is something we are in discussion with the Commonwealth about.
There are further steps we can take with the refurbishments; I acknowledge that. I want to work with the Commonwealth and with Indigenous organisations which are gaining capacity through the SIHIP program in the delivery of housing. I want to see that capacity sustained through repairs and maintenance. I want to see it sustained not only through the present government in Canberra but through future governments in the decades to come. We need to sustain our effort in remote Indigenous communities.
There is a large challenge with tenancy and tenancy management in these communities. We are dealing with people who have never had a tenancy before and do not really understand what a tenancy is and what their responsibilities and rights are. We need to impress upon people the importance of looking after their houses. I have said publicly I understand there is wear and tear on houses and we are not going to solve the overcrowding problem overnight. But where there has been wilful damage, my department has been instructed, in collaboration with the police, to pursue those people who have caused the damage. I want to see wilful damage paid for and there are a couple of instances now where people are paying for wilful damage to houses. People need to realise they have an obligation to look after those houses.
SIHIP is very important issue. I have charge of it and I take responsibility for it. I am open to constructive criticism. I am open to working with you but I see you coming from a very political stand point. That is fair enough; we are politicians. You are a politician and you have a job to do but my focus is on delivering those houses, successful completion of the five-year program and extension into the next stage of the national partnership agreement.
I have tried to answer the main points of the member for Braitling’s motions. I am imploring him and the opposition to become involved in the Council for Territory Cooperation once again. That is a great avenue for them to ask questions directly of public servants and the alliance partners. Member for Braitling, be careful of the figures you present because you are starting to get a reputation as someone who cobbles together information from various sources, either without thought or with a great deal of mischievous thought, to try to present something that is not so.
Let us have a debate on the issues; I am prepared for that - well, I think I am prepared. No doubt you have some information to table and we will see what happens in that debate.
Madam Speaker, I cannot support this motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, the minister is getting delirious as he comes to the end of his political career. He must be delirious to come to some assertion that the figures are wrong when I read straight from Hansard. He read from Hansard exactly what I have said and they are exactly the same. I will read them back to him so he can listen to what I said. When he was talking about Mr Kirkman’s comments in estimates, the member for Stuart was saying: ‘Well, it sounds like that is exactly right’. If you have them in front of you it would pay you to read them. I said:
- How many houses will have to be demolished because they are beyond economic repair?
Mr Kirkman said:
- From our analysis thus far, and there is still a lot of scoping going on around the works in the 30 communities we are doing, we understand that there is at least a couple of hundred houses that would be in that category.
That is plain and simple, a couple of hundred houses. We can go through all the fluff there; let us do that so the minister can try to understand it? Mr Kirkman’s next sentence is:
- What we have said to alliances, or what we have requested of alliances, is that they will not leave a house in a community that will be unserviceable within 24 months of the program …
That is in direct contradiction to you saying they were going to stay there and you would try to repair them. I then said:
Thanks, Mr Kirkman, would you have a figure more than just at least a couple of hundred?’
That figure at the moment is 180.
I would expect once we get to the end of the housing program you will find that it is in excess of that figure.
In excess of 180. Mr Kirkman, how many of those in excess of 180 do you expect to be in communities that are not getting new houses constructed?
I am not sure I have those figures in front of me. The figures that we have are around 170 in those communities that are not getting new houses’.
It is quite plain and simple to add 170 and 180 - and it is going to go up more.
Dr Burns: Read further down where it says:
- Obviously, a part of our management framework will be how we can sustain those houses …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: You already said it was only going to last for 24 months. I am not reading anything into it. That is exactly what he said. The delirious nature of this government and its culture of cover-up with SIHIP are unbelievable.
Tell us how much you are spending! Tell us how many houses you are building and how many houses you are knocking down! You are knocking down more houses than you are building. We will have a nett deficit in bedrooms after spending $1.7bn of the national partnership agreement. I have a copy of the MOU, I know what it says. The figures you read were right. The figures I stated were right, because when Mal Brough first announced this emergency program it was $750m, and then it became $672m. Those two figures are right. You know those figures and I know those figures.
If you want to go into a breakdown of what it says here and take credit for the previous Howard government’s housing programs and the work they did - I know you and Jenny Macklin did that at the start of SIHIP when things started going terribly wrong under the former leadership, if you could call it that, of the member for Daly when he was Housing minister - go for it! The fact remains that Mal Brough had $750m emergency money for housing for Indigenous child protection. It became $672 when Kevin 07 took over. It was a five-year program from 2008 to 2012.
Your last update - not tonight’s update of 93 - was 88 houses. Some $500m is being spent on 88 houses. Tell me how much money has been spent to date and how much has been committed? They are two simple questions. You cannot answer the question of how much money has been spent on SIHIP. Just one line, how much has been spent? You will not even answer that question. Take all your fluff and guff away from the CTC - the member for Nelson held that gun to your head to keep you in government - take that away, just tell us how much has been spent. It is a simple question. I could ask it in Question Time in front of the cameras. You would squiggle and squirm, you would move around like a slippery snake trying not to tell us what is going on. This is a culture of cover-up on the SIHIP dollars.
Tell us how much Territory taxpayers’ money you have spent! Tell us how much you have spent on interstate consultants while not housing the neediest! Tell us how much money has been wasted on dilapidated dwellings! Tell us how many houses have been wrecked, minister. End the culture of cover-up! Tell us what it is all about!
Poor Johnny Possum Brown, on the front cover of The Australian, who lives in a tin shed, does not care what you say. He still lives in that tin shed. He still drinks out of an old bath from a running tap. He does not have any power or sewerage; he has to go into the bush. Those consultants who fly in from Perth and stay at the Mantra have lovely little dwellings. They have good lives. They have new cars. Old Johnny walks around – a Warlpiri man – it is a tough life for him, like it is for so many other people in the Territory.
I really thought you had compassion. You know this program is dodgy in its administration. The people at Wadeye will say how good this program is and the people at Maningrida may say how good this program is because they will see houses being built. They do not see that at Wadeye one-third of the money was spent on administration when it could have been spent on houses.
Under this alliance, the SIHIP program will not be for the betterment of reducing administration and bureaucracy in the delivery of housing. SIHIP should have been managed by local communities to get more houses and better bang for its buck on economies of scale. We would have had more than 750 houses. The infrastructure could still have been delivered. It beggars belief that you will not acknowledge that the administrative component of SIHIP has killed it. The administrative component of SIHIP has killed the program so that deliverables will not be there.
You were honest in some of your commentary in what you believe is right. You said we will make the 2500 refurbishments. That is different language to what was in the briefing which said: ‘We may not make the 2500 refurbishments’, or: ‘We do not think we will because we are having to put more money into refurbishments’. I have not said that publicly but that is what was said in the briefing: you are not going to make the 2500 refurbishments because you have to try to save money.
The Council of Territory Cooperation’s report, which you referred to, talks about how you are using money from the shires, from the repairs and maintenance budgets, to do the refurbishments. I have the comments here.
- Mr Kirkman, Executive Director SIHIP, said SIHIP refurbishment was never going to bring community houses up to an urban standard because there is not enough money to do everything that could be done.
There are some amazing comments in here. I still have a fair bit of work to do to go through it all. It has a good focus on Santa Teresa. It talks about other organisations having to do the work using CDEP labour. They are using Ingkerreke there. They are using shire services’ money to fill the hole SIHIP has left. You have $75 000 per house and you are using the shire money - it says it here somewhere. I know these houses at Santa Teresa. They are lucky if they were painted - barely any of them did. They are lucky if they had any electrical work done. It says here:
- Ms Nona [from the shire] described the additional housing work the shire was undertaking as repairs and maintenance, using available repairs and maintenance funding. The work included installing some new stainless-steel kitchens, but did not stretch to pantries and floor coverings at that stage.
You are not even putting in the stainless-steel kitchens in Santa Teresa; they are being paid for by the shire. So, your $75 000 per house cannot even put in a stainless-steel kitchen bench. I cannot believe the member for Nelson’s commentary on this. Has anyone here ever worked in the building industry? It does not cost $75 000 to paint a house, change a few light switches and put in a stainless-steel bench. You know it costs about $10 000 to $20 000 and you are getting charged $75 000. That is exactly what is happening with this. When I produce the figures you will have to explain it.
Why do you not stand here and tell people what is happening with the alliance in Tennant Creek? Are they pulling out at the end of November? Is it true there was a report given to Julalikari which said barely anything done in the houses there met the Building Code of Australia? Did you say Julalikari is now being paid millions more to fix the mistakes of the alliance and bring things up to the Building Code of Australia - things such as not putting the earths into the ground properly so kids can be electrocuted in the houses? Did you talk about how they are not putting overflows in the hot water systems so boiling water is dripping on kids’ heads? These are Building Code of Australia things. You are paying $75 000 to refurbish a house, or $200 000 to rebuild it, and you cannot even get the simple things right. It is all written in the schedule.
You flew your interstate junior consultants in to write the scope of works. You have not done that work. Why did you not tell us that the infrastructure costs at Tennant Creek have blown out so much that you cannot do the houses any more? Not that you have built any houses in Tennant Creek, you have just tried to refurbish a few. I think you may have done half, now you are leaving and you will fund someone else. Why don’t you talk about that sort of stuff? It is all right to stand here high and mighty and be in some delirious state in your retiring political career, but you need to have some fundamental principles about how you are trying to assist people with housing in Indigenous communities. You have not done that.
The position is that SIHIP is overseen by a culture of cover-up and a lack of transparency so no one knows where any of the money is going. No one knows how much anyone is being paid or what the outcomes are going to be. It is terrible that you have not put it upon yourself to come forward and say you will be transparent to Territorians and taxpayers and let us know where our money is going. That is what we want to know.
I know you are not going to support this motion. It does not surprise me, because you are going to continue the cover-up of SIHIP, the worst program in Australia, above and beyond all the solar programs, the pink batts programs, and all the BER mistakes. The only thing to rival it at this point is the NBN and I do not think the NBN can be as bad as SIHIP. We will wait and see what happens.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Yuendumu – Government Actions
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Northern Territory government be condemned for its actions in relation to residents at Yuendumu.
Last night I gave a speech in my adjournment and I explained the situation of the people at Yuendumu who moved to Adelaide and came back. I put on the Parliamentary Record that the level of involvement I had was very minimal. I only called in after the people who had fled Yuendumu in a difficult situation and decided to move to Adelaide needed some assistance. They advised me their local member refused to help and their other local member, who is very happy to extract their Indigenous votes …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not refuse to help. I was out bush in my electorate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, resume your seat!
Mr GILES: They also advised me that their other local member, who is very keen to attract their votes, the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, would not return their calls. So they asked me to help and I had a good, long chat with them.
I made it clear last night that Tracey Brand, an employee of the Northern Territory government - a lovely lady, nothing against Tracey - she was there trying to help these people, as was Samara Hanley, an employee of the federal government. They were there, under direction of their agencies and ministers, trying to assist in the transition of these people to Adelaide - a very smooth transition, arranging blankets so the kids were warm, calling in Centrelink so people could access their payments and use the BasicsCard when in Adelaide.
I did not talk about the issue publicly at the time. I did not think it was necessary or appropriate to be in the public sphere about this issue. I know the media was trying to chase it. I stayed out of it, but it was interesting to see that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Central Australia, the member for Stuart, were very keen to get involved in the media. The Deputy Chief Minister also got quite involved in that process. I said to the media: ‘It is a sensitive issue. Let us keep it out of the media’. I tried to avoid the media, without being disrespectful and not returning their calls. I said I did not think we should talk about it. People would get hurt in the process. I remember saying to the member for Greatorex, one of my colleagues: ‘If these people are forced back, it will get bad, blood will be spilt and it will not be good. It will be a terrible situation’.
I tried to stay out of it, but I continued to hear the derogatory remarks made by the Chief Minister and the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, and the Deputy Chief Minister.
I know we are short on time so I will go to an article by Anna Henderson of ABC News who was hot to trot on this issue, chasing stories about the plight and misery of these poor people who went to Adelaide. On 23 September at 1.38 pm, she filed a story with a quote from the Chief Minister:
- What sort of reckless idiot would encourage 109 people, elderly people, people with illnesses, children, to get on buses and go to Adelaide without any consultation with the South Australian authorities to accommodate these people, no plan to return those people?
Those people chose to go of their on volition. Six cars drove down with their own people in them. These people arranged their own buses, as I said last night. These people did everything themselves and chose to go that way to protect themselves and their families. They chose to seek asylum in South Australia.
The Chief Minister asked what sort of reckless idiot would encourage people to move to a harmful environment. Well, the Chief Minister is a reckless idiot. The Chief Minister has moved people back to Yuendumu and put them in a harmful situation. He had a responsibility to guarantee the safety of these people and he has put them in harm’s way. I know the member for Stuart knows it is a difficult situation. Everyone in this Chamber knows the issue of tribal law is tough. That is why it is important to keep it out of the media and keep it quiet. The Chief Minister’s question about what sort of reckless idiot - he is the reckless idiot who put this into the media in the first place.
His mate in South Australia, the South Australian Premier, the dog whistler, the racist who did not like the idea of Aboriginal people coming across the border, can put up with illegal maritime arrivals - 323 to South Australia in 2009-10. He does not yell and scream about a detention centre coming to the hills of Adelaide.
The Chief Minister wants to talk about reckless idiots who are giving people safety, who are trying to help people and calm a situation down. He wants to explode it into the media. I cannot believe he would do that. Then they brought these people back, put them in a harmful situation and the local member did not talk about it - did not want to get involved with the media. He acts like a gutless coward and goes overseas. If there is a time when anyone needs leadership it is now when these people are going back to Yuendumu …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to moderate his language.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it was intemperate.
It is now 9 pm. Member for Braitling, do you wish to continue for up to 10 minutes or do you wish to have your speech adjourned until the next General Business Day?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will leave my comments about the South Australian Premier and the Chief Minister until next sittings.
Debate suspended.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: That being the case, the Assembly is now adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister for mines and energy, or whatever his title is, is here tonight, because one of the things I have been complaining about relentlessly since this government formed is the cowardice shown by ministers when it comes to taking responsibility for their portfolio areas by fronting the media and talking about it.
Today we had another example of the standard process: if it is not a good news media release, if it does not require a hard hat to be screwed onto your head, then the minister ain’t going to front. What have we today? National press on the disgraceful operation of the Northern Territory government when it comes to the Montara oil spill; and what does the minister do in relation to the press? He issues a statement, and that is it.
Mr Henderson: There was a speech in Question Time for an hour, you goose.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, they have bunkered down into that little bunker and are hiding. Front the cameras …
Mr Henderson: He was on his feet for an hour.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection from the Chief Minister. Front the cameras. Put your minister in front of the cameras so the minister ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are far too many interjections, and the volume is extremely loud.
Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I encourage the Chief Minister to put his minister in front of the cameras and start answering questions. A demonstration of political cowardice by this government yet again ...
A member: The worst government in history.
Mr ELFERINK: The worst government in history has continued to appear before the people of the Northern Territory as a bunch of disinterested, distant ministers who are only interested in the good headline. We saw the minister for Housing on television tonight, with the member for Fannie Bay, with their hard hats on - good news story. Where was the minister for mines and energy? Nowhere to be seen. There was simply a statement. These ministers would rather see this House called Pyongyang than a parliament because of their desire to avoid being responsible to the people of the Northern Territory.
This is about responsible government, yet on every occasion, if they are under any pressure, they head for the hills. This minister has applied that attitude to the way he runs his department.
Mr Knight: How many times has Terry been to the media to deny his involvement in the preselection?
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the member for Daly, the minister for disappearing. The moment some cattle died on a cattle station in the Northern Territory, where did he go? Disappears for 10 days, off to the hills. There is difficulty in Yuendumu. Where does the minister pop up? New Caledonia. Nice work! These guys are absolutely gutless.
Who is this minister Ivanovski who keeps passing comments on the CLP opposition? I do not know a minister Ivanovski. Do you know, Madam Speaker? Apparently, she exists. Every time there is a criticism to be made about a difficult issue, minister Ivanovski gets trotted out, and she is speaking to the people of the Northern Territory as their elected representative. I would be interested to see where this minister sits in this Chamber.
That is the problem we have; and this is the approach used across the Australian Labor Party in this House - used everywhere they can. Even the issue of some televisions disappearing, and we see a public servant trotted out rather than the responsible person in charge actually fronting the media. You guys are cowards when it comes to anything but a good news story. What a disgrace you people are! National press, national media - and where do we see the minister? Nowhere. He says: ‘I come into parliament’. Only because he has to.
Thank God for the Westminster system of responsible government, because I can tell you, if it was not for that demand placed on these people, you would never see them. They would be standing on some balcony as the people of the Northern Territory walked past, waving gently saying: ‘Ja, comrade, this is very good’. That is how they would run this place if they had the opportunity. It is just disgraceful what they do. Guess what? The public servants, yet again, are trotted out - the human shields are there.
They executed Breaker Morant for what you guys do on a daily basis. It is just disgraceful what goes on. The attitude is you go out after these public servants, you chase these public servants down, and you blame the departments. It is the department of Resources on this occasion that is responsible. ‘Nothing to do with me’, says the minister. Each and every time, it is some public servant’s fault. It is someone else’s fault, and it always the fault of a third party. When is this government going to govern for the people of the Northern Territory? It won’t. Why? Because they are the worst government in the history of the Northern Territory. They are a shame.
As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, I wait with anguish and bated breath for the next Northern Territory election so the people of the Northern Territory, like the people of New South Wales are waiting for their next election, to pass judgment on this government.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak this evening on a very sombre note because, earlier today, we all received the tragic news that there was a second explosion in the Pike River mine in New Zealand. It has been a tough day for everyone in New Zealand and, of course, all the families, friends and relatives of those miners. The second explosion lasted 30 seconds and was caused by gas in the remote mine, and has led officials to concede there is no hope of survival for the 29 miners.
Communication was lost with the miners last Friday after a methane explosion ripped through the coal mine near Greymouth on the west coast of the South Island of New Zealand. Amongst the 29 miners were two Australians: Townsville-born Joshua Ufer, 27, and father of two, William Joynson, 49, from Tanawha on the Fraser Coast, north of Brisbane. As reported in the NT News yesterday, one of the miners, Terry Kitchin lived and worked in Humpty Doo for many years before returning to New Zealand with his wife.
To the friends and the families of the miners, I offer both my condolences and the condolences of this parliament.
This has been a very tragic event and a very sad time for everyone in New Zealand. I saw John Key, the Prime Minister, on the news tonight, very distressed and upset as a result of these miners losing their lives, and coming on the back of, I suppose, the hope those families would have had after the rescue in Chile recently, and the Beaconsfield mine disaster in Tasmania a couple of years ago; I think the families held out great hope.
I have a small personal experience here, Madam Speaker, I spent some time underground working in my trade in Rosebery on the west coast of Tasmania, and when these events happen, I put myself in their shoes and cannot begin to imagine how horrific it must be to be trapped underground, pitch black, not knowing whether anyone is going to find you. It must be the most traumatic of traumatic experiences I can begin to imagine. This is very tragic.
To our friends and colleagues across the Tasman in New Zealand, as the Chief Minister, on behalf of the Northern Territory, I express and offer my condolences and the condolences of this parliament.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition stands with the Chief Minister and the government in also expressing its sincere condolences to the families, and to the nation of New Zealand, and all those miners who, around the world, would have been waiting with bated breath. I am pleased the Chief Minister acknowledged the sense of hope that would have been established as a result of recent successes in retrieving trapped miners, which would have buoyed those families, hoping against hope; and for that to be dashed is a crushing blow for those families and for those who go underground, and for those who made every effort to retrieve.
We also add our sincere condolences in support of the condolences placed by the Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to continue where I left off in Question Time, because questions still remain unanswered by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the serious allegations made that he broke the law in breach of the Australian Electoral Act. As I advised members of the House, I have written to the Australian Electoral Commission requesting an investigation into these very serious allegations that continue to be unanswered by the member for Blain.
As a result of a newspaper article today I dare say, I received an e-mail, and I think it is important that I read the contents of that e-mail to this Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote from the e-mail:
- There was a tape of what Mills said re Abbott, but it has been destroyed. There is, however, a transcript. The person who has it is tossing up whether to release it. In any event, Mills made the offer in front of members of the Management Committee. Option: all, or any of the following: One, make sure if Federal Police investigate, they speak to management members who were present and can attest to what was said. Two, get Adlam to ring around management members to ask them to confirm what Mills said, offered. Three, ask something like: when you made your desperate, sleazy and unconscionable offer to Abbott, how many members of the Management Committee were present, and does that partly explain why you were rolled, ignored by them?
Not well worded, but you get the drift.
- Apparently Mills is very nervous about parliament today and this issue bubbling along. Let me know that you got this e-mail. I am sure I have the right address, but it is good to confirm one more time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I confirmed to the person who sent me the e-mail that I received it. I have also decided this is such a serious matter, and it did lead to the resignation of a Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, that this weak and hopeless Leader of the Opposition is hiding from the media. Have you categorically, in public, denied you offered a bribe, that you offered a job to Leo Abbott if he would step down as a candidate in the seat of Lingiari? You certainly have not denied it in this House, and you have had plenty of opportunity to come into this House and make a personal explanation.
We are still waiting to hear from you whether you broke the law and offered a job as a bribe to Leo Abbott not to run in the seat of Lingiari. We are still waiting.
Mr CONLAN: (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish tonight to express some concerns I have about the advice provided to the Northern Territory government regarding the aeromedical tender Like many in the aviation industry and, indeed, the author of the report which government is hanging its advice on, I find that advice questionable at the very least and, essentially, I find it flawed.
Aviation by its very nature is technical, it is specialist, and it is quite easy to accept technical phraseology and jargon as the truth because, unless you have some involvement in the industry, it is almost impossible to dispute. I believe this is where the process has fallen down. I am not an aviation expert; in fact, I wonder how one does become an aviation expert. I think it is essentiality a self-appointment
Mr Chandler: You are a pilot, I hope so.
Mr CONLAN: I am, as the member for Brennan pointed out, a private pilot. I have worked for an aerial agricultural company, albeit mostly ground-handling work, but there was some ferrying flying involved.
My immediate family is involved in aviation. My brother was a Macchi pilot, he was a Skyhawk pilot with the Royal Australian Navy, before flying Mirages with the Air Force, and before going on to accumulate some 2000 hours in FA18 Hornet aircraft. My brother-in-law is chief pilot on 737s for Qantas, and many of the guys I flew with in aero clubs around the country have since gone on to fly for various airlines, Cathay Pacific and Qantas, and the like. I am also a very keen enthusiast, so while I do not call myself an expert, there is some depth to my knowledge of aviation. It is this pathway that has led me to question the so-called expert advice provided to this government, and many other governments around Australia.
Of particular concern is the recommendation of twin engine turbine aircraft over single engine turbine aircraft, and the government savings for single engine only amount to some $88 000 per year. That is an extraordinarily low figure when you are comparing such aircraft, particularly very high performance aircraft such as the PC12 and the King Air. $88 000 is very low, and questionable.
The tender board may choose a twin engine turbine aircraft, indeed, in this case, it may well be the Beechcraft King Air over the single engine Pilatus PC12. But it is my hope this is done on merit and done for the right reasons rather than on what I believe to be skewed advice provided to the government.
Some of the areas which I believe have propped up this very low figure of $88 000 is the insurance loading. It has been put to me that there is insurance loading of 26% for a single engine turbine aircraft over a twin engine turbine. This claim is false. I have made inquiries and there is no loading for single engine turbine aircraft in Australia.
Another claim was the time before overhaul costs; that a King Air operating PT6-42 turbine engines can run those out to 5000 hours time before overhaul, whereas a Pilatus PC12 operating PT6-67B engines has to be overhauled at 3600 hours. If that were the case, it means more overhauls and more costs adding to that extraordinarily low figure, in my opinion, of $88 000. This is not the case. There is an airworthiness directive from CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which says the PT6-67B engine on the PC12 can be run out to 5000 hours. When put to the so-called aviation expert the government is hanging its whole advice on, he conceded that was correct, but then went on to say not a single operator in the country would do it for reasons which I will not repeat here today.
A couple of calls to operators of the PC12 showed yes, they are indeed overhauling those engines at 5000 hours. The simple answer was: ‘Yes, we are. We are allowed to do it under a particular airworthiness directive and why wouldn’t we?’ Why would they not, indeed?
Another claim was the direct route planning with a single engine aircraft over a twin engine aircraft. The author claims to maintain direct route planning over land, a single engine turbine will have to cruise at 21 000 feet to comply with a particular CAR, a Civil Aviation Regulation. When asked about that CAR, the author was unable to provide me with the particular regulation. I did some of my own investigations and found a regulation in keeping with what the author was saying; however, the argument is incorrect.
The author states to comply with this particular CAR, a single engine turbine aircraft over land must maintain 21 000 feet to direct route plan - that is going from point A to point B in a straight line; and that would compromise a sea level cabin. A sea level cabin is necessary for particular aero medical operations. This is not true. This argument is put forward and the regulation is there in the event of an engine failure in a single engine aircraft so it can glide to a suitable landing area.
The fact is, and it is omitted by the author, the only requirement for a single engine turbine aircraft with a charter air operator certificate, which will be the operating certificate under which our aeromedical aircraft will operate, is this particular formula: distance travelled in 15 minutes at normal cruise speed, plus the glide distance of your height. Let us take a single engine PC12 aircraft cruising at approximately 270 knots, 4.5 miles per minute equals 67 nautical miles, plus the glide distance of your height, say, 14 000 feet which is the highest you can to maintain a sea level cabin. That is 39 nautical miles plus 67; that is well over 100 nautical miles at 14 000 feet. At 30 000 feet, that would blow out to about 150 nautical miles. You do not have to be a flying ace in the Northern Territory to fly in a straight line and still be within 100 nautical miles of a suitable landing area. I stress ‘suitable landing area’ does not mean an aerodrome; it does not even mean an airstrip; it could be a road, a paddock, or anywhere you can put the aircraft down safely.
They are three examples, and time is against us with adjournments of 10 minutes. They are three examples where I have been able to question the advice put to government. They are some of the arguments put to me by the so-called expert and the author of the report that the government is tying itself to.
One wonders what else is contained in this report to the Northern Territory government that is skewed towards a particular favoured aircraft by the author. It is either misleading or just plain false, or it is both. All we are looking for is an open and competitive tender process to deliver the best results for the taxpayer.
I say in closing, if it is safety the government wants, then they should open the process to single and multi-engine turbine aircraft. Then, they can choose the organisation and the operator with the highest safety record without eliminating a possible contender for, what I believe, to be invalid reasons.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is something about Tennant Creek that both inspires and delivers, and as their local member, I take great delight in acknowledging the town as my home and centre point of the electorate. As an MLA, I am privileged to travel extensively researching issues, meeting constituents, and representing government, and I formed the opinion that, when you drop Tennant Creek into the conversation, you get a more genuine interest and reception than if you come from Darwin or even Alice Springs; there is just something about old Tennant Creek.
Over the past few weeks, I have had plenty to talk about in relation to home, as the town and its talented residents never cease to amaze me, such as the recent Relay for Life, one of the Cancer Council’s major fundraising events. The Tennant Creek Relay for Life represented over 100 people, seven teams and many volunteers who raised over $16 000 for the Cancer Council NT. This outstanding effort was even more special, in my opinion, as the organising committee was made up of four young women from our community who drew the support of other young people from our town to organise and operate a really hip event that had the feel of a Generation Y carnival and truly delivered on the incredible fundraising challenge.
The Tennant Creek Relay for Life committee was made up of four young women from the community: Cassie McLellan, Karina Files, Kirsty Stevens, and Kara Lake who, in just over two months, pulled together local businesses and individuals in Tennant Creek to create the event. Thousands of dollars worth of sponsorships from local businesses made the event possible, and it was run completely on a volunteer basis. The end result was 100-plus people, seven teams and many volunteers raising over $16 000 to go directly to Cancer Council NT. As usual, copious local businesses provided sponsorship for the event that contributed to the generous community outcome. I table the list of sponsors as an attachment to this adjournment speech.
Thanks to: Barkly Shire Council and depot staff; T & J Contractors; Dexter Barnes Electricals; and Buffs Club.
Sponsors: Tennant Creek Supermarket; Bluestone Motor Inn; Nik Naks; Oz Phil Connections; Central Service Station; Allan Scott Builders; Salmons Warehouse; Westpac Banking Corporation; United Service Station; Orlando Furnitures; Rod and Helen Ruger; Civic Video; Peter Kittles; Barkly Quality Butchers; Tennant Creek Post Office; Tennant Creek Memorial Club; Lions Club; Tennant Creek Pharmacy and Newsagency; Noor from Memories Restaurant; Tennant and District Times; Tennant Security Service; Leading Edge Computers; Auto Pro; BJ Trading; Indian Asian Boutique; Tennant Creek Printing Service, Tony Filmore; Outback Fashions Group; Barkly Hardware and Gas; ANZ; Lin Andrews Real Estate; Lavery Plumbing; Sporties Club; Fire Department; UBX and Longtails; Anyinginyi Council; and Barkly Regional Arts.
For me, it was the ever-present young people in both the organisational and participatory roles that made the Relay for Life truly special. I do not think the hard-working more senior members of our community events are quite ready for the rocking chairs as yet; however, it was certainly inspiring to see the new generation at the helm for the Relay for Life.
The Northern Territory Teacher of the Year, Melanie Baldwin, from Barkly College, was next to grab the headlines for Tennant Creek as a dedicated and innovative educator, most recently recognised for the development of a girls program attracting 60 girls to participate in sports, life skills, and personal development programs. Melanie is also noted as a positive mentor for her teaching colleagues; she inspires both staff and students to have a go and to strive for success at whatever they undertake, and that reflects a sound educational philosophy for broadening one’s horizons.
When talking of broadening one’s horizons, what about Tennant Creek’s own ‘Queen of Rap’, Kylie Sambo, who brilliantly performed at the 2010 Island Vibe Festival in Queensland. Kylie took the Desert Harmony Festival by storm this year, followed by radio gigs and performances in Alice Springs which got rave reviews about her outstanding lyrical content and powerful messages about young Indigenous women growing up in Tennant Creek.
Keep up the good work, Tennant Creek; you are an incredible lot with the sort of can-do attitude that inspires others to try that bit harder and do just that bit better.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to the rather desperate, dubious and unsubstantiated allegations we just heard from the member for Karama, and the aspersions made against the Leader of the Opposition.
As the shadow minister for Child Protection, there are damning pieces of evidence which might make the member for Karama think twice before throwing stones. Cast your minds back to when the member for Karama was the minister responsible for Child Protection Services in the Northern Territory between July 2005 and August 2007; it is a damning report of failure, inadequacy and maladministration.
Early in the term when the member for Karama was the minister responsible for Child Protection Services, we had the death of seven-week-old Peter, who starved to death in the back of a hot car on the Stuart Highway. This child was known to the Child Protection Services, and through the negligence of the Child Protection Services, this child died. This case was presented in the Four Corners report on 8 November, and the case is well-known throughout Australia, thanks to Dangerous Territory, the documentary featured by Four Corners.
On 15 May 2006, Dr Nanette Rogers, the Northern Territory prosecutor, highlighted the problems of violence and sexual abuse of children in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. This was also during the reign of minister Lawrie. In June 2006, Clare Martin announced the inquiry into child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities under the Inquiries Act, and from that we saw the Little Children are Sacred report. This was a damning time for Northern Territory people, a time of great despair and instability at what this government was not doing to protect children of the Northern Territory.
In June 2007, the Howard government implemented the Northern Territory Emergency Response in response to the Little Children are Sacred report. In 2006, the Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse brought to the attention the many failings of the Northern Territory government in protecting children. This was a damning time in the history of the Northern Territory, and certainly a damning indictment of the minister’s incompetence to manage Child Protection Services.
The point I make is: people in glass houses should certainly not throw stones. Minister Lawrie failed in her duties to protect Deborah Melville, who died in July 2007. This young girl was almost 13 when she died, and was known to the child protection authorities from the year 2000 to July 2007 when she passed away.
In the Coroner’s report pertaining to Deborah Melville, the Coroner stated that there were systematic breaches of the law by FACS under the ministry of the member for Karama. There were five key breaches of the act in the death of Deborah Melville: the requirement to visit the child at least once every two months; the requirement to report to the minister after each visit concerning the child; the requirement to provide a written review of the circumstances of the child every three months; the requirement to renew the registration of the carer every 12 months; and the requirement to be satisfied every 12 months that the children, or the child in this case, received an adequate standard of care as specified in the act.
During those years, minister Lawrie did not provide Deborah Melville with the basics required of her as the minister. Deborah Melville was protected by the minister, or supposedly protected by the minister, and that means the minister had an obligation to provide all the rights and requirements any parent should: the requirement of accommodation, maintenance, education and recreation, and the obligation to provide medical care.
Not once has the member for Karama, in her capacity as the former minister responsible for Child Protection Services, addressed this parliament to apologise and accept responsibility for the death of Deborah Melville, or for the death of seven-week-old baby, Peter; or, indeed, other children who were neglected during the time she had that onerous responsibility.
Once again, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I have a number of issues I want to talk about. I sincerely believe I would be negligent in my responsibilities as the shadow minister if I did not respond to some of the things I heard today in this House regarding the complete disregard and the appalling attitude this government has again shown and demonstrated for our environment.
I could clearly be forgiven for missing what I heard today, but I do not think I am. I heard the Resources minister refer to the Montara oil spill as not being a major environmental concern. In fact, the entire government seems to have this apathy towards what has occurred. I read from Hansard of Question Time today; the answer from the minister was:
- Madam Speaker, first, the member opposite should know that four independent reports have found that no environmental damage has been inflicted either on the Australian coastline or the Indonesian coastline - fact No 1.
The minister said that today as if the oceans are not important at all. I bet the Environment Centre would love to know the minister’s only concern is for the land and not the water. In fact, who really cares? It is only oil, for goodness sake. No wonder you are not worried about the water, because it is evident from the way you do not seem to be worried about the poo that goes into our harbour. You do not think of waterways or that our oceans matter. Minister, you have oil on your hands. Along with the ministers of this government, and the way they seemingly wash their hands of any responsibility, let me tell you, minister, you are going to need Solvol because that is the only soap with the ability to remove the amount of oil you have on your hands.
We are about to debate improvements to environmental penalties in this House tomorrow, but what confidence can Territorians have in the ability of this government to take any action against unwanted pollution? No confidence whatsoever. Just look at what has occurred recently. I have a list. We can talk about the harbour pollution, E. coli, enterococci; harbour pollution from copper concentrate, Gove, and what has occurred out there; the Montara oil spill - the worst oil spill this country has ever seen. The list goes on - all under the watch of this government.
I cannot believe the minister responsible for our environment can just sit there and accept this from his own team, his own Cabinet colleagues - this blatant disregard for our environment. It is just not acceptable.
Karl, mate, stand up for something I know you believe in. Stand up, be a man, and join me here on this side, join me so we can hug like two good greenies, stand with me and, together, we can condemn this useless, uncaring and seemingly lost-in-space government, which we all know by now is the very worst government the Northern Territory has ever seen. As the minister who is responsible for protecting our environment, I implore you to join me so we can condemn this government for its action - or lack of action.
I have another couple of issues I will raise. I have had a number of people come into my office to complain about the new Ochre Card and the process involved in their particular circumstances. I have letters here from people complaining about the same issue. No one who has complained about the Ochre Card process is complaining that we should not be doing all we can to protect children in the Northern Territory. For goodness sake, we deserve to do that at the very least. It is the seemingly ignorant bureaucratic process involved.
I am talking in particular of bus drivers, who have to have an H endorsement to get a bus licence to drive children, and that involves this Clearance Form E, which I have here, it is a Northern Territory Police form. Then there is a Criminal Check C for the Ochre Card. Both cost, I believe, about $50 and both do exactly the same thing. These bus drivers not only have to get one form which goes to the police, but the other form also goes to the police, and both cost $50 - and both do exactly the same thing. They are both for a criminal history check - one to get an endorsement on a licence, and one to get the Ochre Card. They need both. Tell me why, minister, they need two for the same thing.
The complaints go further. A lovely couple came into my office the other day, both proud to be known as Grey Nomads travelling around the country. Both have a history of being very good bus drivers and, wherever they go, they pick up some local work; and they have picked up work with Buslink. However, they find themselves in a situation where they have complied with interstate regulations, they have done criminal history checks, but that means nothing here in the Northern Territory. Again, they are up for another $50. Not a lot of money but, for the Grey Nomads - and this was a couple - it was $100. But then, it doubled with the Ochre Card - the H endorsement as well as the Ochre Card. A double-up of bureaucracy.
I ask the minister to look into this. As I said, it seems to be doubling up. Both go to the same police stations, both have the same checks, both cost $50 and do exactly the same thing. There has to be a level of common sense bought into this if we possibly can. It is not a biggie.
The other issue I have many complaints about lately - and I will not go into it as other people want to do adjournment debates - is the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme. It is $33 a night, it says here, for accommodation whilst interstate. I seriously believe this is something the government needs to look at; the number of people who come in to complain about the service level provided by this government. I would not be mentioning it here if it was a one-off thing, but it is just time and time again. Many of these people are pensioners who do not have the funds. In fact, one gentleman who came in is out-of-pocket for around $2000, which he had to borrow from his daughter to put himself up in accommodation while his wife was in hospital in Adelaide.
Perhaps in future the government could look at buying into a motel, or build something close to the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide. I am sure there are ways we could provide a better service than we do today. You have to remember these people are not travelling because they want to travel; they are travelling because we are not offering the services in the Northern Territory. It is not their fault the service is not offered and, in that case, they have to travel interstate.
The other issue is the taxi fares. I believe they only get $40 towards taxi fares and, in most cases, it is around $37 to $38 just to get to the Flinders Medical Centre from the airport in Adelaide. They have to get back to the airport, and from the airport when they are back in Darwin. I seriously think the government needs to put more effort and thought into what the real costs are for people who have to travel interstate.
As I said in an earlier debate yesterday, there would not be a government employee, or a politician for that matter, who would hop on a plane and go interstate for two or three days if they were only receiving $30 or $33 a day to pay for their accommodation. You might get a park bench for that somewhere, but you are certainly not going to get a motel, or even a caravan. The caravan park close to the Flinders Medical Centre charges about $75 a night. Again, $33 does not go anywhere near covering those costs.
These are people who are in need, who are suffering in most cases, because that is why they are down there. Surely, the government can see their way to providing a little more assistance. As I said, there would not be a public servant in any level of government, local, state or federal, who would go interstate for $33 a day. It just does not cover anywhere near enough, and we need to look into this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure tonight that I congratulate, as the shadow minister for Tourism, the winners of the 2010 Brolga Awards. The Brolgas have been around now for some 24 years and are there to encourage tourism businesses to strive for excellence, and to recognise their efforts and their successes. The competition is open to a broad variety of businesses and individuals who are involved in the tourism sector. The Brolga submissions are designed to provide a measure of business excellence, and are judged on a table top and also through site visits.
Winning a Brolga Award is Northern Territory industry’s highest honour, and recognition of the best tourism products and services in the Northern Territory. Over the many years of Brolga Awards history, the calibre of entrants continues to grow and reflect the changing diversity of tourism products in both type and quality. There are 26 business categories and three individual categories in the awards. It is noteworthy that the winners of the 2010 Brolga Awards automatically become finalists in the 2010 Qantas Australian Tourism Awards. To all the winners, I wish them all the very best of luck when they attend those tourism awards for Australia later this year.
This year, the awards were held at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was a shame I was unable to be there on the night; unfortunately, I had other commitments that prevented me from being in Darwin and attending the awards. I hope to get along next year to be part of this great event, show my support for the entrants and the broader tourism sector, and further cement the fine relationships I have within the tourism industry.
In the broader tourism sector, one cannot overstate the value of having an excellence awards program for operators within the industry. While the measure of success of a business in tourism, or any other industry, is generally held in broad terms to be measured in profitability, or somewhere around the dollar figure, it is the pursuit of excellence that gives so many businesses and individuals the edge over their competitors, and adds to their competitiveness in the marketplace.
It is this that adds depth to the tourism sector in the Northern Territory. The focus of businesses in the tourism industry must be on providing the very best product, the very best service, and the very best experience to those who pay us the honour of coming across our borders. Just as individual businesses must compete against each other in the marketplace, so must the broader Northern Territory tourism sector compete against other states, and so must Australia compete in the global marketplace for the very lucrative tourist dollar. I can safely say the efforts of individuals and small business in striving for excellence really does contribute to the big, global tourism picture and Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s place in that market.
Consequently, I urge all those who can, all those who are willing, and all those who have the time and inclination, to strive for that excellence and make the tourism experience for visitors to the Northern Territory the very best it can be.
What we have in 2010 is a bunch of very special individuals and businesses who have stepped up to the plate to make that experience for tourists the very best it can be within the sphere of their operations. Indeed, they have striven for excellence and they are the winners of the Brolga Awards for 2010.
I acknowledge the following winners and the categories in which they have excelled:
Specialised Touring Services - AAT Kings; Meetings and Business Tourism - the Darwin Convention Centre; Visitor Information and Services - Tourism Top End - and congratulations to TTE, Tony Clementson and Sylvia Wolf and all the team; for Ecotourism - the Alice Springs Desert Park; for Heritage and Cultural Tourism - Venture North for History, Heritage and Cultural Tours; for Tourism Education and Training - Gagudju Dreaming; for Tourist Attractions - the Alice Springs School of the Air Visitor Centre; for Major Tourist Attractions - Nitmiluk National Park and Nitmiluk Tours; for Indigenous Tourism - Katherine Cultural Experience; for Top Tourism Marketing - Tropical Summer Campaign, the Ghan; for Tourism Restaurants and Catering Services - the historic Daly Waters Pub; for Tourist and Caravan Parks - the MacDonnell Range Holiday Park; for Tour and/or Transport Operators - Way Outback Desert Safaris; for Major Tour and/or Transport Operators - Intrepid Connections Northern Territory Tours; for Backpacker Accommodation - Haven Backpackers Resort; for Unique Accommodation - the Ghan Platinum Accommodation; for Hosted Accommodation - Eden at Fogg Dam; for Standard Accommodation - another Katherine business, Knotts Crossing Resort; for Deluxe Accommodation - Quest Alice Springs Serviced Apartments; for Luxury Accommodation - SKYCITY Darwin; for New Tourism Development - Best Western Darwin Airport Gateway Motel; and the Qantas Award for Excellence in Sustainable Tourism - Crowne Plaza Alice Springs.
For Outstanding Contribution by an Individual - the winner was Warwick Rock from APT, well done, Warwick; for Outstanding Interpretive Guide - the winner was Luke Paterson of Intrepid Connections; Young Achiever - Kelly Vrolyks from Nitmiluk Tours in Katherine, congratulations Kelly; Judges Highly Commended Awards - Crocosaurus Cove, SEIT Outback Australia, Yellow Waters Cruises, Lord’s Kakadu and Arnhemland Safaris, and Adventure Tours Australia Group; Chairman’s Choice - MacDonnell Range Tourist Park; Tourism NT Business Growth Award - Turtle Tracks from Sea Darwin; and Tourism Minister’s Perpetual Trophy - Frances Fausett.
Having acknowledged all those Brolga winners, I make an observation and offer some special congratulations to some of those winners. Amongst that list are four individuals or businesses which are domiciled and/or operating in Katherine, with a further business that falls within the Katherine region.
Those are: for Standard Accommodation - Knotts Crossing Resort, what a great place for visitors to stay when they go to Katherine. They are a five time Brolga winner, and also the winner of the 2004 AHA Award for Mid-range Accommodation. They are a great bunch of people there and I get to see the staff there quite regularly. To Jo and Amy, a couple of the people who look after me there regularly, well done, and it is your contribution that certainly helped Knotts Crossing achieve the award this year.
For Major Tourist Attractions, the winner was Nitmiluk National Park and Nitmiluk Tours; and what can I say, a cutting edge business run by the Jawoyn Association. They are cutting edge in Indigenous tourism and Indigenous business, and they employ Indigenous people from the region in that very successful business and, of course, they look after what is the jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory - the Katherine or Nitmiluk Gorge.
In Indigenous Tourism, the winner was the Katherine Cultural Experience, or Top Didj, as it is also known, run by Petrena and Alex Ariston, and it is their business, but they also operate with a young Aboriginal man by the name of Manual Pamkal,who I have known for many years from my days at Barunga, and he is an outstanding artist. Congratulations to them.
The Young Achiever was Kelly Vrolyks, who is an outstanding young lady who really contributed a significant amount to Nitmiluk Tours. I have known Kelly for a number of years, and she is one of those who has taken Nitmiluk Tours to the heights it has reached in the last few years.
The Tourism Restaurants and Catering Services winner was the Daly Waters Historic Pub. What an outstanding place to go to, such an interesting place. I have been around that part of the country for many years, and I urge everyone who travels up and down the track to call into the Daly Waters Pub for a drink and to check out some of the paraphernalia on the walls. It is absolutely fascinating, and something not to be missed.
My congratulations to all, and I hope to see them all in the awards next year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016