2009-08-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 91 petitioners praying that the unincorporated areas of Marrakai, Leaning Tree and Mt Bundy are excluded from council or body corporate. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Bill presented and read a first time.
The purpose of this bill is to forge another frontline attack on the scourge of drink-driving that plagues our roads. Since 2006 our road toll has been steadily rising from 44 in 2006, to 57 in 2007, to a record high of 75 deaths on our roads in 2008; this despite the majority of recommendations of the Road Safety Task Force report in 2006 being implemented.
The presentation of this bill should not be seen as an act of politics, but of a continued and further attempt to lure drivers and riders on our roads to adhere to drink-driving laws and reduce the risk of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or those innocently standing by, being victims of drink-drivers on our roads.
Some in this Chamber may recall the Road Safety Task Force report of 2006. This identified the biggest killers on our roads where those drivers who fit into the categories of young, interstate, international and Indigenous. The report also identified two significant reasons for accidents on our roads: not wearing seat belts and drink-driving.
The government was very slow on the uptake, and politics, played largely by the opposition, raised the eye of the government to last year’s horrific road toll. I was continuously in the media attacking the government for failures in addressing significant concerns including seat belts, drink-driving and hooning. The government should be commended for wearing this criticism and forging on with attempts to reduce the road toll. It is very easy to view the road toll as a statistical or mathematical equation - we should not forget these are people's lives we are talking about. Last night we were aware of another tragic accident, this time near Mataranka.
This bill will take further steps in reducing drink-driving on our roads. It is a bill of action that represents the Country Liberals’ approach of firm but fair. It provides tough penalties for repeat offenders, with significant leeway for those who might break the law once only. Once could be an accident, twice is stupid, and the third time you are a bloody moron and you should be punished.
Any law that comes into being must be balanced with strong education; an approach of prevention rather than cure, balanced with strong punitive measures designed to affect people through their hip pockets. This bill does that.
It is the first in a number of approaches to be put forward by the Country Liberals to reform transport in efforts to improve safety on our roads. Our firm but fair action plans will continue to be released over the coming months detailing specific elements of policy and a time line for implementation. In the coming months I will also introduce legislation to toughen up the low range drink-driving penalties as an impetus to reducing the number of people who migrate from low rate drink-driving to medium or straight to high range drink-driving. I will also be targeting those who kill or maim on our roads as a result of drink-driving, providing mandatory minimum sentences.
The Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38) 2009 will legalise the forfeiture of vehicles for those caught drink-driving three times or more in a five-year period if one of those occasions is high range. We have taken the approach that, if you have not learnt twice, then you should not be on the roads using your vehicle as a deadly weapon. It is a comprehensive policy approach by the Country Liberals - firm but fair - with action.
This bill utilises sections of the Hooning Amendment Legislation and, for that reason, I have established classes of offences in order to separate hooning from drink-driving, as hooning has several penalties in the lead-up to forfeiture, such as impounding for 48 hours, and three months impounding before forfeiture. To utilise the hooning legislation, I have put in place an alternative pathway to the end point of forfeiture of vehicles for those who just do not learn.
Members of this Chamber should be aware the intent of this bill is not about causing financial hardship to those affected, but to provide an incentive not to drink-drive in the first place. It is intended that any vehicles which may be forfeited should have proceeds redirected to those with a financial interest, the remainder going towards education programs targeting anti-drink-driving and youth.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4 to 9 students from Kiwirrkurra - which is said to be the most remote school in Australia - accompanied by Mr Chris Ryman and Mr Ian Wookey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Location of Proposed INPEX
Construction Village
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
I raise this issue today because it is of some importance to people in the rural areas, specifically Howard Springs.
INPEX announced it was going to build a construction village somewhere in the Darwin region late last year, and the government offered them 11 or 13 sites in the region, which was eventually honed down to three sites: Wallaby Holtze road, Howard Springs Road near the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway, and a triangular block bounded by Howard Springs Road, Whitewood Road and Stow Road.
The community had no say in that; it was a departmental decision that those three blocks of land were available. INPEX decided the triangular block would be the most suitable block for their proposed construction village, and that was it.
The issues here are twofold: one is the lack of public consultation by the government in the selection of the site - it has been left up to INPEX to do the public consultation; and two, non-allowance of other options to be put forward as a reasonable alternative for INPEX’s construction village. The rural area is an area with 1 ha and 2 ha blocks; it is not a built-up area such as Palmerston or Darwin. To put 2500 people on an 80 ha block would be a big change to the local environment. INPEX says there is no guarantee when this village would close; eight years was the figure given originally, and they are now predicting at least 10 years. A semi-permanent construction village is to be established in the rural area.
There are many issues local people have raised. That is not to say many of us believe the construction village in the rural area would not bring benefits - and I am certainly one of those. We know it would bring employment in the construction of the site; it would bring employment in the management of the site as it progressed: cooks, laundry people, gardeners, maintenance people - many people would be involved - and you would hope most of those people would come from the local area. It would certainly benefit not only the local community, but the broader community. There would be future benefits; there would be sewerage, there would be improvements to the water supply, and upgrades to power. There is a possibility the infrastructure could be of benefit to the community.
The downside would be an increase in traffic; a large number of people living relatively close to existing rural residential properties, and there will be a perception the local rural area will be overrun by 2500 workers. One could debate whether those perceptions are accurate, but they are out there.
The other issue is the site INPEX would like to use is one of the few sites in the Howard Springs area that has not been cleared; there is a nice stand of native vegetation there. I know a number of people who are not necessarily opposed to INPEX, but are concerned this development will wipe out those trees. Outsiders might not understand the attachment local people have to the area, but it is where I live and I believe it is a nice area to retain.
I understand the land has been zoned Rural Residential, so it is for rural living. There is the possibility the land would be subdivided by the government at some stage and clearing would occur, but that would be subject to clearing guidelines.
The reason I ask the government to consider the site to the north is because it is a very similar shape and area-sized block to the site INPEX want to use. It is mainly covered in Cypress pine, which was planted many years ago by a previous government in the hope we would have a forestry industry, but that has not happened and these trees, which are basically for timber anyway, are well past their use-by date. There has been an ongoing issue regarding the use of those trees for Cypress pine oil, which this government knows about, as does the High Court and other courts. The issue was partially settled in a decision by the High Court recently.
That site would be further away from the community and the development could be screened by the thickness of the vegetation. The future of that land would be more in keeping with good planning because when INPEX leave, I hope the government ensures a certain amount of infrastructure will be retained. There might be a swimming pool, tennis courts, and there would be sewerage, water and electricity.
There would be the possibility of using those facilities for a small district centre or a youth camp. We should retain the infrastructure and when INPEX leave the government and the residents can make a decision on what that land would be used for, based on what development is happening in the rural area at that time.
There were a number of issues the government raised when it decided this block of land was not suitable, but I have yet to see one piece of paper that proves this piece of land cannot be used as an alternative site. I have been told the Defence Department does not want this site to be used. That is fine, but the proposed site is right across the road from the same Defence site and I would have to ask: if it is good enough there, why not on an adjoining site?
The government has said it is used for recreation. That may be the case, people do run and ride their push bikes; probably a few motor bikes go through there. We are not short of open space behind that land, there is a huge amount of Crown land at the back. Anyone who has been out to Howard Springs would know there are substantial amounts of vacant Crown land.
I have had discussions with INPEX, and I visited the site recently with Shaun Kildare. I explained my concerns, saying the bottom line for me is still the proposal be moved. I understand a number of things have occurred to make that very difficult. Recently, the government advertised in the NT News for comments regarding leasing of the land to INPEX; I do not know how many comments they received. People might not even understand what it is about. That is the only time the government asked for public input.
The government has not done its job here - we have left it to INPEX. Duncan Beggs, publicity person for INPEX, has been going around the show circuit, and has set up a store at the Howard Springs Shopping Centre asking for opinions. The company has been trying to get the feel of what people think. They did the first survey of people living within 3 km or 4 km of that site, and the member for Brennan kindly chaired that meeting. As he would know, a substantial number of people did not want that site to be used.
My discussions with Shaun Kildare were based around how the land should be developed. If the government are going to dig their heels in, and INPEX say they do not want any other site, I need a guarantee from the government that a series of plans are put out to the public showing the design of the construction village, and how much of the native vegetation can be retained. If the native vegetation there is used in an appropriate and safe way, a great deal of money can be saved on landscaping.
If the government is not going to support this motion, I would like the government to be involved with INPEX in going out to the community. If the government want to sell this block of land, it must show that it would be developed to the highest standards, using landscape architects and designers who have some knowledge of our native vegetation. Let us see if we can develop it without the message that it is a greenfield - greenfield sites are getting the bulldozer in and clearing it; much easier to put down the survey pegs nice and square - and goodbye.
We need to send out a message that we can both look after the environment people want protected, and also enjoy it. It is a local environment with birds and animals - and also a number of stolen or burnt out cars.
I hope the government will say it will work with INPEX and will go out to the community and ensure this development is of the highest quality - that it will not be just a construction camp – that it will reflect the concerns of people: the distance away from neighbouring residential areas, the protection of as much native vegetation as possible, the concerns regarding increased traffic, and the possibility of some of the infrastructure being used in improving infrastructure in the Howard Springs area.
Business people in Howard Springs have held two meetings in the past few months asking the government to look at the possibility of a sewerage connection to the INPEX site. I gather INPEX will be pumping sewerage into the Palmerston line. These are other aspects which need to be taken into account.
My first option is to ask the government to reconsider the site. You have the power to tell INPEX the other land is more suitable. If INPEX say that would add to the cost, then that can be negotiated with government. The government will get lease money, and if some of that lease money goes to putting infrastructure in, all well and good.
The second option is to ask the government to work with INPEX to develop a plan in conjunction with the people of the area, so people can say it is not quite the option they want. We want to make sure the native vegetation is protected, and that this development reflects the concerns of the people and the support of many people, and the knowledge the village will bring benefits to our community.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, we are not in a position to support this motion. There is no doubt that major construction projects, such as a construction camp, will have an environmental impact. I agree that the preferred site be natural bush, as is the site the member for Nelson suggests on Gunn Point Road. There are native species growing up around that area because the pine plantation has not been run or maintained for 15 or 20 years.
While the preferred site on the corner of Howard Springs Road and Whitewood Road does not impact on all of Howard Springs, it does impact on the people in and near that facility. They rightly have concerns and they have had the opportunity, through public meetings and through their local member, to put those concerns.
INPEX has done substantial consulting on the ground. They put notes on everyone’s gate; they were advised very strongly not to go into properties because of the number of dogs, and they had public meetings. The company has had extensive consultations with the Litchfield Council regarding both the construction period and when the camp is no longer required. It would be in the community’s best interests if some of the infrastructure on the site was left for the benefit of community. Whoever manages that infrastructure is yet to be determined.
One issue this side of the House has with moving it to the other site we loosely call the pine plantation, is that area is currently used, quite extensively, by many recreational groups. I know the orienteering people and the gaming people use that area; also some bushwalkers and motocross people, and the mountain bike club use that area. Whilst it is government owned land, there are benefits in leaving it as it is, not only for rural people in that area, but also urban people who come out to enjoy their rural pursuits.
Anther issue in moving it to that site, or any other site, is the serious problem we have with white ants. When the forestry operation commenced, chemicals were used to ensure associated infrastructure, and the crop itself, were not ruined by white ants. At Berrimah Research Farm both arsenic and Dieldrin dust were chemicals used in the treatment of different types of logs - they are persistent chemicals and environmental studies need to be conducted to ascertain contamination levels.
Moving the camp because it is too close to residents is a thin argument. The whole scenario of developing such a site needs to be looked at, from both a social and environmental perspective. There are issues with a 2000-person construction camp wherever it goes. I understand it is approximately 200 acres, and whether it is close to Howard Springs or not, that infrastructure will impact on the environment
In constructing a camp of that size the government needs to talk with the company regarding rehabilitation of the site. I hope they remove the topsoil and store it somewhere. I hope INPEX submit plans to government and the community which show when the construction camp is removed some of the natural vegetation and bushland will be restored. Alternately, the construction camp may be used for the benefit of the community.
We cannot support this motion based on those grounds and the amount of work done to find a suitable site for this project. Thirteen sites were identified, and possibly some private sites. This is the preferred site because of location and its closeness to infrastructure and services. In working with INPEX, I am sure government, the community, and the Litchfield Council will address the traffic issues that will arise. I am sure the light pollution that will arise regarding the site of the camp will be addressed. I am sure the social issues associated with the number of personnel based at the camp will be addressed, as well as the high number of service businesses accessing the camp.
We support the INPEX proposal. We anticipate and hope the company continues to work closely with the rural community regarding location, as well as community representatives such as the member for Nelson and, more importantly, keeps consultation open and free with the Litchfield Council.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am shocked by the previous speaker, but also delighted the CLP recognise the significant amount of work INPEX and the government have undertaken in site selection for the proposed construction village, and just how important this site is to the INPEX project.
I also acknowledge and recognise the important work the member for Nelson has done in working with the rural residents, ensuring their concerns have been brought to the fore. I know the number of meetings the member for Nelson has had with INPEX representatives in Darwin.
INPEX has formally submitted the application for a lease over that Crown land portion 2819, part of portion 2818, and part of section 273, on which to construct a village to house part of its workforce for the proposed Blaydin Point LNG development. Due to the proximity of the proposed site to a Department of Defence-operated radio facility, that department has been consulted on the site selected. Defence has agreed to the location of the facility on the Howard Springs site, subject to it receiving continued briefings from INPEX as details of the proposal evolve, and on the basis the facility is not permanent.
This is an important point raised by the member for Nelson - the life of the facility. He spoke about eight to 10 years, and that is the proposed situation.
The government takes seriously the suggestion by the member for Nelson of locating the village on portion 2820, which is north of the preferred site. It is on one of three lots which have been used for a pine forest, and is currently used for general recreation purposes. When the member for Nelson proposed the alternative site I met with INPEX, advised them government would look at the option of the pine forest, and asked department officers to do that. I then had further discussions with INPEX.
There are reasons why the pine forest proposal was deemed unsuitable after genuine consideration of it. One issue is no services currently exist in the immediate vicinity of that portion 2820. The INPEX preferred site is located at the threshold travel distance from the gas plant for the mobilisation and demobilisation of workers. Industry and union standards regarding the length of time personnel spend travelling to and from the plant was one of the factors considered in the site selection analysis. Portion 2820 is north of the Howard Springs Road site; it is just that much further from the proposed plant at Blaydin Point.
A factor regarding the unsuitability of the pine forest was the feedback received from rural and urban residents on the range of recreational activities which, I am advised, includes horse riding, trail bike riding, running, and dog walking.
INPEX has advanced a variety of studies and design work. Any relocation now would require this work to be undertaken on another site, and that could cause delays in the project process. The INPEX project is the single largest private sector investment in our nation, worth around $20bn to the nation. It has a flow-on effect to the Territory economy of some $50bn over the following two decades. Everyone here, including the member for Nelson, recognises the importance of this project to our economy. The member for Nelson also talked about the merits of the project to the local rural economy regarding job opportunities.
There are many things I can agree on regarding the member for Nelson’s proposal to look at option 2, which is the preferred site for which INPEX has made a Crown Lease application. I can commit to the member for Nelson that I have been undertaking legacy issue discussions with INPEX, and have put together a team of senior public servants to progress those discussions. There is no decision to date, however, some of the discussions are: could it be used for seniors’ accommodation; could it be used for apprentices and workers-type accommodation, or for all those young people in the rural area needing affordable accommodation? These are some of the legacy discussions – but it is early days.
I can advise the House at every point of those discussions INPEX has been a very willing participant. It is keen to ensure it is part of our community and provide real social benefits and outcomes, not just economic outcomes, to our community. It recognises it will be spending substantial money in creating a village, and its view is it does not need to remove everything at the end of the project. It is happy to rehabilitate the site fully if that is required by government. The company is also happy to discuss what infrastructure it leaves for government to make decisions about. It has been very open about saying that is a decision government would make.
I have wanted to ensure we are discussing these issues with INPEX. It is very important for rural residents to hear what those legacy issues are at the outset, not at the end of the process. We are working closely to agree on the legacy which, by its nature, will involve community consultation. It will not be resolved immediately; we will need to come up with options and go to the community and consult.
I have met with INPEX on a number of occasions. On the most recent occasion, I explained government’s planning processes and used the old hospital site as an example. We go out with preliminary designs and show them to the community, we listen to community feedback, and the final design reflects the community feedback. I showed them the before and after designs for the old hospital site, and they could see the dramatic difference between the two.
I advised them preliminary designs are critically important at this stage of the proposal; the residents of the rural area want to see what it will look like. I explained to INPEX they were not locked into that, but they want community feedback. They will be able to show the vegetation buffer zones; ingress and egress. They will be able to explain the traffic management plan that underpins the site - that is a requirement, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure works with INPEX on traffic management plans.
I can make commitments on preliminary designs going out to public consultation, and I had a very good meeting with INPEX regarding that; they have designers working on preliminary designs for public consultation. I believe INPEX has shown, in the way it has embarked on discussions with rural residents, that they understand the need to be consultative. The government has been working with INPEX to go back to the community, and I have been directly involved, as minister for Planning, at senior level discussions with INPEX.
I am assured, in discussions with INPEX, the village will be of the highest quality. They want a quality village; they want to ensure their workers are in a quality environment. It will provide additional legacy opportunities if it is a quality village, and they recognise the need for the vegetation and the buffer zone. They recognise the need for the traffic plan. Government is available and working with them.
I have had preliminary discussions with INPEX on the idea of the sewerage connection to Howard Springs. I have said it is something government is prepared to work with INPEX on because it makes sense. We can look at how much they spend, and how much we spend, but that sewerage connection makes a lot of sense.
I can commit to option 2, and the requirement of the member for Nelson to work with INPEX on going back to the community for consultation on a preliminary village design of the highest quality; looking at the way native vegetation is protected, and ensuring there is a buffer zone around the village. That is critically important, and in discussions with INPEX they recognise that. We need to ensure there is advice on the traffic plan, the ingress/egress and how that works; looking at improving the infrastructure in Howard Springs, and the important sewerage connection.
It is a critically important project. The government went through an extensive process to look at a range of site options with INPEX: the preferred location was decided on, issues regarding the requirement to mobilise and demobilise workers, industry and union standards, and locality.
INPEX is also very good in recognising what it can do for their community around the village. The school in close proximity to the proposed site would be of significant benefit to the village. It is not just about the school; it is important to recognise the rural residents. In all the discussions I have had with INPEX personnel, they are of a like mind; they want to be a part of the community and they understand the economic and social opportunities for the community.
I sincerely thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. I commit to working with him and keeping him informed of ongoing discussions. I am happy to have three-way discussions with the member for Nelson and INPEX in looking at the preliminary designs before they go out to the community for consultation.
I welcome the CLP view they will not be supporting the motion. I did have some grave concerns on what their view might be, given the article written by the member for Goyder’s mother, but I am pleased that has changed. I know we can work collaboratively to ensure there are no barriers to halt progression of this important project. We recognise the rural area needs to have some surety about lifestyle and the impact on that, which is why we have to be very careful stepping through option 2. I have a strong commitment to working with the member for Nelson, and INPEX, to ensure these issues are fully addressed.
Madam Speaker, the government cannot support this motion. We commit to working with the member for Nelson and INPEX on ensuring that option 2, the preferred site the Crown Lease application covers, will be of high quality; there will be further community consultation and consultation on preliminary plans for the village layout; there will be traffic management plans; there will be improvement to infrastructure in Howard Springs; and a legacy opportunity for the community of the rural area.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is quite amusing watching the Treasurer almost choke the words out: ‘committed to working with the member for Nelson’. It is amazing how they have changed over the last week in their rhetoric. The member for Nelson is the golden boy radiating knowledge and information. The government is now committed to working with this person who, not so long ago, they had no qualms pillorying. The reason they are doing that is because of the grubby little deal they signed up for ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to this for many days. Can the member for Fong Lim give us some proof of this grubby little deal?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, it is inappropriate to refer to it as a ‘grubby little deal’. I ask you to reword it, please.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you revisit that request. Whilst other members may have an opinion of this deal, it is quite legitimate for members to hold an opinion and to describe that opinion as they see fit. This is a House in which opinions are expressed and, whilst members may not like the opinions of other members, those original members have a right to express them, uninhibited.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I totally agree with the member for Port Darwin. The inference is that something corrupt occurred. That is what ‘grubby’ means in this case. I believe it is offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To describe something as a ‘grubby deal’ does not necessarily mean it was corrupt …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Let me finish, member for Nelson. You may assume, in your heart of hearts, that is what I am talking about. The fact is, I do not believe it was a corrupt deal. I certainly believe it was a grubby deal because, in effect, what the member for Nelson has done in this agreement with the Chief Minister is kept a deeply unpopular Chief Minister in his job, not allowing any challenges whatsoever; to me that is a grubby deal.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are meant to be speaking just to the point of order. Resume your seat.
Member for Nelson, do you consider the comments made by the member for Fong Lim offensive and unbecoming as described in the standing orders?
Mr WOOD: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In that case, member for Fong Lim …
Mr TOLLNER: In that case, Madam Speaker, I gladly withdraw. I did not realise the member for Nelson was so sensitive; I will withdraw.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw.
This sordid little deal - this sordid, contemptible, little deal - they cooked up designed to ensure the political future of the current Chief Minister is absolutely horrible.
The fact is the member for Nelson realises he has sold out his electorate, and now he is trying to win back some sort of political support …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is there any relevance to this motion?
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Just continue please, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, he is trying to win back some electoral support through this motion. The fact is …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I have been out to the member for Nelson’s electorate myself and there is widespread concern over INPEX going anywhere in that electorate. I have attended several very large meetings and was very interested to hear the Treasurer talking about the feedback received, because it is certainly nothing like the feedback I received in relation to this workers’ village.
As the member for Goyder rightly pointed out, there are many concerns with this proposal. There are concerns over traffic, services, headworks, sewerage, water, and social disruption a camp in that area will create. There are concerns over safety issues in relation to the member for Nelson’s alternate site. There are many concerns with this camp in that area.
It is probably worthwhile revisiting the process the government went through with INPEX when deciding on these sites. The government had a batch of blocks of land available. Some were privately owned; the vast majority were Crown land. At no time has the public been informed regarding the commercial arrangements with INPEX on Crown land areas.
It is my view the commercial sector has been left out of these negotiations completely. There are better sites as far as location and access to services, less disruption to traffic, and an ability to leave a legacy. It is my view that INPEX, to some extent, was motivated by the fact the government was providing land almost gratis to the company on which to put a site. I do not particularly support the current location, or the location that has been proposed by the member for Nelson. We should go back to the drawing board, look at the best possible options, and work with the private sector, if it is going to be on privately-owned land, to find the best location.
If we had been running a General Business Day several weeks ago, the member for Nelson would have been laughed out of here. This has changed because of a sordid little deal done between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. I am grateful to my colleagues that we are not supporting this motion. I do not support the location. I think the whole lot …
Dr Burns: Do you support INPEX? It does not sound like it.
Mr TOLLNER: I am glad the Leader of Government Business has jumped in here. Do we support it? Do I support INPEX? Of course, I support INPEX. The Country Liberals, and Conservative parties across Australia, have a long history of supporting development, particularly gas development. We would not be at this stage in gas development without the conservative parties doing all the foundation work. To talk about parties that do not support gas development; you do not have to look too far to see parties that do not.
I remember the time we were dealing with the Timor Sea Treaty and the International Unitisation Agreement, where the Labor Party, both in the Northern Territory and federally, were more interested in the deals that were done for East Timor than in the livelihoods and future development of the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Not true’, I hear the Treasurer say. Perhaps someone here has a little corporate history and knowledge about some of the things that took place. You might try to gloss over these things, and sneakily hide them under the carpet, but I remember.
Madam Speaker, this debate seems to be going nowhere. The government says they are not going to support the motion. We are not going to support the motion; I might as well leave it at that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, thank heavens for small mercies.
Without the political diatribe, this issue is important for people in the rural area. There appears to be indecision in the opposition viewpoint between the member for Goyder and the member for Fong Lim. I will take up some of the matters the member for Goyder mentioned. She said chemicals had been used on some of the forest land. Having been involved with the original forest industry on Melville and Bathurst Islands, I doubt if there would be a need for chemicals for Cypress Pine. The reason Cypress Pine was grown was because it is termite resistant.
Ms Purick: They still use them; you know that.
Mr WOOD: I believe there is no basis for what has been said, and if there was, it would simply be a matter of testing the soil.
I understand orienteering is close to the member for Goyder’s heart. I have been approached by a member of the orienteering group, and I do not dismiss that important sport.
I have received a letter stating development on this site would pollute the upper area around Duchy’s Lagoon. The site I am talking about is below the Duchy’s Lagoon site. I wonder if people believe the main forestry land is the land to be developed rather than the land I am talking about. There may have been some confusion over which land I was referring to.
In relation to no services, water goes right past this block. There has been an upgrade to the waterline to Howard River Park, and the power line also goes past. The difference in distance is about 2 km. I would not have put this forward as an alternative if I felt the extra distance was going to make it difficult for workers to get to the work site. The two blocks are adjacent. I do not believe distance was an issue.
One issue that has been raised is the use of the land for recreational purposes; the other for Defence. There are hectares of vacant Crown land adjacent to the block. The last remnants of recreational land have not been destroyed. I have not seen anything from the Department of Defence saying the site is not suitable. I would want to see some evidence showing why the site is not suitable; but none of that has been shown.
The key issue is the community was not consulted on alternative sites; they were selected by the department and the company - the government should have sought public comment. The community will be able to comment at the planning stage, or the rezoning stage, but it has already been decided. It is hard for the public to have any confidence; the deal has been done. That is one of my key concerns.
I take up the minister’s comments about the legacy. I would not get too definite on the use of the land, because in 10 years’ time who knows what will be around the corner.
In relation to good design and planning, that is to enable the public to see what the company intends to do. So far, the public has seen nothing - they have seen an application to develop this land, which is just a triangle on the ground. The company and the government need to go back to the people. There was only one public meeting, and there are many people with concerns.
The member for Goyder suggested talking about the vegetation was a fairly thin excuse - that is a very important issue to the people who live there - the entry statement to Howard Springs is that block. Many people enjoy that block being there and they know with this development most of it could go. That is important.
There is a proposal to develop all the forestry land into approximately 400 1 ha to 2 ha blocks. I support that proposal; this site would be far more central to any future town centre, and it is not only the many native trees there. In the long term, which would be the better site, considering there might be other development in the area? You can develop the area around the bush and maintain it.
Shaun Kildare has a degree in Environmental Botany, and he does not want to see all the trees destroyed. That is why we went for a walk through the forest, a look at the trees and the slope of the land. He promised to come back with some detailed schematic diagrams to show people. I thank Shaun for doing that.
I am not against INPEX. Let us not get caught in a trap that says if you criticise something INPEX does, you are automatically anti-INPEX. INPEX wants to come here; we want them to come here, but that should not mean we cannot criticise them. We would then be slaves to a big company. The people out there do not expect politicians to be slaves to a company; they need to be asking the hard questions; they need to make sure the development is okay. This village is part of the development, and we should be asking the questions.
I am disappointed neither side of the House supports this motion; I hope people understand their points of view. This should have been done better. Hopefully, the second option will satisfy most people. I support the village in the rural area; it will be a great benefit for employment and in times of economic uncertainty it is important - I have said that to INPEX. The siting is as important, and I will do the best I can to ensure everything is done to the best and highest standard.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have two documents relating to pairs. The first one is for today, 18 August, from 4.30 pm to 6 pm for the member for Wanguri with the member for Sanderson; and the member for Casuarina with the member for Goyder. The document is signed by the government and the opposition Whips. I table that document.
Madam SPEAKER: The second document relating to pairs is for Thursday, 20 August, from 6 pm until the end of the sittings. It is for the member for Stuart with the member for Katherine. It is signed by the two Whips. I table that as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not intend to talk on this at length, just to say that I have had concerns about the siting of the new prison. Thankfully, in the agreement I made with the Chief Minister, the agreement states there will be an expert panel to review the location established. There will be an examination of alternative options to one large prison, and there will be an investigation into the possibility of prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
That is what I want to debate today. There has been an expansion in the agreement that we look at prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Before we spend $300m of taxpayers’ money we should be certain we spend it in the most efficient and most beneficial way for the Territory. I do not believe all the options have been looked at carefully enough. The agreement covers my concerns, and unless other people have any other comment, that is all I would like to say at the moment.
Mr Elferink: Are you withdrawing it, or …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Port Darwin. Please resume your seat.
Member for Nelson, are you putting in an amendment to refer it to this committee?
Mr WOOD: No, Madam Speaker. The government has said it will do that. I am giving people an option to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: You are withdrawing your notice - is that what you are doing at the moment?
Mr WOOD: I am just asking if people would like to speak on this. This motion is still live.
Madam SPEAKER: You have moved it, have you? Is that what you have just done?
Mr WOOD: Would you like me to move it, then?
Madam SPEAKER: If that is what you are doing, you need to actually read it.
Mr WOOD: Are there any other speakers?
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin just stood, so it is not clear to me what is happening here. You have not actually moved it, member for Nelson, all you have done is spoken about what you think is going to happen.
Mr WOOD: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I will read it:
Madam Speaker, I move –
Madam SPEAKER: Is that all you wish you say?
Mr WOOD: Yes. I put those preliminary words before the motion. I am happy to leave them there, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am just wondering whether you might be considering an amendment to refer it to the other committee.
Mr WOOD: It has already been agreed to, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the procedural issues. I am not quite sure what happens with this now it is moved. I believe it has to be voted for or against.
It demonstrates with this new agreement things can shift out of the parliament into a back room which half this parliament does not have access to. If that is a reflection of how this agreement is going to work, we have our concerns.
As to the motion, I am not quite sure what we should do with it. It should either be withdrawn or voted down.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, the government has agreed with the Independent member that the issue of the prison will be re-examined to allow him the opportunity to place his concerns formally on the table, and for the government to thoroughly examine and review our decisions to date, in light of those concerns.
It has been our intention to build a new correctional facility. The old prison is no longer big enough or modern enough to be successfully continued as a correctional facility. We are determined to provide a much stronger rehabilitation basis for Corrections. We want proper training and education facilities built into the new correctional facility. We want to design the correctional facility in a way that allows us to further these aims.
The cost of the new correctional facility has been currently estimated at $300m. The final costs will depend on the construction method, and whether the procurement method involves a public/private partnership. To allow the member for Nelson input to this process, we are establishing an expert panel to review the location of the prison, and to make recommendations as to whether one big Correctional facility remains the way to go. Alternatives will be canvassed and assessed. The panel’s report will be considered in November this year by a subcommittee of Cabinet consisting of the Treasurer, myself, as Minister for Correctional Services, and the member for Nelson. We will consider alternative options including prison farms at Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Darwin, and will seek public comment on such proposals.
Work is continuing on the establishment of an outreach work program in the Barkly region, with Budget 2009-10 providing $2m for this project. An outreach work camp will contribute to providing life skills, education, rehabilitation, and real work experience to assist prisoners to gain employment on release.
I am passionate about delivering better services and, as Minister for Correctional Services, better correctional services for Territorians who are most disadvantaged. I look forward to working further to provide opportunities for education, training, and rehabilitation as part of our new era in Corrections in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we are really going into uncharted waters. It is time we had some clarity in the way we are going to conduct business in this Chamber.
It is curious that certain items on the Notice Paper will be referred to the Council of Cooperation, and others will not. How is that determined? Will we see that played out as we go through this debate? Some go to the Council of Cooperation, some sit on the table, some have prior arrangements made. It is very disturbing to see this unfold.
Here we have a motion which carries with it an understanding that an agreement has been made. This motion must be tested. Listening to the words the minister carefully used at the beginning of his comments - the word ‘re-examine’. Re-examine is a commitment to have another look; it is not an agreement to reverse a decision. That is a completely different thing.
Once again, my parliamentary colleagues, and member for Nelson also, we must watch them very carefully. To say: ‘We will now commit to re-examine’ does not sound like the original intent of the agreement described in here on Friday. This must be tested because this is an agreement which now has an impact upon the operation of this parliament and how we work.
How is it that some things go to the Council of Cooperation and others do not? Who picks? Who chooses? Who makes the decision? Where is the authority now? I fear for the authority and the integrity of this parliament with these types of decisions starting to unfold on General Business Day.
This motion must be tested if there is a commitment to re-examine. I sense there may well be a readjustment of position so we will not test it. By testing it, we are testing the quality of this agreement. If we do not test it and the motion is withdrawn, we leave exposed the quality and the integrity of the agreement which, we were led to believe, is solid and strong, and will usher in a whole new era. Funny words, odd positioning. We have a very unusual construct now operating in this parliament. I am very concerned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I understand what the Leader of the Opposition has said and I am happy to put it to the vote. I support my motion as it is. The government may or may not support the motion; I have not asked them what they will do on this particular issue, but there was an agreement which gets close to that. I take up the point made by the minister.
I had a detailed briefing in relation to the cost of going to each one of these sites, and that is what has concerned me; I do not believe those numbers have been tested.
I am quite happy that we build a facility on the existing site, but I would like to back this up with a detailed examination of all the sites put forward. All we have in this parliament was: Gunn Point, $99m; Berrimah, $50m; Berrimah 2, $50m; Bennett Creek $29m, etcetera. There was no real detail of how government came to that determination.
If the government can show, through an expert review panel, their site is the preferred one, we would be silly not to look at it. I have always believed the prison should stay in its present vicinity. I am quite happy to put that motion up. I also welcome the proposal put forward by the government. This agreement is not part of the Council of Territory Cooperation, it is the government setting up a review panel to ascertain suitability of the site.
Madam Speaker, naturally I support my motion; and leave it at that.
Question put.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.
Mr MILLS: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot call a division because you called the loudest.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition should know …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please resume your seat, Leader of Government Business, I am speaking. I have already called for the ayes; therefore you cannot, because you called aye.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hope the member for Fong Lim does not call that a grubby little deal.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I move –
That the government –
Madam Speaker, this leads from the previous motion. I believe the government reacted to a housing shortage.
Mr Mills: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I believe the government reacted to a housing shortage, making a very quick announcement on the ABC Morning Program saying this land would be suitable for housing without giving it detailed thought. The Treasurer and the member for Nhulunbuy spoke in that debate about the old aerial farm next door to Pinelands Estate, saying it would be great for housing. There is no way the Commonwealth is going to sell that land; we would have a ghetto surrounded by industrial land.
At the lower end we have a four-lane highway and Tiger Brennan Drive; to the north, Hidden Valley Race Track, drags and mud racing. A creek flows into the valley, and the sandflies there are atrocious. The airport is close by, which needs to be taken into account; and there is heavy and light industry bordering the area. There is also doubt the land is suitable for housing due to chemicals, places have been found where chemicals were dumped. And there are wetlands, too.
The government, in an attempt to open this land for housing, was going to use prison land. The lower end of that land is exceptionally wet and would be costly to fill; the cost of filling was used in figures to show why we should not build a prison there. If it is too wet for the prison, it is too wet for housing.
Future planning has not been taken into account. There is a beautiful view up there on the hill, and you can also see the port. We would be short-sighted to turn land into housing when we have plenty of land for housing. We have the whole of Weddell; 65 000 people when developed to its full extent. This block of land was a quick solution. It became part of ‘infill’. Scott Stirling recently wrote an article in the NT News expounding the wonders of infill.
Infill can indicate several things: not developing enough land, so squash people in. In the Territory we should not be using the word ‘infill’ too often. We should not be developing Darwin as a densely populated peninsula where you put more and more resources and more and more traffic. We should be decentralising our city, and developing each city in its own right. That does not mean you cannot move between cities.
Develop Weddell, develop the service industries, develop the industrial land, and develop with government buildings; that, in itself, creates employment in the area. The same applies to Palmerston, Darwin, and the northern suburbs.
This is very short-sighted. We need to look at the use of Berrimah Research Farm. We need to detail why we want to get rid of it. If we want to downsize, how much land should we retain? At the moment it is 8 ha, one rural block. I would be cautious about destroying something close to the city which can provide a service for people who come to Darwin. It is not only a research station; I presume people go there for advice. Government needs to ensure it does not downsize this research station.
One thing the government has not done is put an emphasis on the importance of primary industry in the Northern Territory. For too long it has been the poor cousin when it comes to departments. The message that we do not need Berrimah Farm and it will make a nice place for housing is the wrong message.
Where will the prison be located? Until that decision has been made, do not make any decisions about housing. Many people believe you do not want the prison there because you have decided to build houses there. I do not believe that is what we should be doing. This should be worked out on planning for the future. Graeme Bailey did the Darwin Region Land Use Structure Plan, and there are no plans for housing there; and I did not see any infill in that area.
What I did see was open space near the Stuart Highway which could be a prison farm. The rest of the land could be for industrial use in relation to the port. There is industrial land on Tivendale Road and there is industrial land in Berrimah - why place housing in the middle? Where are the services for the community? I do not believe we have given it enough thought.
I believe we have to create more employment for people working in the prison. If you establish it in an industrial area, you give prisoners an opportunity to work outside in some of the neighbouring industries; there is the possibility of some of those industries working in an industrial precinct inside the prison. We need to create employment for prisoners; we do not want 1000 prisoners making a couple of number plates, which does not employ many people. I believe we can go much further.
The housing idea should be dropped. We need to develop Palmerston, get the eastern suburbs going. We have a competition for Weddell coming up in November 2009; the government has agreed to that; we have to get Weddell going. We are about 1000 blocks behind. A local builder from the 11 Mile/Holtze area rang me recently saying we are so far behind in the number of blocks of land we need, we are creating an artificial price hike. We need to be kicking off land. We need to make sure we do not use short-term solutions to fix it, and end up with a long-term problem.
Let us get our housing in the right place. Let us get our industry in the right place. Let us get our prison in the right place. Do not put housing in Berrimah Farm - it is a short-term fix, and it will be a long-term pain.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government is delivering a Housing the Territory initiative with a 20-year land release program. Under this program, the Berrimah corridor has been identified as a potential mix of light industrial and infill residential site. Projections for the Berrimah Farm and prison site indicate it could provide up to 1300 housing lots between Darwin and Palmerston from 2013 and, importantly, industrial land. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is currently undertaking environmental site assessments to consider the possible contamination of the site. This work is under way.
The government has committed to a review of the location of the prison to be undertaken by an expert panel, which will report in November this year. The outcomes of the review will inform future decisions on the land use of Berrimah prison and will impact on the research farm site. Until that work is undertaken, government cannot support this motion. It will however, continue to investigate all the options.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. I am on the Parliamentary Record speaking against the Berrimah Farm being developed as a residential area. It is a very unwise decision of government - it was a knee jerk reaction at the time. I distinctly remember the day, 8 October, when the Planning minister said there were problems with land release. By that afternoon the Chief Minister of the day, Clare Martin, said they were going to have a new housing estate at Berrimah Farm - 700 residential dwellings were to be built and it was going to ease the pressure on our housing market. The media release said it complemented the government’s release of land at Bellamack with 700 more dwellings. We know what has happened there - only 90 dwellings made available at Bellamack.
We know the history of Berrimah Farm. I am on the record talking about the war history and that it was an important communications base. In the new order of things in this parliament, and the agreement between the member for Nelson and the member for Wanguri, this should be turned into a heritage park, given its long-standing history in regard to World War II.
It was used as a quarantine station for both the agricultural and horticultural industries. We know there were products used such as chromium, copper, and arsenic. I acknowledge the government has commissioned environmental studies to ascertain the extent of any contamination from activities on the farm, as well as the impregnation of forestry products so they would not be vulnerable to white ants. When the environmental studies are completed, I have requested they be released for review and community consultation. I hope the government does this.
It is a poor choice of land for residential development. As the member for Nelson said - and I have also placed on the record - it is surrounded by McKinnon Road and Anictomatis Road to the south, it has the Stuart Highway and the major flight path to the east, and it has light industry to the north; and the major extension of Tiger Brennan Drive is going to be there. You might have a view, but you will also have noise and light pollution.
The other issue not addressed is the North Australian Safety Centre, which is at the rear of Berrimah Farm. This is a not-for-profit establishment that provides a vital service to the mining industry and the offshore oil and gas industry. The government appears to want to overlook this establishment. Whilst the organisation is on a peppercorn rent, it is a vital part of our business community. If we lose that centre and they cannot establish anywhere else, we will lose the valuable underwater helicopter escape training centre.
Regarding the environmental studies, when contamination levels are not known there are usually three phases to the studies. The first is the investigation stage; you do desktop research, interviews with people, and gather any previous reports to get as much information as you can. The second stage is usually moving on to a more physical aspect of the studies; soil sampling, water sampling and sampling of plants to discover what contamination might be underneath the soil. You then move to the third stage, which is remediation of the site based on the information from the studies, and on the testing and the research which has been done.
The third stage can take years - I am not suggesting this site is such a site – but I do not believe the government actually foresaw, in their haste to look good at the time, there would be issues involved of the extent and length it can take to do environmental studies on a site such as Berrimah Farm. The environmental studies have been under way for some time; I expect they are in Stage 2 now, doing physical samples. Based on that information, they will probably move into Stage 3.
I would be surprised, based on working with the environmental side of the minerals industry, if this site is ready, available, or released for any kind of development for up to two years. There is no chance this site will be available for any kind of urban development, or any development at all, in the near future.
The other item which should be considered in regard to further use of this site is establishing a Botanical Gardens annexe at the Berrimah Farm, given its long history with the agricultural and horticultural industries.
Mr Knight: Hear, hear! I like that idea.
Ms PURICK: I see the member for Daly screwing up his nose; perhaps he does not understand what a Botanical Gardens annexe is all about. But it has a long history with this kind of activity, and I will talk more with the member for Nelson, because it has potential and we need to do research in this regard.
For all those reasons, Berrimah Research Farm is not the right place for an urban development, not now, not in the medium term, and not in the long term.
One small item government has overlooked is, if 700 houses are going into this development, that would mean 200 to 300 children. I do not believe the government has given consideration to what schools these children are going to attend. The closest schools are in the northern suburbs and Palmerston. Kormilda College is close, but it is a private school and does not have lower or preschool facilities.
Madam Speaker, we support the member for Nelson in this motion, that Berrimah Research Farm is not a suitable place to be utilised for urban development.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution, and the Deputy Leader’s careful analysis of the merits of the site in question as a suitable place for industrial development. I also thank the member for Nelson for making it very clear that, as most people would know, sunlight is the best disinfectant against deceit. The two motions are directly connected.
The consideration for moving the prison was driven by a knee jerk reaction to the failure to release land - simple as that - people can see that as plain as day. Fortunately, the practice of deceit, and crafting messages to suit political agendas, has come to an end. What a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive. The community can see this, and the saddest part of all is the community can see it quite clearly.
We now have a different dynamic in the Territory parliament. There is the capacity for truth to be tested. If the ‘not true’ defence of a charge is to be given more bolster, we should have greater explanation and details and facts on the table, to enable you to stand behind that bland assertion. We need more than that.
We are entering a new era and Territorians deserve better. For government to say as a defence: we have a 20-year plan, we have initiatives - and we have 150 m2 blocks looking us in the face - get in an aeroplane and tell me there is a land shortage. You have eight press releases talking about Bellamack, but not a single house, and you dare to stand up and say you have an initiative and a plan that works.
People are fed up with this. The two are connected. You moved into a spot to take political pressure off yourself and you put residential capacity into an area that is clearly industrial. You then found what a wicked web we weave when first we try to deceive - oh, now we have a case to move the prison to Weddell – and we are expected to believe the government can build a city like Weddell when all we have are press releases concerning Bellamack?
Madam Speaker, this motion must be supported, because it is starting to bring pressure to bear on the capacity of this government to tell the truth and face up to reality.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not have much more to say, except I believe it is an important motion. Good planning is the key to producing a great city; that is something we should strive for. We are the legislators. We are supposed to have the vision, and this is about vision. We need the big picture; we need to make a beautiful city, something we can be proud of. We do not need to design housing estates based on infill. Housing estates are about community, and we should do the best to make sure our housing estates are liveable.
The member for Blain mentioned the old block sizes. I went to a planning meeting in relation to the suburb of Johnston, and it was disappointing to see nearly every block of land was 700 m with a building envelope of about 95%. We have to change this - this is about places being liveable. Some people can live on a 150 m block, however, we need to give families the opportunity to live where they can play, and breathe, and have space without standing on the neighbours’ toes. That is what we have to look at.
The problem developing this piece of land is we have to recover large sums of money because there are unsuitable areas here. We may have to consider noise abatement design; we may have to fill the wetlands, and that will increase the cost of this land. The way governments tend to recover those costs is to allow more blocks to be subdivided to get a better return.
I ask the Assembly to support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
This something the government has agreed to, and I am happy to see. I pushed for this for the 15 years I was on the Litchfield Council.
We need a vision. We need the city of Weddell to be something we can be proud of. I am not denigrating Palmerston, it is a thriving city, and my children go to school there, but the development of the Palmerston CBD has gone sideways. We should learn by these mistakes and make the new city of Weddell something to be proud of. We must include private landowners in the area; at present government is concentrating on its own land. I believe one third of the land in that area belongs to the Walker family, and there are other parcels of land as well.
We need to be inclusive and ensure the whole area is developed uniformly and according to a vision. Look at the design of Canberra - Burley Griffin and his wife had vision. Although Canberra is not built quite the way Burley Griffin designed it, it has some very beautiful aspects: look from the war memorial towards the new Parliament House; look at Lake Burley Griffin for recreational use - no crocodiles, fantastic. I do not hear anyone say it is not a beautiful vision for a city.
We should be looking at something similar for Weddell. We should not be turning it into just another city, it should be something special. All the new cities eventually built around the harbour, including the city on Cox Peninsula, should have the same beginning - a vision - and the promise that government will stick by that vision to ensure we have a wonderful, liveable city.
I believe it is a good motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 to 9 students from Sanderson Middle School, accompanied by Ms Michelle Turner. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion and the inclusion of sustainability principles in the design competition. We propose to refer to the Council of Territory Cooperation the progress of the planning of the new city because it is a very exciting task. Many across our community will be interested and want to put forward ideas on the potential a new city offers, including future economic and development opportunities. For example, Weddell could include an education precinct.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is well placed to sponsor a sustainable city ideas competition. The competition could be undertaken with expert advice from the Northern Territory’s own Urban Design Advisory Panel. This would provide valuable professional and industry organisation and networks to promote the competition among professional and academic groups here and overseas. The sustainable city ideas competition brief could include taking into account elements such as the delivery of affordable housing models, energy efficiency, and transport efficiency.
We believe Weddell can be a smart city, a low environmental impact city; Weddell could be a connected community. High speed Internet connections throughout Weddell would attract business and enable more people to work from home; increased recycling at a residential and commercial level could be a strong focus. Planning important community open spaces and a concise urban footprint could support what we believe would be, potentially, a walkable scale city.
We have a rapid transport corridor in place for the future. The planning of Weddell could integrate transport and land use planning to make cycling, walking and public transport the travel modes of choice. Water sensitive design and renewable energy could be incorporated into street lighting to make Weddell environmentally friendly. These are all very valid ideas which could set Weddell apart as the Territory’s smart city, as our education city and, importantly, as a sustainable and well designed city.
The Strategic Land Use Plan for Greater Darwin is currently in preparation to go to community consultation, along with a range of other work by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This will provide a valuable data source to underpin this competition; a valuable body of work.
The government is delighted to support the motion, and the design of the sustainability competition being referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, all those words sound good, but I did not hear any reference to a time frame or anything concrete happening from government. I say that because the track record of government going beyond grand talk and extravagant language of what could possibly be, alongside what they actually achieve, is of grave concern - talk about closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The intention, as described by the member for Nelson, is admirable and has our support. If it is in the hands of this current Labor administration, I fear we will have the same situation as Bellamack. I have a list of eight press releases, all in enthusiastic and glowing terms, about things which are going to be and still are not. I fear all the grand talk about what could possibly be may be the sole preoccupation of the Labor administration. I am ringing an alarm bell because they certainly rise to the occasion when it comes to conceptual business and raising expectations - but the delivery component is deficient.
The next concern I have is the reference to this Council of Territory Cooperation. That sounds good too, but what is it? It is like saying we are going to refer it to Timbuktu. Let us have some definition of this before we say it is great and send it to this body. It is beholden on a sensible and serious government which is confronted by reality and had a shake-up to start putting effort into providing us with substantial detail so real ideas can be properly tested and we get a result.
We have had eight media releases over nearly two years, and not a place for anyone to live, except termites and birds nesting in trees. If we had those for a suburb, how many are we going to have for a city under the watchful gaze of the Labor administration? I suspect about 80 media releases before anything happens, and the birds can plan for generations of nests to come, whilst there is fluffing around and models.
On Palmerston, member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: Do not say anything unkind.
Mr MILLS: No. When I first arrived in Palmerston I found the street structure quite curious; they all seem to go in loops, bends, and curls. I was frightened when I was in Canberra, and seemed to be on some street in Palmerston. I learnt the same town planner who designed the streets in Canberra in this new innovative way also designed the street layout in Palmerston. We will have to make a pledge, if we do go down this path, we will stay as close as possible to the original idea and follow it through.
I am also critical of what we have in Palmerston; it is a grave disappointment. We have tried to fix some of the problems, but once you have made these decisions it becomes very difficult. Look at Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and so on.
Madam Speaker, I continue to ring the alarm bell. If this is in the hand of Labor, it will be a dead hand. All we will have are media releases and things to think and talk about and have our hopes raised; sadly we get them dashed under Labor. They cannot even pull off a suburb.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the speakers for their support. I take up some comments of the member for Blain. I accept your criticism about the Council for Territory Cooperation ...
Mr Mills: You just do not know …
Mr WOOD: I accept that criticism. It is a fair criticism and is something we have to work on ...
Mr Mills: We should have it now.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much, expert. We have not had a lot of time, and we will be working on it ...
Mr Mills: Are you referring anything to it?
Mr WOOD: We are not referring this part to it. The agreement says ‘a competition to be announced by November 2009’. That is the competition; that is what this is about. The government has not given an agreement they will announce the competition in 2009; that is what I wanted, because it has been going for so ...
Mr Mills: Okay. I will give you that. We are worried about this other thing.
Mr WOOD: … long that something had to be done about making a start …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … on the development of Weddell as an ongoing priority - which is what you are saying, and I agree with - is one of the things the Council of Territory Cooperation will be looking at. This is where I want participation from members; I want to drive it from here as well as from the community.
I agree we need to do something; this is the start. Get the vision; get the plans going; ensure we tell the government what we want to do. I understand the mechanics have not been working; I accept that.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: There is much to be done; I accept that as a challenge. I will try my best. I accept the criticism. We will try to work through it and come up with a model which is workable, has a budget, and can deal with the issues. The agreement talks about SIHIP, Weddell, and homelands. It will be self-referral.
There will be budget considerations. We have to see how things operate on the ground, but it is an attempt. If it fails, you can hang me up and say he failed. We are trying to do things differently. Weddell is something I would love the CLP to be involved in; it is close to them, and I think we can do it. We have to be positive. I am going to try, with both government and opposition, to make this work.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion, and I put it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that -
(a) the government build an aquatic centre in the rural area - similar to the one at Leanyer and the proposed one at Palmerston; and
This has been going on for long time. Part of the agreement with the government is to get some sense of cooperation between the government and Litchfield Council. However, we now have a proposal to put a pool on land at Taminmin High School, run by the YMCA.
The last thing I want is taxpayers’ money put into an aquatic centre which does not have full community support. The Litchfield Council does not want to know anything about it. The YMCA want to run it, and it would be funded by the NT government. I believe we have to do something better than that.
This also is an attempt to have a better relationship with the Litchfield Council. The council is an important part of the rural area, and they have real concerns which are sometimes denigrated.
The member for Braitling would realise the swimming pool precinct at Alice Springs is expensive; the Katherine pool is expensive to run and is subsidised by the local council. To say it is council’s responsibility puts an enormous impact on ratepayers; these things are not cheap and there needs to be an element of fairness. The government has put much money into Leanyer; it is a great place, and it is free. The government is going to put $27m into an aquatic centre in Palmerston.
For the sake of fairness, the 20 000 people in the rural area are entitled to something too ...
Ms Carney: Watch them. Alice Springs did not get everything it was promised.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting. Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting. Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Member for Greatorex, Alice Springs did get a reasonable amount of money; it may not have everything, but they certainly got up to $8m which upgraded the pool and made it suitable for diving and swimming competitions. That funding is great. Anyone who goes to the Masters Games knows swimming is a very popular competition ...
Ms Carney: I am just saying keep an eye on them, Gerry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: The government has said it will review the current plans for the aquatic centre in the rural area in conjunction with stakeholders, and me. They will report on the costings by February 2010, and they will talk to the local council. This needs to progress; people have been hearing these plans for years. We need to make it happen from this motion, and from the agreement with the government.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion. We are committed to work with the member for Nelson and the Litchfield Council to progress this under our parliamentary agreement.
The government has committed to building a pool in the rural area, we have put funding aside for that, and we will expand this commitment to look at the broader issue of an aquatic centre. The work will revisit the progress already made by the Minister for Local Government to establish a pool at Humpty Doo. The project will include considering possible sites for the new aquatic facility, and will report back to government early next year. The government has progressively provided water facilities for Territory families to build on our great lifestyle and to provide safe swimming options, particularly for families who do not have a pool of their own. That is why we built Leanyer Water Park; it is free for Territory families, and we will also provide free entry to the water park we build at Palmerston.
The rural facility will need to be well planned, well thought out. We are committed to ensuring it is a free facility similar to the well-loved Leanyer facility, and the about-to-be-loved Palmerston facility. Thousands of families enjoy the Leanyer Water Park and we know there is much anticipation in Palmerston regarding the construction of a water park there. Site selection is currently under way in Palmerston, and we expect to announce the preferred location in the coming months.
The government will consider a report on the establishment of a similar facility in Darwin’s rural area, which we know is a growing population base. Not only will families of the Top End have the Leanyer Water Park and the Palmerston Water Park, as well as the fantastic wave pool at the Convention Centre site, to enjoy - all projects opposed by the CLP - they will also have the opportunity to enjoy a great aquatic facility in the Litchfield shire.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former minister and former member for Arnhem, Mr John Ah Kit. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I would like to support this motion by the member for Nelson regarding building an aquatic centre in the rural area similar to the one at Leanyer and the proposed one at Palmerston. But it should be better than the ones at Palmerston and Leanyer because the issue of a pool has been going on for 20 years; and included the previous minister for Sport, Mr Ah Kit, who was recently in the Chamber as a visitor. It should be funded similarly to the ones maintained by the government in the urban areas.
People in the rural area have been treated as second-class citizens for a long time when it comes to recreation. Whilst the Chief Minister could not give figures regarding the cost of an aquatic centre, I can tell you it will be in the vicinity of around $5m, or more, whether it is a 25 m pool or a 50 m pool. They are not complicated items to build from an engineering point of view, but have complexities in ensuring they are built correctly and operate without leakages or overpressure.
It is one thing to plan and build this aquatic centre; it will be another thing to manage it and pay the operating costs. The Litchfield Council has declined to take on an aquatic centre because they know the high cost of running such a facility, and they do not want to pass those costs on to ratepayers. I believe they would be fairly high costs.
If we can have this facility built somewhere in the rural area we should look for the ideal situation suiting the majority of people, the majority of schools and the majority of recreational groups.
We support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the speakers for their support. I take up some of the matters raised by the member for Goyder. Litchfield Council has, for years, been concerned about taking on a pool because of the running costs; that is what it was about. There was an offer, from both parties in 2001, of $1m for a pool; but this was clearly an inadequate amount of money.
A former minister said he could build a pool for that amount, and I said to him: ‘Put your money where your mouth is and build it’.
This is a debate about costings. The idea of an aquatic centre was on the list before the agreement; it is nothing new. I am making sure the government gets started - it is the same with the bicycle path - I have asked the government to get started.
An aquatic centre is very important, and the government has the YMCA doing work on evaluating what type of facility should be built. I ask where it should be built to ensure maximum use.
I am pleased the government has agreed to build the pool; I put it in the agreement to hurry things along. Taminmin High School wants a pool on the high school site. If it is to be at Humpty Doo, we should be talking to Litchfield Council to see whether there is a more appropriate block of land …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We will not worry about what was; we will worry about what will be. That is what this whole debate has been about. We have to get on and do this. In Leanyer, now Palmerston and, to some extent, Alice Springs, the members for Araluen and Greatorex have told me there are some deficiencies in what the government promised. I am interested in finding out why, because it is important when government makes commitments they carry them out.
Government, please get this moving; people in the rural area want an aquatic centre. Sit down with the YMCA and the Litchfield Council, and let us get this going.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
This is also in the agreement but needs speaking to. I am passionate about trying to open up more land. One of the key things in the agreement is to push for more land to be opened up. I know we are short of land; that is why the price of land is so high. It is tragic so many young Territorians cannot buy their own block of land because the price is too high.
Earlier this year I was approached by a representative of eight local developers who requested the government subdivide the forestry land on Gunn Point Road into 400 1 ha and 2 ha blocks. It was not just about making money; they are Territory people concerned there is not enough land available for young people and they wanted to get this off the ground.
Here is a parcel of land that has been zoned residential land, and here is an opportunity to develop that forestry land. I heard the member for Goyder saying it has been filled with Dieldrin and arsenic. It is a Cyprus pine forest, and Cyprus pine are termite resistant. I am not sure that statement is factual, but I am sure the right tests will be done if the land is developed ...
Mr Conlan: She knows what she is talking about.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Greatorex, unlike yourself sometimes.
Mr Conlan: Gerry, when have you become a politician?
Mr WOOD: I went to the Matt Conlan school of disc jockeys.
This proposal has been around since the beginning of the year, and it is bogged down because there are four native titleholders claiming this block of land. I hope the government resolves this; I hope people are not playing one another off, or trying to hold out for more money. It is important we sort out this issue. It is important we solve the native title issue, and work with these developers to ascertain what land can be developed. It will go a long way to taking some heat off the requirement for land, and it will also give us choice. At the moment there is very little rural land young people can afford.
A 1 ha or 2 ha block in Howard Springs will cost $300 000 to $400 000. 2 ha blocks on Whitewood Road are $400 000. What young family can afford to live in the rural area? We need to give people choice of lifestyle, choice of land size - we are not - we are giving them 50 700 m2 blocks in Johnston.
The rural area has the lowest crime rate; people are not living in each other’s pocket. You give people a chance to have a lifestyle which is very much in sync with our Territory environment, and there are things for children such as raising farm animals; it just gives them space, and that is good.
I am interested to know where the Northern Territory government is in relation to native title consultation. We have to work hard to get a solution. Once we have the solution we can get the developers in and open up this land, which is desperately needed.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion. We are committed to work with the member for Nelson to progress this under our parliamentary agreement.
The forestry area that forms Howard Springs and Gunn Point Roads includes three lots, two of which are currently subject to native title. Portion 2820 had a native title claim, but it was withdrawn. This is expected to be re-lodged in an amended form. Portion 2821 and portion 2822 are also subject to native title.
The government will liaise with the Northern Land Council to continue pursuing a negotiated outcome. We have a good record of dealing with land councils to achieve negotiated outcomes. We will fast-track the negotiations, and we will report back in November regarding success. Litigation is not the favoured course, we prefer negotiation; we are serious in negotiating with the Northern Land Council. You can tie yourself up for a minimum of 18 months; however, experience has shown it is much longer if you go to the courts. We are serious in supporting this motion; we are serious in fast-tracking negotiations with the NLC, and we will report back in November. I will keep the member for Nelson informed of how we are proceeding in this matter.
I support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the good track record of this government dealing with native titleholders around Darwin - Larrakia Development Corporation was the developer of a site in the Palmerston area as a result of the former government’s negotiation where native title had not been established. The non-litigious approach used by this government was to take them to the High Court and make sure native title was declared to be extinguished, at great expense to the Territory taxpayer, and at great pain to the native title claimants. That is a great record of negotiation?
The member for Arnhem says she recognises the native titleholders over Darwin, when she sat in Cabinet that hounded those claimants all the way to the High Court to deprive them of their native title rights.
It is curious in the extreme that the government stands here saying they have a great track record in dealing with native titleholders. Where did they take the Blue Mud Bay case? All the way to the High Court. What were they trying to achieve? The reversal of the decision giving native title rights to the traditional owners of the Blue Mud Bay area.
The cheek of the government to assert they are great negotiators with native title claimants is an outrage; for them to acknowledge the Larrakia people, on whose land we are standing, after they hounded them into the High Court to make sure they did not get native title recognised, is outrageous in the extreme.
I also support this motion. There is one vehicle the Treasurer did not mention in relation to native title rights over this particular area, that is acquisition. It has been established in the High Court of this country that a state government may acquire native title for any purposes it desires. I am not suggesting we should acquire, in the first instance, I am saying there should be a completion date for negotiations. If that date is not met in relation to negotiations, the government will move to acquire.
We have seen the ridiculous situation in Alice Springs, particularly in Larapinta Stage 4, where the government committed itself to a process of negotiation and got bogged down for years. It took years to get that land released. What was the effect of that negotiation? Native title was extinguished. The traditional owners were given compensation for the extinguishment of title. If you negotiate that outcome it takes four years. If you acquire, the native titleholders get compensation for extinguishment. Exactly the same result.
The only question is how much is it worth? We know, in relation to what was paid in Alice Springs, it is approximately half of freehold. The federal government, as part of the agreement, is going to pay 75% of the native title compensation in the case of acquisition. As a result of that, native title will be extinguished; that is what we negotiate for anyway. It can be done in a better way which puts pressure on the native titleholders to come to an agreement. It is not outrageous to ask them to come to an agreement; they end up with cash in the bank. The value of native title has been established.
Why are we squirming around this issue when the result of going down the path of acquisition, should it be necessary because negotiations have failed, will lead to precisely the same result as if you negotiated in the first place, with one major difference. In the acquisition process you are in a position to get land turned off within a finite period, and you can plan around that. You cannot plan around a negotiated process that takes forever and has no determined outcome.
If the member for Nelson wants to see people moving into these affordable houses at this location, plan and negotiate in such a way to meet a deadline you set. It is not that hard. We will not see the government claiming to be good negotiators when, in actual fact, they are rapacious litigators.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank both the Minister for Planning and Lands and the member for Port Darwin; he is very knowledgeable on the native title issue and I appreciate his input into this debate. Where we have shortage of land for housing we need to expedite issues.
It is good to hear both sides of parliament agree; the reason it is in this agreement is to expedite it. It has been sitting still. I know there are legal implications, but if eight local developers believe our children should have a chance to get a block of land at a reasonable price, that is the motivation we should be looking at.
This is not a local issue; it is land in the Northern Territory available for development that the government owns. It could be in Timbuktu, however it is in Howard Springs, it has been there a long time, and it has been zoned residential, and I have been pushing it for a long time. It is in the agreement for both me and the government to push along. I believe it is vitally important.
Many things have been said about the agreement, and there are many good things in there. I am in a position I was not expecting to be in, and if I can use it for the benefit of all Territorians I will have no hesitation in pushing this agreement, and I will not apologise for its content.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The changes which are proposed extend the powers of the Ombudsman to allow the Ombudsman to look into matters relating to open police complaints, not just from the time the new act came into place; if passed, this would allow the Ombudsman to look at or take up complaints which were commenced, but not completed, at the time the act came into operation.
This change has been brought on to ensure there is the capacity to look at those things on the table, and not limiting the Ombudsman to look only at new complaints. The significance of this change is there are a number of complaints and/or grievances under way at the moment, some of which have taken an extraordinary amount of time to be dealt with. One complaint took police over a year to respond to in a substantive way. Whether or not there is basis for action to be taken is not for me to judge. If that member of the police force feels waiting that length of time is too long, or their complaint is being dealt with in an unacceptable manner, they should have available to them somewhere they can go to seek assistance once other avenues have been explored. Obviously, the government agrees, as they brought forward the changes to give the Ombudsman power to look into police complaints.
There is a group of people who missed out and who, I believe, should have been captured. These changes simply tidy up the changes government has made in opening the door for those complaints which were open, but not finalised, at the time the recent changes to the Ombudsman Act came into place. This is a measure which provides assistance to hard-working police who feel aggrieved and, I believe, those officers would support me.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the following acts: Sentencing Act, Criminal Code, Parole of Prisoners Act, Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act. This furthers the Country Liberals’ commitment to certainty in sentencing.
Anything less than a life sentence for the crime of murder diminishes the value placed on human life. A prisoner may be rehabilitated, even forgiven, but the consequences of their actions remain unchanged. These amendments are to ensure that persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder serve that time. The only exception is, under exceptional circumstances, the Administrator provides for the release of a prisoner under special licence.
It is a difficult matter, perhaps, for members opposite. Leadership and certainty are required in these matters. When we consider the purpose of serving a full-life sentence for murder, is it an act of vengeance, an eye for an eye, or a life for a life? Is that what is behind it? If that is the case, then it is an argument which supports capital punishment, and is certainly not the position or the case. I, like many, admit that murder sometimes stirs such deep anger we want to consider drastic measures, but that argument cannot follow. What we are talking about is life meaning life.
Why? If it is not for vengeance, why should a murderer serve a full-life sentence? That is the principal question. There are two reasons I propose: first, a life sentence is, in the view of the Country Liberals, a fitting punishment for the most serious crime in our society. Second, anything less than life meaning life diminishes our community’s value for life. Some see a full-life sentence for murder as too harsh and advocate for the early release of murderers, while the victim’s family and friends serve a life sentence of grief and loss. Early release dilutes the starkness of the act of murder, not just for the victim’s family, but for all of us.
Maybe the murderer had a troubled past, was on drugs or heard voices. But a life has been taken and this action has a consequence that cannot be altered. The offender may be rehabilitated or forgiven; however, the consequence of these actions remains unchanged. Early release because of rehabilitation - in the spirit of forgiveness, some would argue - presumes both rehabilitation and forgiveness are dependent upon early release. This is not so.
The purpose of rehabilitation is so the offender may make a contribution to society. Can this contribution be made in prison? Yes. Forgiveness may occur, but does this alter the consequences of murder? Can forgiveness be gained without release from prison? Yes. A full-life sentence for murder is both a demonstration to our society of the value of life, and a fitting and humane consequence resulting from the act of murder.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, members opposite well know the issue of police numbers has been a flashpoint between this side of the House and the other side for a number of years. From our side of the House, we believe it is one of the areas where the government relies on spin, obfuscation and old-fashioned chicanery to maintain a position which is, clearly, not substantiated by the facts ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition. Would you mind actually moving the motion? You have to read it.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I move - That
1. The Assembly establish a select committee to be known as the Territory Police Review Committee.
6. The foregoing provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
The parliamentary agreement struck last week between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson calls for an end to the government’s shameless spin cycle. There seems to be no better place to start than the government to identify, for this House, exactly how many serving police are currently employed by the Northern Territory Police Force. That is one step. Let us get it clear, let us know exactly what we are dealing with in real, honest terms.
The construct of this committee and this review is to provide that level of truth. People will know whether the resource which is matched against law and order in our community is adequate and, if crime is increasing, in what areas we need apply our resources to gain a positive result. It helps to erode that culture of spin with real facts. That is what we are crying out for, and not just in the opposition. I believe we reflect that concern within the community which is breeding cynicism and disrespect for our political office right across the country, and specifically in this Territory government. We have to end the spin.
The way to do it is to take this step so we have the capacity to do some deep, real, genuine analysis of the state of numbers in the police force, matched against crime and getting the interrelationship between these two. There are a number of issues in the motion which have been identified in many discussions and in many debates. These have been brought together in one place so we can bring to bear the capacity of that resource, the effectiveness of that resource - the police, the management structures, resources etcetera - against crime within our community. I believe the community is fed up to the back teeth with responses to law and order from the government saying: ‘Ah yes, we feel your pain. Rest assured, I make an absolute guarantee there is going to be x number of police, therefore problem solved’. People have had enough of that. Numbers applied against an express problem do not create a result; they give momentary relief.
The relief people are seeking is not an assurance you will get more police because you identify with their pain. What they are seeking is a noticeable change in the community, an increased respect for law, and the flowing social order that comes from an effective framing of the law; a proper backing of the police; and making sure we work out exactly what the problem is.
You cannot keep pouring money in to support our hard-working police who find themselves up against the odds. When the crime statistics come out we find increases, particularly in violent crime, no matter how it is explained and spun away.
You often charge us, members of the Labor government, to get out there. I can assure you, we do get out there and hear people’s concerns about the nature of crime and how it is developing in the Northern Territory - and it is not pretty. It is very sad the Labor government clutches hold of figures which reflect a national trend in property crime and ignore, or explain away, the massive increase in violent assaults.
To use an analogy of a community which has a problem with thievery, you would try to get an understanding of what is going on in that community. It would be a very different case if you had another community that was not too bothered about breaking into homes and lifting a few goods because they are envious of someone’s wealth and want to grab something, and have no respect for someone else, but for no reason they bash people for fun; kids, young people bashing senior citizens as they did in Palmerston, or breaking into Terrace Gardens and terrorising those most vulnerable in our community.
Once you start looking at that community, you have to ask some deep questions. What is going on? It is inadequate in the extreme to say, as we heard at a public meeting in Palmerston: we are going to get more police; we are going to have cameras. They may well be short-term responses to a profound problem emerging before us. How do we get to the bottom of it? How do we deploy the police force? What is the nature of the law required to be backed up so we can enforce it effectively, and promote real, measurable change? The result will be how do you feel walking down the street? How do you feel in the park? That is measurable. That is what people are after; they are not placated by numbers. The numbers are the application of a resource to a problem. What they are after is a resolution to the problem, and we get some fix on this.
No more spin, please. Let us have a construct; let us have a vehicle, as described here. You can alter it slightly. I am open for business. The purpose is to get to the bottom of it with some hard, clear facts so we can sort it out and break the culture of spin. People can then have a sense their government is working in their best interests, rather than weaving stories to create impressions. They have had enough of it.
The Chief Minister well knows from the public meeting in Palmerston – they have had enough of it - they just want some plain talk, they want some real information. Tell the truth if things are not going too well. Tell us what you are going to do to improve things, or to change things. You cannot keep pouring money in and saying: there you go. It is getting worse; you put more money in and expect a different result. That is madness; that is lunacy. You have to get a proper fix on it. We have to take a scientific approach.
As the Chief Minister said in questions which were asked recently: we are going to assess it; we do not know this and we do not know that, so one day when we know this and we know that, then we might be able to get a solution. It is the same deal here. Here is a capacity to get some deeper analysis on the nature of crime, the application of a resource, and how we can effect and drive real change. That is the purpose of the motion. I would be surprised if government does not support this. If they do not support it, I hope they put something constructive on the table to achieve that objective.
People are fed up with spin and stories about things being done in response to the pain they feel. It is, in fact, a political response to a serious problem which shopkeepers, families, and very sadly, seniors - in this case in Palmerston - any seniors group we go to, people are fed up.
It grieves me when I hear senior citizens feeling increased anxiety about young louts running amok and threatening their peace of mind, and seeing this so graphically portrayed in the media recently. We need to get some tighter thinking around this and some deeper analysis. I urge government members to support this motion, because the purpose of the motion is to give us the tools, real knowledge, the power to craft good policy and affect real change for the benefit of citizens. I urge members to support the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the government will not support the motion for the following reasons. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition in support of his motion, and I would like to work through some of those issues.
Fundamentally, if this motion was to be successful it would essentially confer the powers and responsibilities of running the police force to a parliamentary committee, as opposed to the Commissioner of Police. In regard to the separation of powers between this parliament and the police, I cannot see what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. He is talking about this proposed committee with these established terms of references, how would that link to significantly reducing crime or eliminating crime? There is no bridge there. It goes to the current work practices of the Territory police, levels of resourcing, current numbers of police, and all these issues can be addressed quite quickly. But in relation to eliminating crime in the Northern Territory, there is no bridge.
Section 14 of the Police Administration Act says:
1. Subject to this Act, the Commissioner shall be charged and invested with the general control and management of the Police Force and may, in addition to those powers, exercise any powers conferred on a Superintendent or other officer of the Police Force.
The Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting we amend the Police Administration Act to confer some type of powers on the Legislative Assembly for the management, work practices, effectiveness of ACPOs and auxiliary officers; they are quite rightly and properly vested in the Commissioner of Police.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, there is crime in the Northern Territory and some of the crimes he mentioned are appalling. I am not excusing them, but to think this motion would somehow eliminate those crimes from occurring is patent nonsense.
Every community, every society has a level of crime, some more than others. It is up to politicians to talk about what we do to reduce crime. The terms of reference for this proposed parliamentary committee do not go anywhere near reducing levels of crime. It asks some direct questions of the commissioner regarding the current number of police, including numbers on general duties.
The commissioner has this information; it does change on a day-to-day basis. Police officers move around the Territory. Those numbers are there and I am prepared to provide a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition on the current status of those numbers. They are also reported in the Police Commissioner’s Annual Report, which is tabled in this parliament. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition is inferring in any way the Police Commissioner does not report accurately to this parliament the number of police in the police force and the units in which they operate.
The next area discussed current work practices of Territory police with reference to the process of arrest, average time, and procedures in other jurisdictions. Those are operational matters for the Police Commissioner. Do we really want this parliament directing the police, or any other public service agency, on work practices? I think it is digging a little too deep. If the Police Association has issues regarding work practices, I am sure they raise them with the commissioner. Is it really an issue for us, as parliamentarians, to be looking at work practices of any institution in the Northern Territory? That is why we have chief executive officers; that is why we have a Commissioner of Police and delegate those powers and authorities.
The level of resourcing, again, is open and transparent. It comes through the budget process every year. It is reported to the parliament and in the Police Commissioner’s Annual Report. There are audited financial statements which address the level of resources. Are we going to have a parliamentary inquiry which says the police, as a tri-service, could do with more money? Of course, the answer will be yes. You can have an inquiry into any government agency, and all government agencies could do with more money. If you are going to abrogate responsibility to a committee of the parliament to apportion budgets to government agencies - heaven help us.
Regarding the numbers impact on interrelation of Northern Territory Police with Federal Police, I am not sure what issue the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about. I am more than happy to provide and facilitate a briefing, in the first instance with the commissioner, where you air your concerns on that, Leader of the Opposition. You have not raised them specifically with me. I do not believe we need a parliamentary committee to deal with this. If you have significant concerns as the shadow minister, as the Leader of the Opposition, bring them forward ...
Mr Mills: The police have. Give a briefing to the association.
Mr HENDERSON: I am offering you a briefing with the Police Commissioner to put those issues forward. I am not aware what they are.
Regarding the effectiveness of ACPOs and auxiliary officers, how do we define effectiveness? That is an interesting word and goes to the commissioner’s responsibility under the Police Administration Act. Regarding the act, it invests general control and management of the police force. Is the Leader of the Opposition really suggesting this parliamentary committee write the job descriptions and duty statements for ACPOs and auxiliary officers if the committee does not like the job descriptions or duty statements of those sections of the police? If we are getting into that level of detail with the police, I wonder why we pay chief executive officers and Police Commissioners to run the force.
Other matters relevant to the performance of the Territory Police Force – is this just opening up a witch-hunt where every aggrieved person with a gripe against the police will be able to present to the committee and say their matter needs to be considered? It is a very broad statement: ‘Any such issues relevant to the inquiry’. Are we going to have a parliamentary inquiry which will be a total witch-hunt into our police force? What is the allegation in regard to our police force that can open the door to every aggrieved person to make an allegation …
Mr Mills: The crime statistics.
Mr HENDERSON: You talk about crime statistics, Leader of the Opposition; there is no other jurisdiction in Australia which provides comprehensive quarterly reports on crime statistics. Are you alleging, Leader of the Opposition, that these quarterly reports provided through Justice on information derived from PROMIS are inaccurate? What is this committee going to do with the information provided on a quarterly basis? No other jurisdiction in Australia reports crime on a quarterly basis, and our Police Commissioner reports comprehensively in his annual report regarding crime statistics, and other reports are made available during the year.
The commissioner did report on violent crime and domestic violence; a report was produced regarding those statistics which we have debated up hill and down dale on why they are increasing subsequent to extra resources into this area.
The commissioner has already answered these questions. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying: ‘I do not believe the government, I do not believe the Chief Minister, and I do not believe the commissioner’? Where do you go from here? These reports of crime statistics are provided by the Commissioner of Police. Are you saying, Leader of the Opposition, that the Commissioner of Police is not to be trusted in the information his agency provides to Justice to derive their quarterly reports, and he provides to this parliament on an annual basis?
I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what is this very wide-ranging proposed parliamentary inquiry supposed to deliver to Territorians? He talked about crime statistics, but he did not advocate in his speech supporting this motion there is a problem with the crime statistics. There is certainly a problem with crime; we would love to eliminate crime. Regarding the statistics, we are more open, transparent and accountable in the Northern Territory than anywhere else in Australia.
The facts speak for themselves. The police force has increased by 339 positions since 2001. That is a fact. Unless there are many phantom police officers out there drawing salaries who do not exist, there are now 1257 paid police in the force, with more to come this year. There are already over 1030 sworn officers throughout the Territory. We have broken the 1000 barrier. It seems every two or three months I am at a graduation parade where there is one squad graduating, and at least one or two squads in the college. In past years you would be lucky to have one squad graduate a year. All these police I see graduating on a regular basis, they do not exist? They do exist.
The 2009 report on government services demonstrates we have twice as many police per head of population than the rest of Australia. If you do not believe the Police Commissioner, and you do not believe the Chief Minister and the Police minister of the Northern Territory, then that report on government services must be part of the collusion regarding phantom police officers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports the clean-up rates of Northern Territory police are second to none compared to the national average in respect of serious crimes, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, driving causing death, robbery, unlawful entry with intent, and motor vehicle theft. Our police are out there to be a proactive presence and to respond to acts of crime and clean those up; and they do a great job.
There is an increasing representation of Indigenous members in the police force. There are now 69% more Aboriginal Community Police Officers in the force than in 2003, and the commissioner has put in place pathways for those ACPOs to become fully sworn police officers. The number of fully sworn Indigenous police officers has also improved significantly over the years.
This motion would essentially open up a witch-hunt into the operations and the management of the Northern Territory police. There are no clear reasons for doing that. These public inquiries are normally on the back of issues such as corruption; there is no allegation of that in the Northern Territory. There have been several reviews conducted internally since the introduction of the continuous improvement program in 2002. The police force has reviewed its frontline police service delivery, both internal and external; major force structure reviews have been taken in response to the college, the Territory Intelligence Division, the Joint Emergency Services Communications Centre, and Alice Springs Communications regarding police prosecutions of violent crime and major crash and accident investigation services. Specific work groups have been set up and subject to reviews, including a review of the ACPOs and the Police Auxiliary Scheme; and those reviews are shared internally.
The Leader of the Opposition articulated there is crime in the Northern Territory; we know there is crime in the Territory, and we would all love to eliminate crime from the Northern Territory. Governments can always do more; we could provide more resources. He argued against putting more resources into the police force and suggested more of a preventative course. I am happy to have that debate. The terms of reference of this inquiry are very broad-ranging and quite unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory, and our parliament, regarding its relationship with our police force. It would certainly interfere with the objective requirement under the Police Administration Act that the commissioner, and the commissioner alone, shall be charged and vested with the general control and management of the police force.
The Leader of the Opposition wants this committee to look into the management of the police force, its effectiveness and work practices. These are issues for the commissioner, under the act. In a spirit of cooperation with our new Council of Territory Cooperation, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be more specific regarding policing.
I offer the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Police minister a genuine olive branch here. If he has specific issues which have been raised by the Police Association, members of the public or other organisations regarding management of our police force - how it is structured, where officers are deployed - I can provide a full and comprehensive briefing from the commissioner, including the current number of police, where they are located, which specific units they are in.
I see that information on a regular basis, and I am happy for the commissioner to brief him to that effect. Public confidence in our police force is important and we must show this parliament has confidence in our police force to serve and protect the people of the Northern Territory. I urge the Leader of the Opposition, if he has specific concerns; I genuinely offer him an opportunity to be fully briefed by the commissioner or other officers.
It would be a sad signal for this parliament to send to the people of the Northern Territory that we have, as a parliament, lost confidence in our police force and need to establish a wide-ranging committee of inquiry into the operation and management of our police force; we have lost confidence in our police force that the only way we can restore it is to have a wide-ranging, open-ended inquiry into, potentially, all operations of our police force - other matters relevant to the performance’ and ‘any such issues’ – extraordinarily wide terms of reference. I believe that would send a sad and bad signal to the people of the Northern Territory.
I urge the four ex-police officers in the opposition to think very deeply about this. I do not believe any case has been made for an unprecedented, extensive parliamentary inquiry into work practices, the effectiveness, the management of our police force, or any other such matters. As a parliament, if this passes, we are saying to the people of the Northern Territory we have very serious concerns, and I do not believe that has been articulated here today.
With all the integrity I can muster, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come and speak to me and I will arrange a briefing. If you are genuine, and you have specific and real concerns, then let us deal with them in an appropriate manner before sending a bad signal to the people of the Northern Territory.
Our police force is not perfect, no organisation is perfect, but they do a fantastic job. They do a difficult, dangerous and very challenging job in very difficult circumstances. I believe they need our support as a parliament.
To establish such a wide-ranging, unprecedented, public inquiry into the effectiveness, management, and any other matters regarding our police force sends a very strong signal, and I would urge members to oppose the establishment of this committee.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I believe people of the Northern Territory should be concerned their Police minister has such a poor understanding of the operations of the Northern Territory Police Force. He showed his ignorance regarding very important matters in human resources within the Northern Territory police.
The Chief Minister said there are 339 extra police officers in the Northern Territory since 2001. Where on earth are they? Since 2001 there has been no increase in the number of general duties patrols on the road at any police station in the Northern Territory. Casuarina has had two general duties patrols since 2001. Katherine has had two general duties patrols since 2001. That theme is repeated across the Northern Territory. On that basis alone a review is necessary. We need to find out where those extra 339 police are.
When I talk to police officers - and I still do on a regular basis - the cry I hear from them is they are so overworked many of them are becoming burnt-out. They have seen no increase in the number of general duties officers on patrol, and their overtime continues at extremely high rates. I was talking to a police officer half-an-hour ago, and that officer informed me she did 20 hours of overtime in the last fortnight, and it is common for police officers to do 20, 30 or 40 hours of overtime in a fortnight.
Much of that is related to the number of police officers required to be on duty at any given time. They are not given carte blanche access to overtime; they do overtime because there are not enough general duties police officers. That is why the Chief Minister is completely missing the point here. We need to know where our police officers are.
Currently, there are five computer systems used to track where police officers are in the Northern Territory. One is Staff Plan, one is Personnel and Information Payroll System, and one is myHR, which many people would be familiar with, and there are the operational computer systems, PROMIS and IJIS.
Staff Plan is the main and overarching HR computer system in the Northern Territory Police Force and contained within that is a confusing array of categories of where police officers are located - police officers can be allocated an actual position, a nominal position, a supernumerary position, could be paid inoperative, or unpaid inoperative. If one police officer is posted to Tennant Creek and is asked to relieve at Ali Curung, he or she is will be on Staff Plan twice. He or she will be filling a nominal position at Tennant Creek and an actual position at Ali Curung.
That is why no one in the police force or the government can give an accurate snapshot of how many police are in the Northern Territory Police Force right now. No one can say where those police officers are posted, and in what sections they are all working; that system does not allow for it. What it allows for is a convoluted arrangement where figures are easy to misread or fudge. It is very simple to do that. They are tools used by senior management to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone making an inquiry relating to police numbers.
The motion refers to current work practices of the Northern Territory Police, with particular reference to the process of arrest, including average time. I have noticed the time it takes to process an arrest, computer work and other jobs has increased significantly. In the past, two police officers could make an arrest, bring a person back to the watch-house, process that person, do all the paperwork, and have the prosecution file finished to a standard to be submitted for first mention within one hour. Now it takes two hours to do that, and it would take two-and-a-half hours in a more complex case. The reason is the change in the computer system. I can assure you the Northern Territory Police Force has not doubled to accommodate the extra time it takes to process prisoners.
I heard the Chief Minister say earlier the Leader of the Opposition was talking about crime rates, and the number of police does not reflect on rates of crime in the Northern Territory. I refute that 100%. There is a direct correlation between the number of general duties police officers performing proactive police work rather than racing from job to job. These police officers sit in a patrol car and drive around the streets at 40 km/h - that is proactive policing - they are looking for people who could, would, may be about to commit a crime; they are looking for people involved in antisocial behaviour. Without that resource on the street, we have no way of dealing with increased levels of crime other than what this government is proposing - to build a bigger prison. That seems to be the only way they intend addressing rising crime rates in the Northern Territory.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If the extra 339 police officers were put into general duties in the Northern Territory, you could double the number of general duties patrols in every major town and catch people before they stopped to commit the crime. They do not commit crimes, because they see general duties police officers driving around. That seems to be a point missed by the government. They do not seem to have strategies to deal with it other than to build a new prison.
The Chief Minister mentioned quite extensively the increase in the number of Aboriginal Community Police Officers, and the increase in the percentage of Indigenous people working in the police force. I applaud the increases, and the strategies to increase the number of Indigenous police officers because a lack of general duties police officers means ACPOs are often used as a de facto second patrol. That is another statistic the Chief Minister did not feel comfortable mentioning, which tells me the Chief Minister does not have an understanding of what police officers are doing. They are just simply not out there.
The Chief Minister mentioned how wonderful their statistics have become, quarterly statistics that outshine every other jurisdiction. My concern with that is the police force has moved to a statistics-based model of policing. They have lost sight of what they are out there to do - prevent and detect crime.
To justify its expenditure on police, the government allow the statistics to be built up to a level to show more police are needed. Looking at it from the other direction, they could have put more police on to bring statistics down if they had put police officers in the right place.
The Northern Territory Police Association has publicly commented on these issues. They have also called for a review of police officers in the Northern Territory. They cannot get a clear indication of where police officers are on any day in the Northern Territory. It is not because the commissioner will not tell them; the commissioner does not know where all his police officers are because he does not have access to computer systems that can tell him. Those systems are so convoluted you cannot obtain the information.
I said this afternoon police numbers out on general duties have not changed since 2001; that tells me the number of general duties police has not increased. There are moves afoot to reduce, in some places, the number of patrols on the street. A case in point is Katherine. Senior management has suggested Katherine does not need two police patrols on duty on a 24/7 basis; at 5 o’clock on a Monday morning there is no need to have two general duties police patrols on the street. Management says that. I wholeheartedly disagree with them. With due deference to all the good work our public service do, policing is a unique career.
If a crisis happens in the department of Housing, they sharpen their pencils and away they go. If a crisis happens in an area which falls within the purview of the police force, it is bullet proof vests on, guns ready. That makes policing a unique experience; a unique job. You cannot be a slave to looking at the number of police on the road without taking into account occupational health and safety issues.
Now, without the backup of a second patrol, police officers …
Mr Elferink: If there are 300 more police, why are they cutting down patrols?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. There are not enough police officers to go around - that is why they are looking at cutting back patrols in some areas ...
A member: Where are they all?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not know. That is another reason to have a review of police numbers, to get to the bottom of this. What a ridiculous contention, with a growing population across the Northern Territory we have to tear back the number of police officers on the road at any given time. What on earth are they thinking?
I mentioned before the use of ACPOs to bolster the number of patrols on the road. They should be an additional resource; ACPOs are under utilised and they are often used as drunk patrols. They have a far more important role in providing a liaison opportunity between non-Indigenous policing and Indigenous groups. And that is another story.
In the same vein, giving the perception there are more police officers on the road, I refer to comments I made in relation to the use of police prosecutors. Police prosecutors would appear at court wearing plain clothes, but they were directed to wear a uniform. The reason given at the time was to give the perception of more general duties police officers on the road. They were seen walking from their car to the court.
The member for Karama raised her eyebrows at me - that is the fact. I was there ...
Ms Lawrie: I actually raised my eyebrows at something sent to me.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Did you? Thank you, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: I am flattered you think I am listening.
A member: You should be listening.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Karama should be listening because it is arrogance that comes from that side of the House. They will not sit and listen to reasoned argument from this side of the House because it is politics - that is just reprehensible; unbelievable. Only a few days ago we had an agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson promising more accountable, open government, no spin. Now the member for Karama is sitting there telling me she is not listening to what I am saying.
Thank you, member for Karama, I am sure the people of the Northern Territory really appreciate your attitude ...
Mr Conlan: I am sure the people in Karama, who are facing these antisocial issues, will be very interested.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Northern Territory Police Association, which is also a big stakeholder in this, has also been calling for a review of police numbers. We are not unique, on this side of the House, in calling for this ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not believe we are being particularly critical of anyone here. The system does not allow for a snapshot of police officers in the Northern Territory at this very moment. That is why we need to review human resources in the Northern Territory Police Force so we can understand what is going on there; so we can make important decisions on policy for the police force into the future.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this motion.
I am astounded at the response of the Chief Minister, the minister for Police, who revealed he did now know there were issues with the relationship between federal and local police. He did not know, and argued there is no link between crime statistics and the role of police. He closed down any reasonable consideration of what was put on the table to ensure the resources we have are designed to match and meet and deal with crime in our community was necessary. It begs the question; if the member for Nelson had brought this proposition to the Chief Minister, maybe his argument would have been different.
That is what concerns me about this; I do not believe the leopard has changed its spots at all. That speech was designed to prevent any scrutiny. All those weak arguments were run to resist any level of honest scrutiny into our hard-working police which may produce a result to improve our crime statistics. It is astonishing to find a chief minister who argues there is no link between crime statistics and the role of the police. That is a very weak and shallow response. The wicked web we weave when we try to deceive.
This is about getting to the bottom of the matter so we have clear data, so we can improve our delivery of law and order to our citizens, particularly our senior citizens, who are troubled by the rising crime in our community. We need to back up police and ensure we have the right management structures. I cannot believe the arrogant position taken by the Chief Minister, who is defying logic in his weak argument to defend his government’s position in resisting any level of scrutiny in the interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
However, his political life depended upon it. If the member for Nelson had suggested it, I am sure he would have been all ears.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
Madam Speaker, 2007 will forever be remembered as the year the Territory sacrificed its sovereignty to the Commonwealth government and became little more than a provincial dumping ground for federal policies and southern mindsets. It was the year thousands of Territorians were forced to make considerable changes to their lifestyles without proper explanation, education or justification, because it was what the federal government wanted. Members on the other side may think I am referring to the Commonwealth’s intervention into Aboriginal communities; a day Labor members of this House will recall with horror – but, in many ways, one of the most forward-looking interventions in the Territory’s recent history.
What I am referring to, of course, is the introduction of speed limits in the Northern Territory on roads previously without restrictions. With the stroke of a pen, the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, ended decades of tradition that allowed Territorians to decide at what speed they would drive when travelling along our major highways outside built-up areas.
The introduction of speed limits was made without consulting the community, or based on any statistical blowout that had occurred during previous years. There were many hotly-contested debates. I remember reading in the Parliamentary Record of 29 November 2006, part of a statement by the member for Nelson, when he said it was the day the Territory changed forever.
It was a decision taken purely because the Martin government caved into pressure from the Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictional leaders, to fall in line with the rest of the country and introduce a speed limit - any speed limit - or else.
The threat of Commonwealth funding being frozen to the Territory by withholding payments under Competition Policy had been made before. In either 1999 or 2000, the then Transport minister, Mick Palmer, of the Country Liberal Party, managed to negotiate a way through the legal and constitutional pressure he was under from the states and Commonwealth and avoid the introduction of speed limits.
Times have changed, and come 2006, the Labor government had no stomach for a fight with the Commonwealth, and it capitulated. That is why we had so much trouble justifying the change to the community. The decision this government made was both political and economical. Political as previously outlined, and economical in the sense the government saw fit not to keep the standards of our roads to an appropriate level required for an open road.
Anyone who drives on our roads and highways will be well aware of the standard and degradation since Labor came to office. One only needs to travel on the Stuart Highway and check the verges, the trees growing in the run-off. Travel along the Arnhem Highway and check the shoulders. When did the Central Arnhem Highway become the Central Arnhem road through government neglect? What focus has been put on pastoral roads and community roads? None. That is the reason this was economical.
The speed limit changes were announced in 2006, an unremarkable year insofar as the road toll was concerned. That year the death toll on Territory roads was 44, which is unacceptably high by any measure, but an improvement on the road toll trend of previous years, and the average road toll for the Territory. Since 1981, the average annual road toll had been under 58 - 58 fatalities too many. An appalling number that disguises the carnage and untold human misery associated with road trauma.
Since 1981, per head of population, the Northern Territory road toll has actually gone down. That year the Territory’s population was 120 000 or thereabouts, and the death toll on our roads was 70. On a per capita basis, this compares favourably with the 2006 road toll of 44, when the Territory’s population was fast approaching 220 000 people.
In the years before the open speed limit was introduced, the Territory’s road toll had flatlined. In 2005, it was 55; in 2004, an unexpectedly low 35 people were killed; in 2003, 53 people died on our roads; in 2002, 55 were killed. In prior years there were 50, 51 and 49 fatalities on Northern Territory roads. It is worth pointing out that the Northern Territory road toll is unacceptably high.
By world standards, it ranks alongside Turkey for the proportion of fatalities per 100 000 people. The cause of this anomaly was somewhat overlooked when Labor took the open road speed policies on board. The point in highlighting those figures is to show the Martin government was not acting on any statistical change which would warrant a knee-jerk reaction of the kind this government so likes. It corresponded to pressure from other jurisdictions and the Commonwealth to make life easier for themselves at COAG, or other gatherings that involve face-to-face meetings with Labor ministers interstate.
Labor is not a free-standing organisation like the Country Liberals or the members for Macdonnell and Nelson. The member for Nelson campaigned so hard on the no speed limit campaign; he even had a sticker on his previous car. He was the orchestrator of the no speed limit campaign. We all remember the stickers; the member for Nelson drove that. He took that policy to his election, and people in his electorate voted for no speed limit.
The Labor Party is a federally-based organisation with state affiliates. At the bottom of the pecking order is the Northern Territory Labor Party. It takes orders from its colleagues in Canberra, Sussex Street, Sydney, and Spring Street, Melbourne. Those people know nothing about life outside their enclaves; they took a look at the Northern Territory, saw open roads and said, over their chardonnays, it is bad and has to be changed. Change it they did, without a shred of empiric evidence to back up the change.
The then Minister for Transport, the member for Johnston, and then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, pushed the new speed limit through without a grain of consultation. By consultation and stakeholders, I mean Territorians; Territorians who were badly let down by speed limit changes. The southerners who were pressuring Clare Martin and the member for Johnston had no idea of distances associated with driving in the Northern Territory.
On ABC radio last week, the head of the Pedestrian Council, Harold Scruby, said there was no difference driving in Queensland or Western Australia than driving in the Northern Territory. For Mr Scruby’s information, there is plenty of difference - it is called isolation. In Queensland you will not drive for the better part of a day and only come in contact with one town or community. It is hard here at the best of times, especially when you are forced to drive at 130 km/h when your car can cruise at 150 km/h or 160 km/h with ease.
The story told by the number of fatalities on Territory roads does not end with the introduction of speed limits on the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem or Victoria Highways. To the contrary, 2007 saw the road toll climb compared to the previous year; it was higher than any time since 1998, with 57 fatalities for the year. Last year saw the Territory record its second highest road toll with 75 fatalities. This shocking figure confirmed suspicions of those who believed speed was not the primary factor in road deaths in the Northern Territory.
The Country Liberals stated when changes were made to speed limits it would not bring down road fatalities; all it would do is add hours to the trip and contribute to fatigue, which is a significant problem in the Northern Territory already.
Speed limits in remote areas are almost impossible to enforce, and attempting to do so has diverted police resources out of towns where they are needed to address law and order and antisocial behaviour, and have the greatest impact. The government has failed to provide proof of the impact of speed limits on the road toll.
Territorians are still frustrated and angry at the introduction of speed limits. Labor has this innate inability to properly consult with its constituents instead of railroading change through without first explaining the need. The road tolls following the introduction of speed limits show speed on the open highway are not the main cause of the Territory’s road toll. The biggest single contributor is alcohol, followed by the failure to wear seat belts, and fatigue. This is followed by our young drivers, tourists, and the Indigenous population of the Territory.
The single cause of the vast majority of these fatalities is not being addressed - drink-driving. More than 50% of all accidents in the Northern Territory are a result of drink-driving. Pick up the paper on any given day to see the police have been acting on drink-driving assessment and identify that as the case. Instead of introducing a change not backed by research, Labor would have been better served to significantly increase funding for education programs to promote the importance of wearing a seat belt, or significantly increasing the contribution to driver training across the Territory. Both measures would have contributed much more to reducing the road toll than speed limits.
Alcohol is the number one contributor to road deaths in the Territory. The Labor Party has repeatedly blocked our amendments to introduce confiscation and crushing of vehicles for repeat high range drink-drivers. This measure makes more sense than punishing every Territorian by introducing unpopular speed limits without consultation.
The Country Liberals believe motorists should be able to drive to the conditions along these Territory highways instead of driving to an artificial speed limit which may not suit all motorists, especially international tourists.
In moving this motion, I want to remind members speed restrictions would apply on roads where roadworks are taking place, or where conditions are so bad, through neglect by this government, as to be judged unsafe for speed.
I urge members they need have no fear of trying to unscramble the egg because as the government introduced this legislation with minimal consultation, so too can parliament remove it, with ease, from the statutes.
In closing, I call on the member for Nelson to remember his constituents when he casts a vote at the end of this debate. Remember the sticker he invented; remember the debate he drove; remember the policies he took to his people. Some of the fiercest opposition to speed limits came from his electorate, and other bush seats. If I recall correctly the member for Nelson had a speed limit sticker on the back of his car promoting that policy. For the sake of good governance and good sense, I urge the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell to vote with the Country Liberals on this important motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, road safety is everybody’s business. This government makes no apologies for wanting to protect Territorians and Territory families. Throughout the world there is a multitude of evidence which says excessive speed makes both the likelihood and the severity of the crash far greater. Speed kills, and addressing excessive speed is one part of the Henderson government’s road safety strategy.
In 2007, we saw the introduction of the government’s road safety reform agenda. The government agreed with road safety experts and the AANT that the reforms would take time to make a fundamental change to our road safety record. Excessive speeding is reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour. We need to change our driving culture in the Territory. The Australian Medical Association supports an enforced speed limit for Territory roads. Hospitals and emergency departments are clogged needlessly with road accident victims. The road toll this year stands at 17 compared to 45 at the same time last year; but we do agree 17 is too many.
We have adopted a speed limit on our main highways that is responsible and workable; the road toll is down in areas where 130 km/h limits were introduced on 1 January 2007. Tragically, five people have been killed in 130 km/h zone areas this year, seven in 2008, and six in 2007. This compares to an average of more than 12 people per year in the five years prior to speed limits, with 16 people dying in 2002, 16 in 2003, 11 in 2004, 14 in 2005, and six in 2006. The fatalities recorded in the now 130 km/h zone on the Stuart Highway are particularly tragic, averaging over nine fatalities per year prior to speed limits. Since the introduction of speed limits this has reduced to an average of five fatalities per year to date - five too many. I have a document I would like to table.
From 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009, police issued a total of 359 infringements in 130 km/h zones. I would suggest 359 infringements that saved Territory lives.
This Henderson government will continue its efforts to improve road safety outcomes for all Territorians. We will continue to work to reduce the unacceptable carnage on our roads because one death on our roads is one too many ...
A member: Then ban cars, if you believe that.
Mr McCARTHY: I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, a learned man, a former teacher, who has spent many hours delivering important messages to our youth and our children, he must know the message he sends to young people with this motion is that it is okay to drive fast. No matter how many other words we put around this, if the Leader of the Opposition goes out and says we should not have speed limits, the message young people receive is it is okay to speed. We will not achieve the culture change required to improve our road toll while young people are getting this message from one side of politics.
Mr Elferink: Then stop giving them drivers licences.
Mr McCARTHY: My 19-year-old son is planning a road trip home at the end of his university semester, and he wants to bring his mates. I implore the Leader of the Opposition, and I implore the shadow minister for Transport, not to go through with this motion as I do not want them arriving on the border of the Northern Territory with the attitude of: ‘Hurtle in, boys, everything is open’.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the arguments, and with all due respect to the Minister for Transport, not much of what he said made sense. To suggest 359 speeding infringements saved 359 lives; I do not know how the minister can make that assumption. What is he trying to say? Is he suggesting we would have had 359 more deaths had police not given people a ticket? It does not make much sense at all.
I support this motion; it is a sensible motion. It takes the Territory back to where it was prior to the introduction of speed limits on our open roads.
I will read the motion again:
We know road standards have reduced in the last eight years of this government; that is the reason the government imposed the speed limit. When I first came to the Northern Territory in 1987 there was no dispute whatsoever; the Northern Territory had the best roads in Australia. I remember crossing the border at Camooweal on a little, old, dirt, track, then you hit the Northern Territory and there was this beautiful, big, wide, flat, bitumen road - it was like you had driven into another country. I drove across the narrow, windy western Queensland roads and then came into the Northern Territory with beautiful big roads. These days it is the opposite.
We see the Barkly Highway falling to bits. We had disasters last year when we were cut off from Queensland because government had failed to adequately maintain the Barkly Highway; it was crumbling at the edges. There had been a build-up of water from the Wet Season and it completely washed the road away due to the lack of maintenance occurring on that road in the last eight years.
This government has been extraordinarily neglectful of roads. Road standards are not the same as they used to be. We should not be belting Territorians around the ears because of the mismanagement of government. Where road standards are not up to scratch, there need to be limitations. Where road standards are adequate, people should be able to travel at a speed responsibly. Deep down, I believe the member for Barkly understands. I fail to see how a person living in Tennant Creek could believe every motorist on the highway would be a maniac if there were open speed limits. Far from it - I do not believe the member for Barkly believes that to be the case.
The vast majority of drivers in the Northern Territory are sensible, and drive at a sensible speed. A sensible speed is determined by a range of different factors: what time of the day you are driving; the condition of the road; where you drive; and whether there are big, windy areas or long straights. The vast majority of people are sensible. For those people who are not sensible it does not matter what you do, they are going to break the rules. Those people end up wrapped around telephone poles.
In the rural areas where you have 80 km speed limits, they are the ones who speed. In nearly all our electorates we have hoons who openly defy laws. We should not be penalising all Territorians because of a few hoons. Territorians are eminently sensible; they know how to drive at a sensible speed and they know how to drive responsibly. The paternalistic nature of this government, the fun police of the Labor Party, the nanny state we have now in the Northern Territory, is not Territorian.
One of the excuses this government used in the past was they were pressured by Canberra ...
Dr Burns: Never used that excuse.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I am glad to hear that, because I …
Dr Burns: That is completely untrue.
Mr TOLLNER: That is good to hear; I am glad the Leader of Government Business has confirmed that is untrue. I was in Canberra at the time, and Canberra did not pressure the Northern Territory government. The then Transport minister, John Anderson, was on a crusade around Australia trying to increase speed limits states had put in place, most particularly between Canberra and Sydney where they have a six-lane highway limited to a maximum of 110 km/h.
John Anderson could not understand why motorists were forced to amble to Sydney where the road could quite easily handle motorists driving at much higher speeds than 110 km/h. It is not the case that Canberra pressured the Northern Territory government.
I apologise to the government for having that perception. There is that perception in some elements of the community.
It is worthwhile me making a pitch to the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell, and to remind the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: You love me now. That is a change.
Mr TOLLNER: I have never disliked you personally, member for Nelson, but I have to be honest, I do have some major concerns about this sordid little deal you have concocted with the Chief Minister, to the exclusion of other members of the government. The member for Nelson has been on the …
Mr Wood: Yes, I am reading it at the moment.
Mr TOLLNER: … record saying he is anti speed limits on what was the open highway. It would be fair to say the member for Nelson has, in some ways, led the charge against speed limits, certainly from a Country Liberals perspective. He has informed us and provided us with information to rail against the speed limits that were put in place ...
Mr Wood: Is this same man who was talking to me before?
Mr TOLLNER: I do recall the member for Nelson quite proudly displaying this bumper sticker on his motor car …
Mr Wood: You pinched my design.
Mr TOLLNER: The design was provided to the Country Liberal Party by the member for Nelson. The Country Liberal Party used the design, used the template, but badged the little thing down the bottom saying CLP. This bumper sticker is a direct copy of bumper stickers made by the member for Nelson.
I seek leave to table this bumper sticker.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: It is good to have this historical evidence on the public record. I do not know which way the member for Nelson might go on this particular issue, but I am hoping the member for Nelson will see reason, will review my comments from years gone by and will consider the information and commitments he has given his electorate.
Let us think about this sordid little deal the member for Nelson has made and what his electorate might think about it. The member for Nelson has run in three elections, in 2001, 2005 and 2008. In 2001, the first preference vote of the Labor Party …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have many issues to get through today, and the CLP is concerned we will not get through them; they are looking to extend the hours. This is a personal dig at me, which does not concern me, however, we do have many things to get through.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to address your comments to the debate.
Mr TOLLNER: May I speak to the point of order?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may speak to the point of order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is relevant because this is the mandate on which the member for Nelson was elected. The member for Nelson may well see himself now as the controller of parliamentary proceedings …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I did advise the member for Nelson there was no point of order. You do have the call if you would like to continue.
Mr TOLLNER: It seems now the member for Nelson has set himself up as the person who dictates how our parliament will run. To suggest I have to hurry through this because of some agenda someone else might have is absurd. We can easily move to suspend standing orders and keep running, with your support, member for Nelson, if that …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his remarks through the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, and to focus your comments on the debate at hand.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the mandate the member for Nelson received in 2001, 2005 and 2008 and what that might mean in relation to supporting the Labor Party in a sordid little deal. 2001, the Labor Party’s first preference vote in the electorate of Nelson was 9.7%. In 2005, the Labor Party’s first preference vote in the electorate of Nelson was an absolute whopping 12.6%. In 2008, it was 8.7% of the primary vote. In 2008, the introduction of speed limits may have had something to do with the level of support the Labor Party received in the electorate of Nelson ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I ask the member for Nelson, in the kindest possible manner, to seriously consider his history on this issue. Consider these beautiful bumper stickers we put together with your help and support; for that the Country Liberals thank you, and all those people who support our open highways, thank you. Reflect on your history, reflect on what people will say about these campaigns you may or may not lead in the future. This is a memorable one, and one I hope you recall. I urge all members to support this motion. It is a sensible motion, and it brings back a bit of the Territory lifestyle.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a new disease around that needs treatment; it is called ‘Gerry Mania’. Some people have tunnel vision.
This issue was brought to me yesterday. Out of the blue, no discussion, and then …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, there was very little notice of this coming on the papers ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: there is continual interjection from the other side. I am interested to hear what the member for Nelson has to say; members on the other side want to hear what he has to say. Let us be silent and hear what he has got to say.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business.
Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51:
Mr WOOD: I am on the record saying I support open speed limits. This came to me yesterday. The debate in this House was multifaceted, it not only related to open speed limits, it related to the methodology the government used to get there, and also how the 130 km/h speed limit came to fruition. There were a number of important issues being debated in regard to this.
I was not opposed to the speed limit being removed from many of our minor roads. The Daly River road was an open speed limit road, and it is not a road you should be travelling on at high speed. The Borroloola road might be straight, but it is not the greatest piece of bitumen in the world. There was a need to change some of the open speed limitations on several roads. Roads like the Victoria Highway, you can go faster than presently allowed.
The issue I had at that time was the government set up its own review of road safety. My understanding was that review only spoke to Health and Police; there was very little input into that decision and that was one of my main complaints. We should look at whether open speed limits are a factor in increased accidents, but we should be careful we involve the public.
We were not allowed to look at the repercussions of what was being put forward. The motion last night talked about the Victoria and Stuart Highways. I immediately ask why the Barkly is not included ...
Mr Giles: The Barkly is in the motion.
Mr WOOD: The reason I was not going to support it at short notice was because I thought we could review what has happened since the speed limit was lowered to 130 km/h. I believe we should still be allowed to drive faster than 130 km/h on certain roads, but we do owe it to the public not to change it with debate. If we are going to reverse it, there should be some scientific data put before this Assembly …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: It is not just about the challenge, it is about injuries and car accidents and whether they occurred or not. That was information you could not get before. If we are going to argue it is okay to increase the speed limit - provide proof. If this comes in and there is a car accident and someone is killed, I know where the blame will be.
If you base your change on scientific data and tell this House it has been looked at scientifically and there is no evidence of change in the number of accidents or fatalities on the Barkly, Stuart, and Victoria Highways, you can then say it has been investigated and would make no difference. But you come here and say, ‘Change it’ and expect me to agree.
Regardless of the member for Fong Lim talking about mandates, we all know there are many reasons why you are voted in, and that was not one of the main reasons I was voted in; there are many reasons. The CLP does not even have the decency to ask me: ‘Would you mind if we use your sticker?’ I saw a car out the front with my sticker, and I looked for my name on it because I put my name on the sticker, but it was CLP ...
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of your opinion on this matter, you would think good manners, honest and open government, would ask me ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Nelson is quite prepared to jump up and suggest someone else is alleging corruption, now he is quite prepared, in relation to …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I ask you to ask him to withdraw those comments. There was nothing inappropriate about what was done; it was done with his permission.
Ms Scrymgour: You like throwing mud, but you do not like it when it is thrown back.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. A little tongue in cheek, but it was my design; it was my sticker …
Mr Tollner: We just said that.
Ms Carney: And you wanted us to use it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, please.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, as this bill stands it is inappropriate to change the open speed limits. I agree some of the highways should have open speed limits, but it needs to be supported by facts and scientific evidence. To change this overnight could lead to being accused of taking a political step. The CLP used it as a political promise in the last election. Without backing it up with evidence is fraught with danger.
I would like to see the speed limits changed, but before I go down that path, I would like to see a review of what effect the reduction in the speed limit has had on all matters relating to cars, accidents, injuries and fatalities. We have to make sure we know where they were and what caused them. That would be a far better approach to this.
It was a very emotional issue when it happened. There are people who do not want speed limits changed. I would prefer a more cautious approach. I would hope, after a review, we could open the speed limits up on some of our major highways. I travel the highways; I have just been to Kununurra, and there are times you would like to go faster, but cannot.
The other aspect is a practical approach. Are we really going to be policing people between Katherine and the Victoria River Roadhouse? Are we going to put our resources into catching the one or two? We know a very small percentage go over 140 km/h; the government did a survey which showed very few people travel over that speed. There are some practical implications for not bothering about it - you are not going to put the police resources out there.
I am willing to support changes to the open speed limit, but we need to do it carefully and wisely, and make sure the community understand the reasoning behind it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, member for Nelson, I will critique some of the things you have said, but not as a personal attack. I believe what you have said is incorrect, so please do not take it personally.
The attack here is actually on government policy of bringing in the open speed limits in the first place. If you sit on the fence for too long, you get splinters in your backside. You have to go one way or the other in this debate ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr GILES: Let me explain. The debate on 29 November 2006, in the motion you moved, member for Nelson, according to Hansard, says:
I talk about sitting on the fence because without the appropriate data you cannot have that argument. If we took on board what the member for Nelson said, and referred it to a committee, there is no time line and there is no data that could go to this committee to assess how effective or ineffective speed limits are. If the review found it was favourable to bring back open roads, there is no process regarding introduction, and no time line. There are inherent flaws in the process of review.
In 2006 there was no data to support a case for introducing speed limits in the first place. It is the same now; there is no data to back that case up.
Your assertion that 359 people have been fined so 359 lives have been saved is absolutely ludicrous. Talking about your son and his mates crossing the border and hurtling down the road like idiots – well, we are talking about people driving responsibly to road conditions, to the car’s condition, to your ability.
We have hooning legislation; the police have the power to charge people, or arrest them, or whatever needs doing. This is about giving people the opportunity to drive to their ability, and to the road conditions.
This government has let roads deteriorate over a number of years. We would not place open speed limits where the conditions have deteriorated so badly under this government. We would not place open speed limits on areas where it is deemed unsafe to do so. We believe Territorians had their lifestyle eroded because they had freedom of choice taken away. If we thought this policy was a bad policy, based on scientific evidence, we would reconsider it. I have offered that before, but you will not even give me a briefing.
From the lack of information you have just spoken about, I am sure there is no data. The website talks about the number of deaths but does not say where, or the cause of accidents. Was speeding a cause? There is no evidence at all; this tabled paper says nothing.
The fatalities that occurred within the 130 km/h, were they drunk? Were they wearing a seat belt? Did they fall asleep? Was it fatigue because they were driving so slowly? Did they hit a cow? This is absolutely nothing. This is the point of my argument regarding data. I thought you were just incompetent and would not provide me a briefing out of nastiness or politics. But you have an incompetent department with no information. We have an argument about speed, and you talk about people dying. Perhaps the fact is fewer people are driving on the roads, you could have presented that argument. Is that the case? People have to drive so slowly, they now fly. What is the argument?
It might come down to a policy between Labor and Country Liberals. Territorians know that, in power, we will bring back the open speed limits where it is safe to do so, where road conditions permit. They know our position. They know that will be part of our first plan. During the next campaign we will have a time line for action on this policy.
I recognise the member for Nelson will not support this motion which he previously fought so bravely for. I went to the member for Nelson and asked if we could move an amendment; extend it by a month; could we look at something? There is no process within this parliament to do that. This government has a vested interest in not doing that. They do not have data to back up any of their arguments.
I fail to see how the government can continue to support a policy it cannot even back up. There is nothing to prove. I fail to see how the member for Nelson cannot stand by his convictions of November 2006.
I support scientific evidence, but there is none. We do not have rocket scientists sitting on the other side of the Chamber. We need scientific evidence, and there is none. I do not understand how the government can make a policy decision based on that.
I will put this motion. It seems to me this deal has been done, member for Nelson, and if you want all the things which were put into this deal, then you have to agree to a few other things - you cannot support things the Country Liberals want.
I know the member for Nelson says we should do a review. I do not believe there was a scientific approach to the aquatic centre which is going to Nelson. I do not believe there was a scientific approach to the bike paths, or Freds Pass. There is no scientific approach to public housing, where the member for Daly is involved ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I am not sure how we can have a review when there is no data to back it up. This bit of fluff here is absolutely ridiculous. I believe it is really showing the chickens are coming home to roost. In terms of this deal, this is payback - an aquatic centre for a few favours here or there. Is that how this works?
Ms Lawrie: Not at all!
Mr GILES: Are the chickens coming home to roost? This was one of the biggest drivers, along with shire council reform. I remember the member for Nelson fighting so hard on these two things, and still is fighting for shire council reform. The chickens have come home to roost on this one. It is a sad day, very disappointing
All Territorians know the Country Liberals will bring open roads to the Northern Territory. We will have a time line for action; we will assess every road to ensure safety; we will plan to fix our roads and make sure every Territorian knows we mean action. Under a Country Liberal government, open roads will return, and it leaves some people with egg on their face regarding where they stood previously and the position they held and did not follow through.
I put the motion the government reinstates open speed limits on the Victoria, Stuart and Barkly Highways, except in areas which are speed limited due to roadworks or road standards, by no later than 1 September 2009.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 10
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCE) BILL
(Serial 50)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As members know, this bill will follow a proposed amendment in relation to the Care and Protection of Children Act. The bills could have been cognate, but we elected not to make them so. There are a few reasons, one is we have had a lot to say about many bills - many wrapped up together over the years, and we decided they would stand alone. That was the decision we took, and I do not think much swings on it.
This Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offence) Bill seeks to provide a defence to a person who is prosecuted as a result of failure to report, pursuant to proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. The inclusion of a defence is sensible and provides a safeguard. It provides a defence to any prosecution, if a person is prosecuted for not reporting a child who satisfies the criteria in the Care and Protection Children Act, which I will outline in the next bill. It is a safeguard, and it is an important one.
Just because the proposed amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act is made, it does not preclude a prosecution being brought. Whether well-intentioned, misguided, appropriate or not, the fact is that prosecution can be brought under our proposed amendments at the present time, and that is why we have provided a defence. In the event a prosecution is brought, our view was that a defence should be provided under the Criminal Code. I have met with various stakeholders, and it is regarded as an important and desirable safeguard.
Everyone who is affected by the reporting provisions under the Care and Protection of Children Act will take some comfort from the defence including, in particular, health practitioners from whom members of parliament have heard over the last six months or so. I am advised the health practitioners who have been in separate consultations with government are very happy with a defence existing.
It will be a defence to a prosecution under changes proposed to section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, namely, a failure to report if a person believes on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, or has otherwise suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation.
The defence is: if the relevant child was of or over 14 years of age; if the age difference between the accused person and the child is no more than two years, thus encapsulating the similarity of age defence used in some other jurisdictions; and, provided that there is no coercion of the child.
We believe that the defence further addresses the potential consequences of the unintended consequences of the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act a couple of years ago. We believe will assist health practitioners and others.
That is the essence of the defence. Of course, there will be some overlap with the next bill I will introduce, but I will leave the Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offence) Bill for now, and I would expect the minister to adjourn that debate.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced to remedy the unintended consequences of the Care and Protection of Children Act introduced on 22 August 2007.
As members know, there have been well publicised problems with respect to reporting underage sex which have come to the fore in the last four to six months. I have had the opportunity to review some of the material which led up to the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act. I have managed to get some of the files from my office here, and I probably have more information in my office in Alice Springs.
It was an interesting walk down memory lane to see the extent of the consultations which led to the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Bill, and the fact it had been cooking away for some time. As early as 2003 the government proposed the old Community Welfare Act would be comprehensively reviewed; a decision with which I agreed from the outset. In my files I found the April 1999 submission from me when I was a solicitor at the best law firm in Alice Springs, Carney’s Barristers and Solicitors, as it was then, to the then Minister for Health, Stephen Dunham, saying the Community Welfare Act had some real problems in it and he needed to fix it.
So no one was more supportive than me of bringing in a new bill. And the member for Arafura and I worked together in a very constructive, bipartisan, fair dinkum way. We did not agree on everything, and no one would expect us to, but we did good work to make the bill as good as we thought it could be at the time, notwithstanding some minor reservations - or perhaps not so minor reservations – we both with respect to some of the provisions.
What was interesting was a range of stakeholders, as we call them, were consulted in relation to the bill: the Law Society, NTCOSS, and numerous others. From the government publication I noticed there were approximately 75 submissions. The bill had numerous drafts which were partly because so many people were consulted and so many people had input into it.
The reason I am going down this short historical path is because there has been much discussion about the unintended consequence in section 26. Everyone missed it; both sides of parliament missed it; lawyers missed it; Parliamentary Counsel missed it; other agencies missed it. It is quite unusual that everyone, bright people all over the place, would miss this. But missed it was.
My own view is it really fired up after an e-mail was sent around by the CEO of Health alerting people to this particular provision. I do not criticise him for that, but I think that was the flag that made everyone think: Oh dear, we need to have a good look at section 26. So, here we are.
In May, I wrote to the minister and said: ‘I believe there are a couple of ways of fixing this. I think you should do it in June’. We had the first week of parliament and, of course, the following week was estimates. I rose to my feet and said: ‘This is really weird. Surely, we should be correcting or fixing this legislation?’ We are now at the stage where the minister introduced her bill yesterday. She knew, because I had said both privately and publicly in the past, so concerned was I that we would be working on a bill as well. And here we are in the same week with two bills. I am not sure either of us could have done much better; it is just the way it is and it is the quirky nature of politics and legislative reform. It is important to note that everyone is really trying their best to get this right after everyone missed it a couple of years ago.
I will talk about our bill. I will use the opportunity to outline, as succinctly as possible, the problems I have with the government’s bill. On the basis of an informal chat I had with the minister, I gather there may be some room to move so we can work in the same way the member for Arafura and I worked where going out in a blaze of glory, for either of us, was just not an issue; it was just about getting the job done. If we do it well, and I feel certain the member for Arnhem and I can do it well. we need to have very clear and specific ways of communicating.
For the Parliamentary Record, I should outline for anyone reading this Hansard down the track that the effect of unintended consequence is everyone in the community is obliged to report young people under the age of 16 having sex.
Clearly, the aim of the Care and Protection of Children Act was to prevent the exploitation and abuse of children - a worthy aim. In the stacks of reviews and consultations, departmental publications, little flyers going back as early as 2003, radio interviews with the project officer who initially came on board, it was clear that one of the aims, in addition to actually overhauling the old Community Welfare Act, was to present legislation which was, as the minister said in her second reading speech on 22 August 2007, a comprehensive approach that includes measures to prevent harm and exploitation of children. So that is it in a nutshell, and that is why it had such strong support from my colleagues and me.
The problem was because of the way section 26 was drafted, health practitioners, parents, counsellors, anyone in the community was required to report people children under the age of 16 having sex. The difficulty and the real health concern was that young people who require health advice, ranging from contraceptive advice to advice on STDs, other health matters, counselling and general information, the doctors tell us, were not getting that advice. They did not want to be reported to authorities, and they did not, therefore, go to a doctor. That was never an intention in early 2003, it certainly was not in my contemplation when I was working with the member for Arafura on the bill, and I feel certain I can speak for her, it was not in her contemplation either.
So it was a legislative stuff-up that had very real consequences for young people in the Northern Territory; and those in the medical profession, in particular, have been very outspoken and I know the minister and her representatives have had a number of meetings with them. The police also had an interest in this matter, so many agencies came together and tried to get to a position where a legislative fix was required. I know members of parliament received letters, many months ago, from professional medical organisations urging us to change the law.
Interestingly, one of the affects of the problem with section 26 was that some health professionals said, off the record, and I am sure they said it to the minister as well; they were considering not complying with the law. I always tell people you must comply with the law, but I knew full well that some medical practitioners were not going to. I did not encourage them to, but I certainly had some empathy with their position because if a young person goes to a doctor for help, that doctor did not want to be in the position of having to report them to authorities.
It was pretty serious stuff, and is why people with an interest in this area have tried their best to get it right. What we do not want to happen is to be here in six, 12, 18 months time, two years time or whatever, saying: ‘If only we had got it right’. I accept it is an imperfect world, but I believe given the seriousness of the unintended consequence, in light of all that proceeded it, it is really important for us to get it as right as we possibly can.
The opposition’s view is that our Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Reporting Obligations) Bill is better than government’s. At the same time can I say it is really not a battle about who is right and wrong, it is really about making sure that the change is right. I am convinced, as are others, that our bills are better; which is why I am pressing the issue.
The minister would have received from the Law Society a letter of yesterday’s date in which they say they have received a copy of my bills, and it is somewhat supportive and complimentary. It said:
That is the Criminal Code amendment, as well:
Under our bill, it is still an offence not to report to the police, or the CEO of Health, if a person believes that a child has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, or has otherwise suffered harm. However, it then goes on to outline that a child is not a victim of a sexual offence and, therefore, there is no requirement to report it if all six criteria are met. They are outlined in the bill, and it is a short bill. The criteria are as follows: the sexual act occurred after the child turned 14; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child is no more than two years; the other child is not related; the other child did not coerce the relevant child to participate in the sexual act. That is an extremely important criteria, especially when one considers the history of the review of the Community Welfare Act and its replacement by the Care and Protection of Children Act, given that it was designed - going back to the minister’s second reading speech of August 2007 - to be a comprehensive approach which includes measures to prevent harm and exploitation of children. The criteria also includes that no other person is liable for prosecution for an offence in relation to the sexual act - an important and obvious inclusion; and the relevant child has not been caused harm, and is not likely to be caused harm.
In the current bill I introduced, one of the advantages, compared to the government’s bill, is it streamlines section 26. In the government’s bill, section 26(1) is changed to include that a person must report if they believe, on reasonable grounds, a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm, or a child aged less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. That raises the question in relation to the government’s bill - what about children over 14 years, but under 16 years?
It is clear from the government’s bill that is the open window, as I call it. The government has, unfortunately, left open that reporting obligation by the communities. Let me get this very clear: in section 26(1A) of the government’s bill, it provides that a person is guilty of an offence if that person believes on reasonable grounds any of the following:
(i) a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation, or
The difficulty is it does not contemplate children between 14 and 16, so clearly, you can have a 15-year-old who should fall within that provision and does not. In relation to the rest of the community, the government’s bill only provides that, if a child is less than 14 years, then they are included in the legislation, but it does not provide a provision for children between 14 and 16.
Yet, further down in the bill, section 26(2)(b)(i) in relation to health practitioners, has the same wording, but it actually says:
So the point is, for health practitioners, you have provided that a person is guilty of an offence if certain criteria are met in relation to children aged between 14 and 16, but you have not provided the same for the rest of the community - your cut-off point is 14.
We say that is not good because they are still children in the eyes of the law. Given the entire aim of child protection and a new child protection act is about the non-exploitation of children, surely it does not follow that children who are 15 or slightly under 16, and fall within that 14 to 16 year gap, cannot be abused, cannot be exploited, and should not be protected by the law and the legislators. That is our point in relation to the government’s bill.
Second, we do not see the need to differentiate between the public and health practitioners. Even though the health practitioners have been a very vocal and active group, if one looks back to the original section 26 - no separation at all - this was the general obligations about reporting for the whole community. There was nothing about: ‘Well, I report in these circumstances, but you report in other circumstances’ - it was one law for everyone.
I believe, given this area and in light of the confusion which has come about in the last few months, and given that we are dealing with remote areas around the Territory, as well as GPs and clinics in the suburbs, we need to get it as clear as we possibly can. When you consider the original section 26 applied to everyone, I cannot for the life of me, understand why government has sought to separate the reporting obligations in its bill - health practitioners and the general public.
Nor do I understand why it is, in relation to the general public, a person is only guilty of an offence if that person believes on reasonable grounds that a child suffered harm or is a child less than 14, because you and I both know, Madam Speaker, that children are, technically and in reality, still the subject of sexual abuse over the age of 14.
If a minister, the Minister for Children and Families, the Minister for Child Protection, surely would not want to be in a position where she says: ‘I am the Minister for Child Protection but only kids under 14, because the law in the Northern Territory is that young people cannot have consensual sex under the age of 16’.
A few years ago we had a very interesting debate about our consent laws and discussions about young people in the Northern Territory. So, how can the Minister for Child Protection possibly say she is only the Minister for Child Protection in relation to children less than 14 years? We have to capture the 14- to 16-year-old group which, I understand from information I have received from medical practitioners and others, is about the age of most sexual activity. I do not have the figures, but that is what someone from the health sector told me recently.
That is why we press on with this bill today. We say there should be no separation, no differentiation between the style and type of person who can be found guilty of a failure to report if that person believes on reasonable grounds that a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation. We say there is no sliding scale - they are all children - and the state and we, as legislators, have a responsibility to them. If the law said you become an adult after 16, then it would be different; or it would be different if the law said you can consent when you turn 14. But right now, Territory law is you cannot consent unless you are 16.
As I have said in the past, I am not so nave, nor is the minister, not to know that sexual activity goes on; but we have to protect them, we have to give young people the flexibility to get medical and other advice. We also have to ensure that in our efforts to fix this stuff-up, we do not abandon a chunk of people, those aged between 14 and 16, in terms of the general public and reporting.
Finally, we say the government’s bill is less than clear and less than desirable, given all the history and the most recent history. We believe our bill just about does the trick.
I look forward to having a fruitful discussion with the minister so we can get this as right as we possibly can. I am prepared to compromise, and I am sure the minister is, but only if it means we come up with a better law. I will not compromise on child protection, in particular, by consenting to bad laws.
I commend the bill to the House, and I will speak shortly in the relation to the urgency motion.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Withdraw Notice of Suspension
of Standing Orders
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, following discussions with the member for Nelson this morning and his indication of his unwillingness, at this time, to support dealing with the bills I have just introduced on urgency - there are a number reasons for it, one of which is his workload today. Also, given my indication to the minister in the last hour or so that I would be withdrawing the urgency motion, and we would discuss getting the bill right, I seek leave to withdraw my notice of urgency.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst it is a long motion, we hope to keep the debate very short. The Leader of Government Business and I have negotiated our way through couple of the hairy bits in this. I will read the motion I gave notice of yesterday, and I will move a couple of very minor amendments, and I believe we should be through this in about five minutes, God willing.
Madam Speaker, I move - that the following matters be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for report no later than 13 October 2009:
provide the ability to directly question public servants in the estimates process, with the minister present, on matters of expenditure and programs progress and outcomes.
Madam Speaker, I further move – in the motion I have just spoken about, the words ‘13 October’ be omitted and substituted with the words ‘November sittings’; and at the end of the motion a paragraph be added which says: ‘Any other area that is referred to the committee by a member of the committee in writing’.
Whilst I accept the comments by the Leader of Government Business that they are by no means signing up to the contents of the motion, we are not arguing, on this side, that the government should sign up to the contents of the motion, just merely have the motion referred to the Standing Orders Committee so these matters can be addressed. I have an indication from the Leader of Government Business that this motion is supported. It is self-explanatory, and I do not need to say anything more.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you are making an amendment you need to have it in writing and signed.
Mr ELFERINK: I will sign it here, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. So it can be circulated to all members
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for the constructive discussions we have had on these issues. As the member for Port Darwin indicated, the government will be supporting this motion of referral to the Standing Orders Committee. Also, as the member for Port Darwin said, because we are supporting its reference to the Standing Orders Committee, it does not indicate support for any of the individual measures which are foreshadowed there.
In that spirit, and the spirit in which the member for Port Darwin has amended his motion, the government supports this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the motion. I may not support everything in it, because there certainly is one aimed directly at me, but that is beside the point - I believe it is good. There are many issues there I believe we need to review, and it is good that we are able to do this from time to time - review how the processes of parliament work.
I know some of the issues in the agreement talk about improving the processes of parliament, and I believe that is exactly what the agreement is about.
It is a good motion; it certainly will open up debate on the Standing Orders Committee, and there are a couple of issues I believe need addressing. As you know, I have also been debating one of those particular issues. I have no hesitation in also supporting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, that set of words is still being circulated; they were the set of words agreed on in terms of the amendment. I thank honourable members for their cooperation in this matter. It is universally supported, it would appear, and there is nothing more for me to say.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two matters before the Chair. The first one is the amendment, which I will put first; then, depending on that, the final motion.
The question is the amendment as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move –
Once again, this strikes me as a fairly straightforward motion. The Standing Orders Committee currently does not have a capacity to do so, and in light of the new world we find ourselves in and my constant pleadings to this House, which have fallen on deaf ears until very recently, about the way our democracy runs.
Within the spirit of everything I have always fought for and stood for on this side of the House, particularly since occupying the Chair of the Leader of Opposition Business, I urge members to support this motion because I honestly believe it is a good motion. To have the view of an Independent on the Standing Orders Committee strikes me as being straightforward common sense.
There is nothing complicated about this motion other than giving an independent voice to the Standing Orders Committee; and, as a consequence that, I ask members to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will be supporting this motion. I believe it is a sensible way forward.
We were fortunate to have the former member for Braitling, when she was Speaker, on the Standing Orders Committee, and she certainly made valuable input. I know an Independent’s input on there, as we have in the Public Accounts Committee, will be valuable, particularly given the work which has been allocated to the Standing Orders Committee through the previous motion.
In closing, I know the opposition will nominate whoever they want to the Standing Orders Committee, but I am hopeful the member for Port Darwin might come on that committee. He is a student of standing orders and he could have great input into the debate and decision-making. As I said, I would not even pretend to suggest what the opposition should do but, from my own point of view, I would welcome the member for Port Darwin on the Standing Orders Committee
Madam Speaker, we support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): What did you expect with such a fine motion, member for Port Darwin?
Madam Speaker, I also support the member for Port Darwin’s motion; it is good. It does not matter whether it is me or the member for Macdonnell who is the Independent; it is good there is an independent voice.
Occasionally, I hear people say: ‘You cannot sit on that barbed wire fence’. And I say: ‘That is not the issue. There are more than two opinions in this world; there are more than two models of motor cars; there are more than two sides to a triangle’. I believe the idea that all light and knowledge comes out of one party or the other party – I have trouble accepting that. That is why I like my job.
Member for Port Darwin, I believe it is a good time for this motion, because there are a number of those things which will affect me as well. As I said before, part of the agreement was to improve parliamentary processes and you have put forward a number of ideas to try to do that. I am sure an Independent will also assist the debate that will happen in the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable members for supporting this motion, particularly the surprising Euclidian metaphor we have just been treated to by the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: I beg your pardon? What was that word? Euclidian?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr Wood: Thank you. I will look it up.
Mr ELFERINK: As in there are more than two sides to a triangle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is supported, I suspect I do not have to put a passionate, last minute plea. I thank the Leader of Government Business for his resounding confidence in my capacity - sometimes I feel I must bluff it as much as anything else. However, as this is supported, I have nothing more to add other than to see the motion proceed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move - that there be additional sitting days of the Assembly on Monday 12 October, and Monday 23 November 2009.
Relax; I am just about to get to this bit. We have had some discussions behind the scenes, and I will have to move an amendment in the same fashion I just moved an amendment in the last motion. That is to have all words after the word ‘and’ removed - which is removing the words ‘Monday 23 November 2009’ - and substitute the words ‘Friday 16 October 2009’.
I speak to the amendment first. The reason we require this amendment is I have been advised that when this House is sitting in Alice Springs on 23 November 2009, as it traditionally does on a biennial basis, it would deprive the children of Alice Springs of the Wiggles.
As much as I am passionate about the parliamentary democracy of the Northern Territory, I do not want to go down in the Northern Territory’s history books and annals as the man who deprived Alice Springs children of the Wiggles. I could not hold my head up with any honour whatsoever in those circumstances.
That then returns me to the actual thrust of this debate, which is recovering the two days lost as the result of the no confidence motion last week.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government asserted last week there was no point going back to the daily business whilst the no confidence motion was hanging like the sword of Damocles over its head and they were in almost caretaker mode as a result of that motion last Monday. However, we would argue on this side of the House that the government did not in any way act like a caretaker government during that hiatus period. They continued to formulate policy; they continued to put out press releases as government ministers, and they continued to behave as a government in every way except in the sense of being responsible to the parliament of the Northern Territory.
I digress quickly, by pointing out that I am somewhat concerned by the rather irreverent answer of the Chief Minister during Question Time today that, irrespective of a decision and a direction of this parliament to his government, he would continue on a particular path, sets the Executive in a direct collision course with this House. I believe the government has to be very careful, particularly the Chief Minister, if he chooses to ignore a majority vote of this House, because I remind the Chief Minister, as I remind all ministers of the Crown, the Executive is still the subordinate body and that the parliament has ascendancy.
If the government continues to ignore the motions passed by this House explicitly, expressly and deliberately, then I believe they have set themselves on a collision course which can only lead to a very unhappy circumstance for the Chief Minister and the government as a whole. However, we will see how that proceeds.
I do not intend to be on my feet for the whole 30 minutes to describe the thrust of this motion. It is clear what we are after - we are seeking a five-day sitting from 12 to 16 October. I know the government has indicated they will not support a five-day sitting. They will not support the extra two days; they have indicated they would support one extra day. I implore them to revisit this harsh and onerous and, I daresay, irresponsible decision for the benefit of good governance in the Northern Territory and in the name of honesty, openness and accountability which they have embraced, in more recent times; through the so-called principled agreement with the member for Nelson.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, government will be partly supporting the motion by the member for Port Darwin ...
A member: Can we partly divide on this?
Dr BURNS: Well, in essence, we will be supporting one extra day and not two extra sitting days. If I could give the rationale for that: I understand the argument put forward by the member for Port Darwin that, through the motion and notice of motion of want of confidence which was moved last week, a number of sitting days were lost. We believe that was one sitting day. I suppose, if you count Question Time, you could probably arrive at the conclusion that possibly two sitting days had been lost, but nett, there was one sitting day lost, and that is why we are having GBD today, on Tuesday and not on Monday. So, in a parliamentary sense, the recognition is that there has been one day lost, and that is why we are sitting today as a GBD day on Tuesday rather than Monday.
We could revisit last week; if things had been done in certain ways there could have been Question Time or the timing of the motion, but I do understand, and I did say last week it is the most serious motion that can be moved in this House, and I completely understand why the opposition moved it when they did, and the timing, so I accept that. That is history now. But, in a nett sense, we believe that one sitting day has been lost. I will be moving an amendment very shortly, member for Port Darwin. I have already foreshadowed what that amendment will be; in essence, we will be accepting the one extra day of sitting of the Assembly on Monday 12 October. We will not be accepting a second sitting day, and that is government’s position.
In a light-hearted way we are, of course, rock solid on one thing - we do not want to push the Wiggles out the door. I doubt even the power of this Assembly is enough to push the Wiggles out of the door - not least of all because they have probably signed an agreement with the Convention Centre in Alice Springs. I am sure all the kids in Alice Springs are going to have a great time on that Monday, and I am sure they will enjoy it a lot more than parliament.
Getting back to the serious nature of the member for Port Darwin’s motion, we will be opposing the amendment moved by the member for Port Darwin and propose our own amendment to the motion in the following terms:
I move - That all words after ‘That’ be omitted and insert in their stead: ‘There be an additional sitting day of the Assembly on Monday 12 October 2009’.
I have a signed version of that; and it is the amendment government will be putting.
Mr Elferink: The first thing to deal with is my amendment, I presume.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson wishes to participate in debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I am speaking to that amendment ...
Mr Elferink: That is right.
Mr WOOD: I must admit I thought I was going to be speaking to one day anyway because the Wiggles were not going to happen. I am not sure which one I am going to support. I had made up my mind I was happy that we did not interfere with the Wiggles and just had the one day, and that is what I intended to support.
I did not realise you were putting forward an alternative day, and so I have not looked at the implications for that day. At the moment, I am happy with the one extra day; I made that decision based on the other day being cancelled. Madam Speaker, I support the amendment at the moment.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to indicate at the outset, whilst I realise it is very unusual to find ourselves in a situation where we have two amendments and a motion before the House, I suspect that dividing the House through this process will be pointless. Whilst I do not agree or accept the arguments from either the member for Nelson or the Leader of Government Business, for the sake of getting on with the business of the day we will go through the amendment process and arrive at where you want to be.
Madam SPEAKER: Does that mean that you are withdrawing your amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: If my amendment is put and we lose it on the voices, then so be it. Then their amendment can be put.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. There are a couple of matters before the Chair. The first we will deal with is the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business. The question is that the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion stand as amended.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move - That for the remainder for this parliamentary session Standing Order 21A be amended by inserting:
Madam Speaker, I am not proposing we change the government dominance of this particular committee. Whilst I remain highly critical of the presence of a minister on the Public Accounts Committee, it is not the thrust of this particular motion. The thrust of this particular motion is to breathe life into the committee in a way which is not essentially different to the proposed committee of cooperation as outlined in the deal struck between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister.
The essence of that is, if this committee was given a self-comprehensive, self-referencing power, it would be able to inquire into anything it chose to inquire into - very much as described by the member for Nelson.
I have long been a passionate advocate of the Public Accounts Committee being given that power. It is considered to be the most powerful committee of the parliament, yet it is still muzzled, up until now, by the majority of members in this House, which means the references it chooses to look into are ones contained in standing orders, or such references as given to it by the government, or such references as given it by this House.
The Public Accounts Committee has as one of its servants a servant of this parliament as a whole, the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has repeatedly said in the past and, I suspect if you asked him the same question now he would not alter his answer - that the committee is client - which means he spends more time reporting to the committee than he actually spends reporting to this House; and as an officer of this House, within the structure of the committee system, that is an entirely appropriate worldview for the Auditor-General to have.
However, there is an expectation amongst government members, and I certainly note the Leader of Government Business has this worldview, that in some fashion the committee should be led around by the Auditor-General. May I say that is not the case? What is the case is the Auditor-General should work for the committee, and if the committee finds itself investigating something in the operation of government, and it strikes an area where it does not have sufficient expertise, then the committee may well choose to bring the Auditor-General on board, because the Auditor-General works, essentially, for the committee, as he does for this parliament as a whole.
The committee members of the Public Accounts Committee are elected representatives of the people of the Northern Territory. There is an expectation, in fact, it is implicit in the title of the committee itself - a public accounts committee - that it is able to examine the public account up to, and including, examining how that public account is expended, which means actually going and looking where the money is being spent.
One of the issues I have raised in the Public Accounts Committee, and also in this House, is an example of how the public account is being spent, and that is the example of the Bronto, which is a magnificent piece of firefighting equipment aimed at firefighting in tall buildings, however, it remains idle for two of the three daily shifts, as a general rule, by virtue of the fact that the machine does not have sufficient licensed drivers.
I believe it is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to look into, because it is an asset which is not sufficiently used by virtue of a simple oversight. I am aware there is a call-out system to have someone drive the Bronto if there is a fire, but can you imagine the Coroner’s report on the value, if it comes out that several people died in a tall building fire because it took the Bronto an extra 50 minutes to get to the scene because they had to call out the driver? That is just one example of how the public account and Territorians come into contact with each other.
The public account does not operate in a vacuum; it does not operate in isolation of everything else that is happening, in fact, money is the language of government services in the fact that without it there is no government service to provide. Consequently, I believe there should be a robust, powerful and inquisitorial Public Accounts Committee for the purposes of making certain, and reassuring members of this House and, ipso facto, all Territorians, that the public account is being expended in an efficient and effective manner.
Consequently, I do not believe the Public Account Committee should be hamstrung by waiting for references; it certainly should not be a client of the Auditor-General but, indeed, the other way around. And I would urge all honourable members to turn their minds to the function of the Public Accounts Committee, what the public account actually means to Territorians, and Territorians have the reassurance of having an effective oversight, which is more than just the Auditor-General, more than just the Ombudsman, but is actually oversighted by elected members of parliament.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Port Darwin has said. I agree the Public Accounts Committee is probably one of the most important committees of this parliament. It has a very important function to scrutinise, as he has pointed out, in collaboration with and, as a result of, reports made by the Auditor-General into the public account. That is very important and, as an incoming government, we were very firm we wanted departments to respond to the findings of the Auditor-General in his report, and say on the public record what they were doing to address important issues raised by the Auditor-General. From time to time, departments give reasons why they may not be able to fully implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General. I believe this has put more transparency into the process.
I have not had a great deal of time from when the member for Port Darwin moved this motion to sit down and research what happens in other jurisdictions. In a conversation with the member for Nelson, he has a fairly simple matrix showing that other jurisdictions have self-referral powers, in general, to the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to investigate what those self-referral powers are; whether they are a blank cheque, whether they are carte blanche as the motion put forward by the member of Port Darwin, or whether there might be some structures and functions around that self-referral process. That is the first point.
I will be moving an amendment that this should go back to the Public Accounts Committee and there should be more discussion and research. I would like to know the views of the Auditor-General directly into the Public Accounts Committee; I would like to find out what other jurisdictions do, and what the processes are. At another level - and I may well prove to be incorrect - reading through our current standing orders, Standing Order 21A(b) in relation to the Public Accounts Committee is not unlike the motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin. I ask the question: is the member for Port Darwin’s proposal actually going to have the result he intends? It may well be the final intention of the Public Accounts Committee; I am not going to pre-empt that.
In that context, I move an amendment to add at the end of the motion of the member for Port Darwin that:
In essence, my amendment is saying: let us have a look at it within the Public Accounts Committee; let us find out what happens in other jurisdictions; let us find out what our own Auditor-General says. At one level, I do not believe we should be duplicating the work of the Auditor-General; we should be looking at ways we can complement the resources he has. I am not coming down one way or the other on this particular amendment, or step forward in the Public Accounts Committee. All I am saying to this House is: we need to have a look at it; we need to find out more. It is in that context that I move this amendment to the original motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support exactly what the member for Port Darwin is doing, but the amendment gives us time to just check what the ramifications are. I spoke to the Attorney-General this morning, I had a chat with him about it and he gave me the matrix. There are certainly self-referral powers: the Commonwealth has them, and New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania have them. In South Australia, the committee does not have them, they have broad powers which maybe interpreted in such a way as they are busy doing it. The Australian Capital Territory also has them.
I believe it is a good idea, but we would be wise to take it back to the PAC to have a look at. What does it need? Do we leave it like that, or are there ramifications we have not identified?
Member for Port Darwin, I am not saying it is not a good idea, I believe we need to look at it more carefully before we introduce it. I hope we can bring it back in the next sittings of parliament and pass it; but I believe it would be good to discuss it fully before we approve it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will grudgingly accept the amendment, simply because I know that we will simply lose it.
However, I say to the member for Nelson with all due respect: for the member for Nelson to rely on the argument that we do not quite know what will be the result of this amendment to the Public Accounts Committee, rings slightly hollow in circumstances where you have introduced a new cooperative council, which you or the government still cannot in any effective way describe in any structural form. You cannot even tell me if it is a subcommittee of Cabinet, or a committee of this House - I have no idea - and in your own words, member for Nelson, was something that was hobbled together in a few days ...
Mr Wood: Two different things.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not two different things. The principle remains consistent, and the principle is this: if you insist on having things prepared and insist on knowing what the ramifications of a particular process is, then I would urge you to consider the approach you have chosen in relation to your cooperative council, whatever it may be.
However, I have not hinged the future of the Northern Territory on the Public Accounts Committee as the member for Nelson has done with the cooperative council, or whatever it is going to be called. I grudgingly accept the amendment, or will not be opposing the amendment on the grounds it will get through on the numbers anyhow. I thank the Leader of Government Business for a forthright discussion prior to this. I knew that this was coming.
As a consequence of that, we will go through the motions and it will be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. But I do ask the minister, who sits on the Public Accounts Committee, that an honest and open approach be taken in the committee towards this, and we do get a comprehensive suggestion back to this House in November.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
1. The Assembly appoints a committee known as the Select Committee on the Territory Health Services, comprising:
(h) use of private healthcare services, elective waiting lists, outpatient waiting lists and service standards within our hospitals and clinics;
I start by saying this is not entirely the Labor government’s fault; health is very complex and it is a moving feast. It has ebbed and flowed for many years. I do, however, believe the current model, which we have had for a number of years in the Northern Territory, albeit under the Northern Territory Labor government, has been quite inadequate.
Northern Territory hospital funding is determined by an ad hoc combination of historical-based funding - and I have spoken about this before – that is delivery of core services plus additional resources based on the needs of the population. If you break that down, it is last year’s budget plus new initiatives, minus sufficiencies. Funding for Territory hospitals has doubled; in fact, we are looking at a billion-dollar Territory Health budget, yet there is no accountable, responsible modelling in place to make sure these hospitals are funded responsibly. Two reviews of hospital funding models have still not resulted in an adequate funding model for Northern Territory hospitals. This blanket approach has seen health outcomes for Northern Territorians plummet. Our hospitals are vastly different; the clientele which make up our hospitals are certainly very unique with different caseloads, and one blanket model of funding to address that is not working. That is point A.
The Minister for Health in 2007 made a statement ‘Building Better Hospitals’. He made mention of Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital quite regularly, but nothing about our smaller hospitals. We do have five hospitals in the Northern Territory, and they quite often get overlooked as we have seen with the recent hospital reports. It is concerning that while these smaller hospitals do not have the same pressures of our two main tertiary hospitals, Alice Springs and Darwin, they have their fair share of issues and the staff work under enormous pressure in those three other hospitals - Katherine, Gove and Tennant Creek - particularly when it comes to hospital boards and staffing. One unit, in particular, is of great concern, that is maternity services across some of these smaller hospitals.
It is concerning to see this blanket model of funding rolled out right across the Northern Territory. Again, a non-outcome based funding model for our hospitals.
The blockages within the health system: the AMA recommends bed occupancy rates need to be around 80% to 85% for hospitals to work efficiently. We are not seeing that; both RDH and Alice Springs are well in excess of 100%. The result of bed occupancy exceeding this recommended level is seen in excessive wait times, bed block or access block confronting our two major Territory hospitals.
The Northern Territory is currently placed sixth in the elective surgery waiting list, and on emergency department waiting times, we are last: 48% are not being seen within the recommended time frames for their category. We are seeing 100% of people in Category 1, which are those requiring immediate resuscitation, etcetera seen in the recommended time frame, but once we get to Category 2 down to Category 5, those figures radically drop off to the point where we are actually dragging the chain - we are last in the whole country. The median wait time for those waiting to be seen in our hospitals is also last, at 43 minutes. So, blockages in our health system and hospital system are of great concern.
Inefficiencies within the health system, despite having more beds – which the Health minister likes to suggest, and he may well be right - more beds per 1000 population than any other jurisdiction, but bed occupancy rates are still over 100% in the Territory’s two busiest hospitals. Reports by the Ombudsman and the Health Care Commissioner have repeatedly identified problems with the passing of information within the hospital system and the training of staff in hospital policy. So, inefficiency within the health system and within the hospitals are at alarming rates.
With regard to the type, number and effectiveness of primary health care measures programs and policies in this motion, there is a level of disunity in the development of social policy and coordination in the development of primary and preventative health care programs; alcohol policy is inclined to focus on the impact of alcohol on law and order and antisocial behaviour, as opposed to actually addressing the problems. Obviously, we need to strike a balance between the two, but the main focus is on law and order and the social issues which come with alcohol, as opposed to rehabilitation. So a great deal of money is going into the social and antisocial law and order side of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory – and not much on the preventative side of it. Illness prevention is less than 4% of the national average. If you combine all states and territories, our national health budget is less than 4% - so it is at alarmingly low rates; not a lot of effort is being channelled into illness prevention.
Heart disease and diabetes are two factors which have a significant impact on the health and life expectancy of the Territory’s Indigenous population. It is quite staggering to travel around Indigenous communities, which I have done in Central Australia, and the amount of people with Type 2 diabetes is alarmingly high. It is absolutely staggering to see the amount of Type 2 diabetes plaguing our Aboriginal communities in Central Australia and, indeed, right across the Northern Territory.
The government has committed itself to a $45m 10-year heart health plan. The focus of this election commitment is to expand cardiac rehabilitation services and deliver specialist equipment and major equipment upgrades both at Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital. However, there is no indication of any of this money will be diverted toward health interventions to prevent the exacerbation of unhealthy lifestyle choices escalating into full-blown heart attacks. Is some of this $45m going to be channelled into preventing that?
I believe we need to get to the bottom of this. $45m is a lot of money and, I daresay, if it was channelled into the right areas it would go a long way. There are nearly 90 000 heart attacks and chest pain events expected for 2009.
I turn to staffing. I have a great deal of stuff here to develop an argument on this, but I believe I know where the member for Nelson is going to stand on this, and I believe the government is probably not interested in supporting such a full and open inquiry, so I will not waste too much of the House’s time. But let us just turn to staffing of the health system, including areas of staffing needs, shortages, turnover rates and staff morale.
Each year our health workers have the highest separation rate of any other sector; at last count 44% of our health workers leave the Northern Territory. Anecdotal evidence is this is due to lack of medical accommodation and lack of affordable accommodation. A quick chat to the AMF certainly turns up some pretty surprising reasons why nurses do not stay here in the Northern Territory, and some of those are out of the Northern Territory government’s control because government cannot do everything and solve every single problem. If people simply want to leave the Northern Territory they are quite entitled to do so, and many do leave because they want to, but many do because of the enormous pressures they face in the Northern Territory Health sector and the lack of meaningful support from the Northern Territory Health department.
We need to look at more home-grown nurses, and more focus on vocational training, which I believe is very important. We moved away from the vocational training model about 20, 25 years ago; it is a national approach these days to do a university degree to become a nurse. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who have spent four years at university to become a nurse, spent three weeks on a ward and say, ‘Oh, my God, this is not for me’, and leave. So, vocational training is very important. These are some of the solutions we can endeavour to find if this inquiry gets under way.
Regarding effectiveness of service delivery and outcome improvements in regional and remote communities; there appears to be an overwhelming need to look closely at step-down programs where there is assistance and bedding in community centres to get people out of hospital and back to their homes. We often see in our hospitals a patient who, to all intents and purposes, should be discharged but is still utilising a hospital bed. This is adding to the situation with bed block and depriving those who desperately need beds in our hospitals from having one. Some assistance and care before returning home is very important, and this inquiry would go a long way to uncovering ways to provide that.
The appropriateness of the health department organisational structure: the appointment of the new head of hospitals is a start; it is a step in the right direction. However, there is intense pressure from the acute care sector to absorb the resources of the department, and this leads to primary care left wanting. We need to have a very good look at the break-up of funding. How much money is taken up by policy administration versus service delivery? Our Health budget is $1bn this year and we really do need to see how much of this money goes into administration and policy costs, as opposed to how much is actually being rolled out on the ground to provide better funding outcomes for the health of Territorians.
Turning to private health care services, elective waiting lists, outpatient waiting lists, and service standards within our hospitals, I go back to the statement, Building Better Hospitals, by the former Minister for Health in 2007, where he said the demand for public hospital services is exacerbated in the Northern Territory by the limited nature of the private health sector.
We do not see a great deal of investment in private health in the Northern Territory. In a recent story in The Centralian Advocate, the current Health minister said that no service provider was interested in setting up in Alice Springs. It has been Country Liberals policy for a long time to investigate the option of a private wing. The minister said that no service provider was interested in that; mind you, Healthscope said they have never been approached by the Northern Territory government and, in fact, they would be interested if approached.
We have touched on elective surgery waiting lists before. They are some of the worst outpatient waiting lists with the interval between the time the GP refers the patient to a specialist to the time the patient is seen by that specialist being extraordinarily long. Part of the government solution to bed block is to have public patients treated or operated on in the Darwin Private Hospital. We need to see how much this ties up resources for patients who pay for private health insurance. Is this an effective use of the private wing? Why are public patients being treated in the private wing? As I said, there are no private facilities in Alice Springs.
We have put forward some solutions; I have suggested many times in this parliament a Rapid Admission Unit at Alice Springs. The new emergency department, I know has been costed, but we are yet to see a sod of soil being turned; would go along way to help processing the large number of admissions through Alice Springs Hospital. A dedicated mental health facility in Central Australia would ease the numbers in the Alice Springs Hospital. These are all options for the government which are not being explored, and this inquiry would go a long way in uncovering some of these issues.
The terms and conditions of the grant of federal funding to the Northern Territory and the application of that funding to Territory Health Services; the huge increase in the Territory Health budget is almost certainly directly related to the introduction of the goods and services tax. We do not have a health funding model here in the Northern Territory.
In the budget reply speech, the Opposition Leader announced $900 000 to set a new direction in health funding which would involve a three stage process. The first stage is what you might call the diagnostic stage, to actually look at what is taking place. There has already been a large body of work undertaken here. We will take all the work and all the reviews from the last 10 years and undertake a diagnostic of this work - some of the reviews we still have not seen - to get an understanding of exactly where we are in the Northern Territory. This is an opposition policy which we put forward in the budget, and would see an investment of $100 000 to bring it all together; and this inquiry may uncover other options for better service delivery. We can go over that and we can have a look over at Hansard to check out the exactly process.
The second stage is understanding the unknown that is this black hole. Where are we? There would be $200 000 allocated to that, and the implementation would be towards the $600 000 mark. We need a funding model to ensure the money is going where it needs to go, and the outcomes from the funding are actually measured so we have measurable outcomes for the money put in. It goes to the heart of this whole motion that we have non-outcome based funding models for our Northern Territory hospitals and health sector; hence this motion being put forward tonight.
The outcomes, improvements, and state of dental health and dental health funding in the Northern Territory: I know the government has committed $1.5m in 2009-10, and $800 000 recurrent funding to reduce the number of people on the dental waiting list. We spoke about this in estimates. This is to deliver treatment to approximately 1300 patients on top of the number of patients currently being treated. If you have an oral health issue directly related to your general health, you will be treated as an emergency anyway. This is over and above that, and over and above those people already on waiting lists for dental health.
There is no line item in Budget Paper No 3 to determine the effectiveness of spending on dental health services. The government is under no obligation to publish dental waiting lists as it is with medical elective surgery and emergency department waiting times. This is of some concern.
During estimates, the minister claimed the program would bring the waiting list down by 50%. That is great to hear. If we could cut that waiting list down to 50%, or 50% of where it currently is; but how can you actually measure that if there are no published figures? That is the point. So, do we have to just believe the minister who says it has come down to 50%, or can we actually get some hard facts and measure those facts with the money versus the outcomes?
The role and efficiency of hospital boards in the Northern Territory; well, hospital boards have been allowed to languish, I have to say, under the Northern Territory Labor government. I can safely say that hospital board reports were tabled each year for all five hospitals under the Country Liberals.
We have not seen hospital board reports, or a commitment to do them, by this government until they have been caught out, and now we start to see a few filter in for the last few years. Essentially, we have three hospitals working outside the law. As I have said before, our three smaller hospitals are not operating inside the Hospital Management Boards Act and we have yet to see this year’s reports, but I believe they are not due until perhaps September, I do not have the act with me, but nevertheless this is of great concern.
How can we accurately fund our smaller hospitals, in fact, all our hospitals, but particularly these three with no boards? We need community representation in the hospitals to tell government what it is they need so the government can allocate those resources. We are not seeing this in our three smaller hospitals. I do know the two major hospital boards’ reports are tabled.
The issue of hospital boards really does need to be investigated. I know there is a hospital board’s review somewhere, the 2007 Health Consult Review into the Hospital Management Boards Act; we have not seen that yet, and I am not sure when we will see it. I am not sure if the minister has that review yet, or if he does not have it. When will he have it? And when will we start to see a review of the Hospital Management Boards Act?
There are many options. For example, should we pay people on hospitals boards? Do we need to start looking at some serious remuneration for people serving on these boards? You might not get eight or nine people in Tennant Creek, but you might get three or four. I believe there is much to be said when it comes to hospital boards throughout the Northern Territory, and this inquiry will go a long way to uncovering or unearthing some proactive solutions and get to the bottom of this. That is the whole point.
Short-, medium-, and long-term health needs planning and associated future funding programs in the Northern Territory. There is a level of disunity in the development of social policy in short-, medium-, and long-term plans to address the most urgent health problems across the Northern Territory. Alcohol policy is inclined to focus on the impact on law and order, as I have said.
I know we do not have much time, and we have much to get through. The motion is self-explanatory. I have spoken to the member for Nelson; I am not sure I put together a compelling argument, but I would like to hear what he has to say.
I have more I could add, but this is a general outline of where we stand and some of the reasons why we would like to have this motion supported.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to make clear from the very beginning that we are not going to support this motion. We believe this a matter the new Council of Territory Cooperation can self-refer, if the council regards such levels of investigation are warranted.
However, I place on the record the motion as it stands represents a duplication of many existing evaluations and reports required of the Department of Health and Families already fulfilled for national and Territory agreements. In the past, the opposition has complained of too much talking, too much consultation, and here they come with another committee to investigate hospitals. I do not want committees; I do not want investigations. We know what the problems are. I want solutions, and that is what we are working towards.
Every funding agreement we have with the Commonwealth comes with a requirement to account for outcomes and efficiencies of services provided. Our health system response continues with the formal inquiries from independent bodies such as the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Coroner, academic and scientific peer reviews, research studies, and evaluation by professional authorities such as training bodies and medical colleges.
Our health services, as you know, because you are a former Minister for Health yourself, are amongst the busiest in Australia and are provided by highly educated and committed staff within the department and across the Health sector.
Such a committee as purported by the opposition will require an enormous amount of input from health professionals, and will take them away from their core business of looking after the health of Territorians. They do not have time to spend in a committee giving evidence; they have to spend time in the operating theatre, on a ward, or in the emergency department.
In the new spirit of government, I would like to put on the record for the consideration of the opposition and Independent members, the massive effort this government has made in the health system and the significant outcomes we have achieved. We know there is always more to do in health, and we have plans in place to lead the health system in the future.
It is well-known this government has, for the first time ever, a billion-dollar budget for the Health department - when we came to government it was about $400m. So we have a massive increase of more than 100%. I am not going to go on about what happened in the past; how much money the CLP did not put in, and how much money the Howard government did not put in. As the opposition has said in the past, outcomes are not spending money. The reality is, unless you spend the money, you cannot get the doctors and nurses, and you cannot put programs in place to get outcomes.
Let me outline some of the outcomes we have achieved in the past few years. The life expectancy has improved for Aboriginal women by three years. The infant mortality for Aboriginal children has improved by 35%. Anaemia in Aboriginal children living in remote communities has fallen from almost 50% in 1999 to less than 30% now. The birth weights for Aboriginal infants are improving, and still births for Aboriginal mothers have declined by 38% between 1990 and 2005. The cervical cancer rates have declined in Territory women by 61%. There has been an even more dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% for non-Aboriginal women, and 92% for Aboriginal woman. The survival rate of heart attacks for Aboriginal Territorians has improved by 56%. The life expectancy of Centralians on renal replacement therapy has improved by 33%.
These are real outcomes. This is where the money we spend goes, and this what we have achieved. As I said before, we have a number of funding sources and funding from the Australian government for the 2009 specific purpose payments and national policy reforms for Northern Territory hospitals will receive additional funding to meet service demands in the target specific areas of concern.
This funding will specifically provide $145m under the new, national healthcare payment, an increase of 6% on 2008-09 funding. $5m to be invested in hospital and medical departments; $1.25m to expand sub-acute care including rehabilitation, geriatric, hospice and home services, with a further $2.6m planned in future years.
We have consistently attracted additional funds from the Commonwealth for the health system with an average growth of 14% since 2001. And the Australian History of Health and Welfare has consistently reported in the Expenditure on Health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Report that Aboriginal health-related expenditure in the Northern Territory per capita was more than triple the expenditure on non-Aboriginal people. We spent $4500 a year for every Aboriginal person in the Territory compared with $1200 for non-Aboriginal people.
The motion aims to inquire into the efficiency of Territory hospitals. Northern Territory hospitals already comply with extensive scrutiny nationally and locally in relation to their performance and efficiency in meeting the needs of Territorians. All five Northern Territory public hospitals are accredited with the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, ensuring quality care is provided to Territorians. This milestone was achieved and maintained under this Labor government.
Members would also be aware there have been four independent reviews of Royal Darwin Hospital which were publicly released in March this year. We also had other reviews done in other hospitals around the Territory regarding pediatric wards and the safety of paediatric wards. One common theme which emerged from the report on the Royal Darwin Hospital was communication, resources and coordination. On that we have to focus.
We have appointed Mr Alan Wilson as the head of hospitals; he is the manager of all Territory hospitals and he chairs the task force to oversee the implementation of their recommendations and steer the Royal Darwin Hospital in a strategic manner to position it well for the future.
Royal Darwin Hospital is a first-rate hospital with a very experienced and dynamic team of staff, and provides excellent care. Each year the Australian government publishes a report on the performance of public hospitals across Australia - that is the state of our public hospitals - the latest one was in June 2009, and the report consistently showed that our government has continued to increase our efforts in our hospitals to manage the health needs of Territorians.
We provide the most public hospital beds, and I thank the member for Greatorex for acknowledging that - 3.6 public hospital beds per 1000 population, well above the national average of 2.5 beds. We have the busiest emergency department with 742 presentations per 1000 population, compared to the national average of 321.
The Northern Territory far exceeds all other jurisdictions with 510 hospital patient admissions per 1000 population - three times the average admissions in the nation of 184 admissions per 1000 population. The higher admissions may be linked with the high levels of chronic illness in the Northern Territory, especially in relation to the Aboriginal population and limited access to primary health services such as general practitioners and private providers across the Territory. I would be very happy to sit down and discuss with any private provider who wants to establish a private facility anywhere in the Territory, but to date I have not had any inquiries, no one has made an appointment to come and see me, and no one has told me they are prepared to do it. We support both public service providers and private service providers. I would be very happy if someone puts a proposal on the table ...
Mr Conlan: Pick up the phone and ring them.
Mr VATSKALIS: The Minister for Health has more things on his mind rather than trying to entice private providers ...
Mr Conlan: What? Than investigating private health options?
Mr VATSKALIS: As you said before, the health system is very busy and, if there is a profit to be made, people would be queuing outside my door to establish a private facility, rather than the minister trying to offer subsidies which are not workable, as happens in other jurisdictions ...
Mr Conlan: Pick up the phone and say: ‘What do I have to do to get you into Alice Springs?’ That is all you have to do; it is simple. At least try.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government has implemented a strong program of growth in our hospitals since 2001. We have increased the capacity of hospitals with over 127 extra public hospital beds, including building a 24-bed Rapid Admission Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital; opened Ward 3B with 30 new, fully-funded beds; opened the new emergency department and critical care and operating theatres in 2003. The new emergency department under development at Alice Springs Hospital has a short stay unit, fast-track unit, isolation beds, and a new medical imaging department; we expanded resources in the Alice Springs Intensive Care and Coronary Care Units with an additional $11m recurrent since 2004-05.
We have discharge lounges to facilitate timeliness for patients leaving hospital and freeing up hospital beds; Hospital in the Home and Discharge Planning Services are provided seven days per week at both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital; a 12-bed hospice at Royal Darwin Hospital was established in August 2005; a state-of-the-art birthing centre opened in 2007 to provide high-quality midwifery care for birthing in a home-like environment for mothers assessed as low-risk delivery.
Construction is well advanced and staff recruitment has commenced for a new cancer facility, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre. In addition, a 26-room patient residential facility on the outskirts of the city will be refurbished to suit the needs of patients undergoing cancer treatment when they come from other areas in the Territory.
With regard to primary health care, planning in this sector is a collaborative responsibility of the NT Aboriginal Health Forum with three partners: the NT Department of Health and Families, the Commonwealth Department of Heath and Ageing, and the Aboriginal Medical Service Alliance of NT. The partners are currently in the process of detailed planning for the Expanded Health Services Delivery Initiative. This represents the Australian government’s sustainable primary health care follow-up to its earlier NT Emergency Response. The Expanded Health Services Delivery Initiative invests in primary health care reform across the areas of lifespan, regionalisation, increased Aboriginal employment, and service expansion in remote areas of the Northern Territory. Plans are now being developed to equitably and efficiently invest new funding of approximately $50m per year into primary health care across the Territory.
The issues facing Aboriginal health are complex, and there is no easy solution. However, the strategies this government is putting in place will see continued gains in health outcomes.
Once again, I thank the member for Greatorex for acknowledging the lack of private GPs in the Northern Territory. We have 52 GPs per 100 000 people, compared to 87 GPs per 100 000 people nationally. One example of how we are addressing this area of need is the Palmerston Super Clinic, a joint Australian government/Northern Territory government commitment. We launched Stage 1 of the Super Clinic in December 2008. More than 6000 patients have been seen, and that has reduced by 92% the number of people presenting at the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital ...
Mr Conlan: But there is no one there; you have not built it yet.
Mr VATSKALIS: The construction process for the new Palmerston Super Clinic has commenced. The tender was awarded in 2009 and is expected to be operational in 2010. In addition to that, we provided $1.4m to St John Ambulance for a new Palmerston ambulance service to provide 24/7 cover. This has improved response times in both Palmerston and Darwin.
For the first time, the workforce is not as mobile as it used to be. Workforce stability across the entire Department of Health and Families is at 78%. This represents a stable workforce. We know we have a young and mobile workforce in the Territory, and this is a reality faced by every department and, certainly, the Health department.
Our nursing workforce stability is at its highest level ever - 77% across the Northern Territory, and 80% at the Royal Darwin Hospital. However, as I said before, we have young staff who like to be mobile, so we providing many opportunities and incentives for these people to stay. In addition to that, we are working with the Charles Darwin University and Flinders University to establish the first-ever medical school in the Northern Territory. If we grow our own, they will stay here; we have seen that with midwives and with nurses. People who are trained here choose to stay here.
In addition to these initiatives, I am presenting a range of remote health worker reform initiatives worthy of exploration at the national level to the Australian Health Ministers Conference to be held on 4 September 2009. I have spoken about them to the Commonwealth Minister for Health, I have spoken to my colleagues about them, and they face the same problem, especially in Queensland and Western Australia, and I believe I have their support.
The agenda paper will introduce a number of initiatives, focused largely on increasing the health workforce in rural and remote areas. Four key initiatives are proposed:
Elective surgery: yes, elective surgery waiting lists are far too long. People are waiting too long to have elective surgery, but since 2007 the combined efforts of the Northern Territory and Australian governments have resulted in a reduction of 31% in the total waiting list, and an impressive 43% reduction in patients waiting too long for their surgery.
Royal Darwin Hospital is about to open two new operating theatres through upgrades to the procedure room and an endoscopy theatre. I held discussions with Royal Darwin Hospital, and there will be a blitz on the endoscopy waiting list - they will complete 120 procedures within a fortnight, with additional lists conducted on Saturdays. The same thing will apply for elective surgery. I have had discussions with the department, and by October they will provide me with a plan of how they will address and significantly reduce that waiting list.
We know the waiting times at the emergency department are long. One of the main reasons for that is because, while we see Category 1 patients immediately, Category 3, 4 and 5 patients have to wait, and these are people who come to the emergency department because they cannot access a GP because they do not have the opportunity or the money to access a GP. As I said before, private GPs are very rare in the Territory, much rarer than anywhere else, so people come to the emergency department.
We are currently having discussions on how to address this issue: the possibility of establishing other clinics around the Territory like the Palmerston Super Clinic, to provide a solution. We are certainly not sitting down doing nothing; we are looking seriously at the situation with the emergency department.
We know the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital sees one admission every 10 minutes. That is an incredible number of admissions, but I was recently in Perth where a survey was done of all public hospitals around Australia and which showed the worst waiting times in Australia are actually in the public hospitals in Perth, not the Territory. I am not proud because we are not the worst, but what I am saying is, we have a problem, and we are working to address and resolve this problem.
Again, at the Dental Health Clinic there is a significant issue with waiting lists. One of the reasons is because we have a great difficulty in recruiting people in the Darwin region. I have to say all Central Australian dental positions were filled in 2009 but, unfortunately, this is not happening in Darwin where we had significantly lower rates, but by offering enhanced salary packages the vacancy rate has fallen from 40% to 13%. We put in place $1.5m for a dental blitz, plus $750 000 recurrent in order to reduce the waiting list for dental procedures.
A new hospital boards act is being developed, and I look forward to bringing it to the House in the very near future. This new act will improve the functioning of boards and enable the smaller, regional hospitals to establish effective community representation on their boards. The boards will have increased capacity to engage local stakeholders; contribute to improving standards of quality and accountability; and provide a local perspective for the development of policy and strategic directions.
In conclusion, health is an important matter for this government and for all Territorians. We have a strong track record in delivering more services than ever before, and targeting the areas of greatest need. This matter may be referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation by its membership and, if deemed necessary, may proceed with further inquiry into the health system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government does not support today’s motion.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess I know where the member for Nelson stands on this; he does not event want to contribute to the debate, which is very disappointing. He wants to refer it to the black hole, which is the committee, the grand council, or whatever it is called, which does not even exist.
The minister just really unloaded another bunch of spin. We know all this; we have heard it all before, and it is spin. The reason we need to have an inquiry is because the health system is busting apart. It is absolutely bursting at the seams. Despite the amount of money being poured into the health system and the Health department - $1bn - we are not seeing outcomes as a result of the amount of money. More and more money being poured into our health system, but we are not seeing any real outcomes. It is busting at the seams. We need an inquiry; there is no doubt about it. To refer this to the black hole which is the Council of Territory Cooperation or whatever it is going to be called - which does not even exist yet - is shameful.
The minister said no one has bothered to come and see him about setting up private health in Alice Springs. Has the minister bothered to pick up the telephone? Private health providers are not going to actually build the structure, minister. If the Territory government was to pick up the telephone and ask: ‘What do I need to do to get you into Alice Springs? We need some private health. We need to start investing in private health across the Northern Territory. What do I need to do?’ That is being proactive; it is called public/private relations - something that seems to be completely lost on the Labor government - a public/private partnership is what it is known as. I think it is absolutely shameful for the minister to say: ‘No one has bothered to come and see me. I am too busy to pick up the phone. I am the Health Minister. I am too busy to do it’. Minister, it is your job to get out there and provide the best possible health outcomes for Northern Territorians. You do need to provide infrastructure, and we are not seeing that.
The Palmerston Super Clinic - you claim it to be the great saviour - you have not even built it yet. You were given $10m by the Rudd government, which he promised two years ago …
Mr Vatskalis: The first stage is already operating.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, now they are talking about …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … the Palmerston hospital …
Mr Vatskalis: That is coming next.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: … the hospital, which was a cruel farce …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … the previous Health minister said. To build a hospital out at Palmerston is a cruel farce; these are the words from the previous Health minister; shows how much compassion he had. Nevertheless, we committed to a hospital and now you realise it is probably a good idea and you are going to go ahead and build it. We will believe it when we see it - we have seen promise after promise. What is it? Look at what they do and not what they say. And we see it again with the oncology unit.
Health in the Northern Territory is in a shameful state. That is not taking anything away from the people who work in our Health department; they are under enormous pressure. We know that. All you have to do is look at the many reasons people are leaving the Health department and leaving the Northern Territory. It is because of the huge pressures they are placed under by the minister and his department. We have a department that has been provided with over $1bn; a department that continues, despite that $1bn, to deliver poor health results; a department that has been criticised many times by coronial after coronial. It is absolutely shameful. Health Complaints Commission report after Health Complains Commission report: staff shortages that have resulted in people dying in hospital wards.
This department is so determined to hide from scrutiny that it does not inform any of its ministers what is actually happening in the department. They are so scared and want to protect their own interests so much they will not even tell the minister what is going on. We have a department where staffing applications are sitting on the desks of CEOs and not being responded to. In fact, they do not keep to the budgets or work on those efficiencies. This was identified in the Health Complaints Commissioner’s report into Royal Darwin Hospital; it was a fact, it was said that is what is happening; the Health department that refuses to provide reports to the public, even under FOI application.
We have a whole list of FOIs still sitting there that this department and this government goes out of its way not to provide to the opposition. It is amazing what you will do not to provide information to the opposition. We have one here which has been referred to the Information Commissioner, in fact, because it is not happening - the acute care staffing: e-mail chain, Ashbridge, Griew and Campos; executive meeting minutes with approved Campos’ e-mails, all with the commissioner. The maternity review is with the commissioner. The paediatrics security is with the Information Commissioner …
Ms Lawrie: You had FOI with the CLP?
Mr CONLAN: There is correspondence with the Cornish report. Clarification of scope was requested on 23 March 2009, nurses in acute care staffing at Royal Darwin Hospital. This goes back to 2 September 2008, so we are approaching 12 months. What is the problem with that?
Ms Lawrie: No FOIs under the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: There are plenty of FOIs out there with the commissioner – and you know it. They are there with the commissioner and you are going out of your way not to provide the opposition with that information. It is plain and simple!
The status of the Alice Springs Hospital, emergency and communication system, that is still outstanding. Mind you, that was only in May, so we might get that next year.
What about outstanding reports? We have the Cornish report from 2006-08 into aeromedical services, only the executive summary and recommendations of 2008 have been publicly released; the 2007 Health Consultant Review into the Hospital Management Boards Act, which I mentioned in my opening remarks; the 2007 Bath Report, only the executive summary and recommendations have been released; the 2002 and 2007 Lingard reports into security at Royal Darwin Hospital - these are non-released reports. This is a government that goes out of its way not to provide information, not only to the opposition, but also the general public.
The culture of cover-up in the Health department is alive and well - always has been and, by the look of things, always will be. It is very disappointing not to see the support of the Independent member for Nelson. I believe he is making the wrong decision not to support this very comprehensive review which would not be very expensive in the grand scheme of things. We have a billion-dollar Health budget, but we are not delivering successful outcomes to the people of the Northern Territory, yet some of the excuses were that this review would be too expensive, take up too much time, not enough time to do it; we are all too busy to do it. You are too busy to pick up the phone and the public servants are too busy to take part in the review or appear to give evidence before the committee.
Upstairs on the third floor we have Action Committee staff just waiting to undertake this type of thing. We need to provide them with the work so that they can do it. Oh, no, the culture of cover-up is alive and well in the Northern Territory Health department. I have known it for a long time. I have known it ever since I came into this place, which has only been two years. It is staggering the amount of evidence pointing to the culture of cover-up in the Health department
We have seen it with one Health minister - I have seen two Health ministers in my time here and there have been four, maybe five, since this government came to power. It is a situation where the tail is wagging the dog, you are putting the horse before the cart - you can use every single metaphor you possibly know – it all applies to the Northern Territory Labor Party, and it particularly applies to the Northern Territory Health department. I am very disappointed the government will not support an open and accountable review.
You talk about openness and accountability in a new era of government with this new cooperation you have with the Independent member; he says he only received it yesterday and has not had much time to look at it. Well, it is self-explanatory, and if he has been listening to anything in this House in his time in parliament, and certainly over the last couple of years since I have been shadow Health spokesperson, then he should know exactly where we are and what state we are in with Health across the Northern Territory.
It is extremely disappointing, and a little rich, to suggest something that was dropped on his desk yesterday, he has not had much time to look at, when he drops on this side of the table an 11-page detailed document of an agreement with you guys at 10 am. But, that is for him and for his conscience. At midnight on Thursday night he did not know what he was doing, but at 10 am the next morning, he had an 11-page document. That is for him.
Nevertheless, it is the government that is not supporting this. It is very disappointing and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
The Assembly divided:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 Ayes and 12 Noes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 there being an equality of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I just note, honourable members, that, in fact, I did not use a casting vote as has been suggested. In fact, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says if there is an equality of votes the matter is found in the negative. It is totally up to the person in the Chair whether to cast the casting vote.
Continued from 28 October 2008.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this bill is an attempt by the Opposition Leader to cover up for the blunder from a little over a year ago, when he ran television commercials saying: ‘Commit a violent assault once, the sentence I leave to the discretion of the courts, but do it again and you are off to gaol’.
The bill today is nothing more than an attempt to overcompensate for this blunder. This bill from the Leader of the Opposition is almost identical to the amendments proposed by the member for Araluen during a debate on sentencing last year.
In contrast, the Labor government took a very clear position to the Territory election. There will be no second chance for people who commit serious violent assaults. If you commit a serious violent assault, you will go to gaol, first time, no second chances. It was part of a comprehensive justice plan which also includes limiting bail for serial violent offenders, and giving the community a real say in sentencing.
We have already passed and commenced our sentencing and bail amendments, correctly brought into the House by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. It was an election commitment which the Henderson government delivered by October of 2008.
We are also boosting the Territory’s prosecution resources, court capacity and witness assistance services. In Budget 2009, there will be an additional $3.3m to ensure our DPP is able to mount vigorous and timely prosecutions against violent offenders.
Our courts’ facilities are improved and our magistrates’ numbers increased to deal with the workload. This is in complete contrast to the opposition, who are all over the place. As I mentioned, the first attempt involved giving violent offenders a second chance. And in the second attempt, the Opposition Leader’s bill creates a confused and incredibly inflexible sentencing regime. Also, it seeks to remove important judicial discretion in sentencing.
The bill does not make any allowance for different circumstances in which the offence may occur, even though the culpability of offenders or the severity of the assault could vary considerably. The defence of provocation is gone.
The government’s approach is clear: commit a violent offence – you go to gaol. But we also respect the right of the court in relation to sentencing, the right of the court to determine the appropriate sentence. We believe the government gets the balance right; this bill does not. The government cannot support this bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we start with a typical, political take on this, fuelled by bitter cynicism when, staring in the face of the honourable member, is the 80% increase in violent assaults. In spite of all the bold, courageous assertions of the minister, the fact which you describe to be so effective and having the balance just right appears to be making no impact whatsoever on the culture of violence in our community; and you have no explanation for this. You offer no defence of your own record, once again couched in carefully selected words and fuelled by bitter cynicism and taking the political rather than the reality to guide you.
This bill sets out specific minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offenders, and that is dependent upon the severity of the violent offence and described, and all second and subsequent offences. I take note of the minister’s reference to the removal of discretion, which I take from a Labor politician as code for: Let us consider the sad story of the poor offender and take that into consideration before we make final judgment because, when all is said and done, the offender is not completely responsible’. That is the Labor approach and you see the evidence of that approach in the fact that violent assaults are on the increase because there is no effective consequence; there is no counter to that notion that a person is, in fact, responsible.
I make no apology, minister, for what you described as an inflexible approach. That is because we have a clear standard to defend, and assaults, particularly violent assaults on citizens, is unacceptable. So it is not hard to unpack the story behind the Labor decision to oppose this amendment because, once again, there is support for offenders, a preparedness to be ambivalent or casual about the notion of personal consequence and, as a result, we see the effect in the crime statistics. I cannot continue without referring to a previous assertion that there is no real connection between the crime statistics and the role of the police. There is, in the mind of the minister, no relationship between legislation and crime statistics, as if they are two separate entities, two separate realities.
The nature of your policy, the approach of your policy, the implementation of your policy, the attitude you have to it and the principles upon which it is based, will bear direct effect upon the crime and the cause of crime. Consequences must occur, and our community standards must be defended.
There is another point of weakness in the government position and, hopefully, we will be discussing measures to ensure a greater degree of truth in the way public messages are presented in time to come. It is that notion which the minister, the member for Karama, can assert with a look of earnestness - which, I believe, is wearing a bit thin with many Territorians - that we have the balance right and they will go to jail, but you do not actually deal with the possibility that they do time until the rising of the court. That is a gap which needs to be filled if you are deadly serious about providing a genuine consequence, albeit described as inflexible. Well, no apology. Certain principles and standards need to be reinforced. It takes courage to ensure a person bears responsibility and the wider community knows that there is a consequence, and standards will be defended.
I hope the argument I have put will persuade the honourable member but, somehow, with all my time in this Chamber, I doubt that; despite the foreshadowing of a new and different approach to debate and the contest of ideas, rather than bold assertions backed up because you were comfortable with 19 members and could say and do whatever you liked. It is a little different now, is it not?
I urge honourable members to support this so we are providing a clear consequence, we are defending community standards, and we are bearing a direct assault upon the culture of violence within our community by saying there is a consequence, community standards will be defended, and we make no apology for standing up and holding an individual responsible. There will be a consequence, and a message will be sent and, I believe, if we take this approach based on solid ground, there will be a change.
If government chooses to oppose this, I predict we will see the same upward movement in the crime statistics, particularly in violent assaults, because if you take the same attitude, the same approach and expect a different result - you are mad. So, I urge honourable members to support this bill.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Chandler Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Ms McCarthy
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 Ayes and 12 Noes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, there being an equality of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have consulted. In the interest of getting this right, to ensure this will fix a clear problem, I move – that:
However, I say ,so it is on the public record, that this later hour is the October sittings. Between now and then, given this matter has been on the Notice Paper for some time, we will work to bring this to resolution in October.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you are seeking leave to have that postponed?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Motion agreed to; leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes two changes on the current Information Act in relation to freedom of information.
The first change is the reason we cannot support this bill, because it completely undermines the Cabinet process. First, we need to understand the Cabinet process and the reasons behind it. The processes we have in the Northern Territory are, in the main, the same as in every other jurisdiction and based on the principles of good policy development.
The cornerstone of good policy development is the capacity of government agencies to provide Cabinet with frank and fearless advice. Good policy development, particularly for large and complex matters, requires much deliberation at many levels of government, with many stakeholders and, often, across many agencies, before Cabinet can make a fully informed decision which best addresses the needs of Territorians.
The development of a Cabinet submission is an iterative process: the advice from one agency or stakeholder requires further advice from another, and so on, often involving advice of Commonwealth agencies or bodies. This can mean the development of large and complex Cabinet submissions can take months and, in extreme cases, years, before they are finally considered by Cabinet. This inter-agency advice usually takes the form of initial, informal discussions between relevant agency officers prior to the formal distribution or circulation of a Cabinet submission to agencies for their formal advice, signed off by the agency’s CEO.
The first formal involvement of a minister in this process is the approval for the formal circulation of the Cabinet submission. The level to which a minister is involved depends on its importance and complexity but, up to this stage, it is possible the minister has not been involved in the detail of the submission and, in some cases, it is possible the minister is not the one bringing it forward. It is only after formal advice is received from the agency’s CEO that the submission is lodged by the minister for consideration by Cabinet.
As I said, this process is based on the same process undertaken by every government in Australia. It ensures proper policy development, frank and fearless advice, and allows government to make full and properly considered decisions.
The first proposed change in the bill from the member for Drysdale completely undermines this process. The change means a Cabinet submission which has not been considered by Cabinet could be subject to release under FOI. It would not be exempt. This could lead to absurd situations where an incomplete Cabinet submission with no legal advice or input, no budgetary advice, has not been seen by the relevant minister, who may not even be aware of its existence, could be released as a formal government document. Such a document could be totally inaccurate. It could be factually incorrect, and could be totally counter to government policy. The release of such a document would be misleading.
The possibility of such a draft Cabinet submission becoming public as an official government document would completely compromise the capacity of the public service to provide frank and fearless advice. The decisions made by Cabinet are important, and it is vital that such decisions involve calm, rational, considered deliberation and process. Protecting the integrity of government decision-making is important, and is why we cannot support this bill.
The second proposal contained in the bill is all fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived. As members are aware, this is within the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. So, while we agree with the intent of the member for Drysdale’s amendment, in this case the government will not go through the process in terms of developing a bill to enact this agreement. The government has proved it is prepared to undertake reform to improve transparency and accountability.
In debate last week, I pointed out when we came to government there was no estimates process, no freedom of information legislation, the Electoral Commission sat in the Department of the Chief Minister, and there was no whistleblower legislation. It was the Labor government which introduced FOI legislation into the Northern Territory after decades of refusal from the CLP to join contemporary practice with the rest of the country.
We look forward to continuing this process of reform to improve transparency and accountability. A clear agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson is to waive fees for government reports sought under the FOI process, and the government holds true to that commitment to the member for Nelson. We will be removing the requirement for fees to access government reports under the FOI process. That is distinctly different from just any witch-hunt someone may want to have as a member of parliament, requesting whatever e-mails there are, trying to grind down the business of normal government. It is understandable and appropriate to provide access to reports under FOI by waiving fees, but the strange and bizarre witch-hunt we have seen conducted by the opposition, the CLP, in terms of broadbrush e-mails from people - no, we will not grind down the good operations and functions of government because of their political whims and witch-hunts.
The government will not support this bill. This bill would ensure the public service would not be in a position to provide frank and fearless advice to the government. Any government wants its public service to get on with the business of testing progress within the jurisdiction by ensuring Cabinet submissions in draft stages and through all their iterative stages are fully tested and fully canvassed right across, not just the public service, but also through key stakeholders, external agencies and also where it involves the Commonwealth government.
So this bill just goes to show the opposition does not understand the need for frank and fearless advise from the public service, and the need to ensure that, unfettered, they can get on and do the job of assisting in good government.
Madam Speaker, we will not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill and will give you my reasons.
I thank the member for introducing the bill; I believe it does raise some very important points. At this time I have some concerns about dealing with documents which may have been prepared for Cabinet but not necessarily considered by Cabinet. We would then have to consider whether those documents had a dominant purpose for coming into existence
I know what the member is trying to do, but trying to decide which documents have a dominant purpose, without clear definitions and understandings, could certainly cause some disagreements over the definition and what was meant. I also feel this bill is basically saying simply because they have not got to Cabinet, therefore they should be available for FOI. That is an area, to be honest, member for Drysdale, that I would really need to give much more thought and consideration.
There are obviously major issues, as the Treasurer said, in relation to this. I believe we need to strike a balance between having as much information as possible accessible to the public, without affecting the need of government to have certain information not publicly available - because governments do sometimes have to make decisions using documentation not available to the public - and still allowing the Cabinet to do its job.
Whether this bill goes too far is what I am having trouble dealing with. We have had many discussions on this, and I certainly would not mind it coming back for some more debate. I am also willing to talk to government because part of the agreement is similar to what you have in your second amendment: that is no fee applies to an application or complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly - in the agreement it says for any reports. I believe some of the issues you are talking about may be brought under the definition of reports; I certainly believe that agreement is flexible enough,
I am happy to give this more consideration; what you are trying to do is a good thing. As I said, the more information available to the public, the less chance of secret squirrel business. But, at the present time I am not convinced I have enough information, there may be major issues I have not seen, or foreseen, so I would err on the side of caution. I am not saying this to avoid the issue, because I would certainly reconsider it at another time with more information before me.
I would like to have full discussion with the government to see if there are further grounds for agreement on what you are putting forward, or areas of common agreement which could be brought together.
I believe the idea behind it is good, but the practical application of it without having a chance to look the broader implications, how it applies in other states or jurisdictions, what are their guidelines, do they have a definition of ‘dominant purpose’; because they are certainly words lawyers would have a field day with.
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for bringing this to the parliament, but my reasons for not supporting it are as I have just explained.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to what the member for Nelson has had to say, and I am surprised about a couple of things. One, ‘I have not had enough time to look at this’. This has been on the paper since April, if memory serves me correctly. I would suggest to the member for Nelson that he has had sufficient time, plus some, to turn his mind to this issue.
Also, the spurious argument provided by both the member for Nelson and the Attorney-General in relation to this matter about: ‘This is going to open it up too much, and Cabinet will be compromised’ is arrant nonsense. That is not in the content of this bill and it would take a reading of the most liberal variety to arrive at the conclusion that is the intent or object or design of the legislative instrument before us now.
The simple fact is this bill is designed to prevent some of the circus acts we have seen committed, for lack of better words, in other jurisdictions. The business about Cabinet documents, this broad-ranging title of ‘Cabinet documents’ means that you can lock down any number of documents. In Queensland there was an example where, and I remember this from the original arguments, where Cabinet met in a room which was full of boxes of documents that had absolutely nothing to do with the Cabinet meeting of the day, and had absolutely everything to do with claiming those documents they wanted classified as ‘Cabinet documents’, to be ‘Cabinet documents’.
The operation of FOI, as much as it is lauded by the government as they champion their own brilliance in introducing freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory, something that would have happened in any instance, they have forgotten to tell Territorians that this legislative instrument they call ‘freedom of information’ is often referred to in the public arena as ‘freedom from information’.
Some examples of information which would have been useful and timely in some debates in the past, indeed, I believe one of these is still on foot. What about the e-mails between Campos and Griew over the death of Margaret Winter, as well as the management of the Royal Darwin Hospital? This side of the House applied for those e-mails, and what did we find? We found stonewalling and obfuscation and deliberate hiding behind the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.
This natural tension between the public right to know and the government’s right to govern, and often govern in confidence, is something which has been around for a long time. I draw honourable members’ attention to the case in 1985 of Howard versus the Treasurer. In that particular matter, the presiding judges - and I do not have the case in front of me, but it outlined a set of criteria which were considered reasonable exemptions. It discussed, at length, the natural tension in that case between those two competing interests – the competing interests of the right of the public to know, and the right of the government to do its business in an effective way without being undermined by documents leaking out.
The broad-ranging exemption of Cabinet documents is extremely intrusive and, basically, is being used by this government, and will continue to be used by this government, as a place to hide ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr Elferink: Listen to her. I ask you, would it not have been interesting a few years ago if the document which revealed the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the member for Wanguri, was briefed two days before the Bob Collins suicide attempt, in 2007 ...
Mr Henderson: Get out of the gutter.
Mr ELFERINK: Why was that document not tabled and made available then?
Mr Henderson: Because there is no document.
Mr ELFERINK: There is a document; we finally got it through FOI. You were briefed two days before that and, magically, Bob Collins made a suicide attempt …
Mr Henderson: You are a grub!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin knows he should be addressing his remarks through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you could address your remarks through the Chair and, perhaps, your volume could be somewhat lower.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, they are being very provocative.
We had to put in FOI after FOI to discuss this particular document. The document we finally received was a copy of the handwritten note which said …
Members interjecting.
Madam Speaker: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … by the Commissioner of Police two years, three years after the event …
Ms Lawrie: You got a briefing?
Mr ELFERINK: … from the Commissioner of Police saying he briefed the then Police minister and the then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne and Paul Henderson, of the imminent charges that were going to be laid …
Ms Lawrie: Charges that were laid.
Mr ELFERINK: … against the former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bob Collins. Two days later, Bob Collins died. Do you think that document would not have been of interest to the media at that time?
Ms Lawrie: Charges that were laid. So, what are you alleging?
Mr ELFERINK: Do you not think that would have been of interest to the media; that those particular people were advised - two days before the suicide attempt - that charges were imminent?
Ms Lawrie: Charges were laid.
Mr ELFERINK: Charges were imminent. I assure you they are the type of documents which should be available under FOI and – finally - are available under FOI. For this government to allege they are champions of the freedom of information in this jurisdiction is just rubbish. Their avoidance of dealing with these particular issues, these very straightforward and good suggestions, demonstrates they had no interest in freedom of information.
Moreover, people forget there is an arbiter in this process, and the arbiter is the Information Commissioner. When there is a requirement to make that determination about the tension between the public interest and the government’s right to keep information silent, let us give the power - and that is what this bill will do - of arbitration to the Information Commissioner.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank those members for their input. This bill came in some time ago, and it was a pretty simple bill. It is about making the government accountable. No doubt, the government will not support this bill because it will make government more accountable ...
Ms Lawrie: We are happy to be accountable.
Mr BOHLIN: It would appear you are not. It is about pro-disclosure; that is, encouraging governments to be free with their information, not hide behind a policy of non-disclosure at every possible opportunity.
It is been said by the member for Karama that, having amended section 156 with the inclusion of (2A):
will lead to people putting in many claims.
That is very possible if a member wishes to see him or herself ousted at the next election, because it would make that person look like is a silly minister, like some on that side. If people go silly and request large volumes of information, it will have the potential for political embarrassment and, as such, it will prove self-limited, because you would not want to cause political embarrassment to yourself because you went down the path of finding out how many letters Joe Blow wrote about the soccer park to work out whether or not the soccer park needed more chairs. It will be self-limiting because the ministers requesting the information would not want to abuse the system and would not want to make themselves a political embarrassment.
Of course, if the government were truly open and accountable with this information, when presented with a request, there would be no need. It would also provide a self-limiting factor in the abuse of this provision if the information relevant was freely available. It also comes to the fact – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide. Those who refuse to supply information can only have things to hide – like crooks, they hide many things …
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand the iterative process, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: A government willing to hide information from other members of parliament can only something to hide.
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand the iterative process of government, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: The first part, amendments to section 44 …
Ms Lawrie: Frank and fearless advice, you do not understand it.
Mr BOHLIN: I will get to that part, and it is a pretty good part. I am glad you raised that, member for Karama.
We are proposing the amendment so the document was brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an executive body, and that was the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence, that the information was submitted to and considered by the executive body.
At the moment, if a document currently exists and this parliament decides that this document, be it an e-mail or some other grubby form of document, is deemed by Cabinet, all of a sudden, because it may have something incriminating in it, to be a ‘Cabinet document’ it is, therefore, unreachable. Yet it was never intended to be a Cabinet document; its existence was never made as a Cabinet document. That is just an example of how hiding behind the Cabinet could be perverted at the current time. So, we say it must have an intent to be used in Cabinet in the first place.
This amendment to section 45 of the act is complementary already to the Rudd government’s amendment to the Commonwealth FOI laws, so we see a divide between this government and the federal parliament. We have reports made on Freedom of Information reform, a companion guide for 2009 to parliament, and it said we now need to start amending these reports so there is more accountability, but what we hide behind is a lack of accountability.
The member for Karama said this could affect the frank and fearless advice to government. And that is the exact reason why it should exist – to access the truth. If someone supplies provides fearless and frank advice, which one would expect to be the truth, then the public should know about the truth. Or do you oppose the thought of the public knowing the truth?
Ms Lawrie: You are an absolute fool. You do not understand.
Mr BOHLIN: Do you oppose the public knowing the truth, member for Karama? It would appear in this parliament that the member for Karama would oppose the idea of the public knowing the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The man is verballing me. Of course, I like the public to know the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Drysdale, can you make your comments through the Chair, and keep to the point, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are very supportive of the public sector providing frank and fearless advice to the government, and this does not limit that opportunity, in fact, it would encourage it because they would also know that the truth would be out there to make better decisions. It would be available to all members of parliament to make better decisions on governing the Territory. Some will say later: ‘It is all wishy-washy, what the member for Drysdale talked about’. But the reality is this is about making government accountable; a process that will assist in making government accountable, so that the truth is out there and is able to be read.
A part of the amendment of section 156, where we intend to insert after section 156(2A) about the fees, I will give you some examples of why it is important to get the truth, as you hear of some shows, ‘the truth is out there’, member for Nelson. These are examples of FOIs which, unfortunately, the member for Nelson probably would not be able to chase down, nor any other Independent, because of the prohibitive costs.
The nursing staff levels were submitted it on 2 September 2008. Then there was an agreement for several extensions and time requests; then there was a request for a review on 24 March 2009 due to a lack of response. Then we finally received an estimate of fees, member for Nelson, of $65 181, and at this stage, as an Independent, you would not be able to chase such information. That would deliver the requested information by 1 December 2012. There was a complaint submitted to the Information Commissioner on 12 May 2009 due to dissatisfaction with the cost and estimated time frame, because they said they will supply the information by 1 December 2012. Why is that important? Is that just after the next election?
A member: No, that is when it is on.
Mr BOHLIN: Right! So, this government is willing to hide behind an FOI until 2012. That is an example of why these amendments must be made, not the fact that initial fees were $65 000 - I must admit though it was re-assessed to $42 000, and the process still continues.
Here is another example. There one for health 1 September, submitted on 13 October 2008, received an estimate of fees of $10 464 - member for Nelson, could you afford to chase that? I honestly do not think so, at this stage - a deposit was paid in November 2008; and a review requested on 24 March 2009, due to lack of response. November 2008 – now we are in March - lack of response. The complaint was submitted to the Information Commissioner in May 2009 due to dissatisfaction with response of review. We expect a reply from Health in mid-September 2009.
Currently, we have nine outstanding health FOIs, most of them are before the commissioner, with complaints for dissatisfaction. This is a prime example of this government hiding the truth from the public.
The fees currently applied even to members of this Legislative Assembly are an example of this government hiding from the truth; that is why this bill is so important to the people of the Northern Territory for whom we all are here to work, and for whom we all intend to do our best.
They are simple amendments, they are wise amendments; they are in line with much of what is changing around Australia today. As I have said, this government is only going to refuse this bill because they have so much to hide.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr BOHLIN: They have so much to hide from the people; they are a failed government which has no way forward. In just one area alone, the Health department, this government wants to charge members of parliament tens of thousands of dollars, and they fail to deliver the reports, and they continue to hide - this is the importance of this bill. I put it to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset, government will not be supporting this bill. However, having said that, the intent behind this bill is worthy of further consideration, and I will be outlining in my response how government intends to do so.
The intent expressed in this bill is, I believe, that a strong, independent voice on environment protection is in the Territory’s interest. That is what we are all about here in the House, and that is why this government established the Territory’s first Environmental Protection Authority which is independent and legislated. When government established the EPA it did so with a clear purpose: to create an organisation which filled a key gap in our environmental protection regime - that is the big picture - strategic issues.
That is what the EPA, with its independent board and staff, has been doing. It has some very important work on the go, and I will list a few of those activities: the review of the Environmental Assessment Act; establishment of the sustainability principles; and the review of the regulatory frameworks applicable to Darwin Harbour. The EPA has released discussion papers and is consulting directly with the community. This important strategic work is under way and it will, and should, continue.
I would, however, acknowledge that as important as this work is - the community wants more. It wants an EPA capable of taking up the hard questions on major developments. It wants an EPA that can probe regulatory processes, investigate complaints, and report on how our environment is tracking.
Government has agreed to make some changes to the EPA which responds to these community concerns. Those changes will encompass what I believe is the intent behind these amendments, but they will go further and will form a package that fits all together.
The government has no particular difficulties with those elements of this bill that seek to strengthen the reporting of the EPA to the Speaker and the Legislative Assembly. The EPA’s annual report is already required to be tabled, but there are some useful additional suggestions here. Government does not have difficulty with those elements of the proposed amendments which seek the EPA to be involved in advising and making recommendations on major projects.
Our main concern is we already have a process by which major projects are subject to environmental scrutiny, advice and recommendations, and it is administered through the Environmental Assessment Act. So this proposed amendment would create a parallel process and has the potential to create uncertainty for business and the community.
There will be a process for making the changes to the EPA which government has agreed to. It will be a comprehensive package, and it will involve the EPA, the board, and the member for Nelson, who has a strong interest in this area. I am more than happy to involve the member for Brennan to pick up on his ideas.
In the interests of clarity and in the interests of completeness, government will not be supporting these amendments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I had some really interesting discussions today with the member for Brennan, and I appreciate what he is trying to do. There has been some documentation back from the EPA in relation to some of this, and there are five points in the agreement which need to be discussed with the EPA. I have had a letter from them saying they would like some more discussions on the agreement.
I believe there is an opportunity for all sides to come together on this, because the EPA is an important body. I would like to get together with the members for Brennan and Stuart to see if we can work together with the EPA - in other words, we go to see the EPA. Mr Andrew Tucker has invited me to meet with him about matters raised in the agreement. I believe the member for Brennan is trying to broaden some of the aspects in relation to the EPA and, in general, I support what he is trying to do.
If we can combine our resources and make sure we are working in conjunction with the EPA, because they are obviously interested in what happens, and there will be matters in relation to funding and are they working outside their brief. I know there is an amendment here which is to omit the words, ‘the Chief Minister decides’, because they were concerned about losing their independence. There are issues about whether they should be a regulatory body. During the big discussion about the EPA there were three different responses from the CLP, ALP and me as to what type of EPA should exist. And, of course, there were those famous discussions in parliament where we had the interim EPA, the not so interim EPA, and I do not know what other EPAs floating around at the time. Eventually, the government came up with a model.
The EPA has done some reviews of itself, where the public had input into what they thought was the role of the EPA. I believe this is a good opportunity to pick up what you are putting forward; especially making sure it comes back to parliament; that is good as well. We have already had an opportunity tonight with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister getting together to work through the Public Authority Advertising Bill; this may be another opportunity to sit down and work together. I would be happy if you want to put your name to the bill, along with the minister, and bring it forward as a combined bill, after consultation with the EPA. I believe that is a good way to go.
What you have done by introducing this bill is spurred a bit of activity, and spurred a bit of activity from the EPA. If the invitation is there from Andrew Tucker to discuss what is in the agreement, then we also discuss what is in your documentation. They obviously replied to some of what you suggest, and if we can overcome those concerns, let us see if we can combine our resources, because the EPA is about helping the Territory in relation to environmental matters, which we are all concerned about. We want to get the best we can from the EPA.
Even though I am not supporting this bill, I believe there is a chance here to work together as a parliament to come up with some good legislative outcomes, which I believe everyone would regard as the best way forward.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I suppose this is a bit of a lost opportunity to open the doors to the way forward.
The purpose of this bill was to provide the Environment Protection Authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements; that is all. This amendment was simple and does nothing more than ensure that the Environment Protection Authority continues to evolve into the authority that I, and many others, believe it should be, and most people expect it to be.
Section 21A sets out to diminish the threat that the EPA’s recommendations do not make it into the public domain through a process where neither a minister nor Cabinet can prevent them being tabled in this House. While section 5A provides more independence with the ability to assess major projects and provide recommendations to the parliament, and ultimately the people, it does not alter the necessity for a developer to undertake an environmental impact assessment. It does, however, offer government an independent view of any major development and perhaps provide a very sound perceptive; a sounding board, if you like, that can be used I deciding whether to approve a major development, or assessing an environmental impact statement.
This does not suggest in any way that the EPA can overrule government - it cannot overrule Cabinet - it can only advise and provide a recommendation after a thorough assessment. Nothing in this amendment prevents that or changes that. The government can still make a judgment at odds with the EPA for many other reasons, including on economic grounds. This amendment just ensures that such a decision would be made in an open and accountable manner - just what this current administration promotes as their new way of doing business - open and accountable, nothing more, nothing less.
In its current form, this act does not require the minister to inform the public of any recommendations received from the EPA. At the time I had the word of the then minister that she would ensure all EPA recommendations would be tabled in this House, and I appreciate that. But as we have seen over the last few weeks, time moves on, and again we have yet another minister for the Environment. We can protect this in legislation to ensure the recommendations remain open and accountable, whether it is a minister from the Labor government or a future Country Liberals government.
It should be noted again that the government has the propensity to reshuffle from time to time, to stack the decks or, as we have seen in recent weeks, to fill the gaps, shore up the ship or enter into a deal of a lifetime. I was confident in the then minister’s ability and believed her heart was in the right place when it comes to protecting the environment. When she gave me her word that all EPA recommendations would indeed be tabled to the parliament, I really did not have any reason to doubt her. I cannot have the same confidence in some of the other Cabinet members - perhaps the next minister, or the minister after that.
By way of example, I recall reading the National Environmental Report by the federal Environment minister, Mr Peter Garrett. What I found was a damning example of both a leadership and the unstable government we have here, was the fact that within the report was a photo of each of the state’s Environment ministers. Nothing unusual, except when you look at the glossy photos; there was a photo of the minister for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. When we get to the Northern Territory, you see not one photo, not two photos, but three photos - three photos of ministers from government, all in the time it took to prepare an annual report. Representing the Territory government was the former member for Goyder, the member for Karama, and the member for Arafura. Since then, we have had the member for Macdonnell, and now we have yet another member, the member for Stuart. Is that five ministers in less than two years? Is this what Territorians are supposed to believe is an example of good leadership and good, stable government?
Section 21A sits above individuals and ensures the carriage of any recommendations is made public. Section 21A will provide certainty and openness and accountability will be maintained. Section 21A has no impact on the EPA, as it only deals with an administrative process. A recent example where a decision from this government undermined the EPA was the decision on Arafura Harbour. This proposal was effectively killed off without any scientific assessment which an independent and resourced EPA could have provided; no due process whatsoever, and must have been seen by the EPA as a stab in the back, undermining their name, undermining their position to provide considered recommendations based on science development.
What message did this send to developers? Is this not a government that openly states it supports jobs, supports development, supports the economy, and supports Territorians? Before we get carried away about that particular proposal, it is an example of a major project where the EPA could have been vital, could have been relevant, and should have been given the opportunity to investigate further.
The reality is the EPA recommendation may not have supported that proposal. Perhaps it may have been able to provide options; perhaps it could have recommended minor or major changes; perhaps it could have suggested or recommended wholesale modifications to the proposal which provided major advantages for Territorians - such as a new, modern sewerage treatment facility to replace the Ludmilla treatment plant which today still pours untreated, raw sewage into the harbour. Sadly, we will never know, as the moment this government stepped in and killed off the proposal it fatally damaged the reputation of the EPA; perhaps cost Territorians thousands of jobs and certainly killed off any chance of improving the water quality in our harbour for many years to come.
So here lies the road ahead. Nothing in these amendments prevents or alters what the newly announced councils or council of councils, or whatever it is, can deliver. In fact, I put it to you that these amendments are perhaps the start of the independent journey of evolution for our EPA. Here lies the road ahead for a truly independent EPA. It does not provide any resistance, any hazards in the way ahead for your council of councils, and any positive improvement you can make with the EPA. In fact, it should be seen as assisting this journey, and if I can recommend anything to your council of councils, it is for you to address the current dreadful level of resourcing provided to the EPA. You cannot expect the authority to take on additional inquiries, additional projects, and additional investigations without providing the necessary resources.
The member for Nelson has indicated previously his support for an independent EPA, and I see nothing in here which should lead him to change his mind.
In my second reading speech, I attempted to show the current EPA akin to a security officer dressed up as a police officer. This reference certainly raised a few eyebrows in the community, and I was contacted by a number of people demanding why I was trying to turn the current EPA model into a fully regulated model with powers to shut down an industry. I was not, and I am not recommending such a model; I was simply demonstrating that, right around the world, the term EPA provides the average person with a perception that it is a fully regulated and powerful authority. Our model, with perhaps a few changes and better resourced, provides a valuable service. Our arguments that we call our authority not an EPA but, perhaps, an Environmental Advisory Council - as I said, it is akin to calling a security guard a police officer.
I will quote from a letter from the EPA which agrees, to an extent, with my argument:
The end of the letter states:
Therefore, I read in that that they basically support it. Let us support the EPA. Your support for these amendments demonstrates you are indeed interested in protecting our environment.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill 2008 (Serial 19) be postponed to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this motion be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to talk about an important issue in my electorate, the issue of parking, and also access and egress from the Tipperary Waters area.
If you look at Dinah Court in particular, but also some of the other courts in the Tipperary Waters area, there is an ongoing issue with parking. It is a densely populated area; many people live in that area and there are many units in that area. Although car parks are available for each unit, should one or two social events be held over the weekend in one of those units, what happens is Dinah Court becomes overcrowded with cars. I guarantee you it is far too much for that small court, and also other courts in the area, to handle.
Along Frances Bay Drive, there is a stormwater drain between Frances Bay Drive and Tiger Brennan Drive, and along the edge of that stormwater drain there is ample space to provide a series of car parks, which would take some of the pressure off places like Dinah Court.
It would not cost a bomb to do. Angle parking along that strip would make a huge difference to the people who live in that area. That dusty little strip actually diminishes the quality of the place unnecessarily, and I am talking about Tipperary Waters as a whole. That strip should be wide enough to allow for angle parking so many more vehicles could park in the area and take the pressure of those little courts.
I can tell you, should we form government in the Northern Territory, sooner or later that would be one of the items on the forward works as far as I am concerned, because it is important for the people who live there.
I also raise the issue of access and egress for kids going to school in the Stuart Park area, across Tiger Brennan Drive from the Tipperary Waters area. Those kids have to cross Tiger Brennan Drive, often early in the morning, and we all know the volume of traffic that moves along Tiger Brennan Drive. It is time for the government to seriously consider some sort of pedestrian crossing or pedestrian overpass in that area. I am inclined to an overpass; I know they are expensive items, but it has been done across Bagot Road, and considering the volume of traffic that travels along Tiger Brennan Drive, and the number of people who have to move across that road, it would be a vast improvement on the risk run by kids having to cross that road on an almost daily basis.
I raised the issue of crossings last night in this House, I raise it again, and still the Ministers for Transport and for Planning remain utterly silent on these urgent issues. I ask, plead and continue to implore with the government to turn a benevolent eye on these issues, and to turn a benevolent ear to the pleas I make on behalf of those people who live in my electorate.
I also noticed today in Question Time the minister for Corrections was somewhat taken by an inter-modal model. I find it a very curious thing to say. I have some advice for the minister for Corrections.
I note the Minister for Corrections:
Supports an inter-modal model,
My apologies to Dr Seuss, but I could not resist it. Sometimes, as a reflection on our reliance on bureaucratic terms where we could rely on plain English, we should be corrected.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about an extraordinary Territorian. Anna Benton was an ordinary woman who did extraordinary things. She was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, and a loving and loyal friend. She was a very proud and respected Larrakia woman of this community who taught her children never to forget where they came from and always remember to care for their land and culture and what was taught to them.
Her early life was not an easy one. She was placed in a home for part-coloured children run by the AAN Mission; the home was called Retta Dixon Home. The food and conditions were very basic but, Anna, in her pragmatic style, made the most of what were difficult times. She tells the story of a time when a new girl arrived at Retta Dixon and, because of the shortage of beds, Anna was told that she would have to share her bed. Because of her generous nature this was not going to be problem, but she did have one condition, that the new girl not be a bed wetter. She got a tired of getting up in the middle of the night to wash sheets.
Anna attended the old Darwin Primary School, along with other Retta Dixon children, and received a basic education. She was an excellent sportswoman, who was tall and slim and quite athletic. School sport days were a perfect opportunity for Anna to excel - and excel she did. She grew into a beautiful young woman and soon married and went on to raise eight children.
She was a very loving, but firm mother, who gave everything of herself to ensure her family had a loving and safe home. There were times when she was sorely tested when misfortune struck her family, and two of her children were affected. With her usual ‘grit the teeth and stand up and be counted’ style, she looked these difficult times straight in the eye and fought to ensure her family would overcome these difficulties. She was enormously proud of her family and the way in which they have all grown up to be lovely, fine people. She was a cook extraordinaire, as people will attest, particularly if you had the good fortune to taste her scones.
Everyone knows of her passion for Australian Rules Football and, in particular, her love and devotion to the Buffaloes Football Club. She wore her heart on her sleeve and was, and will be forever, one of their most ardent supporters.
She was admired and love by everyone who knew her for her loyal and generous ways, her wacky sense of humour, her incredible love of family, and her deep commitment to her brothers and sisters who were raised in the same home.
Many a heart has ached with sadness at her passing, because she meant so much to so many people; and she will be missed.
I also acknowledge Anna Benton. I had the good fortune to work with her many years ago. I pass my condolences to her children, Michael and Linda, and her extended family in Darwin and throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak briefly tonight of two events and activities in the rural area, if not Darwin. The first is the Darwin Patchwork and Quilters, who celebrated 25 years of activity in the Northern Territory with a spectacular display of quilts at the Darwin Entertainment Centre in late July 2009. There were over a 150 quilts of different sizes and categories on display from across the Northern Territory. The rural quilters were well represented through Jenny Armour, Christine Nathanael, Carol Birch, Shirley Graham, Sue Hanson, Pamela Pemberton, Debbie Selter, Belinda Shaw, and Peta Smith. Christine Nathanael, from the rural area, collected an award for Amateur Mixed Techniques, and Pamela Pemberton for Amateur Beginner Quiltmaker.
At the opening which I attended, there were over 200 people. The judge, Olga Walters, who came from interstate, spoke on the quilts and provided a great insight into the work, skills, and patience needed to make such fine work; which was very useful for someone like me who is not that familiar with patchwork and quilting.
The rural quilters meet at The Beehive at Freds Pass Reserve each Tuesday and Saturday mornings. I visit them mostly on Tuesdays and, while I am not a sewing person, I have a lot of fun when I am there. It does intrigue me though, why they cut up perfectly good material, only to sew it back together - a mystery only a quilter would understand, I suspect.
The other thing I point out is the rural quilters - and I am sure others have done it as well - after the Victorian bushfires made dozens and dozens of quilts which they sent down south to people and families who lost everything in the bushfires. They continue to do that in a very unassuming way, and they should be complimented for it.
My congratulations go to the Darwin Patchwork and Quilters for such a successful event and bringing such entertainment and joy to Territorians.
I would like to speak briefly about the Gangsters Ball which was recently held at Berry Springs Reserve. It is organised by the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club at the Berry Springs Community Hall, and was attended by 130 people. It was a fantastic night. They were appropriately clad in gangster outfits: double-breasted suits, hats, Tommy guns; the ladies had a thing about garters and low slung outfits and many of the ladies had a small pistol tucked into a garter and were always willing to show them off to anyone who was around. The children who attended also had a lovely time and they, too, were dressed appropriately in double breasted-suits with spats on their shoes. Many of them did not want to go home and continued to enjoy the evening.
They raised money after all their costs were covered on this night, and it was such a success they are thinking of making it an annual event.
The Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club have these types of event to raise money, particularly, for children’s charities. One they have donated to is the children’s ward at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I congratulate Ted Mumme and his club members and the people of Berry Springs, and elsewhere, who attended the event, supported the dinner dance, and for their on-going support for children’s charities.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the women of Groote Eylandt. Last month, we had a gathering of many women from Umbakumba, Angurugu, Alyangula and Bickerton or Milyakburra. The women came together to talk about many issues for women in the region, and I had the pleasure of taking the federal minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, to Groote Eylandt to meet with the women and listen to the concerns they had.
I thank the Anindilyakwa Land Council for the support they provided in coordinating that event. It was quite an effort to bring all the women together but, I must say, it was certainly a meeting which the federal minister no doubt appreciated. It was her first trip to the island and the women raised issues we are dealing with now concerning the care and protection of our children and family violence in particular, the concerns about MJD and access for people with disabilities around the communities.
The Anindilyakwa Land Council has been encouraged by both the federal and Territory governments to help establish the group’s women’s forum there. I do thank the women of the East Arnhem shire for also attending Yananymul and Mavis for attending the meeting that day,
On the weekend at Groote Eylandt there was a big celebration also at the opening of the Alyangula Recreation Club - quite an enormous day on Saturday. It was also the Alyangula Picnic Day where people come into the township of Alyangula to have a fantastic day: races around the oval, they even had the greasy pole and many other events. It was a very hot, but successful day with all the football teams that started on the island.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Manager of the Alyangula Recreation Club with the opening of the extensions that evening, and finishing with fireworks. The extensions are magnificent, well worth members here going over to have a look at what the Recreation Club has done, even so far as establishing their own setup for smoking with facilities set up outside.
To the Manager, Geoff Wood, you have done a terrific job there. The Administrator, Belinda von Stieglitz, also Assistant Manager, Michael O’Keefe, the builders involved were Tony Martin and Peter Jenkins, and Mr Chris Renehan of Moonbeam Designs did the structural design work. Nicole Wheeler did the interior decorating and design, and it does look terrific. Well done, Nicole. Genevieve and Perry did the catering on the night. I also mention Perkins Shipping, which provided support through transporting materials at discounted rates; and, of course, GEMCO, the mining company, which provided support for the opening of the recreation club by providing cranes without charge.
I put on record the names of the committee for Picnic Day at Alyangula: John Hansen, an incredible man who began his time on Groote Eylandt as the school-based police constable, and now is working with GEMCO as their representative on the Picnic Day Committee; he was the main organiser for this year. And, on the committee, thanks go to: Brenton Walton, from Health, Safety and the Environment and Quality department; Sue Stevenson, from the same department; Christine Hobbs again, from the same department; Claire Shephard from the HR department; Carolyn Fletcher from the HR department; Richard Hobbs from MIP, the Manganese Improvement Process section; Tracy Rogers, also from the MIP department, and Linda Cruickshank from the port office.
Well done to all residents for making Picnic Day on Groote Eylandt such a terrific day. I certainly look forward to next year’s event.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I want to thank Alice Springs police for their hard and concerted efforts in providing their services to Northside in my electorate in Braitling, and their action of situating a police van at Braitling shops, the Northside shops, as they run their hot spot campaigns with many patrol cars, really targeting and focusing their efforts on cleaning up the Northside shops area.
I also encourage the police to follow a similar methodology in attacking antisocial behaviour and crime at the Larapinta shops. I will be forwarding correspondence to the minister for Police, the Chief Minister, asking him to speak with police and try to follow up that request so we can get the police van at Larapinta shops, and have that intensive police work done there. It is not so much about catching people, it is more about the presence, and making sure the residents of Larapinta know they have a police presence available, they can feel secure; and it is a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.
I was quite concerned today that the architect of the speed limit campaign, if I may call him that - the Labor member for Nelson - did not vote in support of the Country Liberals’ motion, my motion, to bring back open roads on the Barkly, Victoria and Stuart Highways in areas where road conditions permit.
I also express my disappointment to the member for Barkly, the Transport minister, for not supporting those people who have to travel the tyranny of distance in the Northern Territory on open roads.
It is disgraceful that this government has neglected roads in the Territory. As the member for Fong Lim said earlier today, Territory roads used to be the best roads in the country, now they are the worst. It is a disgrace.
Most people in this parliament have a lack of confidence in the member for Daly, especially his administration of SIHIP. I received the response to a question to Senator Scullion in the federal parliament yesterday. The federal government has advised Senator Scullion, in Questions on Notice, of a number of matters talking concerning SIHIP and where the money came from. Two particular paragraphs in this response concern me. I will read them:
That is concerning because, if we are spending 11.4% on those outsourced services, it makes me wonder: if we have 42 staff, as advised by government, now working for the Northern Territory government on SIHIP, exactly what are the administrative costs for those people? How much does it cost to hire Sports House? How much money is going to the Northern Territory government for programs such as employment programs? What is the commitment through training organisations such as CDU and Batchelor as a component of this project? What are the freight costs of this project? According to this letter from the federal government, the 11.4% is clearly not covering any of those.
What is the profit margin for the SIHIP alliance contractors? What is the profit margin for the subcontractors? Where are the mark-ups involved? It seems to me, based on this message I have received, that 70% is starting to sound very real.
I am also worried - I do not have the terminology here - but the new round of housing dollars which are going to represent approximately $1.7bn to the Territory over the next 10 years for housing includes the SIHIP money. It seems to me this may actually be going to top-up the extra component of SIHIP to try to get those numbers up to 750, where we have seen the failures in Nguiu, on the Tiwi Islands, go from 19 houses to 29 houses; Tennant Creek lose houses but, apparently, from yesterday, now getting new houses. I am worried the federal government will be topping up the failures of this Northern Territory government once again. I believe that is a real concern.
I would like government to take this on notice and investigate it further. I would also like to find out exactly how the person in charge of SIHIP, providing the advice - not speaking in a negative way about Jim Davidson - but how he was terminated, what was the involvement by this government, and exactly what happened. Because to me, it smells; If it looks like it, smells like it and tastes like it, then that seems to be it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak tonight about the magnificent event that is the Darwin Festival. I have been very lucky to attend a number of performances already, and although my dance card is close to full for the next couple of weeks, I am hopeful I can squeeze some more of the Darwin Festival into my schedule.
The Festival opened last Thursday, with the free Santos Opening Concert at the Amphitheatre - and what a wonderful night under the stars it was. Punters were treated to a range of music, from the smooth calypso sounds of the Garrangali Band from Yilpara, mixing it with the mojo of Neo, to the blues and reggae of the Kimberley’s Lorrae Coffin. Unfortunately, I had to leave before Troy Cassar-Daley hit the stage, but the feedback was his performance was also great.
Earlier the same day, I attended the opening of the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair, and we were treated to a wonderful welcome to country that included a delightful rendition of Waltzing Matilda by well-known Darwin identity, Ali Mills. The fair was held in the Chan Building, and it was great to see the buzz happening around this building and in the park. I know a number of members of the Assembly took the opportunity to add to their Indigenous art and craft collections.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it had been my intension to attend Meow Meow and the Tiger Lillies on Friday night, but the business of this Assembly caused a change of plan. I understand both shows were sell-outs, which is great to hear, and both were received by appreciative audiences. The trouble with events like the Darwin Festival is there are not enough hours in the day to fit everything in.
On Saturday, I was pleased to be able to represent the Chief Minister at Pesona Indonesia and renew acquaintances with His Excellency Mr Harbangan Napitupulu, Consul of the Republic of Indonesia. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said what a remarkable event it was, and how it showcased the importance of communities getting together to celebrate diversity. I had to leave Pesona Indonesia before Jessica Mauboy performed, because I had a date with Mama Kin at the Lighthouse in Civic Park, and what a great date it was, with Danielle and Brother Michael and their heady mix of rhythm and blues. Then we were off again, this time to the Velodrome in Millner, to take in a performance of Endurance, Tracks Dance Company’s new show.
The member for Fong Lim has already provided the Assembly with a review of the show, and I agree with him, the Territory has a fantastic pool of talent, including the artistic directors of Tracks, Tim Newth and David McMicken. Tracks recently won the inaugural Outstanding Achievement in Youth or Community Dance Award at the Australian Dance Awards, and I have no doubt that Endurance will also win awards - it is a true Territory experience.
On Sunday evening, my wife and I again made our way to the Amphitheatre to watch Tom E Lewis and friends in a performance of Muyngarnbi: Songs from Walking with Spirits. By this time, I was feeling a bit like Lucky Starr, but I was not finished yet, so we headed up to the Lighthouse to listen to The Moving Targets, a great indie group which includes some of the members of the Leah Flanagan Band, one of Darwin’s favourite acts.
I was just catching my breath and enjoying the atmosphere of dining under the stars in Civic Park, chatting to some of the local arts community, when my ears pricked up at a 12-bar blues riff, and I was lured back into the Lighthouse by blues rock legend and the great music of Josh Thomas – fantastic! I hope to see some more festival events, and I will certainly be at the Amphitheatre this Friday for the Indigenous Music Awards. But as my electorate calls, I will leave this fair city, and on my way home visit the Katherine Flying Fox Festival this Saturday, and the coming Desert Harmony Festival in Tennant Creek, and soon the Desert Festival in Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I encourage all members of the Assembly to attend some of our fabulous Northern Territory Festival events - and for the Darwin Festival - bravo!
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on Vietnam Veterans Day, the day which recognises Vietnam veterans. There was a service this afternoon on the Esplanade at the Cenotaph, where a gathering of approximately 300 people, not only Vietnam veterans, but members of the public, attended to recognise the service given by those men and women of the Armed Forces who participated in the Vietnam conflict.
There was an impressive march of previous veterans, and a fantastic service conducted by the MC, Mr John Jackson, and a wonderful address given by Lieutenant Colonel Shane Gabriel. He said when he first joined the Army and did his training he was trained by people who were Vietnam veterans, and how exact and how precise the skills of those veterans were, and passed on to those soldiers. Of course, now Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel finds himself in a senior position to lead the next generation of young soldiers.
I recall as a teenager, the Vietnam War was in full swing, and on the nightly news we would get pictures of what was happening in Vietnam. I could only sit and watch in awe at some of the conditions our men and women had to endure in that conflict. I recall my own father and grandfather talking to me about their involvement in both World War I and World War II, in jungle settings, especially my father in New Britain, and how difficult it was for them. The books he gave me to read about World War II and jungle warfare, and then watching the conflict in Vietnam on the television news bulletins at that time.
I also recall, just recently, a gentleman I know who is a World War II veteran, Mr John Moore, who passes on, not only to myself, but others who are prepared to listen, some of the lessons learnt during the times of conflict, particularly in World War II, which really makes me ponder, as I did sitting there this afternoon, on what it was like for those veterans.
About two-and-a-half years ago, I did a trip to Vietnam and spent some time there travelling around, especially in South Vietnam, and going to various places where the conflict occurred. One of those places was actually the Cu Chi tunnels, which were bombed on many occasions by both Australian and American troops to try to rid that area of the Viet Cong who were down there fighting for their side. Having got into the Cu Chi tunnels, which are infamous in Vietnam stories, and having walked, actually crawled, through these tunnels, one gets an appreciation of the things the soldiers had to put up with; particularly the Vietnam veterans known as the Tunnel Rats, who had to go into those tunnels and chase the Viet Cong out of them.
You can look at pictures and you can look at books, and you can read stories, but when you actually go into these tunnels, and they are only small, I literally had to get on my hands and knees and crawl through them, and in some areas I actually had to turn sideways on my hands and knees to get through; they are so narrow and so small, quite claustrophobic, in fact. But one gets a fine appreciation of what these people did.
I can only speak of the admiration I have for these men and women who went away and fought for their country, and helped change the course of history so we are still safe, in this country, from the things they went and fought against, and they passed their skills on to the next generation of military personnel of the Australian Defence Forces to continue to serve this country with great pride, to keep us safe and in a position where we can live the great lifestyle we have in Australia, and continue to protect us from issues and other peoples’ will that they would impose on us.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who participated in the recent Centralian Eisteddfod. There were 392 entries over the seven days of the Eisteddfod. Nearly all the schools in Alice Springs took part, with more than 1000 mostly young people taking to the stage over the week
It is fantastic to watch the opportunity the Eisteddfod gives to young Central Australians to shine. The entries this year covered instrumental groups and soloists, local performances, drama, recitals, readings, speeches and dance. The Centralian Eisteddfod Council believes it is its job to create a supportive environment so young people can perform in front of an audience - and the performances were terrific. Unfortunately, I do not have time to list all the winners, but if I can just mention a few.
Hayden Wackerman achieved the highest score of the Eisteddfod with an energetic drum solo. Hayden was awarded the Linda O’Brien Memorial Award.
There was a large field of instrumentalists with orchestral strings, piano, saxophones, flutes, trumpets, clarinets and trombones. Many entries came from the NT Music School program and commendations must go to the teachers who did a wonderful job of preparing their students for the public performances
The NT Music School took out the Australian Central Credit Union trophy for music. Liese Gordon won the Music Teachers Association Award, and also won the Centralian Eisteddfod Council trophy.
There were 16 school choirs from nine different schools participating, as well as school bands and the Alice Springs Town Band. The OLSH Jazz Players won the Alice Springs Town Council trophy, and the Big Band trophy. The OLSH schools did very well with OLSH Bath Street Choir winning the Marist Brothers Community trophy. St Philip’s College Junior Choir won the Taps, Tubs, Tiles trophy. St Philip’s also took out the International Training and Communications trophy.
The Larapinta, Sadadeen and Ross Park Primary Schools also won overall trophies in the Eisteddfod. In fact, I am told that Ross Park bussed in large numbers of students over the seven days to take part in the different sections. Two adjudicators were brought to town for the week, and the dance and speech adjudicator, Tracy-Lee McKinney, said it was one of the best Eisteddfod she had ever attended. I am told the adjudicators were also very impressed with the facilities and assistance offered by the Araluen Cultural Centre where the event was staged. We are very fortunate in Alice Springs to have such a great venue.
I am also in awe of the talent of our young people in Central Australia. Events such as the Eisteddfod give them a chance to show what they have. Public performance develops personal skills which, in turn, builds confidence and self-esteem. Congratulations to the teachers, parents, volunteers, and Araluen staff for supporting the performers in their onstage appearance.
Special thanks and congratulations to the Centralian Eisteddfod Council. The council, headed by President, John Cooper, with the committee of Roy Price, Paul Box, Jan Jennings, Liese Gordon, Meredith Campbell and Collette Johnson, does an absolutely magnificent job in staging the Eisteddfod. Roy Price, one the council members, said one of the council’s aims was to promote responsibility to strengthen our community. You can see the pride the young performers take in their achievements. I believe the Centralian Eisteddfod Council can be equally proud in giving our young people the opportunity to stand tall in the spotlight.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would also like to throw some weight behind two of the comments from the other side tonight about the arts and the music that comes from around the Northern Territory, whether it is in the Top End or in Central Australia. The talent we have is impressive and, unfortunately, as the member for Barkly said, there is just not enough time to get to all the events.
Unfortunately, for yourself and Hansard and the rest of the members here, last night I said that I was going to mention the Durack song and I am not going to sing it in full, but I will try to word it out so, unfortunately for you, Madam Speaker, you are going to have to listen to it but I believe it is a song written with the intent of hope, dignity and a belief in oneself.
It was written by a gentleman by the name of Mark Bunnett in 1998, and he also wrote the music which goes along with it and is played at every assembly.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, can I ask if you are actually going to sing?
Mr BOHLIN: I am going to pay lip service to singing and move the words smoothly in speech.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that we simply need to seek the leave of the House if a member wishes to sing.
Mr BOHLIN: I actually will not sing; I will word it out then.
Mr Styles: Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going before he does.
Mr BOHLIN: In that case, just in case it is interpreted as singing, may I seek leave to …
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: Pity help you all, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, it is a very difficult song to get out at the best of times and, under the pressure of the House, of course, my singing was not that great …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the contrary, member for Drysdale, I thought it was very good.
Mr BOHLIN: It does put out some very important ethical standards for young Territorians to run their lives by, with determination and with dignity. I believe they are very basic but important paths to follow. People who have dignity, determination and respect, I believe, can always succeed.
So, I hope these young people at Durack listen to this song and, as they go through their years of schooling, understand the importance of the verses, and believe in themselves because, if you believe in yourself, you can achieve everything.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Marrakai, Leaning Tree and Mt Bundy Excluded from Council or Body Corporate
Marrakai, Leaning Tree and Mt Bundy Excluded from Council or Body Corporate
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 91 petitioners praying that the unincorporated areas of Marrakai, Leaning Tree and Mt Bundy are excluded from council or body corporate. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that the residents of the unincorporated area of Marrakai, Leaning Tree and Mt Bundy, request that the present government adhere to its undertaking of excluding the present unincorporated areas from any form of council or body corporate at the time when the super-shires where formed and at any time in the future.
We request the government cease wasting our tax dollars to hire various forms of consultants whose only role is to force an undemocratic impost on residents.
Further, we require that this government and Mr Rob Knight, member for Daly, in particular, ceases to promulgate all forms of misinformation which claim in any manner, shape or form that these residents are a burden on the Northern Territory community and this can only be eased when they ‘pay their fair share of taxation’.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately cease forcing residents through an undemocratic situation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 38)
(Serial 38)
Bill presented and read a first time.
The purpose of this bill is to forge another frontline attack on the scourge of drink-driving that plagues our roads. Since 2006 our road toll has been steadily rising from 44 in 2006, to 57 in 2007, to a record high of 75 deaths on our roads in 2008; this despite the majority of recommendations of the Road Safety Task Force report in 2006 being implemented.
The presentation of this bill should not be seen as an act of politics, but of a continued and further attempt to lure drivers and riders on our roads to adhere to drink-driving laws and reduce the risk of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or those innocently standing by, being victims of drink-drivers on our roads.
Some in this Chamber may recall the Road Safety Task Force report of 2006. This identified the biggest killers on our roads where those drivers who fit into the categories of young, interstate, international and Indigenous. The report also identified two significant reasons for accidents on our roads: not wearing seat belts and drink-driving.
The government was very slow on the uptake, and politics, played largely by the opposition, raised the eye of the government to last year’s horrific road toll. I was continuously in the media attacking the government for failures in addressing significant concerns including seat belts, drink-driving and hooning. The government should be commended for wearing this criticism and forging on with attempts to reduce the road toll. It is very easy to view the road toll as a statistical or mathematical equation - we should not forget these are people's lives we are talking about. Last night we were aware of another tragic accident, this time near Mataranka.
This bill will take further steps in reducing drink-driving on our roads. It is a bill of action that represents the Country Liberals’ approach of firm but fair. It provides tough penalties for repeat offenders, with significant leeway for those who might break the law once only. Once could be an accident, twice is stupid, and the third time you are a bloody moron and you should be punished.
Any law that comes into being must be balanced with strong education; an approach of prevention rather than cure, balanced with strong punitive measures designed to affect people through their hip pockets. This bill does that.
It is the first in a number of approaches to be put forward by the Country Liberals to reform transport in efforts to improve safety on our roads. Our firm but fair action plans will continue to be released over the coming months detailing specific elements of policy and a time line for implementation. In the coming months I will also introduce legislation to toughen up the low range drink-driving penalties as an impetus to reducing the number of people who migrate from low rate drink-driving to medium or straight to high range drink-driving. I will also be targeting those who kill or maim on our roads as a result of drink-driving, providing mandatory minimum sentences.
The Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38) 2009 will legalise the forfeiture of vehicles for those caught drink-driving three times or more in a five-year period if one of those occasions is high range. We have taken the approach that, if you have not learnt twice, then you should not be on the roads using your vehicle as a deadly weapon. It is a comprehensive policy approach by the Country Liberals - firm but fair - with action.
This bill utilises sections of the Hooning Amendment Legislation and, for that reason, I have established classes of offences in order to separate hooning from drink-driving, as hooning has several penalties in the lead-up to forfeiture, such as impounding for 48 hours, and three months impounding before forfeiture. To utilise the hooning legislation, I have put in place an alternative pathway to the end point of forfeiture of vehicles for those who just do not learn.
Members of this Chamber should be aware the intent of this bill is not about causing financial hardship to those affected, but to provide an incentive not to drink-drive in the first place. It is intended that any vehicles which may be forfeited should have proceeds redirected to those with a financial interest, the remainder going towards education programs targeting anti-drink-driving and youth.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 4 to 9 students from Kiwirrkurra - which is said to be the most remote school in Australia - accompanied by Mr Chris Ryman and Mr Ian Wookey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Location of Proposed INPEX
Construction Village
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
- That the proposed INPEX construction village be built on portion 2820 Hundred of Bagot instead of portions 2819 and part section 273 Hundred of Bagot, Howard Springs.
I raise this issue today because it is of some importance to people in the rural areas, specifically Howard Springs.
INPEX announced it was going to build a construction village somewhere in the Darwin region late last year, and the government offered them 11 or 13 sites in the region, which was eventually honed down to three sites: Wallaby Holtze road, Howard Springs Road near the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway, and a triangular block bounded by Howard Springs Road, Whitewood Road and Stow Road.
The community had no say in that; it was a departmental decision that those three blocks of land were available. INPEX decided the triangular block would be the most suitable block for their proposed construction village, and that was it.
The issues here are twofold: one is the lack of public consultation by the government in the selection of the site - it has been left up to INPEX to do the public consultation; and two, non-allowance of other options to be put forward as a reasonable alternative for INPEX’s construction village. The rural area is an area with 1 ha and 2 ha blocks; it is not a built-up area such as Palmerston or Darwin. To put 2500 people on an 80 ha block would be a big change to the local environment. INPEX says there is no guarantee when this village would close; eight years was the figure given originally, and they are now predicting at least 10 years. A semi-permanent construction village is to be established in the rural area.
There are many issues local people have raised. That is not to say many of us believe the construction village in the rural area would not bring benefits - and I am certainly one of those. We know it would bring employment in the construction of the site; it would bring employment in the management of the site as it progressed: cooks, laundry people, gardeners, maintenance people - many people would be involved - and you would hope most of those people would come from the local area. It would certainly benefit not only the local community, but the broader community. There would be future benefits; there would be sewerage, there would be improvements to the water supply, and upgrades to power. There is a possibility the infrastructure could be of benefit to the community.
The downside would be an increase in traffic; a large number of people living relatively close to existing rural residential properties, and there will be a perception the local rural area will be overrun by 2500 workers. One could debate whether those perceptions are accurate, but they are out there.
The other issue is the site INPEX would like to use is one of the few sites in the Howard Springs area that has not been cleared; there is a nice stand of native vegetation there. I know a number of people who are not necessarily opposed to INPEX, but are concerned this development will wipe out those trees. Outsiders might not understand the attachment local people have to the area, but it is where I live and I believe it is a nice area to retain.
I understand the land has been zoned Rural Residential, so it is for rural living. There is the possibility the land would be subdivided by the government at some stage and clearing would occur, but that would be subject to clearing guidelines.
The reason I ask the government to consider the site to the north is because it is a very similar shape and area-sized block to the site INPEX want to use. It is mainly covered in Cypress pine, which was planted many years ago by a previous government in the hope we would have a forestry industry, but that has not happened and these trees, which are basically for timber anyway, are well past their use-by date. There has been an ongoing issue regarding the use of those trees for Cypress pine oil, which this government knows about, as does the High Court and other courts. The issue was partially settled in a decision by the High Court recently.
That site would be further away from the community and the development could be screened by the thickness of the vegetation. The future of that land would be more in keeping with good planning because when INPEX leave, I hope the government ensures a certain amount of infrastructure will be retained. There might be a swimming pool, tennis courts, and there would be sewerage, water and electricity.
There would be the possibility of using those facilities for a small district centre or a youth camp. We should retain the infrastructure and when INPEX leave the government and the residents can make a decision on what that land would be used for, based on what development is happening in the rural area at that time.
There were a number of issues the government raised when it decided this block of land was not suitable, but I have yet to see one piece of paper that proves this piece of land cannot be used as an alternative site. I have been told the Defence Department does not want this site to be used. That is fine, but the proposed site is right across the road from the same Defence site and I would have to ask: if it is good enough there, why not on an adjoining site?
The government has said it is used for recreation. That may be the case, people do run and ride their push bikes; probably a few motor bikes go through there. We are not short of open space behind that land, there is a huge amount of Crown land at the back. Anyone who has been out to Howard Springs would know there are substantial amounts of vacant Crown land.
I have had discussions with INPEX, and I visited the site recently with Shaun Kildare. I explained my concerns, saying the bottom line for me is still the proposal be moved. I understand a number of things have occurred to make that very difficult. Recently, the government advertised in the NT News for comments regarding leasing of the land to INPEX; I do not know how many comments they received. People might not even understand what it is about. That is the only time the government asked for public input.
The government has not done its job here - we have left it to INPEX. Duncan Beggs, publicity person for INPEX, has been going around the show circuit, and has set up a store at the Howard Springs Shopping Centre asking for opinions. The company has been trying to get the feel of what people think. They did the first survey of people living within 3 km or 4 km of that site, and the member for Brennan kindly chaired that meeting. As he would know, a substantial number of people did not want that site to be used.
My discussions with Shaun Kildare were based around how the land should be developed. If the government are going to dig their heels in, and INPEX say they do not want any other site, I need a guarantee from the government that a series of plans are put out to the public showing the design of the construction village, and how much of the native vegetation can be retained. If the native vegetation there is used in an appropriate and safe way, a great deal of money can be saved on landscaping.
If the government is not going to support this motion, I would like the government to be involved with INPEX in going out to the community. If the government want to sell this block of land, it must show that it would be developed to the highest standards, using landscape architects and designers who have some knowledge of our native vegetation. Let us see if we can develop it without the message that it is a greenfield - greenfield sites are getting the bulldozer in and clearing it; much easier to put down the survey pegs nice and square - and goodbye.
We need to send out a message that we can both look after the environment people want protected, and also enjoy it. It is a local environment with birds and animals - and also a number of stolen or burnt out cars.
I hope the government will say it will work with INPEX and will go out to the community and ensure this development is of the highest quality - that it will not be just a construction camp – that it will reflect the concerns of people: the distance away from neighbouring residential areas, the protection of as much native vegetation as possible, the concerns regarding increased traffic, and the possibility of some of the infrastructure being used in improving infrastructure in the Howard Springs area.
Business people in Howard Springs have held two meetings in the past few months asking the government to look at the possibility of a sewerage connection to the INPEX site. I gather INPEX will be pumping sewerage into the Palmerston line. These are other aspects which need to be taken into account.
My first option is to ask the government to reconsider the site. You have the power to tell INPEX the other land is more suitable. If INPEX say that would add to the cost, then that can be negotiated with government. The government will get lease money, and if some of that lease money goes to putting infrastructure in, all well and good.
The second option is to ask the government to work with INPEX to develop a plan in conjunction with the people of the area, so people can say it is not quite the option they want. We want to make sure the native vegetation is protected, and that this development reflects the concerns of the people and the support of many people, and the knowledge the village will bring benefits to our community.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, we are not in a position to support this motion. There is no doubt that major construction projects, such as a construction camp, will have an environmental impact. I agree that the preferred site be natural bush, as is the site the member for Nelson suggests on Gunn Point Road. There are native species growing up around that area because the pine plantation has not been run or maintained for 15 or 20 years.
While the preferred site on the corner of Howard Springs Road and Whitewood Road does not impact on all of Howard Springs, it does impact on the people in and near that facility. They rightly have concerns and they have had the opportunity, through public meetings and through their local member, to put those concerns.
INPEX has done substantial consulting on the ground. They put notes on everyone’s gate; they were advised very strongly not to go into properties because of the number of dogs, and they had public meetings. The company has had extensive consultations with the Litchfield Council regarding both the construction period and when the camp is no longer required. It would be in the community’s best interests if some of the infrastructure on the site was left for the benefit of community. Whoever manages that infrastructure is yet to be determined.
One issue this side of the House has with moving it to the other site we loosely call the pine plantation, is that area is currently used, quite extensively, by many recreational groups. I know the orienteering people and the gaming people use that area; also some bushwalkers and motocross people, and the mountain bike club use that area. Whilst it is government owned land, there are benefits in leaving it as it is, not only for rural people in that area, but also urban people who come out to enjoy their rural pursuits.
Anther issue in moving it to that site, or any other site, is the serious problem we have with white ants. When the forestry operation commenced, chemicals were used to ensure associated infrastructure, and the crop itself, were not ruined by white ants. At Berrimah Research Farm both arsenic and Dieldrin dust were chemicals used in the treatment of different types of logs - they are persistent chemicals and environmental studies need to be conducted to ascertain contamination levels.
Moving the camp because it is too close to residents is a thin argument. The whole scenario of developing such a site needs to be looked at, from both a social and environmental perspective. There are issues with a 2000-person construction camp wherever it goes. I understand it is approximately 200 acres, and whether it is close to Howard Springs or not, that infrastructure will impact on the environment
In constructing a camp of that size the government needs to talk with the company regarding rehabilitation of the site. I hope they remove the topsoil and store it somewhere. I hope INPEX submit plans to government and the community which show when the construction camp is removed some of the natural vegetation and bushland will be restored. Alternately, the construction camp may be used for the benefit of the community.
We cannot support this motion based on those grounds and the amount of work done to find a suitable site for this project. Thirteen sites were identified, and possibly some private sites. This is the preferred site because of location and its closeness to infrastructure and services. In working with INPEX, I am sure government, the community, and the Litchfield Council will address the traffic issues that will arise. I am sure the light pollution that will arise regarding the site of the camp will be addressed. I am sure the social issues associated with the number of personnel based at the camp will be addressed, as well as the high number of service businesses accessing the camp.
We support the INPEX proposal. We anticipate and hope the company continues to work closely with the rural community regarding location, as well as community representatives such as the member for Nelson and, more importantly, keeps consultation open and free with the Litchfield Council.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am shocked by the previous speaker, but also delighted the CLP recognise the significant amount of work INPEX and the government have undertaken in site selection for the proposed construction village, and just how important this site is to the INPEX project.
I also acknowledge and recognise the important work the member for Nelson has done in working with the rural residents, ensuring their concerns have been brought to the fore. I know the number of meetings the member for Nelson has had with INPEX representatives in Darwin.
INPEX has formally submitted the application for a lease over that Crown land portion 2819, part of portion 2818, and part of section 273, on which to construct a village to house part of its workforce for the proposed Blaydin Point LNG development. Due to the proximity of the proposed site to a Department of Defence-operated radio facility, that department has been consulted on the site selected. Defence has agreed to the location of the facility on the Howard Springs site, subject to it receiving continued briefings from INPEX as details of the proposal evolve, and on the basis the facility is not permanent.
This is an important point raised by the member for Nelson - the life of the facility. He spoke about eight to 10 years, and that is the proposed situation.
The government takes seriously the suggestion by the member for Nelson of locating the village on portion 2820, which is north of the preferred site. It is on one of three lots which have been used for a pine forest, and is currently used for general recreation purposes. When the member for Nelson proposed the alternative site I met with INPEX, advised them government would look at the option of the pine forest, and asked department officers to do that. I then had further discussions with INPEX.
There are reasons why the pine forest proposal was deemed unsuitable after genuine consideration of it. One issue is no services currently exist in the immediate vicinity of that portion 2820. The INPEX preferred site is located at the threshold travel distance from the gas plant for the mobilisation and demobilisation of workers. Industry and union standards regarding the length of time personnel spend travelling to and from the plant was one of the factors considered in the site selection analysis. Portion 2820 is north of the Howard Springs Road site; it is just that much further from the proposed plant at Blaydin Point.
A factor regarding the unsuitability of the pine forest was the feedback received from rural and urban residents on the range of recreational activities which, I am advised, includes horse riding, trail bike riding, running, and dog walking.
INPEX has advanced a variety of studies and design work. Any relocation now would require this work to be undertaken on another site, and that could cause delays in the project process. The INPEX project is the single largest private sector investment in our nation, worth around $20bn to the nation. It has a flow-on effect to the Territory economy of some $50bn over the following two decades. Everyone here, including the member for Nelson, recognises the importance of this project to our economy. The member for Nelson also talked about the merits of the project to the local rural economy regarding job opportunities.
There are many things I can agree on regarding the member for Nelson’s proposal to look at option 2, which is the preferred site for which INPEX has made a Crown Lease application. I can commit to the member for Nelson that I have been undertaking legacy issue discussions with INPEX, and have put together a team of senior public servants to progress those discussions. There is no decision to date, however, some of the discussions are: could it be used for seniors’ accommodation; could it be used for apprentices and workers-type accommodation, or for all those young people in the rural area needing affordable accommodation? These are some of the legacy discussions – but it is early days.
I can advise the House at every point of those discussions INPEX has been a very willing participant. It is keen to ensure it is part of our community and provide real social benefits and outcomes, not just economic outcomes, to our community. It recognises it will be spending substantial money in creating a village, and its view is it does not need to remove everything at the end of the project. It is happy to rehabilitate the site fully if that is required by government. The company is also happy to discuss what infrastructure it leaves for government to make decisions about. It has been very open about saying that is a decision government would make.
I have wanted to ensure we are discussing these issues with INPEX. It is very important for rural residents to hear what those legacy issues are at the outset, not at the end of the process. We are working closely to agree on the legacy which, by its nature, will involve community consultation. It will not be resolved immediately; we will need to come up with options and go to the community and consult.
I have met with INPEX on a number of occasions. On the most recent occasion, I explained government’s planning processes and used the old hospital site as an example. We go out with preliminary designs and show them to the community, we listen to community feedback, and the final design reflects the community feedback. I showed them the before and after designs for the old hospital site, and they could see the dramatic difference between the two.
I advised them preliminary designs are critically important at this stage of the proposal; the residents of the rural area want to see what it will look like. I explained to INPEX they were not locked into that, but they want community feedback. They will be able to show the vegetation buffer zones; ingress and egress. They will be able to explain the traffic management plan that underpins the site - that is a requirement, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure works with INPEX on traffic management plans.
I can make commitments on preliminary designs going out to public consultation, and I had a very good meeting with INPEX regarding that; they have designers working on preliminary designs for public consultation. I believe INPEX has shown, in the way it has embarked on discussions with rural residents, that they understand the need to be consultative. The government has been working with INPEX to go back to the community, and I have been directly involved, as minister for Planning, at senior level discussions with INPEX.
I am assured, in discussions with INPEX, the village will be of the highest quality. They want a quality village; they want to ensure their workers are in a quality environment. It will provide additional legacy opportunities if it is a quality village, and they recognise the need for the vegetation and the buffer zone. They recognise the need for the traffic plan. Government is available and working with them.
I have had preliminary discussions with INPEX on the idea of the sewerage connection to Howard Springs. I have said it is something government is prepared to work with INPEX on because it makes sense. We can look at how much they spend, and how much we spend, but that sewerage connection makes a lot of sense.
I can commit to option 2, and the requirement of the member for Nelson to work with INPEX on going back to the community for consultation on a preliminary village design of the highest quality; looking at the way native vegetation is protected, and ensuring there is a buffer zone around the village. That is critically important, and in discussions with INPEX they recognise that. We need to ensure there is advice on the traffic plan, the ingress/egress and how that works; looking at improving the infrastructure in Howard Springs, and the important sewerage connection.
It is a critically important project. The government went through an extensive process to look at a range of site options with INPEX: the preferred location was decided on, issues regarding the requirement to mobilise and demobilise workers, industry and union standards, and locality.
INPEX is also very good in recognising what it can do for their community around the village. The school in close proximity to the proposed site would be of significant benefit to the village. It is not just about the school; it is important to recognise the rural residents. In all the discussions I have had with INPEX personnel, they are of a like mind; they want to be a part of the community and they understand the economic and social opportunities for the community.
I sincerely thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward. I commit to working with him and keeping him informed of ongoing discussions. I am happy to have three-way discussions with the member for Nelson and INPEX in looking at the preliminary designs before they go out to the community for consultation.
I welcome the CLP view they will not be supporting the motion. I did have some grave concerns on what their view might be, given the article written by the member for Goyder’s mother, but I am pleased that has changed. I know we can work collaboratively to ensure there are no barriers to halt progression of this important project. We recognise the rural area needs to have some surety about lifestyle and the impact on that, which is why we have to be very careful stepping through option 2. I have a strong commitment to working with the member for Nelson, and INPEX, to ensure these issues are fully addressed.
Madam Speaker, the government cannot support this motion. We commit to working with the member for Nelson and INPEX on ensuring that option 2, the preferred site the Crown Lease application covers, will be of high quality; there will be further community consultation and consultation on preliminary plans for the village layout; there will be traffic management plans; there will be improvement to infrastructure in Howard Springs; and a legacy opportunity for the community of the rural area.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is quite amusing watching the Treasurer almost choke the words out: ‘committed to working with the member for Nelson’. It is amazing how they have changed over the last week in their rhetoric. The member for Nelson is the golden boy radiating knowledge and information. The government is now committed to working with this person who, not so long ago, they had no qualms pillorying. The reason they are doing that is because of the grubby little deal they signed up for ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to this for many days. Can the member for Fong Lim give us some proof of this grubby little deal?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, it is inappropriate to refer to it as a ‘grubby little deal’. I ask you to reword it, please.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you revisit that request. Whilst other members may have an opinion of this deal, it is quite legitimate for members to hold an opinion and to describe that opinion as they see fit. This is a House in which opinions are expressed and, whilst members may not like the opinions of other members, those original members have a right to express them, uninhibited.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I totally agree with the member for Port Darwin. The inference is that something corrupt occurred. That is what ‘grubby’ means in this case. I believe it is offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To describe something as a ‘grubby deal’ does not necessarily mean it was corrupt …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Let me finish, member for Nelson. You may assume, in your heart of hearts, that is what I am talking about. The fact is, I do not believe it was a corrupt deal. I certainly believe it was a grubby deal because, in effect, what the member for Nelson has done in this agreement with the Chief Minister is kept a deeply unpopular Chief Minister in his job, not allowing any challenges whatsoever; to me that is a grubby deal.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are meant to be speaking just to the point of order. Resume your seat.
Member for Nelson, do you consider the comments made by the member for Fong Lim offensive and unbecoming as described in the standing orders?
Mr WOOD: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In that case, member for Fong Lim …
Mr TOLLNER: In that case, Madam Speaker, I gladly withdraw. I did not realise the member for Nelson was so sensitive; I will withdraw.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw.
This sordid little deal - this sordid, contemptible, little deal - they cooked up designed to ensure the political future of the current Chief Minister is absolutely horrible.
The fact is the member for Nelson realises he has sold out his electorate, and now he is trying to win back some sort of political support …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is there any relevance to this motion?
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Just continue please, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, he is trying to win back some electoral support through this motion. The fact is …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I have been out to the member for Nelson’s electorate myself and there is widespread concern over INPEX going anywhere in that electorate. I have attended several very large meetings and was very interested to hear the Treasurer talking about the feedback received, because it is certainly nothing like the feedback I received in relation to this workers’ village.
As the member for Goyder rightly pointed out, there are many concerns with this proposal. There are concerns over traffic, services, headworks, sewerage, water, and social disruption a camp in that area will create. There are concerns over safety issues in relation to the member for Nelson’s alternate site. There are many concerns with this camp in that area.
It is probably worthwhile revisiting the process the government went through with INPEX when deciding on these sites. The government had a batch of blocks of land available. Some were privately owned; the vast majority were Crown land. At no time has the public been informed regarding the commercial arrangements with INPEX on Crown land areas.
It is my view the commercial sector has been left out of these negotiations completely. There are better sites as far as location and access to services, less disruption to traffic, and an ability to leave a legacy. It is my view that INPEX, to some extent, was motivated by the fact the government was providing land almost gratis to the company on which to put a site. I do not particularly support the current location, or the location that has been proposed by the member for Nelson. We should go back to the drawing board, look at the best possible options, and work with the private sector, if it is going to be on privately-owned land, to find the best location.
If we had been running a General Business Day several weeks ago, the member for Nelson would have been laughed out of here. This has changed because of a sordid little deal done between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. I am grateful to my colleagues that we are not supporting this motion. I do not support the location. I think the whole lot …
Dr Burns: Do you support INPEX? It does not sound like it.
Mr TOLLNER: I am glad the Leader of Government Business has jumped in here. Do we support it? Do I support INPEX? Of course, I support INPEX. The Country Liberals, and Conservative parties across Australia, have a long history of supporting development, particularly gas development. We would not be at this stage in gas development without the conservative parties doing all the foundation work. To talk about parties that do not support gas development; you do not have to look too far to see parties that do not.
I remember the time we were dealing with the Timor Sea Treaty and the International Unitisation Agreement, where the Labor Party, both in the Northern Territory and federally, were more interested in the deals that were done for East Timor than in the livelihoods and future development of the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Not true’, I hear the Treasurer say. Perhaps someone here has a little corporate history and knowledge about some of the things that took place. You might try to gloss over these things, and sneakily hide them under the carpet, but I remember.
Madam Speaker, this debate seems to be going nowhere. The government says they are not going to support the motion. We are not going to support the motion; I might as well leave it at that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, thank heavens for small mercies.
Without the political diatribe, this issue is important for people in the rural area. There appears to be indecision in the opposition viewpoint between the member for Goyder and the member for Fong Lim. I will take up some of the matters the member for Goyder mentioned. She said chemicals had been used on some of the forest land. Having been involved with the original forest industry on Melville and Bathurst Islands, I doubt if there would be a need for chemicals for Cypress Pine. The reason Cypress Pine was grown was because it is termite resistant.
Ms Purick: They still use them; you know that.
Mr WOOD: I believe there is no basis for what has been said, and if there was, it would simply be a matter of testing the soil.
I understand orienteering is close to the member for Goyder’s heart. I have been approached by a member of the orienteering group, and I do not dismiss that important sport.
I have received a letter stating development on this site would pollute the upper area around Duchy’s Lagoon. The site I am talking about is below the Duchy’s Lagoon site. I wonder if people believe the main forestry land is the land to be developed rather than the land I am talking about. There may have been some confusion over which land I was referring to.
In relation to no services, water goes right past this block. There has been an upgrade to the waterline to Howard River Park, and the power line also goes past. The difference in distance is about 2 km. I would not have put this forward as an alternative if I felt the extra distance was going to make it difficult for workers to get to the work site. The two blocks are adjacent. I do not believe distance was an issue.
One issue that has been raised is the use of the land for recreational purposes; the other for Defence. There are hectares of vacant Crown land adjacent to the block. The last remnants of recreational land have not been destroyed. I have not seen anything from the Department of Defence saying the site is not suitable. I would want to see some evidence showing why the site is not suitable; but none of that has been shown.
The key issue is the community was not consulted on alternative sites; they were selected by the department and the company - the government should have sought public comment. The community will be able to comment at the planning stage, or the rezoning stage, but it has already been decided. It is hard for the public to have any confidence; the deal has been done. That is one of my key concerns.
I take up the minister’s comments about the legacy. I would not get too definite on the use of the land, because in 10 years’ time who knows what will be around the corner.
In relation to good design and planning, that is to enable the public to see what the company intends to do. So far, the public has seen nothing - they have seen an application to develop this land, which is just a triangle on the ground. The company and the government need to go back to the people. There was only one public meeting, and there are many people with concerns.
The member for Goyder suggested talking about the vegetation was a fairly thin excuse - that is a very important issue to the people who live there - the entry statement to Howard Springs is that block. Many people enjoy that block being there and they know with this development most of it could go. That is important.
There is a proposal to develop all the forestry land into approximately 400 1 ha to 2 ha blocks. I support that proposal; this site would be far more central to any future town centre, and it is not only the many native trees there. In the long term, which would be the better site, considering there might be other development in the area? You can develop the area around the bush and maintain it.
Shaun Kildare has a degree in Environmental Botany, and he does not want to see all the trees destroyed. That is why we went for a walk through the forest, a look at the trees and the slope of the land. He promised to come back with some detailed schematic diagrams to show people. I thank Shaun for doing that.
I am not against INPEX. Let us not get caught in a trap that says if you criticise something INPEX does, you are automatically anti-INPEX. INPEX wants to come here; we want them to come here, but that should not mean we cannot criticise them. We would then be slaves to a big company. The people out there do not expect politicians to be slaves to a company; they need to be asking the hard questions; they need to make sure the development is okay. This village is part of the development, and we should be asking the questions.
I am disappointed neither side of the House supports this motion; I hope people understand their points of view. This should have been done better. Hopefully, the second option will satisfy most people. I support the village in the rural area; it will be a great benefit for employment and in times of economic uncertainty it is important - I have said that to INPEX. The siting is as important, and I will do the best I can to ensure everything is done to the best and highest standard.
Motion negatived.
TABLED PAPERS
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Wanguri and Sanderson;
and Members for Casuarina and Goyder
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Wanguri and Sanderson;
and Members for Casuarina and Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have two documents relating to pairs. The first one is for today, 18 August, from 4.30 pm to 6 pm for the member for Wanguri with the member for Sanderson; and the member for Casuarina with the member for Goyder. The document is signed by the government and the opposition Whips. I table that document.
Pairing Arrangement – Members
for Stuart and Katherine
for Stuart and Katherine
Madam SPEAKER: The second document relating to pairs is for Thursday, 20 August, from 6 pm until the end of the sittings. It is for the member for Stuart with the member for Katherine. It is signed by the two Whips. I table that as well.
MOTION
Location of Prison at Weddell
Location of Prison at Weddell
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not intend to talk on this at length, just to say that I have had concerns about the siting of the new prison. Thankfully, in the agreement I made with the Chief Minister, the agreement states there will be an expert panel to review the location established. There will be an examination of alternative options to one large prison, and there will be an investigation into the possibility of prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
That is what I want to debate today. There has been an expansion in the agreement that we look at prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Before we spend $300m of taxpayers’ money we should be certain we spend it in the most efficient and most beneficial way for the Territory. I do not believe all the options have been looked at carefully enough. The agreement covers my concerns, and unless other people have any other comment, that is all I would like to say at the moment.
Mr Elferink: Are you withdrawing it, or …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Port Darwin. Please resume your seat.
Member for Nelson, are you putting in an amendment to refer it to this committee?
Mr WOOD: No, Madam Speaker. The government has said it will do that. I am giving people an option to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: You are withdrawing your notice - is that what you are doing at the moment?
Mr WOOD: I am just asking if people would like to speak on this. This motion is still live.
Madam SPEAKER: You have moved it, have you? Is that what you have just done?
Mr WOOD: Would you like me to move it, then?
Madam SPEAKER: If that is what you are doing, you need to actually read it.
Mr WOOD: Are there any other speakers?
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin just stood, so it is not clear to me what is happening here. You have not actually moved it, member for Nelson, all you have done is spoken about what you think is going to happen.
Mr WOOD: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I will read it:
Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the government reverse its decision to build a new prison at Weddell, and
- (a) build a new facility on the present site or land currently used as the Berrimah Research Station; and
- (b) the government look at alterative options for imprisonment, for example, prison farms in regional NT.
Madam SPEAKER: Is that all you wish you say?
Mr WOOD: Yes. I put those preliminary words before the motion. I am happy to leave them there, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am just wondering whether you might be considering an amendment to refer it to the other committee.
Mr WOOD: It has already been agreed to, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the procedural issues. I am not quite sure what happens with this now it is moved. I believe it has to be voted for or against.
It demonstrates with this new agreement things can shift out of the parliament into a back room which half this parliament does not have access to. If that is a reflection of how this agreement is going to work, we have our concerns.
As to the motion, I am not quite sure what we should do with it. It should either be withdrawn or voted down.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, the government has agreed with the Independent member that the issue of the prison will be re-examined to allow him the opportunity to place his concerns formally on the table, and for the government to thoroughly examine and review our decisions to date, in light of those concerns.
It has been our intention to build a new correctional facility. The old prison is no longer big enough or modern enough to be successfully continued as a correctional facility. We are determined to provide a much stronger rehabilitation basis for Corrections. We want proper training and education facilities built into the new correctional facility. We want to design the correctional facility in a way that allows us to further these aims.
The cost of the new correctional facility has been currently estimated at $300m. The final costs will depend on the construction method, and whether the procurement method involves a public/private partnership. To allow the member for Nelson input to this process, we are establishing an expert panel to review the location of the prison, and to make recommendations as to whether one big Correctional facility remains the way to go. Alternatives will be canvassed and assessed. The panel’s report will be considered in November this year by a subcommittee of Cabinet consisting of the Treasurer, myself, as Minister for Correctional Services, and the member for Nelson. We will consider alternative options including prison farms at Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Darwin, and will seek public comment on such proposals.
Work is continuing on the establishment of an outreach work program in the Barkly region, with Budget 2009-10 providing $2m for this project. An outreach work camp will contribute to providing life skills, education, rehabilitation, and real work experience to assist prisoners to gain employment on release.
I am passionate about delivering better services and, as Minister for Correctional Services, better correctional services for Territorians who are most disadvantaged. I look forward to working further to provide opportunities for education, training, and rehabilitation as part of our new era in Corrections in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we are really going into uncharted waters. It is time we had some clarity in the way we are going to conduct business in this Chamber.
It is curious that certain items on the Notice Paper will be referred to the Council of Cooperation, and others will not. How is that determined? Will we see that played out as we go through this debate? Some go to the Council of Cooperation, some sit on the table, some have prior arrangements made. It is very disturbing to see this unfold.
Here we have a motion which carries with it an understanding that an agreement has been made. This motion must be tested. Listening to the words the minister carefully used at the beginning of his comments - the word ‘re-examine’. Re-examine is a commitment to have another look; it is not an agreement to reverse a decision. That is a completely different thing.
Once again, my parliamentary colleagues, and member for Nelson also, we must watch them very carefully. To say: ‘We will now commit to re-examine’ does not sound like the original intent of the agreement described in here on Friday. This must be tested because this is an agreement which now has an impact upon the operation of this parliament and how we work.
How is it that some things go to the Council of Cooperation and others do not? Who picks? Who chooses? Who makes the decision? Where is the authority now? I fear for the authority and the integrity of this parliament with these types of decisions starting to unfold on General Business Day.
This motion must be tested if there is a commitment to re-examine. I sense there may well be a readjustment of position so we will not test it. By testing it, we are testing the quality of this agreement. If we do not test it and the motion is withdrawn, we leave exposed the quality and the integrity of the agreement which, we were led to believe, is solid and strong, and will usher in a whole new era. Funny words, odd positioning. We have a very unusual construct now operating in this parliament. I am very concerned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I understand what the Leader of the Opposition has said and I am happy to put it to the vote. I support my motion as it is. The government may or may not support the motion; I have not asked them what they will do on this particular issue, but there was an agreement which gets close to that. I take up the point made by the minister.
I had a detailed briefing in relation to the cost of going to each one of these sites, and that is what has concerned me; I do not believe those numbers have been tested.
I am quite happy that we build a facility on the existing site, but I would like to back this up with a detailed examination of all the sites put forward. All we have in this parliament was: Gunn Point, $99m; Berrimah, $50m; Berrimah 2, $50m; Bennett Creek $29m, etcetera. There was no real detail of how government came to that determination.
If the government can show, through an expert review panel, their site is the preferred one, we would be silly not to look at it. I have always believed the prison should stay in its present vicinity. I am quite happy to put that motion up. I also welcome the proposal put forward by the government. This agreement is not part of the Council of Territory Cooperation, it is the government setting up a review panel to ascertain suitability of the site.
Madam Speaker, naturally I support my motion; and leave it at that.
Question put.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.
Mr MILLS: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot call a division because you called the loudest.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition should know …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please resume your seat, Leader of Government Business, I am speaking. I have already called for the ayes; therefore you cannot, because you called aye.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Berrimah Research Station –
Proposed Housing Estate
Berrimah Research Station –
Proposed Housing Estate
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I hope the member for Fong Lim does not call that a grubby little deal.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I move –
That the government –
(a) reverse its plans to build a housing estate at the Berrimah research station; and
(b) instead develop the land as a mixture of industrial land, research station, prison and prison farm, and open space.
Madam Speaker, this leads from the previous motion. I believe the government reacted to a housing shortage.
Mr Mills: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I believe the government reacted to a housing shortage, making a very quick announcement on the ABC Morning Program saying this land would be suitable for housing without giving it detailed thought. The Treasurer and the member for Nhulunbuy spoke in that debate about the old aerial farm next door to Pinelands Estate, saying it would be great for housing. There is no way the Commonwealth is going to sell that land; we would have a ghetto surrounded by industrial land.
At the lower end we have a four-lane highway and Tiger Brennan Drive; to the north, Hidden Valley Race Track, drags and mud racing. A creek flows into the valley, and the sandflies there are atrocious. The airport is close by, which needs to be taken into account; and there is heavy and light industry bordering the area. There is also doubt the land is suitable for housing due to chemicals, places have been found where chemicals were dumped. And there are wetlands, too.
The government, in an attempt to open this land for housing, was going to use prison land. The lower end of that land is exceptionally wet and would be costly to fill; the cost of filling was used in figures to show why we should not build a prison there. If it is too wet for the prison, it is too wet for housing.
Future planning has not been taken into account. There is a beautiful view up there on the hill, and you can also see the port. We would be short-sighted to turn land into housing when we have plenty of land for housing. We have the whole of Weddell; 65 000 people when developed to its full extent. This block of land was a quick solution. It became part of ‘infill’. Scott Stirling recently wrote an article in the NT News expounding the wonders of infill.
Infill can indicate several things: not developing enough land, so squash people in. In the Territory we should not be using the word ‘infill’ too often. We should not be developing Darwin as a densely populated peninsula where you put more and more resources and more and more traffic. We should be decentralising our city, and developing each city in its own right. That does not mean you cannot move between cities.
Develop Weddell, develop the service industries, develop the industrial land, and develop with government buildings; that, in itself, creates employment in the area. The same applies to Palmerston, Darwin, and the northern suburbs.
This is very short-sighted. We need to look at the use of Berrimah Research Farm. We need to detail why we want to get rid of it. If we want to downsize, how much land should we retain? At the moment it is 8 ha, one rural block. I would be cautious about destroying something close to the city which can provide a service for people who come to Darwin. It is not only a research station; I presume people go there for advice. Government needs to ensure it does not downsize this research station.
One thing the government has not done is put an emphasis on the importance of primary industry in the Northern Territory. For too long it has been the poor cousin when it comes to departments. The message that we do not need Berrimah Farm and it will make a nice place for housing is the wrong message.
Where will the prison be located? Until that decision has been made, do not make any decisions about housing. Many people believe you do not want the prison there because you have decided to build houses there. I do not believe that is what we should be doing. This should be worked out on planning for the future. Graeme Bailey did the Darwin Region Land Use Structure Plan, and there are no plans for housing there; and I did not see any infill in that area.
What I did see was open space near the Stuart Highway which could be a prison farm. The rest of the land could be for industrial use in relation to the port. There is industrial land on Tivendale Road and there is industrial land in Berrimah - why place housing in the middle? Where are the services for the community? I do not believe we have given it enough thought.
I believe we have to create more employment for people working in the prison. If you establish it in an industrial area, you give prisoners an opportunity to work outside in some of the neighbouring industries; there is the possibility of some of those industries working in an industrial precinct inside the prison. We need to create employment for prisoners; we do not want 1000 prisoners making a couple of number plates, which does not employ many people. I believe we can go much further.
The housing idea should be dropped. We need to develop Palmerston, get the eastern suburbs going. We have a competition for Weddell coming up in November 2009; the government has agreed to that; we have to get Weddell going. We are about 1000 blocks behind. A local builder from the 11 Mile/Holtze area rang me recently saying we are so far behind in the number of blocks of land we need, we are creating an artificial price hike. We need to be kicking off land. We need to make sure we do not use short-term solutions to fix it, and end up with a long-term problem.
Let us get our housing in the right place. Let us get our industry in the right place. Let us get our prison in the right place. Do not put housing in Berrimah Farm - it is a short-term fix, and it will be a long-term pain.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government is delivering a Housing the Territory initiative with a 20-year land release program. Under this program, the Berrimah corridor has been identified as a potential mix of light industrial and infill residential site. Projections for the Berrimah Farm and prison site indicate it could provide up to 1300 housing lots between Darwin and Palmerston from 2013 and, importantly, industrial land. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is currently undertaking environmental site assessments to consider the possible contamination of the site. This work is under way.
The government has committed to a review of the location of the prison to be undertaken by an expert panel, which will report in November this year. The outcomes of the review will inform future decisions on the land use of Berrimah prison and will impact on the research farm site. Until that work is undertaken, government cannot support this motion. It will however, continue to investigate all the options.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. I am on the Parliamentary Record speaking against the Berrimah Farm being developed as a residential area. It is a very unwise decision of government - it was a knee jerk reaction at the time. I distinctly remember the day, 8 October, when the Planning minister said there were problems with land release. By that afternoon the Chief Minister of the day, Clare Martin, said they were going to have a new housing estate at Berrimah Farm - 700 residential dwellings were to be built and it was going to ease the pressure on our housing market. The media release said it complemented the government’s release of land at Bellamack with 700 more dwellings. We know what has happened there - only 90 dwellings made available at Bellamack.
We know the history of Berrimah Farm. I am on the record talking about the war history and that it was an important communications base. In the new order of things in this parliament, and the agreement between the member for Nelson and the member for Wanguri, this should be turned into a heritage park, given its long-standing history in regard to World War II.
It was used as a quarantine station for both the agricultural and horticultural industries. We know there were products used such as chromium, copper, and arsenic. I acknowledge the government has commissioned environmental studies to ascertain the extent of any contamination from activities on the farm, as well as the impregnation of forestry products so they would not be vulnerable to white ants. When the environmental studies are completed, I have requested they be released for review and community consultation. I hope the government does this.
It is a poor choice of land for residential development. As the member for Nelson said - and I have also placed on the record - it is surrounded by McKinnon Road and Anictomatis Road to the south, it has the Stuart Highway and the major flight path to the east, and it has light industry to the north; and the major extension of Tiger Brennan Drive is going to be there. You might have a view, but you will also have noise and light pollution.
The other issue not addressed is the North Australian Safety Centre, which is at the rear of Berrimah Farm. This is a not-for-profit establishment that provides a vital service to the mining industry and the offshore oil and gas industry. The government appears to want to overlook this establishment. Whilst the organisation is on a peppercorn rent, it is a vital part of our business community. If we lose that centre and they cannot establish anywhere else, we will lose the valuable underwater helicopter escape training centre.
Regarding the environmental studies, when contamination levels are not known there are usually three phases to the studies. The first is the investigation stage; you do desktop research, interviews with people, and gather any previous reports to get as much information as you can. The second stage is usually moving on to a more physical aspect of the studies; soil sampling, water sampling and sampling of plants to discover what contamination might be underneath the soil. You then move to the third stage, which is remediation of the site based on the information from the studies, and on the testing and the research which has been done.
The third stage can take years - I am not suggesting this site is such a site – but I do not believe the government actually foresaw, in their haste to look good at the time, there would be issues involved of the extent and length it can take to do environmental studies on a site such as Berrimah Farm. The environmental studies have been under way for some time; I expect they are in Stage 2 now, doing physical samples. Based on that information, they will probably move into Stage 3.
I would be surprised, based on working with the environmental side of the minerals industry, if this site is ready, available, or released for any kind of development for up to two years. There is no chance this site will be available for any kind of urban development, or any development at all, in the near future.
The other item which should be considered in regard to further use of this site is establishing a Botanical Gardens annexe at the Berrimah Farm, given its long history with the agricultural and horticultural industries.
Mr Knight: Hear, hear! I like that idea.
Ms PURICK: I see the member for Daly screwing up his nose; perhaps he does not understand what a Botanical Gardens annexe is all about. But it has a long history with this kind of activity, and I will talk more with the member for Nelson, because it has potential and we need to do research in this regard.
For all those reasons, Berrimah Research Farm is not the right place for an urban development, not now, not in the medium term, and not in the long term.
One small item government has overlooked is, if 700 houses are going into this development, that would mean 200 to 300 children. I do not believe the government has given consideration to what schools these children are going to attend. The closest schools are in the northern suburbs and Palmerston. Kormilda College is close, but it is a private school and does not have lower or preschool facilities.
Madam Speaker, we support the member for Nelson in this motion, that Berrimah Research Farm is not a suitable place to be utilised for urban development.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution, and the Deputy Leader’s careful analysis of the merits of the site in question as a suitable place for industrial development. I also thank the member for Nelson for making it very clear that, as most people would know, sunlight is the best disinfectant against deceit. The two motions are directly connected.
The consideration for moving the prison was driven by a knee jerk reaction to the failure to release land - simple as that - people can see that as plain as day. Fortunately, the practice of deceit, and crafting messages to suit political agendas, has come to an end. What a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive. The community can see this, and the saddest part of all is the community can see it quite clearly.
We now have a different dynamic in the Territory parliament. There is the capacity for truth to be tested. If the ‘not true’ defence of a charge is to be given more bolster, we should have greater explanation and details and facts on the table, to enable you to stand behind that bland assertion. We need more than that.
We are entering a new era and Territorians deserve better. For government to say as a defence: we have a 20-year plan, we have initiatives - and we have 150 m2 blocks looking us in the face - get in an aeroplane and tell me there is a land shortage. You have eight press releases talking about Bellamack, but not a single house, and you dare to stand up and say you have an initiative and a plan that works.
People are fed up with this. The two are connected. You moved into a spot to take political pressure off yourself and you put residential capacity into an area that is clearly industrial. You then found what a wicked web we weave when first we try to deceive - oh, now we have a case to move the prison to Weddell – and we are expected to believe the government can build a city like Weddell when all we have are press releases concerning Bellamack?
Madam Speaker, this motion must be supported, because it is starting to bring pressure to bear on the capacity of this government to tell the truth and face up to reality.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not have much more to say, except I believe it is an important motion. Good planning is the key to producing a great city; that is something we should strive for. We are the legislators. We are supposed to have the vision, and this is about vision. We need the big picture; we need to make a beautiful city, something we can be proud of. We do not need to design housing estates based on infill. Housing estates are about community, and we should do the best to make sure our housing estates are liveable.
The member for Blain mentioned the old block sizes. I went to a planning meeting in relation to the suburb of Johnston, and it was disappointing to see nearly every block of land was 700 m with a building envelope of about 95%. We have to change this - this is about places being liveable. Some people can live on a 150 m block, however, we need to give families the opportunity to live where they can play, and breathe, and have space without standing on the neighbours’ toes. That is what we have to look at.
The problem developing this piece of land is we have to recover large sums of money because there are unsuitable areas here. We may have to consider noise abatement design; we may have to fill the wetlands, and that will increase the cost of this land. The way governments tend to recover those costs is to allow more blocks to be subdivided to get a better return.
I ask the Assembly to support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Weddell – Competition for Design
Weddell – Competition for Design
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
- That the government invites Territory, Australian and overseas town planners and architects, through a competition backed by an attractive cash prize, to design a visionary tropical city at Weddell.
This something the government has agreed to, and I am happy to see. I pushed for this for the 15 years I was on the Litchfield Council.
We need a vision. We need the city of Weddell to be something we can be proud of. I am not denigrating Palmerston, it is a thriving city, and my children go to school there, but the development of the Palmerston CBD has gone sideways. We should learn by these mistakes and make the new city of Weddell something to be proud of. We must include private landowners in the area; at present government is concentrating on its own land. I believe one third of the land in that area belongs to the Walker family, and there are other parcels of land as well.
We need to be inclusive and ensure the whole area is developed uniformly and according to a vision. Look at the design of Canberra - Burley Griffin and his wife had vision. Although Canberra is not built quite the way Burley Griffin designed it, it has some very beautiful aspects: look from the war memorial towards the new Parliament House; look at Lake Burley Griffin for recreational use - no crocodiles, fantastic. I do not hear anyone say it is not a beautiful vision for a city.
We should be looking at something similar for Weddell. We should not be turning it into just another city, it should be something special. All the new cities eventually built around the harbour, including the city on Cox Peninsula, should have the same beginning - a vision - and the promise that government will stick by that vision to ensure we have a wonderful, liveable city.
I believe it is a good motion, Madam Speaker.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 to 9 students from Sanderson Middle School, accompanied by Ms Michelle Turner. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion and the inclusion of sustainability principles in the design competition. We propose to refer to the Council of Territory Cooperation the progress of the planning of the new city because it is a very exciting task. Many across our community will be interested and want to put forward ideas on the potential a new city offers, including future economic and development opportunities. For example, Weddell could include an education precinct.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is well placed to sponsor a sustainable city ideas competition. The competition could be undertaken with expert advice from the Northern Territory’s own Urban Design Advisory Panel. This would provide valuable professional and industry organisation and networks to promote the competition among professional and academic groups here and overseas. The sustainable city ideas competition brief could include taking into account elements such as the delivery of affordable housing models, energy efficiency, and transport efficiency.
We believe Weddell can be a smart city, a low environmental impact city; Weddell could be a connected community. High speed Internet connections throughout Weddell would attract business and enable more people to work from home; increased recycling at a residential and commercial level could be a strong focus. Planning important community open spaces and a concise urban footprint could support what we believe would be, potentially, a walkable scale city.
We have a rapid transport corridor in place for the future. The planning of Weddell could integrate transport and land use planning to make cycling, walking and public transport the travel modes of choice. Water sensitive design and renewable energy could be incorporated into street lighting to make Weddell environmentally friendly. These are all very valid ideas which could set Weddell apart as the Territory’s smart city, as our education city and, importantly, as a sustainable and well designed city.
The Strategic Land Use Plan for Greater Darwin is currently in preparation to go to community consultation, along with a range of other work by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This will provide a valuable data source to underpin this competition; a valuable body of work.
The government is delighted to support the motion, and the design of the sustainability competition being referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, all those words sound good, but I did not hear any reference to a time frame or anything concrete happening from government. I say that because the track record of government going beyond grand talk and extravagant language of what could possibly be, alongside what they actually achieve, is of grave concern - talk about closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The intention, as described by the member for Nelson, is admirable and has our support. If it is in the hands of this current Labor administration, I fear we will have the same situation as Bellamack. I have a list of eight press releases, all in enthusiastic and glowing terms, about things which are going to be and still are not. I fear all the grand talk about what could possibly be may be the sole preoccupation of the Labor administration. I am ringing an alarm bell because they certainly rise to the occasion when it comes to conceptual business and raising expectations - but the delivery component is deficient.
The next concern I have is the reference to this Council of Territory Cooperation. That sounds good too, but what is it? It is like saying we are going to refer it to Timbuktu. Let us have some definition of this before we say it is great and send it to this body. It is beholden on a sensible and serious government which is confronted by reality and had a shake-up to start putting effort into providing us with substantial detail so real ideas can be properly tested and we get a result.
We have had eight media releases over nearly two years, and not a place for anyone to live, except termites and birds nesting in trees. If we had those for a suburb, how many are we going to have for a city under the watchful gaze of the Labor administration? I suspect about 80 media releases before anything happens, and the birds can plan for generations of nests to come, whilst there is fluffing around and models.
On Palmerston, member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: Do not say anything unkind.
Mr MILLS: No. When I first arrived in Palmerston I found the street structure quite curious; they all seem to go in loops, bends, and curls. I was frightened when I was in Canberra, and seemed to be on some street in Palmerston. I learnt the same town planner who designed the streets in Canberra in this new innovative way also designed the street layout in Palmerston. We will have to make a pledge, if we do go down this path, we will stay as close as possible to the original idea and follow it through.
I am also critical of what we have in Palmerston; it is a grave disappointment. We have tried to fix some of the problems, but once you have made these decisions it becomes very difficult. Look at Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and so on.
Madam Speaker, I continue to ring the alarm bell. If this is in the hand of Labor, it will be a dead hand. All we will have are media releases and things to think and talk about and have our hopes raised; sadly we get them dashed under Labor. They cannot even pull off a suburb.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the speakers for their support. I take up some comments of the member for Blain. I accept your criticism about the Council for Territory Cooperation ...
Mr Mills: You just do not know …
Mr WOOD: I accept that criticism. It is a fair criticism and is something we have to work on ...
Mr Mills: We should have it now.
Mr WOOD: Thank you very much, expert. We have not had a lot of time, and we will be working on it ...
Mr Mills: Are you referring anything to it?
Mr WOOD: We are not referring this part to it. The agreement says ‘a competition to be announced by November 2009’. That is the competition; that is what this is about. The government has not given an agreement they will announce the competition in 2009; that is what I wanted, because it has been going for so ...
Mr Mills: Okay. I will give you that. We are worried about this other thing.
Mr WOOD: … long that something had to be done about making a start …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … on the development of Weddell as an ongoing priority - which is what you are saying, and I agree with - is one of the things the Council of Territory Cooperation will be looking at. This is where I want participation from members; I want to drive it from here as well as from the community.
I agree we need to do something; this is the start. Get the vision; get the plans going; ensure we tell the government what we want to do. I understand the mechanics have not been working; I accept that.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: There is much to be done; I accept that as a challenge. I will try my best. I accept the criticism. We will try to work through it and come up with a model which is workable, has a budget, and can deal with the issues. The agreement talks about SIHIP, Weddell, and homelands. It will be self-referral.
There will be budget considerations. We have to see how things operate on the ground, but it is an attempt. If it fails, you can hang me up and say he failed. We are trying to do things differently. Weddell is something I would love the CLP to be involved in; it is close to them, and I think we can do it. We have to be positive. I am going to try, with both government and opposition, to make this work.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion, and I put it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Rural Area – Aquatic Centre
Rural Area – Aquatic Centre
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that -
(a) the government build an aquatic centre in the rural area - similar to the one at Leanyer and the proposed one at Palmerston; and
This has been going on for long time. Part of the agreement with the government is to get some sense of cooperation between the government and Litchfield Council. However, we now have a proposal to put a pool on land at Taminmin High School, run by the YMCA.
The last thing I want is taxpayers’ money put into an aquatic centre which does not have full community support. The Litchfield Council does not want to know anything about it. The YMCA want to run it, and it would be funded by the NT government. I believe we have to do something better than that.
This also is an attempt to have a better relationship with the Litchfield Council. The council is an important part of the rural area, and they have real concerns which are sometimes denigrated.
The member for Braitling would realise the swimming pool precinct at Alice Springs is expensive; the Katherine pool is expensive to run and is subsidised by the local council. To say it is council’s responsibility puts an enormous impact on ratepayers; these things are not cheap and there needs to be an element of fairness. The government has put much money into Leanyer; it is a great place, and it is free. The government is going to put $27m into an aquatic centre in Palmerston.
For the sake of fairness, the 20 000 people in the rural area are entitled to something too ...
Ms Carney: Watch them. Alice Springs did not get everything it was promised.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting. Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting. Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Member for Greatorex, Alice Springs did get a reasonable amount of money; it may not have everything, but they certainly got up to $8m which upgraded the pool and made it suitable for diving and swimming competitions. That funding is great. Anyone who goes to the Masters Games knows swimming is a very popular competition ...
Ms Carney: I am just saying keep an eye on them, Gerry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: The government has said it will review the current plans for the aquatic centre in the rural area in conjunction with stakeholders, and me. They will report on the costings by February 2010, and they will talk to the local council. This needs to progress; people have been hearing these plans for years. We need to make it happen from this motion, and from the agreement with the government.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion. We are committed to work with the member for Nelson and the Litchfield Council to progress this under our parliamentary agreement.
The government has committed to building a pool in the rural area, we have put funding aside for that, and we will expand this commitment to look at the broader issue of an aquatic centre. The work will revisit the progress already made by the Minister for Local Government to establish a pool at Humpty Doo. The project will include considering possible sites for the new aquatic facility, and will report back to government early next year. The government has progressively provided water facilities for Territory families to build on our great lifestyle and to provide safe swimming options, particularly for families who do not have a pool of their own. That is why we built Leanyer Water Park; it is free for Territory families, and we will also provide free entry to the water park we build at Palmerston.
The rural facility will need to be well planned, well thought out. We are committed to ensuring it is a free facility similar to the well-loved Leanyer facility, and the about-to-be-loved Palmerston facility. Thousands of families enjoy the Leanyer Water Park and we know there is much anticipation in Palmerston regarding the construction of a water park there. Site selection is currently under way in Palmerston, and we expect to announce the preferred location in the coming months.
The government will consider a report on the establishment of a similar facility in Darwin’s rural area, which we know is a growing population base. Not only will families of the Top End have the Leanyer Water Park and the Palmerston Water Park, as well as the fantastic wave pool at the Convention Centre site, to enjoy - all projects opposed by the CLP - they will also have the opportunity to enjoy a great aquatic facility in the Litchfield shire.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr John Ah Kit
Mr John Ah Kit
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former minister and former member for Arnhem, Mr John Ah Kit. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Rural Area – Aquatic Centre
Rural Area – Aquatic Centre
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I would like to support this motion by the member for Nelson regarding building an aquatic centre in the rural area similar to the one at Leanyer and the proposed one at Palmerston. But it should be better than the ones at Palmerston and Leanyer because the issue of a pool has been going on for 20 years; and included the previous minister for Sport, Mr Ah Kit, who was recently in the Chamber as a visitor. It should be funded similarly to the ones maintained by the government in the urban areas.
People in the rural area have been treated as second-class citizens for a long time when it comes to recreation. Whilst the Chief Minister could not give figures regarding the cost of an aquatic centre, I can tell you it will be in the vicinity of around $5m, or more, whether it is a 25 m pool or a 50 m pool. They are not complicated items to build from an engineering point of view, but have complexities in ensuring they are built correctly and operate without leakages or overpressure.
It is one thing to plan and build this aquatic centre; it will be another thing to manage it and pay the operating costs. The Litchfield Council has declined to take on an aquatic centre because they know the high cost of running such a facility, and they do not want to pass those costs on to ratepayers. I believe they would be fairly high costs.
If we can have this facility built somewhere in the rural area we should look for the ideal situation suiting the majority of people, the majority of schools and the majority of recreational groups.
We support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the speakers for their support. I take up some of the matters raised by the member for Goyder. Litchfield Council has, for years, been concerned about taking on a pool because of the running costs; that is what it was about. There was an offer, from both parties in 2001, of $1m for a pool; but this was clearly an inadequate amount of money.
A former minister said he could build a pool for that amount, and I said to him: ‘Put your money where your mouth is and build it’.
This is a debate about costings. The idea of an aquatic centre was on the list before the agreement; it is nothing new. I am making sure the government gets started - it is the same with the bicycle path - I have asked the government to get started.
An aquatic centre is very important, and the government has the YMCA doing work on evaluating what type of facility should be built. I ask where it should be built to ensure maximum use.
I am pleased the government has agreed to build the pool; I put it in the agreement to hurry things along. Taminmin High School wants a pool on the high school site. If it is to be at Humpty Doo, we should be talking to Litchfield Council to see whether there is a more appropriate block of land …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We will not worry about what was; we will worry about what will be. That is what this whole debate has been about. We have to get on and do this. In Leanyer, now Palmerston and, to some extent, Alice Springs, the members for Araluen and Greatorex have told me there are some deficiencies in what the government promised. I am interested in finding out why, because it is important when government makes commitments they carry them out.
Government, please get this moving; people in the rural area want an aquatic centre. Sit down with the YMCA and the Litchfield Council, and let us get this going.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Howard Springs Forestry Land
Native Title Issues
Howard Springs Forestry Land
Native Title Issues
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move -
- That the government immediately address the native title issues constraining release of the forestry land at Howard Springs and permit the land to be developed as a rural subdivision for first homebuyers, especially young people and families, to get a start in life.
This is also in the agreement but needs speaking to. I am passionate about trying to open up more land. One of the key things in the agreement is to push for more land to be opened up. I know we are short of land; that is why the price of land is so high. It is tragic so many young Territorians cannot buy their own block of land because the price is too high.
Earlier this year I was approached by a representative of eight local developers who requested the government subdivide the forestry land on Gunn Point Road into 400 1 ha and 2 ha blocks. It was not just about making money; they are Territory people concerned there is not enough land available for young people and they wanted to get this off the ground.
Here is a parcel of land that has been zoned residential land, and here is an opportunity to develop that forestry land. I heard the member for Goyder saying it has been filled with Dieldrin and arsenic. It is a Cyprus pine forest, and Cyprus pine are termite resistant. I am not sure that statement is factual, but I am sure the right tests will be done if the land is developed ...
Mr Conlan: She knows what she is talking about.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Greatorex, unlike yourself sometimes.
Mr Conlan: Gerry, when have you become a politician?
Mr WOOD: I went to the Matt Conlan school of disc jockeys.
This proposal has been around since the beginning of the year, and it is bogged down because there are four native titleholders claiming this block of land. I hope the government resolves this; I hope people are not playing one another off, or trying to hold out for more money. It is important we sort out this issue. It is important we solve the native title issue, and work with these developers to ascertain what land can be developed. It will go a long way to taking some heat off the requirement for land, and it will also give us choice. At the moment there is very little rural land young people can afford.
A 1 ha or 2 ha block in Howard Springs will cost $300 000 to $400 000. 2 ha blocks on Whitewood Road are $400 000. What young family can afford to live in the rural area? We need to give people choice of lifestyle, choice of land size - we are not - we are giving them 50 700 m2 blocks in Johnston.
The rural area has the lowest crime rate; people are not living in each other’s pocket. You give people a chance to have a lifestyle which is very much in sync with our Territory environment, and there are things for children such as raising farm animals; it just gives them space, and that is good.
I am interested to know where the Northern Territory government is in relation to native title consultation. We have to work hard to get a solution. Once we have the solution we can get the developers in and open up this land, which is desperately needed.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the government supports this motion. We are committed to work with the member for Nelson to progress this under our parliamentary agreement.
The forestry area that forms Howard Springs and Gunn Point Roads includes three lots, two of which are currently subject to native title. Portion 2820 had a native title claim, but it was withdrawn. This is expected to be re-lodged in an amended form. Portion 2821 and portion 2822 are also subject to native title.
The government will liaise with the Northern Land Council to continue pursuing a negotiated outcome. We have a good record of dealing with land councils to achieve negotiated outcomes. We will fast-track the negotiations, and we will report back in November regarding success. Litigation is not the favoured course, we prefer negotiation; we are serious in negotiating with the Northern Land Council. You can tie yourself up for a minimum of 18 months; however, experience has shown it is much longer if you go to the courts. We are serious in supporting this motion; we are serious in fast-tracking negotiations with the NLC, and we will report back in November. I will keep the member for Nelson informed of how we are proceeding in this matter.
I support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the good track record of this government dealing with native titleholders around Darwin - Larrakia Development Corporation was the developer of a site in the Palmerston area as a result of the former government’s negotiation where native title had not been established. The non-litigious approach used by this government was to take them to the High Court and make sure native title was declared to be extinguished, at great expense to the Territory taxpayer, and at great pain to the native title claimants. That is a great record of negotiation?
The member for Arnhem says she recognises the native titleholders over Darwin, when she sat in Cabinet that hounded those claimants all the way to the High Court to deprive them of their native title rights.
It is curious in the extreme that the government stands here saying they have a great track record in dealing with native titleholders. Where did they take the Blue Mud Bay case? All the way to the High Court. What were they trying to achieve? The reversal of the decision giving native title rights to the traditional owners of the Blue Mud Bay area.
The cheek of the government to assert they are great negotiators with native title claimants is an outrage; for them to acknowledge the Larrakia people, on whose land we are standing, after they hounded them into the High Court to make sure they did not get native title recognised, is outrageous in the extreme.
I also support this motion. There is one vehicle the Treasurer did not mention in relation to native title rights over this particular area, that is acquisition. It has been established in the High Court of this country that a state government may acquire native title for any purposes it desires. I am not suggesting we should acquire, in the first instance, I am saying there should be a completion date for negotiations. If that date is not met in relation to negotiations, the government will move to acquire.
We have seen the ridiculous situation in Alice Springs, particularly in Larapinta Stage 4, where the government committed itself to a process of negotiation and got bogged down for years. It took years to get that land released. What was the effect of that negotiation? Native title was extinguished. The traditional owners were given compensation for the extinguishment of title. If you negotiate that outcome it takes four years. If you acquire, the native titleholders get compensation for extinguishment. Exactly the same result.
The only question is how much is it worth? We know, in relation to what was paid in Alice Springs, it is approximately half of freehold. The federal government, as part of the agreement, is going to pay 75% of the native title compensation in the case of acquisition. As a result of that, native title will be extinguished; that is what we negotiate for anyway. It can be done in a better way which puts pressure on the native titleholders to come to an agreement. It is not outrageous to ask them to come to an agreement; they end up with cash in the bank. The value of native title has been established.
Why are we squirming around this issue when the result of going down the path of acquisition, should it be necessary because negotiations have failed, will lead to precisely the same result as if you negotiated in the first place, with one major difference. In the acquisition process you are in a position to get land turned off within a finite period, and you can plan around that. You cannot plan around a negotiated process that takes forever and has no determined outcome.
If the member for Nelson wants to see people moving into these affordable houses at this location, plan and negotiate in such a way to meet a deadline you set. It is not that hard. We will not see the government claiming to be good negotiators when, in actual fact, they are rapacious litigators.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank both the Minister for Planning and Lands and the member for Port Darwin; he is very knowledgeable on the native title issue and I appreciate his input into this debate. Where we have shortage of land for housing we need to expedite issues.
It is good to hear both sides of parliament agree; the reason it is in this agreement is to expedite it. It has been sitting still. I know there are legal implications, but if eight local developers believe our children should have a chance to get a block of land at a reasonable price, that is the motivation we should be looking at.
This is not a local issue; it is land in the Northern Territory available for development that the government owns. It could be in Timbuktu, however it is in Howard Springs, it has been there a long time, and it has been zoned residential, and I have been pushing it for a long time. It is in the agreement for both me and the government to push along. I believe it is vitally important.
Many things have been said about the agreement, and there are many good things in there. I am in a position I was not expecting to be in, and if I can use it for the benefit of all Territorians I will have no hesitation in pushing this agreement, and I will not apologise for its content.
Motion agreed to.
OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The changes which are proposed extend the powers of the Ombudsman to allow the Ombudsman to look into matters relating to open police complaints, not just from the time the new act came into place; if passed, this would allow the Ombudsman to look at or take up complaints which were commenced, but not completed, at the time the act came into operation.
This change has been brought on to ensure there is the capacity to look at those things on the table, and not limiting the Ombudsman to look only at new complaints. The significance of this change is there are a number of complaints and/or grievances under way at the moment, some of which have taken an extraordinary amount of time to be dealt with. One complaint took police over a year to respond to in a substantive way. Whether or not there is basis for action to be taken is not for me to judge. If that member of the police force feels waiting that length of time is too long, or their complaint is being dealt with in an unacceptable manner, they should have available to them somewhere they can go to seek assistance once other avenues have been explored. Obviously, the government agrees, as they brought forward the changes to give the Ombudsman power to look into police complaints.
There is a group of people who missed out and who, I believe, should have been captured. These changes simply tidy up the changes government has made in opening the door for those complaints which were open, but not finalised, at the time the recent changes to the Ombudsman Act came into place. This is a measure which provides assistance to hard-working police who feel aggrieved and, I believe, those officers would support me.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CRIME OF MURDER) BILL
(Serial 55)
(Serial 55)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the following acts: Sentencing Act, Criminal Code, Parole of Prisoners Act, Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act. This furthers the Country Liberals’ commitment to certainty in sentencing.
Anything less than a life sentence for the crime of murder diminishes the value placed on human life. A prisoner may be rehabilitated, even forgiven, but the consequences of their actions remain unchanged. These amendments are to ensure that persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder serve that time. The only exception is, under exceptional circumstances, the Administrator provides for the release of a prisoner under special licence.
It is a difficult matter, perhaps, for members opposite. Leadership and certainty are required in these matters. When we consider the purpose of serving a full-life sentence for murder, is it an act of vengeance, an eye for an eye, or a life for a life? Is that what is behind it? If that is the case, then it is an argument which supports capital punishment, and is certainly not the position or the case. I, like many, admit that murder sometimes stirs such deep anger we want to consider drastic measures, but that argument cannot follow. What we are talking about is life meaning life.
Why? If it is not for vengeance, why should a murderer serve a full-life sentence? That is the principal question. There are two reasons I propose: first, a life sentence is, in the view of the Country Liberals, a fitting punishment for the most serious crime in our society. Second, anything less than life meaning life diminishes our community’s value for life. Some see a full-life sentence for murder as too harsh and advocate for the early release of murderers, while the victim’s family and friends serve a life sentence of grief and loss. Early release dilutes the starkness of the act of murder, not just for the victim’s family, but for all of us.
Maybe the murderer had a troubled past, was on drugs or heard voices. But a life has been taken and this action has a consequence that cannot be altered. The offender may be rehabilitated or forgiven; however, the consequence of these actions remains unchanged. Early release because of rehabilitation - in the spirit of forgiveness, some would argue - presumes both rehabilitation and forgiveness are dependent upon early release. This is not so.
The purpose of rehabilitation is so the offender may make a contribution to society. Can this contribution be made in prison? Yes. Forgiveness may occur, but does this alter the consequences of murder? Can forgiveness be gained without release from prison? Yes. A full-life sentence for murder is both a demonstration to our society of the value of life, and a fitting and humane consequence resulting from the act of murder.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of a Select Committee – Territory Police Review Committee
Establishment of a Select Committee – Territory Police Review Committee
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, members opposite well know the issue of police numbers has been a flashpoint between this side of the House and the other side for a number of years. From our side of the House, we believe it is one of the areas where the government relies on spin, obfuscation and old-fashioned chicanery to maintain a position which is, clearly, not substantiated by the facts ...
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition. Would you mind actually moving the motion? You have to read it.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I move - That
1. The Assembly establish a select committee to be known as the Territory Police Review Committee.
- (a) the current number of police, including numbers in specific units and on general duties (including overtime worked by Territory police), and the number of police needed to improve law and order in the Territory;
(b) current work practices of Territory police with particular reference to the process of arrest, including average time, and assessed against procedures in other jurisdictions;
(c) the level of resources provided to police and whether it is impacting on the capacity of police to fulfil their duties as required under law;
(d) the numbers, impact and interrelation of Federal Police with the Territory police in the Northern Territory;
(e) the effectiveness of ACPOs and Auxiliary Officers;
(f) a management plan in respect to all areas of inquiry above, informed by what is occurring in other jurisdictions;
(g) other matters relevant to the performance of Territory Police Force; and
(h) any such issues relevant to this inquiry.
6. The foregoing provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
- The inquiry is to provide its final report to the Assembly by April 2010.
The parliamentary agreement struck last week between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson calls for an end to the government’s shameless spin cycle. There seems to be no better place to start than the government to identify, for this House, exactly how many serving police are currently employed by the Northern Territory Police Force. That is one step. Let us get it clear, let us know exactly what we are dealing with in real, honest terms.
The construct of this committee and this review is to provide that level of truth. People will know whether the resource which is matched against law and order in our community is adequate and, if crime is increasing, in what areas we need apply our resources to gain a positive result. It helps to erode that culture of spin with real facts. That is what we are crying out for, and not just in the opposition. I believe we reflect that concern within the community which is breeding cynicism and disrespect for our political office right across the country, and specifically in this Territory government. We have to end the spin.
The way to do it is to take this step so we have the capacity to do some deep, real, genuine analysis of the state of numbers in the police force, matched against crime and getting the interrelationship between these two. There are a number of issues in the motion which have been identified in many discussions and in many debates. These have been brought together in one place so we can bring to bear the capacity of that resource, the effectiveness of that resource - the police, the management structures, resources etcetera - against crime within our community. I believe the community is fed up to the back teeth with responses to law and order from the government saying: ‘Ah yes, we feel your pain. Rest assured, I make an absolute guarantee there is going to be x number of police, therefore problem solved’. People have had enough of that. Numbers applied against an express problem do not create a result; they give momentary relief.
The relief people are seeking is not an assurance you will get more police because you identify with their pain. What they are seeking is a noticeable change in the community, an increased respect for law, and the flowing social order that comes from an effective framing of the law; a proper backing of the police; and making sure we work out exactly what the problem is.
You cannot keep pouring money in to support our hard-working police who find themselves up against the odds. When the crime statistics come out we find increases, particularly in violent crime, no matter how it is explained and spun away.
You often charge us, members of the Labor government, to get out there. I can assure you, we do get out there and hear people’s concerns about the nature of crime and how it is developing in the Northern Territory - and it is not pretty. It is very sad the Labor government clutches hold of figures which reflect a national trend in property crime and ignore, or explain away, the massive increase in violent assaults.
To use an analogy of a community which has a problem with thievery, you would try to get an understanding of what is going on in that community. It would be a very different case if you had another community that was not too bothered about breaking into homes and lifting a few goods because they are envious of someone’s wealth and want to grab something, and have no respect for someone else, but for no reason they bash people for fun; kids, young people bashing senior citizens as they did in Palmerston, or breaking into Terrace Gardens and terrorising those most vulnerable in our community.
Once you start looking at that community, you have to ask some deep questions. What is going on? It is inadequate in the extreme to say, as we heard at a public meeting in Palmerston: we are going to get more police; we are going to have cameras. They may well be short-term responses to a profound problem emerging before us. How do we get to the bottom of it? How do we deploy the police force? What is the nature of the law required to be backed up so we can enforce it effectively, and promote real, measurable change? The result will be how do you feel walking down the street? How do you feel in the park? That is measurable. That is what people are after; they are not placated by numbers. The numbers are the application of a resource to a problem. What they are after is a resolution to the problem, and we get some fix on this.
No more spin, please. Let us have a construct; let us have a vehicle, as described here. You can alter it slightly. I am open for business. The purpose is to get to the bottom of it with some hard, clear facts so we can sort it out and break the culture of spin. People can then have a sense their government is working in their best interests, rather than weaving stories to create impressions. They have had enough of it.
The Chief Minister well knows from the public meeting in Palmerston – they have had enough of it - they just want some plain talk, they want some real information. Tell the truth if things are not going too well. Tell us what you are going to do to improve things, or to change things. You cannot keep pouring money in and saying: there you go. It is getting worse; you put more money in and expect a different result. That is madness; that is lunacy. You have to get a proper fix on it. We have to take a scientific approach.
As the Chief Minister said in questions which were asked recently: we are going to assess it; we do not know this and we do not know that, so one day when we know this and we know that, then we might be able to get a solution. It is the same deal here. Here is a capacity to get some deeper analysis on the nature of crime, the application of a resource, and how we can effect and drive real change. That is the purpose of the motion. I would be surprised if government does not support this. If they do not support it, I hope they put something constructive on the table to achieve that objective.
People are fed up with spin and stories about things being done in response to the pain they feel. It is, in fact, a political response to a serious problem which shopkeepers, families, and very sadly, seniors - in this case in Palmerston - any seniors group we go to, people are fed up.
It grieves me when I hear senior citizens feeling increased anxiety about young louts running amok and threatening their peace of mind, and seeing this so graphically portrayed in the media recently. We need to get some tighter thinking around this and some deeper analysis. I urge government members to support this motion, because the purpose of the motion is to give us the tools, real knowledge, the power to craft good policy and affect real change for the benefit of citizens. I urge members to support the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the government will not support the motion for the following reasons. I listened carefully to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition in support of his motion, and I would like to work through some of those issues.
Fundamentally, if this motion was to be successful it would essentially confer the powers and responsibilities of running the police force to a parliamentary committee, as opposed to the Commissioner of Police. In regard to the separation of powers between this parliament and the police, I cannot see what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. He is talking about this proposed committee with these established terms of references, how would that link to significantly reducing crime or eliminating crime? There is no bridge there. It goes to the current work practices of the Territory police, levels of resourcing, current numbers of police, and all these issues can be addressed quite quickly. But in relation to eliminating crime in the Northern Territory, there is no bridge.
Section 14 of the Police Administration Act says:
1. Subject to this Act, the Commissioner shall be charged and invested with the general control and management of the Police Force and may, in addition to those powers, exercise any powers conferred on a Superintendent or other officer of the Police Force.
The Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting we amend the Police Administration Act to confer some type of powers on the Legislative Assembly for the management, work practices, effectiveness of ACPOs and auxiliary officers; they are quite rightly and properly vested in the Commissioner of Police.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, there is crime in the Northern Territory and some of the crimes he mentioned are appalling. I am not excusing them, but to think this motion would somehow eliminate those crimes from occurring is patent nonsense.
Every community, every society has a level of crime, some more than others. It is up to politicians to talk about what we do to reduce crime. The terms of reference for this proposed parliamentary committee do not go anywhere near reducing levels of crime. It asks some direct questions of the commissioner regarding the current number of police, including numbers on general duties.
The commissioner has this information; it does change on a day-to-day basis. Police officers move around the Territory. Those numbers are there and I am prepared to provide a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition on the current status of those numbers. They are also reported in the Police Commissioner’s Annual Report, which is tabled in this parliament. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition is inferring in any way the Police Commissioner does not report accurately to this parliament the number of police in the police force and the units in which they operate.
The next area discussed current work practices of Territory police with reference to the process of arrest, average time, and procedures in other jurisdictions. Those are operational matters for the Police Commissioner. Do we really want this parliament directing the police, or any other public service agency, on work practices? I think it is digging a little too deep. If the Police Association has issues regarding work practices, I am sure they raise them with the commissioner. Is it really an issue for us, as parliamentarians, to be looking at work practices of any institution in the Northern Territory? That is why we have chief executive officers; that is why we have a Commissioner of Police and delegate those powers and authorities.
The level of resourcing, again, is open and transparent. It comes through the budget process every year. It is reported to the parliament and in the Police Commissioner’s Annual Report. There are audited financial statements which address the level of resources. Are we going to have a parliamentary inquiry which says the police, as a tri-service, could do with more money? Of course, the answer will be yes. You can have an inquiry into any government agency, and all government agencies could do with more money. If you are going to abrogate responsibility to a committee of the parliament to apportion budgets to government agencies - heaven help us.
Regarding the numbers impact on interrelation of Northern Territory Police with Federal Police, I am not sure what issue the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about. I am more than happy to provide and facilitate a briefing, in the first instance with the commissioner, where you air your concerns on that, Leader of the Opposition. You have not raised them specifically with me. I do not believe we need a parliamentary committee to deal with this. If you have significant concerns as the shadow minister, as the Leader of the Opposition, bring them forward ...
Mr Mills: The police have. Give a briefing to the association.
Mr HENDERSON: I am offering you a briefing with the Police Commissioner to put those issues forward. I am not aware what they are.
Regarding the effectiveness of ACPOs and auxiliary officers, how do we define effectiveness? That is an interesting word and goes to the commissioner’s responsibility under the Police Administration Act. Regarding the act, it invests general control and management of the police force. Is the Leader of the Opposition really suggesting this parliamentary committee write the job descriptions and duty statements for ACPOs and auxiliary officers if the committee does not like the job descriptions or duty statements of those sections of the police? If we are getting into that level of detail with the police, I wonder why we pay chief executive officers and Police Commissioners to run the force.
Other matters relevant to the performance of the Territory Police Force – is this just opening up a witch-hunt where every aggrieved person with a gripe against the police will be able to present to the committee and say their matter needs to be considered? It is a very broad statement: ‘Any such issues relevant to the inquiry’. Are we going to have a parliamentary inquiry which will be a total witch-hunt into our police force? What is the allegation in regard to our police force that can open the door to every aggrieved person to make an allegation …
Mr Mills: The crime statistics.
Mr HENDERSON: You talk about crime statistics, Leader of the Opposition; there is no other jurisdiction in Australia which provides comprehensive quarterly reports on crime statistics. Are you alleging, Leader of the Opposition, that these quarterly reports provided through Justice on information derived from PROMIS are inaccurate? What is this committee going to do with the information provided on a quarterly basis? No other jurisdiction in Australia reports crime on a quarterly basis, and our Police Commissioner reports comprehensively in his annual report regarding crime statistics, and other reports are made available during the year.
The commissioner did report on violent crime and domestic violence; a report was produced regarding those statistics which we have debated up hill and down dale on why they are increasing subsequent to extra resources into this area.
The commissioner has already answered these questions. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying: ‘I do not believe the government, I do not believe the Chief Minister, and I do not believe the commissioner’? Where do you go from here? These reports of crime statistics are provided by the Commissioner of Police. Are you saying, Leader of the Opposition, that the Commissioner of Police is not to be trusted in the information his agency provides to Justice to derive their quarterly reports, and he provides to this parliament on an annual basis?
I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what is this very wide-ranging proposed parliamentary inquiry supposed to deliver to Territorians? He talked about crime statistics, but he did not advocate in his speech supporting this motion there is a problem with the crime statistics. There is certainly a problem with crime; we would love to eliminate crime. Regarding the statistics, we are more open, transparent and accountable in the Northern Territory than anywhere else in Australia.
The facts speak for themselves. The police force has increased by 339 positions since 2001. That is a fact. Unless there are many phantom police officers out there drawing salaries who do not exist, there are now 1257 paid police in the force, with more to come this year. There are already over 1030 sworn officers throughout the Territory. We have broken the 1000 barrier. It seems every two or three months I am at a graduation parade where there is one squad graduating, and at least one or two squads in the college. In past years you would be lucky to have one squad graduate a year. All these police I see graduating on a regular basis, they do not exist? They do exist.
The 2009 report on government services demonstrates we have twice as many police per head of population than the rest of Australia. If you do not believe the Police Commissioner, and you do not believe the Chief Minister and the Police minister of the Northern Territory, then that report on government services must be part of the collusion regarding phantom police officers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports the clean-up rates of Northern Territory police are second to none compared to the national average in respect of serious crimes, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, driving causing death, robbery, unlawful entry with intent, and motor vehicle theft. Our police are out there to be a proactive presence and to respond to acts of crime and clean those up; and they do a great job.
There is an increasing representation of Indigenous members in the police force. There are now 69% more Aboriginal Community Police Officers in the force than in 2003, and the commissioner has put in place pathways for those ACPOs to become fully sworn police officers. The number of fully sworn Indigenous police officers has also improved significantly over the years.
This motion would essentially open up a witch-hunt into the operations and the management of the Northern Territory police. There are no clear reasons for doing that. These public inquiries are normally on the back of issues such as corruption; there is no allegation of that in the Northern Territory. There have been several reviews conducted internally since the introduction of the continuous improvement program in 2002. The police force has reviewed its frontline police service delivery, both internal and external; major force structure reviews have been taken in response to the college, the Territory Intelligence Division, the Joint Emergency Services Communications Centre, and Alice Springs Communications regarding police prosecutions of violent crime and major crash and accident investigation services. Specific work groups have been set up and subject to reviews, including a review of the ACPOs and the Police Auxiliary Scheme; and those reviews are shared internally.
The Leader of the Opposition articulated there is crime in the Northern Territory; we know there is crime in the Territory, and we would all love to eliminate crime from the Northern Territory. Governments can always do more; we could provide more resources. He argued against putting more resources into the police force and suggested more of a preventative course. I am happy to have that debate. The terms of reference of this inquiry are very broad-ranging and quite unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory, and our parliament, regarding its relationship with our police force. It would certainly interfere with the objective requirement under the Police Administration Act that the commissioner, and the commissioner alone, shall be charged and vested with the general control and management of the police force.
The Leader of the Opposition wants this committee to look into the management of the police force, its effectiveness and work practices. These are issues for the commissioner, under the act. In a spirit of cooperation with our new Council of Territory Cooperation, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to be more specific regarding policing.
I offer the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Police minister a genuine olive branch here. If he has specific issues which have been raised by the Police Association, members of the public or other organisations regarding management of our police force - how it is structured, where officers are deployed - I can provide a full and comprehensive briefing from the commissioner, including the current number of police, where they are located, which specific units they are in.
I see that information on a regular basis, and I am happy for the commissioner to brief him to that effect. Public confidence in our police force is important and we must show this parliament has confidence in our police force to serve and protect the people of the Northern Territory. I urge the Leader of the Opposition, if he has specific concerns; I genuinely offer him an opportunity to be fully briefed by the commissioner or other officers.
It would be a sad signal for this parliament to send to the people of the Northern Territory that we have, as a parliament, lost confidence in our police force and need to establish a wide-ranging committee of inquiry into the operation and management of our police force; we have lost confidence in our police force that the only way we can restore it is to have a wide-ranging, open-ended inquiry into, potentially, all operations of our police force - other matters relevant to the performance’ and ‘any such issues’ – extraordinarily wide terms of reference. I believe that would send a sad and bad signal to the people of the Northern Territory.
I urge the four ex-police officers in the opposition to think very deeply about this. I do not believe any case has been made for an unprecedented, extensive parliamentary inquiry into work practices, the effectiveness, the management of our police force, or any other such matters. As a parliament, if this passes, we are saying to the people of the Northern Territory we have very serious concerns, and I do not believe that has been articulated here today.
With all the integrity I can muster, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come and speak to me and I will arrange a briefing. If you are genuine, and you have specific and real concerns, then let us deal with them in an appropriate manner before sending a bad signal to the people of the Northern Territory.
Our police force is not perfect, no organisation is perfect, but they do a fantastic job. They do a difficult, dangerous and very challenging job in very difficult circumstances. I believe they need our support as a parliament.
To establish such a wide-ranging, unprecedented, public inquiry into the effectiveness, management, and any other matters regarding our police force sends a very strong signal, and I would urge members to oppose the establishment of this committee.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I believe people of the Northern Territory should be concerned their Police minister has such a poor understanding of the operations of the Northern Territory Police Force. He showed his ignorance regarding very important matters in human resources within the Northern Territory police.
The Chief Minister said there are 339 extra police officers in the Northern Territory since 2001. Where on earth are they? Since 2001 there has been no increase in the number of general duties patrols on the road at any police station in the Northern Territory. Casuarina has had two general duties patrols since 2001. Katherine has had two general duties patrols since 2001. That theme is repeated across the Northern Territory. On that basis alone a review is necessary. We need to find out where those extra 339 police are.
When I talk to police officers - and I still do on a regular basis - the cry I hear from them is they are so overworked many of them are becoming burnt-out. They have seen no increase in the number of general duties officers on patrol, and their overtime continues at extremely high rates. I was talking to a police officer half-an-hour ago, and that officer informed me she did 20 hours of overtime in the last fortnight, and it is common for police officers to do 20, 30 or 40 hours of overtime in a fortnight.
Much of that is related to the number of police officers required to be on duty at any given time. They are not given carte blanche access to overtime; they do overtime because there are not enough general duties police officers. That is why the Chief Minister is completely missing the point here. We need to know where our police officers are.
Currently, there are five computer systems used to track where police officers are in the Northern Territory. One is Staff Plan, one is Personnel and Information Payroll System, and one is myHR, which many people would be familiar with, and there are the operational computer systems, PROMIS and IJIS.
Staff Plan is the main and overarching HR computer system in the Northern Territory Police Force and contained within that is a confusing array of categories of where police officers are located - police officers can be allocated an actual position, a nominal position, a supernumerary position, could be paid inoperative, or unpaid inoperative. If one police officer is posted to Tennant Creek and is asked to relieve at Ali Curung, he or she is will be on Staff Plan twice. He or she will be filling a nominal position at Tennant Creek and an actual position at Ali Curung.
That is why no one in the police force or the government can give an accurate snapshot of how many police are in the Northern Territory Police Force right now. No one can say where those police officers are posted, and in what sections they are all working; that system does not allow for it. What it allows for is a convoluted arrangement where figures are easy to misread or fudge. It is very simple to do that. They are tools used by senior management to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone making an inquiry relating to police numbers.
The motion refers to current work practices of the Northern Territory Police, with particular reference to the process of arrest, including average time. I have noticed the time it takes to process an arrest, computer work and other jobs has increased significantly. In the past, two police officers could make an arrest, bring a person back to the watch-house, process that person, do all the paperwork, and have the prosecution file finished to a standard to be submitted for first mention within one hour. Now it takes two hours to do that, and it would take two-and-a-half hours in a more complex case. The reason is the change in the computer system. I can assure you the Northern Territory Police Force has not doubled to accommodate the extra time it takes to process prisoners.
I heard the Chief Minister say earlier the Leader of the Opposition was talking about crime rates, and the number of police does not reflect on rates of crime in the Northern Territory. I refute that 100%. There is a direct correlation between the number of general duties police officers performing proactive police work rather than racing from job to job. These police officers sit in a patrol car and drive around the streets at 40 km/h - that is proactive policing - they are looking for people who could, would, may be about to commit a crime; they are looking for people involved in antisocial behaviour. Without that resource on the street, we have no way of dealing with increased levels of crime other than what this government is proposing - to build a bigger prison. That seems to be the only way they intend addressing rising crime rates in the Northern Territory.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If the extra 339 police officers were put into general duties in the Northern Territory, you could double the number of general duties patrols in every major town and catch people before they stopped to commit the crime. They do not commit crimes, because they see general duties police officers driving around. That seems to be a point missed by the government. They do not seem to have strategies to deal with it other than to build a new prison.
The Chief Minister mentioned quite extensively the increase in the number of Aboriginal Community Police Officers, and the increase in the percentage of Indigenous people working in the police force. I applaud the increases, and the strategies to increase the number of Indigenous police officers because a lack of general duties police officers means ACPOs are often used as a de facto second patrol. That is another statistic the Chief Minister did not feel comfortable mentioning, which tells me the Chief Minister does not have an understanding of what police officers are doing. They are just simply not out there.
The Chief Minister mentioned how wonderful their statistics have become, quarterly statistics that outshine every other jurisdiction. My concern with that is the police force has moved to a statistics-based model of policing. They have lost sight of what they are out there to do - prevent and detect crime.
To justify its expenditure on police, the government allow the statistics to be built up to a level to show more police are needed. Looking at it from the other direction, they could have put more police on to bring statistics down if they had put police officers in the right place.
The Northern Territory Police Association has publicly commented on these issues. They have also called for a review of police officers in the Northern Territory. They cannot get a clear indication of where police officers are on any day in the Northern Territory. It is not because the commissioner will not tell them; the commissioner does not know where all his police officers are because he does not have access to computer systems that can tell him. Those systems are so convoluted you cannot obtain the information.
I said this afternoon police numbers out on general duties have not changed since 2001; that tells me the number of general duties police has not increased. There are moves afoot to reduce, in some places, the number of patrols on the street. A case in point is Katherine. Senior management has suggested Katherine does not need two police patrols on duty on a 24/7 basis; at 5 o’clock on a Monday morning there is no need to have two general duties police patrols on the street. Management says that. I wholeheartedly disagree with them. With due deference to all the good work our public service do, policing is a unique career.
If a crisis happens in the department of Housing, they sharpen their pencils and away they go. If a crisis happens in an area which falls within the purview of the police force, it is bullet proof vests on, guns ready. That makes policing a unique experience; a unique job. You cannot be a slave to looking at the number of police on the road without taking into account occupational health and safety issues.
Now, without the backup of a second patrol, police officers …
Mr Elferink: If there are 300 more police, why are they cutting down patrols?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. There are not enough police officers to go around - that is why they are looking at cutting back patrols in some areas ...
A member: Where are they all?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not know. That is another reason to have a review of police numbers, to get to the bottom of this. What a ridiculous contention, with a growing population across the Northern Territory we have to tear back the number of police officers on the road at any given time. What on earth are they thinking?
I mentioned before the use of ACPOs to bolster the number of patrols on the road. They should be an additional resource; ACPOs are under utilised and they are often used as drunk patrols. They have a far more important role in providing a liaison opportunity between non-Indigenous policing and Indigenous groups. And that is another story.
In the same vein, giving the perception there are more police officers on the road, I refer to comments I made in relation to the use of police prosecutors. Police prosecutors would appear at court wearing plain clothes, but they were directed to wear a uniform. The reason given at the time was to give the perception of more general duties police officers on the road. They were seen walking from their car to the court.
The member for Karama raised her eyebrows at me - that is the fact. I was there ...
Ms Lawrie: I actually raised my eyebrows at something sent to me.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Did you? Thank you, member for Karama.
Ms Lawrie: I am flattered you think I am listening.
A member: You should be listening.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Karama should be listening because it is arrogance that comes from that side of the House. They will not sit and listen to reasoned argument from this side of the House because it is politics - that is just reprehensible; unbelievable. Only a few days ago we had an agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson promising more accountable, open government, no spin. Now the member for Karama is sitting there telling me she is not listening to what I am saying.
Thank you, member for Karama, I am sure the people of the Northern Territory really appreciate your attitude ...
Mr Conlan: I am sure the people in Karama, who are facing these antisocial issues, will be very interested.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Northern Territory Police Association, which is also a big stakeholder in this, has also been calling for a review of police numbers. We are not unique, on this side of the House, in calling for this ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not believe we are being particularly critical of anyone here. The system does not allow for a snapshot of police officers in the Northern Territory at this very moment. That is why we need to review human resources in the Northern Territory Police Force so we can understand what is going on there; so we can make important decisions on policy for the police force into the future.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this motion.
I am astounded at the response of the Chief Minister, the minister for Police, who revealed he did now know there were issues with the relationship between federal and local police. He did not know, and argued there is no link between crime statistics and the role of police. He closed down any reasonable consideration of what was put on the table to ensure the resources we have are designed to match and meet and deal with crime in our community was necessary. It begs the question; if the member for Nelson had brought this proposition to the Chief Minister, maybe his argument would have been different.
That is what concerns me about this; I do not believe the leopard has changed its spots at all. That speech was designed to prevent any scrutiny. All those weak arguments were run to resist any level of honest scrutiny into our hard-working police which may produce a result to improve our crime statistics. It is astonishing to find a chief minister who argues there is no link between crime statistics and the role of the police. That is a very weak and shallow response. The wicked web we weave when we try to deceive.
This is about getting to the bottom of the matter so we have clear data, so we can improve our delivery of law and order to our citizens, particularly our senior citizens, who are troubled by the rising crime in our community. We need to back up police and ensure we have the right management structures. I cannot believe the arrogant position taken by the Chief Minister, who is defying logic in his weak argument to defend his government’s position in resisting any level of scrutiny in the interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
However, his political life depended upon it. If the member for Nelson had suggested it, I am sure he would have been all ears.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Reinstatement of Open Speed Limits
Reinstatement of Open Speed Limits
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the government reinstate open speed limits on the Victoria, Stuart and Barkly Highways, except in areas that are speed limited due to roadworks or road standards, by no later than 1 September 2009.
Madam Speaker, 2007 will forever be remembered as the year the Territory sacrificed its sovereignty to the Commonwealth government and became little more than a provincial dumping ground for federal policies and southern mindsets. It was the year thousands of Territorians were forced to make considerable changes to their lifestyles without proper explanation, education or justification, because it was what the federal government wanted. Members on the other side may think I am referring to the Commonwealth’s intervention into Aboriginal communities; a day Labor members of this House will recall with horror – but, in many ways, one of the most forward-looking interventions in the Territory’s recent history.
What I am referring to, of course, is the introduction of speed limits in the Northern Territory on roads previously without restrictions. With the stroke of a pen, the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, ended decades of tradition that allowed Territorians to decide at what speed they would drive when travelling along our major highways outside built-up areas.
The introduction of speed limits was made without consulting the community, or based on any statistical blowout that had occurred during previous years. There were many hotly-contested debates. I remember reading in the Parliamentary Record of 29 November 2006, part of a statement by the member for Nelson, when he said it was the day the Territory changed forever.
It was a decision taken purely because the Martin government caved into pressure from the Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictional leaders, to fall in line with the rest of the country and introduce a speed limit - any speed limit - or else.
The threat of Commonwealth funding being frozen to the Territory by withholding payments under Competition Policy had been made before. In either 1999 or 2000, the then Transport minister, Mick Palmer, of the Country Liberal Party, managed to negotiate a way through the legal and constitutional pressure he was under from the states and Commonwealth and avoid the introduction of speed limits.
Times have changed, and come 2006, the Labor government had no stomach for a fight with the Commonwealth, and it capitulated. That is why we had so much trouble justifying the change to the community. The decision this government made was both political and economical. Political as previously outlined, and economical in the sense the government saw fit not to keep the standards of our roads to an appropriate level required for an open road.
Anyone who drives on our roads and highways will be well aware of the standard and degradation since Labor came to office. One only needs to travel on the Stuart Highway and check the verges, the trees growing in the run-off. Travel along the Arnhem Highway and check the shoulders. When did the Central Arnhem Highway become the Central Arnhem road through government neglect? What focus has been put on pastoral roads and community roads? None. That is the reason this was economical.
The speed limit changes were announced in 2006, an unremarkable year insofar as the road toll was concerned. That year the death toll on Territory roads was 44, which is unacceptably high by any measure, but an improvement on the road toll trend of previous years, and the average road toll for the Territory. Since 1981, the average annual road toll had been under 58 - 58 fatalities too many. An appalling number that disguises the carnage and untold human misery associated with road trauma.
Since 1981, per head of population, the Northern Territory road toll has actually gone down. That year the Territory’s population was 120 000 or thereabouts, and the death toll on our roads was 70. On a per capita basis, this compares favourably with the 2006 road toll of 44, when the Territory’s population was fast approaching 220 000 people.
In the years before the open speed limit was introduced, the Territory’s road toll had flatlined. In 2005, it was 55; in 2004, an unexpectedly low 35 people were killed; in 2003, 53 people died on our roads; in 2002, 55 were killed. In prior years there were 50, 51 and 49 fatalities on Northern Territory roads. It is worth pointing out that the Northern Territory road toll is unacceptably high.
By world standards, it ranks alongside Turkey for the proportion of fatalities per 100 000 people. The cause of this anomaly was somewhat overlooked when Labor took the open road speed policies on board. The point in highlighting those figures is to show the Martin government was not acting on any statistical change which would warrant a knee-jerk reaction of the kind this government so likes. It corresponded to pressure from other jurisdictions and the Commonwealth to make life easier for themselves at COAG, or other gatherings that involve face-to-face meetings with Labor ministers interstate.
Labor is not a free-standing organisation like the Country Liberals or the members for Macdonnell and Nelson. The member for Nelson campaigned so hard on the no speed limit campaign; he even had a sticker on his previous car. He was the orchestrator of the no speed limit campaign. We all remember the stickers; the member for Nelson drove that. He took that policy to his election, and people in his electorate voted for no speed limit.
The Labor Party is a federally-based organisation with state affiliates. At the bottom of the pecking order is the Northern Territory Labor Party. It takes orders from its colleagues in Canberra, Sussex Street, Sydney, and Spring Street, Melbourne. Those people know nothing about life outside their enclaves; they took a look at the Northern Territory, saw open roads and said, over their chardonnays, it is bad and has to be changed. Change it they did, without a shred of empiric evidence to back up the change.
The then Minister for Transport, the member for Johnston, and then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, pushed the new speed limit through without a grain of consultation. By consultation and stakeholders, I mean Territorians; Territorians who were badly let down by speed limit changes. The southerners who were pressuring Clare Martin and the member for Johnston had no idea of distances associated with driving in the Northern Territory.
On ABC radio last week, the head of the Pedestrian Council, Harold Scruby, said there was no difference driving in Queensland or Western Australia than driving in the Northern Territory. For Mr Scruby’s information, there is plenty of difference - it is called isolation. In Queensland you will not drive for the better part of a day and only come in contact with one town or community. It is hard here at the best of times, especially when you are forced to drive at 130 km/h when your car can cruise at 150 km/h or 160 km/h with ease.
The story told by the number of fatalities on Territory roads does not end with the introduction of speed limits on the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem or Victoria Highways. To the contrary, 2007 saw the road toll climb compared to the previous year; it was higher than any time since 1998, with 57 fatalities for the year. Last year saw the Territory record its second highest road toll with 75 fatalities. This shocking figure confirmed suspicions of those who believed speed was not the primary factor in road deaths in the Northern Territory.
The Country Liberals stated when changes were made to speed limits it would not bring down road fatalities; all it would do is add hours to the trip and contribute to fatigue, which is a significant problem in the Northern Territory already.
Speed limits in remote areas are almost impossible to enforce, and attempting to do so has diverted police resources out of towns where they are needed to address law and order and antisocial behaviour, and have the greatest impact. The government has failed to provide proof of the impact of speed limits on the road toll.
Territorians are still frustrated and angry at the introduction of speed limits. Labor has this innate inability to properly consult with its constituents instead of railroading change through without first explaining the need. The road tolls following the introduction of speed limits show speed on the open highway are not the main cause of the Territory’s road toll. The biggest single contributor is alcohol, followed by the failure to wear seat belts, and fatigue. This is followed by our young drivers, tourists, and the Indigenous population of the Territory.
The single cause of the vast majority of these fatalities is not being addressed - drink-driving. More than 50% of all accidents in the Northern Territory are a result of drink-driving. Pick up the paper on any given day to see the police have been acting on drink-driving assessment and identify that as the case. Instead of introducing a change not backed by research, Labor would have been better served to significantly increase funding for education programs to promote the importance of wearing a seat belt, or significantly increasing the contribution to driver training across the Territory. Both measures would have contributed much more to reducing the road toll than speed limits.
Alcohol is the number one contributor to road deaths in the Territory. The Labor Party has repeatedly blocked our amendments to introduce confiscation and crushing of vehicles for repeat high range drink-drivers. This measure makes more sense than punishing every Territorian by introducing unpopular speed limits without consultation.
The Country Liberals believe motorists should be able to drive to the conditions along these Territory highways instead of driving to an artificial speed limit which may not suit all motorists, especially international tourists.
In moving this motion, I want to remind members speed restrictions would apply on roads where roadworks are taking place, or where conditions are so bad, through neglect by this government, as to be judged unsafe for speed.
I urge members they need have no fear of trying to unscramble the egg because as the government introduced this legislation with minimal consultation, so too can parliament remove it, with ease, from the statutes.
In closing, I call on the member for Nelson to remember his constituents when he casts a vote at the end of this debate. Remember the sticker he invented; remember the debate he drove; remember the policies he took to his people. Some of the fiercest opposition to speed limits came from his electorate, and other bush seats. If I recall correctly the member for Nelson had a speed limit sticker on the back of his car promoting that policy. For the sake of good governance and good sense, I urge the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell to vote with the Country Liberals on this important motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, road safety is everybody’s business. This government makes no apologies for wanting to protect Territorians and Territory families. Throughout the world there is a multitude of evidence which says excessive speed makes both the likelihood and the severity of the crash far greater. Speed kills, and addressing excessive speed is one part of the Henderson government’s road safety strategy.
In 2007, we saw the introduction of the government’s road safety reform agenda. The government agreed with road safety experts and the AANT that the reforms would take time to make a fundamental change to our road safety record. Excessive speeding is reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour. We need to change our driving culture in the Territory. The Australian Medical Association supports an enforced speed limit for Territory roads. Hospitals and emergency departments are clogged needlessly with road accident victims. The road toll this year stands at 17 compared to 45 at the same time last year; but we do agree 17 is too many.
We have adopted a speed limit on our main highways that is responsible and workable; the road toll is down in areas where 130 km/h limits were introduced on 1 January 2007. Tragically, five people have been killed in 130 km/h zone areas this year, seven in 2008, and six in 2007. This compares to an average of more than 12 people per year in the five years prior to speed limits, with 16 people dying in 2002, 16 in 2003, 11 in 2004, 14 in 2005, and six in 2006. The fatalities recorded in the now 130 km/h zone on the Stuart Highway are particularly tragic, averaging over nine fatalities per year prior to speed limits. Since the introduction of speed limits this has reduced to an average of five fatalities per year to date - five too many. I have a document I would like to table.
From 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009, police issued a total of 359 infringements in 130 km/h zones. I would suggest 359 infringements that saved Territory lives.
This Henderson government will continue its efforts to improve road safety outcomes for all Territorians. We will continue to work to reduce the unacceptable carnage on our roads because one death on our roads is one too many ...
A member: Then ban cars, if you believe that.
Mr McCARTHY: I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, a learned man, a former teacher, who has spent many hours delivering important messages to our youth and our children, he must know the message he sends to young people with this motion is that it is okay to drive fast. No matter how many other words we put around this, if the Leader of the Opposition goes out and says we should not have speed limits, the message young people receive is it is okay to speed. We will not achieve the culture change required to improve our road toll while young people are getting this message from one side of politics.
Mr Elferink: Then stop giving them drivers licences.
Mr McCARTHY: My 19-year-old son is planning a road trip home at the end of his university semester, and he wants to bring his mates. I implore the Leader of the Opposition, and I implore the shadow minister for Transport, not to go through with this motion as I do not want them arriving on the border of the Northern Territory with the attitude of: ‘Hurtle in, boys, everything is open’.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the arguments, and with all due respect to the Minister for Transport, not much of what he said made sense. To suggest 359 speeding infringements saved 359 lives; I do not know how the minister can make that assumption. What is he trying to say? Is he suggesting we would have had 359 more deaths had police not given people a ticket? It does not make much sense at all.
I support this motion; it is a sensible motion. It takes the Territory back to where it was prior to the introduction of speed limits on our open roads.
I will read the motion again:
- The government reinstate open speed limits on the Victoria, Stuart and Barkly Highways, except in areas that are speed limited due to roadworks or road standards, no later than September 2009.
We know road standards have reduced in the last eight years of this government; that is the reason the government imposed the speed limit. When I first came to the Northern Territory in 1987 there was no dispute whatsoever; the Northern Territory had the best roads in Australia. I remember crossing the border at Camooweal on a little, old, dirt, track, then you hit the Northern Territory and there was this beautiful, big, wide, flat, bitumen road - it was like you had driven into another country. I drove across the narrow, windy western Queensland roads and then came into the Northern Territory with beautiful big roads. These days it is the opposite.
We see the Barkly Highway falling to bits. We had disasters last year when we were cut off from Queensland because government had failed to adequately maintain the Barkly Highway; it was crumbling at the edges. There had been a build-up of water from the Wet Season and it completely washed the road away due to the lack of maintenance occurring on that road in the last eight years.
This government has been extraordinarily neglectful of roads. Road standards are not the same as they used to be. We should not be belting Territorians around the ears because of the mismanagement of government. Where road standards are not up to scratch, there need to be limitations. Where road standards are adequate, people should be able to travel at a speed responsibly. Deep down, I believe the member for Barkly understands. I fail to see how a person living in Tennant Creek could believe every motorist on the highway would be a maniac if there were open speed limits. Far from it - I do not believe the member for Barkly believes that to be the case.
The vast majority of drivers in the Northern Territory are sensible, and drive at a sensible speed. A sensible speed is determined by a range of different factors: what time of the day you are driving; the condition of the road; where you drive; and whether there are big, windy areas or long straights. The vast majority of people are sensible. For those people who are not sensible it does not matter what you do, they are going to break the rules. Those people end up wrapped around telephone poles.
In the rural areas where you have 80 km speed limits, they are the ones who speed. In nearly all our electorates we have hoons who openly defy laws. We should not be penalising all Territorians because of a few hoons. Territorians are eminently sensible; they know how to drive at a sensible speed and they know how to drive responsibly. The paternalistic nature of this government, the fun police of the Labor Party, the nanny state we have now in the Northern Territory, is not Territorian.
One of the excuses this government used in the past was they were pressured by Canberra ...
Dr Burns: Never used that excuse.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I am glad to hear that, because I …
Dr Burns: That is completely untrue.
Mr TOLLNER: That is good to hear; I am glad the Leader of Government Business has confirmed that is untrue. I was in Canberra at the time, and Canberra did not pressure the Northern Territory government. The then Transport minister, John Anderson, was on a crusade around Australia trying to increase speed limits states had put in place, most particularly between Canberra and Sydney where they have a six-lane highway limited to a maximum of 110 km/h.
John Anderson could not understand why motorists were forced to amble to Sydney where the road could quite easily handle motorists driving at much higher speeds than 110 km/h. It is not the case that Canberra pressured the Northern Territory government.
I apologise to the government for having that perception. There is that perception in some elements of the community.
It is worthwhile me making a pitch to the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell, and to remind the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: You love me now. That is a change.
Mr TOLLNER: I have never disliked you personally, member for Nelson, but I have to be honest, I do have some major concerns about this sordid little deal you have concocted with the Chief Minister, to the exclusion of other members of the government. The member for Nelson has been on the …
Mr Wood: Yes, I am reading it at the moment.
Mr TOLLNER: … record saying he is anti speed limits on what was the open highway. It would be fair to say the member for Nelson has, in some ways, led the charge against speed limits, certainly from a Country Liberals perspective. He has informed us and provided us with information to rail against the speed limits that were put in place ...
Mr Wood: Is this same man who was talking to me before?
Mr TOLLNER: I do recall the member for Nelson quite proudly displaying this bumper sticker on his motor car …
Mr Wood: You pinched my design.
Mr TOLLNER: The design was provided to the Country Liberal Party by the member for Nelson. The Country Liberal Party used the design, used the template, but badged the little thing down the bottom saying CLP. This bumper sticker is a direct copy of bumper stickers made by the member for Nelson.
I seek leave to table this bumper sticker.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: It is good to have this historical evidence on the public record. I do not know which way the member for Nelson might go on this particular issue, but I am hoping the member for Nelson will see reason, will review my comments from years gone by and will consider the information and commitments he has given his electorate.
Let us think about this sordid little deal the member for Nelson has made and what his electorate might think about it. The member for Nelson has run in three elections, in 2001, 2005 and 2008. In 2001, the first preference vote of the Labor Party …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have many issues to get through today, and the CLP is concerned we will not get through them; they are looking to extend the hours. This is a personal dig at me, which does not concern me, however, we do have many things to get through.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to address your comments to the debate.
Mr TOLLNER: May I speak to the point of order?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may speak to the point of order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is relevant because this is the mandate on which the member for Nelson was elected. The member for Nelson may well see himself now as the controller of parliamentary proceedings …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I did advise the member for Nelson there was no point of order. You do have the call if you would like to continue.
Mr TOLLNER: It seems now the member for Nelson has set himself up as the person who dictates how our parliament will run. To suggest I have to hurry through this because of some agenda someone else might have is absurd. We can easily move to suspend standing orders and keep running, with your support, member for Nelson, if that …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim well knows he should be directing his remarks through the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, and to focus your comments on the debate at hand.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the mandate the member for Nelson received in 2001, 2005 and 2008 and what that might mean in relation to supporting the Labor Party in a sordid little deal. 2001, the Labor Party’s first preference vote in the electorate of Nelson was 9.7%. In 2005, the Labor Party’s first preference vote in the electorate of Nelson was an absolute whopping 12.6%. In 2008, it was 8.7% of the primary vote. In 2008, the introduction of speed limits may have had something to do with the level of support the Labor Party received in the electorate of Nelson ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I ask the member for Nelson, in the kindest possible manner, to seriously consider his history on this issue. Consider these beautiful bumper stickers we put together with your help and support; for that the Country Liberals thank you, and all those people who support our open highways, thank you. Reflect on your history, reflect on what people will say about these campaigns you may or may not lead in the future. This is a memorable one, and one I hope you recall. I urge all members to support this motion. It is a sensible motion, and it brings back a bit of the Territory lifestyle.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a new disease around that needs treatment; it is called ‘Gerry Mania’. Some people have tunnel vision.
This issue was brought to me yesterday. Out of the blue, no discussion, and then …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, there was very little notice of this coming on the papers ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: there is continual interjection from the other side. I am interested to hear what the member for Nelson has to say; members on the other side want to hear what he has to say. Let us be silent and hear what he has got to say.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business.
Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance, which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Mr WOOD: I am on the record saying I support open speed limits. This came to me yesterday. The debate in this House was multifaceted, it not only related to open speed limits, it related to the methodology the government used to get there, and also how the 130 km/h speed limit came to fruition. There were a number of important issues being debated in regard to this.
I was not opposed to the speed limit being removed from many of our minor roads. The Daly River road was an open speed limit road, and it is not a road you should be travelling on at high speed. The Borroloola road might be straight, but it is not the greatest piece of bitumen in the world. There was a need to change some of the open speed limitations on several roads. Roads like the Victoria Highway, you can go faster than presently allowed.
The issue I had at that time was the government set up its own review of road safety. My understanding was that review only spoke to Health and Police; there was very little input into that decision and that was one of my main complaints. We should look at whether open speed limits are a factor in increased accidents, but we should be careful we involve the public.
We were not allowed to look at the repercussions of what was being put forward. The motion last night talked about the Victoria and Stuart Highways. I immediately ask why the Barkly is not included ...
Mr Giles: The Barkly is in the motion.
Mr WOOD: The reason I was not going to support it at short notice was because I thought we could review what has happened since the speed limit was lowered to 130 km/h. I believe we should still be allowed to drive faster than 130 km/h on certain roads, but we do owe it to the public not to change it with debate. If we are going to reverse it, there should be some scientific data put before this Assembly …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: It is not just about the challenge, it is about injuries and car accidents and whether they occurred or not. That was information you could not get before. If we are going to argue it is okay to increase the speed limit - provide proof. If this comes in and there is a car accident and someone is killed, I know where the blame will be.
If you base your change on scientific data and tell this House it has been looked at scientifically and there is no evidence of change in the number of accidents or fatalities on the Barkly, Stuart, and Victoria Highways, you can then say it has been investigated and would make no difference. But you come here and say, ‘Change it’ and expect me to agree.
Regardless of the member for Fong Lim talking about mandates, we all know there are many reasons why you are voted in, and that was not one of the main reasons I was voted in; there are many reasons. The CLP does not even have the decency to ask me: ‘Would you mind if we use your sticker?’ I saw a car out the front with my sticker, and I looked for my name on it because I put my name on the sticker, but it was CLP ...
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Regardless of your opinion on this matter, you would think good manners, honest and open government, would ask me ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Nelson is quite prepared to jump up and suggest someone else is alleging corruption, now he is quite prepared, in relation to …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I ask you to ask him to withdraw those comments. There was nothing inappropriate about what was done; it was done with his permission.
Ms Scrymgour: You like throwing mud, but you do not like it when it is thrown back.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Member for Nelson, you have the call.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. A little tongue in cheek, but it was my design; it was my sticker …
Mr Tollner: We just said that.
Ms Carney: And you wanted us to use it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, please.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Speaker, as this bill stands it is inappropriate to change the open speed limits. I agree some of the highways should have open speed limits, but it needs to be supported by facts and scientific evidence. To change this overnight could lead to being accused of taking a political step. The CLP used it as a political promise in the last election. Without backing it up with evidence is fraught with danger.
I would like to see the speed limits changed, but before I go down that path, I would like to see a review of what effect the reduction in the speed limit has had on all matters relating to cars, accidents, injuries and fatalities. We have to make sure we know where they were and what caused them. That would be a far better approach to this.
It was a very emotional issue when it happened. There are people who do not want speed limits changed. I would prefer a more cautious approach. I would hope, after a review, we could open the speed limits up on some of our major highways. I travel the highways; I have just been to Kununurra, and there are times you would like to go faster, but cannot.
The other aspect is a practical approach. Are we really going to be policing people between Katherine and the Victoria River Roadhouse? Are we going to put our resources into catching the one or two? We know a very small percentage go over 140 km/h; the government did a survey which showed very few people travel over that speed. There are some practical implications for not bothering about it - you are not going to put the police resources out there.
I am willing to support changes to the open speed limit, but we need to do it carefully and wisely, and make sure the community understand the reasoning behind it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, member for Nelson, I will critique some of the things you have said, but not as a personal attack. I believe what you have said is incorrect, so please do not take it personally.
The attack here is actually on government policy of bringing in the open speed limits in the first place. If you sit on the fence for too long, you get splinters in your backside. You have to go one way or the other in this debate ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr GILES: Let me explain. The debate on 29 November 2006, in the motion you moved, member for Nelson, according to Hansard, says:
- The Northern Territory government leaves the present open speed limit on the Stuart, Victoria, Arnhem and Barkly Highways.
I talk about sitting on the fence because without the appropriate data you cannot have that argument. If we took on board what the member for Nelson said, and referred it to a committee, there is no time line and there is no data that could go to this committee to assess how effective or ineffective speed limits are. If the review found it was favourable to bring back open roads, there is no process regarding introduction, and no time line. There are inherent flaws in the process of review.
In 2006 there was no data to support a case for introducing speed limits in the first place. It is the same now; there is no data to back that case up.
Your assertion that 359 people have been fined so 359 lives have been saved is absolutely ludicrous. Talking about your son and his mates crossing the border and hurtling down the road like idiots – well, we are talking about people driving responsibly to road conditions, to the car’s condition, to your ability.
We have hooning legislation; the police have the power to charge people, or arrest them, or whatever needs doing. This is about giving people the opportunity to drive to their ability, and to the road conditions.
This government has let roads deteriorate over a number of years. We would not place open speed limits where the conditions have deteriorated so badly under this government. We would not place open speed limits on areas where it is deemed unsafe to do so. We believe Territorians had their lifestyle eroded because they had freedom of choice taken away. If we thought this policy was a bad policy, based on scientific evidence, we would reconsider it. I have offered that before, but you will not even give me a briefing.
From the lack of information you have just spoken about, I am sure there is no data. The website talks about the number of deaths but does not say where, or the cause of accidents. Was speeding a cause? There is no evidence at all; this tabled paper says nothing.
The fatalities that occurred within the 130 km/h, were they drunk? Were they wearing a seat belt? Did they fall asleep? Was it fatigue because they were driving so slowly? Did they hit a cow? This is absolutely nothing. This is the point of my argument regarding data. I thought you were just incompetent and would not provide me a briefing out of nastiness or politics. But you have an incompetent department with no information. We have an argument about speed, and you talk about people dying. Perhaps the fact is fewer people are driving on the roads, you could have presented that argument. Is that the case? People have to drive so slowly, they now fly. What is the argument?
It might come down to a policy between Labor and Country Liberals. Territorians know that, in power, we will bring back the open speed limits where it is safe to do so, where road conditions permit. They know our position. They know that will be part of our first plan. During the next campaign we will have a time line for action on this policy.
I recognise the member for Nelson will not support this motion which he previously fought so bravely for. I went to the member for Nelson and asked if we could move an amendment; extend it by a month; could we look at something? There is no process within this parliament to do that. This government has a vested interest in not doing that. They do not have data to back up any of their arguments.
I fail to see how the government can continue to support a policy it cannot even back up. There is nothing to prove. I fail to see how the member for Nelson cannot stand by his convictions of November 2006.
I support scientific evidence, but there is none. We do not have rocket scientists sitting on the other side of the Chamber. We need scientific evidence, and there is none. I do not understand how the government can make a policy decision based on that.
I will put this motion. It seems to me this deal has been done, member for Nelson, and if you want all the things which were put into this deal, then you have to agree to a few other things - you cannot support things the Country Liberals want.
I know the member for Nelson says we should do a review. I do not believe there was a scientific approach to the aquatic centre which is going to Nelson. I do not believe there was a scientific approach to the bike paths, or Freds Pass. There is no scientific approach to public housing, where the member for Daly is involved ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I am not sure how we can have a review when there is no data to back it up. This bit of fluff here is absolutely ridiculous. I believe it is really showing the chickens are coming home to roost. In terms of this deal, this is payback - an aquatic centre for a few favours here or there. Is that how this works?
Ms Lawrie: Not at all!
Mr GILES: Are the chickens coming home to roost? This was one of the biggest drivers, along with shire council reform. I remember the member for Nelson fighting so hard on these two things, and still is fighting for shire council reform. The chickens have come home to roost on this one. It is a sad day, very disappointing
All Territorians know the Country Liberals will bring open roads to the Northern Territory. We will have a time line for action; we will assess every road to ensure safety; we will plan to fix our roads and make sure every Territorian knows we mean action. Under a Country Liberal government, open roads will return, and it leaves some people with egg on their face regarding where they stood previously and the position they held and did not follow through.
I put the motion the government reinstates open speed limits on the Victoria, Stuart and Barkly Highways, except in areas which are speed limited due to roadworks or road standards, by no later than 1 September 2009.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 10
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCE) BILL
(Serial 50)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As members know, this bill will follow a proposed amendment in relation to the Care and Protection of Children Act. The bills could have been cognate, but we elected not to make them so. There are a few reasons, one is we have had a lot to say about many bills - many wrapped up together over the years, and we decided they would stand alone. That was the decision we took, and I do not think much swings on it.
This Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offence) Bill seeks to provide a defence to a person who is prosecuted as a result of failure to report, pursuant to proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. The inclusion of a defence is sensible and provides a safeguard. It provides a defence to any prosecution, if a person is prosecuted for not reporting a child who satisfies the criteria in the Care and Protection Children Act, which I will outline in the next bill. It is a safeguard, and it is an important one.
Just because the proposed amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act is made, it does not preclude a prosecution being brought. Whether well-intentioned, misguided, appropriate or not, the fact is that prosecution can be brought under our proposed amendments at the present time, and that is why we have provided a defence. In the event a prosecution is brought, our view was that a defence should be provided under the Criminal Code. I have met with various stakeholders, and it is regarded as an important and desirable safeguard.
Everyone who is affected by the reporting provisions under the Care and Protection of Children Act will take some comfort from the defence including, in particular, health practitioners from whom members of parliament have heard over the last six months or so. I am advised the health practitioners who have been in separate consultations with government are very happy with a defence existing.
It will be a defence to a prosecution under changes proposed to section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, namely, a failure to report if a person believes on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, or has otherwise suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation.
The defence is: if the relevant child was of or over 14 years of age; if the age difference between the accused person and the child is no more than two years, thus encapsulating the similarity of age defence used in some other jurisdictions; and, provided that there is no coercion of the child.
We believe that the defence further addresses the potential consequences of the unintended consequences of the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act a couple of years ago. We believe will assist health practitioners and others.
That is the essence of the defence. Of course, there will be some overlap with the next bill I will introduce, but I will leave the Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offence) Bill for now, and I would expect the minister to adjourn that debate.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (REPORTING OBLIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 51)
(Serial 51)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is introduced to remedy the unintended consequences of the Care and Protection of Children Act introduced on 22 August 2007.
As members know, there have been well publicised problems with respect to reporting underage sex which have come to the fore in the last four to six months. I have had the opportunity to review some of the material which led up to the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act. I have managed to get some of the files from my office here, and I probably have more information in my office in Alice Springs.
It was an interesting walk down memory lane to see the extent of the consultations which led to the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Bill, and the fact it had been cooking away for some time. As early as 2003 the government proposed the old Community Welfare Act would be comprehensively reviewed; a decision with which I agreed from the outset. In my files I found the April 1999 submission from me when I was a solicitor at the best law firm in Alice Springs, Carney’s Barristers and Solicitors, as it was then, to the then Minister for Health, Stephen Dunham, saying the Community Welfare Act had some real problems in it and he needed to fix it.
So no one was more supportive than me of bringing in a new bill. And the member for Arafura and I worked together in a very constructive, bipartisan, fair dinkum way. We did not agree on everything, and no one would expect us to, but we did good work to make the bill as good as we thought it could be at the time, notwithstanding some minor reservations - or perhaps not so minor reservations – we both with respect to some of the provisions.
What was interesting was a range of stakeholders, as we call them, were consulted in relation to the bill: the Law Society, NTCOSS, and numerous others. From the government publication I noticed there were approximately 75 submissions. The bill had numerous drafts which were partly because so many people were consulted and so many people had input into it.
The reason I am going down this short historical path is because there has been much discussion about the unintended consequence in section 26. Everyone missed it; both sides of parliament missed it; lawyers missed it; Parliamentary Counsel missed it; other agencies missed it. It is quite unusual that everyone, bright people all over the place, would miss this. But missed it was.
My own view is it really fired up after an e-mail was sent around by the CEO of Health alerting people to this particular provision. I do not criticise him for that, but I think that was the flag that made everyone think: Oh dear, we need to have a good look at section 26. So, here we are.
In May, I wrote to the minister and said: ‘I believe there are a couple of ways of fixing this. I think you should do it in June’. We had the first week of parliament and, of course, the following week was estimates. I rose to my feet and said: ‘This is really weird. Surely, we should be correcting or fixing this legislation?’ We are now at the stage where the minister introduced her bill yesterday. She knew, because I had said both privately and publicly in the past, so concerned was I that we would be working on a bill as well. And here we are in the same week with two bills. I am not sure either of us could have done much better; it is just the way it is and it is the quirky nature of politics and legislative reform. It is important to note that everyone is really trying their best to get this right after everyone missed it a couple of years ago.
I will talk about our bill. I will use the opportunity to outline, as succinctly as possible, the problems I have with the government’s bill. On the basis of an informal chat I had with the minister, I gather there may be some room to move so we can work in the same way the member for Arafura and I worked where going out in a blaze of glory, for either of us, was just not an issue; it was just about getting the job done. If we do it well, and I feel certain the member for Arnhem and I can do it well. we need to have very clear and specific ways of communicating.
For the Parliamentary Record, I should outline for anyone reading this Hansard down the track that the effect of unintended consequence is everyone in the community is obliged to report young people under the age of 16 having sex.
Clearly, the aim of the Care and Protection of Children Act was to prevent the exploitation and abuse of children - a worthy aim. In the stacks of reviews and consultations, departmental publications, little flyers going back as early as 2003, radio interviews with the project officer who initially came on board, it was clear that one of the aims, in addition to actually overhauling the old Community Welfare Act, was to present legislation which was, as the minister said in her second reading speech on 22 August 2007, a comprehensive approach that includes measures to prevent harm and exploitation of children. So that is it in a nutshell, and that is why it had such strong support from my colleagues and me.
The problem was because of the way section 26 was drafted, health practitioners, parents, counsellors, anyone in the community was required to report people children under the age of 16 having sex. The difficulty and the real health concern was that young people who require health advice, ranging from contraceptive advice to advice on STDs, other health matters, counselling and general information, the doctors tell us, were not getting that advice. They did not want to be reported to authorities, and they did not, therefore, go to a doctor. That was never an intention in early 2003, it certainly was not in my contemplation when I was working with the member for Arafura on the bill, and I feel certain I can speak for her, it was not in her contemplation either.
So it was a legislative stuff-up that had very real consequences for young people in the Northern Territory; and those in the medical profession, in particular, have been very outspoken and I know the minister and her representatives have had a number of meetings with them. The police also had an interest in this matter, so many agencies came together and tried to get to a position where a legislative fix was required. I know members of parliament received letters, many months ago, from professional medical organisations urging us to change the law.
Interestingly, one of the affects of the problem with section 26 was that some health professionals said, off the record, and I am sure they said it to the minister as well; they were considering not complying with the law. I always tell people you must comply with the law, but I knew full well that some medical practitioners were not going to. I did not encourage them to, but I certainly had some empathy with their position because if a young person goes to a doctor for help, that doctor did not want to be in the position of having to report them to authorities.
It was pretty serious stuff, and is why people with an interest in this area have tried their best to get it right. What we do not want to happen is to be here in six, 12, 18 months time, two years time or whatever, saying: ‘If only we had got it right’. I accept it is an imperfect world, but I believe given the seriousness of the unintended consequence, in light of all that proceeded it, it is really important for us to get it as right as we possibly can.
The opposition’s view is that our Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Reporting Obligations) Bill is better than government’s. At the same time can I say it is really not a battle about who is right and wrong, it is really about making sure that the change is right. I am convinced, as are others, that our bills are better; which is why I am pressing the issue.
The minister would have received from the Law Society a letter of yesterday’s date in which they say they have received a copy of my bills, and it is somewhat supportive and complimentary. It said:
- We support the proposed amendments to the care and protection of children in Ms Carney’s bill and consider the two bills …
That is the Criminal Code amendment, as well:
- … would be a positive and an appropriate reform to the laws.
Under our bill, it is still an offence not to report to the police, or the CEO of Health, if a person believes that a child has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, or has otherwise suffered harm. However, it then goes on to outline that a child is not a victim of a sexual offence and, therefore, there is no requirement to report it if all six criteria are met. They are outlined in the bill, and it is a short bill. The criteria are as follows: the sexual act occurred after the child turned 14; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child is no more than two years; the other child is not related; the other child did not coerce the relevant child to participate in the sexual act. That is an extremely important criteria, especially when one considers the history of the review of the Community Welfare Act and its replacement by the Care and Protection of Children Act, given that it was designed - going back to the minister’s second reading speech of August 2007 - to be a comprehensive approach which includes measures to prevent harm and exploitation of children. The criteria also includes that no other person is liable for prosecution for an offence in relation to the sexual act - an important and obvious inclusion; and the relevant child has not been caused harm, and is not likely to be caused harm.
In the current bill I introduced, one of the advantages, compared to the government’s bill, is it streamlines section 26. In the government’s bill, section 26(1) is changed to include that a person must report if they believe, on reasonable grounds, a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm, or a child aged less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. That raises the question in relation to the government’s bill - what about children over 14 years, but under 16 years?
It is clear from the government’s bill that is the open window, as I call it. The government has, unfortunately, left open that reporting obligation by the communities. Let me get this very clear: in section 26(1A) of the government’s bill, it provides that a person is guilty of an offence if that person believes on reasonable grounds any of the following:
(i) a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation, or
The difficulty is it does not contemplate children between 14 and 16, so clearly, you can have a 15-year-old who should fall within that provision and does not. In relation to the rest of the community, the government’s bill only provides that, if a child is less than 14 years, then they are included in the legislation, but it does not provide a provision for children between 14 and 16.
Yet, further down in the bill, section 26(2)(b)(i) in relation to health practitioners, has the same wording, but it actually says:
- that a child aged at least 14 years (but less than 16 years …
So the point is, for health practitioners, you have provided that a person is guilty of an offence if certain criteria are met in relation to children aged between 14 and 16, but you have not provided the same for the rest of the community - your cut-off point is 14.
We say that is not good because they are still children in the eyes of the law. Given the entire aim of child protection and a new child protection act is about the non-exploitation of children, surely it does not follow that children who are 15 or slightly under 16, and fall within that 14 to 16 year gap, cannot be abused, cannot be exploited, and should not be protected by the law and the legislators. That is our point in relation to the government’s bill.
Second, we do not see the need to differentiate between the public and health practitioners. Even though the health practitioners have been a very vocal and active group, if one looks back to the original section 26 - no separation at all - this was the general obligations about reporting for the whole community. There was nothing about: ‘Well, I report in these circumstances, but you report in other circumstances’ - it was one law for everyone.
I believe, given this area and in light of the confusion which has come about in the last few months, and given that we are dealing with remote areas around the Territory, as well as GPs and clinics in the suburbs, we need to get it as clear as we possibly can. When you consider the original section 26 applied to everyone, I cannot for the life of me, understand why government has sought to separate the reporting obligations in its bill - health practitioners and the general public.
Nor do I understand why it is, in relation to the general public, a person is only guilty of an offence if that person believes on reasonable grounds that a child suffered harm or is a child less than 14, because you and I both know, Madam Speaker, that children are, technically and in reality, still the subject of sexual abuse over the age of 14.
If a minister, the Minister for Children and Families, the Minister for Child Protection, surely would not want to be in a position where she says: ‘I am the Minister for Child Protection but only kids under 14, because the law in the Northern Territory is that young people cannot have consensual sex under the age of 16’.
A few years ago we had a very interesting debate about our consent laws and discussions about young people in the Northern Territory. So, how can the Minister for Child Protection possibly say she is only the Minister for Child Protection in relation to children less than 14 years? We have to capture the 14- to 16-year-old group which, I understand from information I have received from medical practitioners and others, is about the age of most sexual activity. I do not have the figures, but that is what someone from the health sector told me recently.
That is why we press on with this bill today. We say there should be no separation, no differentiation between the style and type of person who can be found guilty of a failure to report if that person believes on reasonable grounds that a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation. We say there is no sliding scale - they are all children - and the state and we, as legislators, have a responsibility to them. If the law said you become an adult after 16, then it would be different; or it would be different if the law said you can consent when you turn 14. But right now, Territory law is you cannot consent unless you are 16.
As I have said in the past, I am not so nave, nor is the minister, not to know that sexual activity goes on; but we have to protect them, we have to give young people the flexibility to get medical and other advice. We also have to ensure that in our efforts to fix this stuff-up, we do not abandon a chunk of people, those aged between 14 and 16, in terms of the general public and reporting.
Finally, we say the government’s bill is less than clear and less than desirable, given all the history and the most recent history. We believe our bill just about does the trick.
I look forward to having a fruitful discussion with the minister so we can get this as right as we possibly can. I am prepared to compromise, and I am sure the minister is, but only if it means we come up with a better law. I will not compromise on child protection, in particular, by consenting to bad laws.
I commend the bill to the House, and I will speak shortly in the relation to the urgency motion.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Withdraw Notice of Suspension
of Standing Orders
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, following discussions with the member for Nelson this morning and his indication of his unwillingness, at this time, to support dealing with the bills I have just introduced on urgency - there are a number reasons for it, one of which is his workload today. Also, given my indication to the minister in the last hour or so that I would be withdrawing the urgency motion, and we would discuss getting the bill right, I seek leave to withdraw my notice of urgency.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee –
Referral of Matters
Standing Orders Committee –
Referral of Matters
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst it is a long motion, we hope to keep the debate very short. The Leader of Government Business and I have negotiated our way through couple of the hairy bits in this. I will read the motion I gave notice of yesterday, and I will move a couple of very minor amendments, and I believe we should be through this in about five minutes, God willing.
Madam Speaker, I move - that the following matters be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for report no later than 13 October 2009:
- Questions:
Time Limits:
Processes:
Estimates:
provide the ability to directly question public servants in the estimates process, with the minister present, on matters of expenditure and programs progress and outcomes.
Madam Speaker, I further move – in the motion I have just spoken about, the words ‘13 October’ be omitted and substituted with the words ‘November sittings’; and at the end of the motion a paragraph be added which says: ‘Any other area that is referred to the committee by a member of the committee in writing’.
Whilst I accept the comments by the Leader of Government Business that they are by no means signing up to the contents of the motion, we are not arguing, on this side, that the government should sign up to the contents of the motion, just merely have the motion referred to the Standing Orders Committee so these matters can be addressed. I have an indication from the Leader of Government Business that this motion is supported. It is self-explanatory, and I do not need to say anything more.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you are making an amendment you need to have it in writing and signed.
Mr ELFERINK: I will sign it here, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. So it can be circulated to all members
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for the constructive discussions we have had on these issues. As the member for Port Darwin indicated, the government will be supporting this motion of referral to the Standing Orders Committee. Also, as the member for Port Darwin said, because we are supporting its reference to the Standing Orders Committee, it does not indicate support for any of the individual measures which are foreshadowed there.
In that spirit, and the spirit in which the member for Port Darwin has amended his motion, the government supports this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the motion. I may not support everything in it, because there certainly is one aimed directly at me, but that is beside the point - I believe it is good. There are many issues there I believe we need to review, and it is good that we are able to do this from time to time - review how the processes of parliament work.
I know some of the issues in the agreement talk about improving the processes of parliament, and I believe that is exactly what the agreement is about.
It is a good motion; it certainly will open up debate on the Standing Orders Committee, and there are a couple of issues I believe need addressing. As you know, I have also been debating one of those particular issues. I have no hesitation in also supporting this motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, that set of words is still being circulated; they were the set of words agreed on in terms of the amendment. I thank honourable members for their cooperation in this matter. It is universally supported, it would appear, and there is nothing more for me to say.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two matters before the Chair. The first one is the amendment, which I will put first; then, depending on that, the final motion.
The question is the amendment as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Membership of Independent Member
Standing Orders Committee – Membership of Independent Member
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the membership of the Standing Orders Committee be expanded to include the addition of an Independent member of parliament, where the parliament has an Independent member.
Once again, this strikes me as a fairly straightforward motion. The Standing Orders Committee currently does not have a capacity to do so, and in light of the new world we find ourselves in and my constant pleadings to this House, which have fallen on deaf ears until very recently, about the way our democracy runs.
Within the spirit of everything I have always fought for and stood for on this side of the House, particularly since occupying the Chair of the Leader of Opposition Business, I urge members to support this motion because I honestly believe it is a good motion. To have the view of an Independent on the Standing Orders Committee strikes me as being straightforward common sense.
There is nothing complicated about this motion other than giving an independent voice to the Standing Orders Committee; and, as a consequence that, I ask members to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will be supporting this motion. I believe it is a sensible way forward.
We were fortunate to have the former member for Braitling, when she was Speaker, on the Standing Orders Committee, and she certainly made valuable input. I know an Independent’s input on there, as we have in the Public Accounts Committee, will be valuable, particularly given the work which has been allocated to the Standing Orders Committee through the previous motion.
In closing, I know the opposition will nominate whoever they want to the Standing Orders Committee, but I am hopeful the member for Port Darwin might come on that committee. He is a student of standing orders and he could have great input into the debate and decision-making. As I said, I would not even pretend to suggest what the opposition should do but, from my own point of view, I would welcome the member for Port Darwin on the Standing Orders Committee
Madam Speaker, we support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): What did you expect with such a fine motion, member for Port Darwin?
Madam Speaker, I also support the member for Port Darwin’s motion; it is good. It does not matter whether it is me or the member for Macdonnell who is the Independent; it is good there is an independent voice.
Occasionally, I hear people say: ‘You cannot sit on that barbed wire fence’. And I say: ‘That is not the issue. There are more than two opinions in this world; there are more than two models of motor cars; there are more than two sides to a triangle’. I believe the idea that all light and knowledge comes out of one party or the other party – I have trouble accepting that. That is why I like my job.
Member for Port Darwin, I believe it is a good time for this motion, because there are a number of those things which will affect me as well. As I said before, part of the agreement was to improve parliamentary processes and you have put forward a number of ideas to try to do that. I am sure an Independent will also assist the debate that will happen in the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable members for supporting this motion, particularly the surprising Euclidian metaphor we have just been treated to by the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: I beg your pardon? What was that word? Euclidian?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr Wood: Thank you. I will look it up.
Mr ELFERINK: As in there are more than two sides to a triangle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is supported, I suspect I do not have to put a passionate, last minute plea. I thank the Leader of Government Business for his resounding confidence in my capacity - sometimes I feel I must bluff it as much as anything else. However, as this is supported, I have nothing more to add other than to see the motion proceed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Additional Sitting Days of the Assembly
Additional Sitting Days of the Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move - that there be additional sitting days of the Assembly on Monday 12 October, and Monday 23 November 2009.
Relax; I am just about to get to this bit. We have had some discussions behind the scenes, and I will have to move an amendment in the same fashion I just moved an amendment in the last motion. That is to have all words after the word ‘and’ removed - which is removing the words ‘Monday 23 November 2009’ - and substitute the words ‘Friday 16 October 2009’.
I speak to the amendment first. The reason we require this amendment is I have been advised that when this House is sitting in Alice Springs on 23 November 2009, as it traditionally does on a biennial basis, it would deprive the children of Alice Springs of the Wiggles.
As much as I am passionate about the parliamentary democracy of the Northern Territory, I do not want to go down in the Northern Territory’s history books and annals as the man who deprived Alice Springs children of the Wiggles. I could not hold my head up with any honour whatsoever in those circumstances.
That then returns me to the actual thrust of this debate, which is recovering the two days lost as the result of the no confidence motion last week.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government asserted last week there was no point going back to the daily business whilst the no confidence motion was hanging like the sword of Damocles over its head and they were in almost caretaker mode as a result of that motion last Monday. However, we would argue on this side of the House that the government did not in any way act like a caretaker government during that hiatus period. They continued to formulate policy; they continued to put out press releases as government ministers, and they continued to behave as a government in every way except in the sense of being responsible to the parliament of the Northern Territory.
I digress quickly, by pointing out that I am somewhat concerned by the rather irreverent answer of the Chief Minister during Question Time today that, irrespective of a decision and a direction of this parliament to his government, he would continue on a particular path, sets the Executive in a direct collision course with this House. I believe the government has to be very careful, particularly the Chief Minister, if he chooses to ignore a majority vote of this House, because I remind the Chief Minister, as I remind all ministers of the Crown, the Executive is still the subordinate body and that the parliament has ascendancy.
If the government continues to ignore the motions passed by this House explicitly, expressly and deliberately, then I believe they have set themselves on a collision course which can only lead to a very unhappy circumstance for the Chief Minister and the government as a whole. However, we will see how that proceeds.
I do not intend to be on my feet for the whole 30 minutes to describe the thrust of this motion. It is clear what we are after - we are seeking a five-day sitting from 12 to 16 October. I know the government has indicated they will not support a five-day sitting. They will not support the extra two days; they have indicated they would support one extra day. I implore them to revisit this harsh and onerous and, I daresay, irresponsible decision for the benefit of good governance in the Northern Territory and in the name of honesty, openness and accountability which they have embraced, in more recent times; through the so-called principled agreement with the member for Nelson.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, government will be partly supporting the motion by the member for Port Darwin ...
A member: Can we partly divide on this?
Dr BURNS: Well, in essence, we will be supporting one extra day and not two extra sitting days. If I could give the rationale for that: I understand the argument put forward by the member for Port Darwin that, through the motion and notice of motion of want of confidence which was moved last week, a number of sitting days were lost. We believe that was one sitting day. I suppose, if you count Question Time, you could probably arrive at the conclusion that possibly two sitting days had been lost, but nett, there was one sitting day lost, and that is why we are having GBD today, on Tuesday and not on Monday. So, in a parliamentary sense, the recognition is that there has been one day lost, and that is why we are sitting today as a GBD day on Tuesday rather than Monday.
We could revisit last week; if things had been done in certain ways there could have been Question Time or the timing of the motion, but I do understand, and I did say last week it is the most serious motion that can be moved in this House, and I completely understand why the opposition moved it when they did, and the timing, so I accept that. That is history now. But, in a nett sense, we believe that one sitting day has been lost. I will be moving an amendment very shortly, member for Port Darwin. I have already foreshadowed what that amendment will be; in essence, we will be accepting the one extra day of sitting of the Assembly on Monday 12 October. We will not be accepting a second sitting day, and that is government’s position.
In a light-hearted way we are, of course, rock solid on one thing - we do not want to push the Wiggles out the door. I doubt even the power of this Assembly is enough to push the Wiggles out of the door - not least of all because they have probably signed an agreement with the Convention Centre in Alice Springs. I am sure all the kids in Alice Springs are going to have a great time on that Monday, and I am sure they will enjoy it a lot more than parliament.
Getting back to the serious nature of the member for Port Darwin’s motion, we will be opposing the amendment moved by the member for Port Darwin and propose our own amendment to the motion in the following terms:
I move - That all words after ‘That’ be omitted and insert in their stead: ‘There be an additional sitting day of the Assembly on Monday 12 October 2009’.
I have a signed version of that; and it is the amendment government will be putting.
Mr Elferink: The first thing to deal with is my amendment, I presume.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson wishes to participate in debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I am speaking to that amendment ...
Mr Elferink: That is right.
Mr WOOD: I must admit I thought I was going to be speaking to one day anyway because the Wiggles were not going to happen. I am not sure which one I am going to support. I had made up my mind I was happy that we did not interfere with the Wiggles and just had the one day, and that is what I intended to support.
I did not realise you were putting forward an alternative day, and so I have not looked at the implications for that day. At the moment, I am happy with the one extra day; I made that decision based on the other day being cancelled. Madam Speaker, I support the amendment at the moment.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to indicate at the outset, whilst I realise it is very unusual to find ourselves in a situation where we have two amendments and a motion before the House, I suspect that dividing the House through this process will be pointless. Whilst I do not agree or accept the arguments from either the member for Nelson or the Leader of Government Business, for the sake of getting on with the business of the day we will go through the amendment process and arrive at where you want to be.
Madam SPEAKER: Does that mean that you are withdrawing your amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: If my amendment is put and we lose it on the voices, then so be it. Then their amendment can be put.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. There are a couple of matters before the Chair. The first we will deal with is the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business. The question is that the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion stand as amended.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Standing Order 21A - Amendment
Standing Order 21A - Amendment
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move - That for the remainder for this parliamentary session Standing Order 21A be amended by inserting:
- (2A) The committee, if it is of the opinion that any matter should be brought to the notice of the Assembly, may inquire into and report to the Legislative Assembly on any such matter in connection with the public accounts of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I am not proposing we change the government dominance of this particular committee. Whilst I remain highly critical of the presence of a minister on the Public Accounts Committee, it is not the thrust of this particular motion. The thrust of this particular motion is to breathe life into the committee in a way which is not essentially different to the proposed committee of cooperation as outlined in the deal struck between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister.
The essence of that is, if this committee was given a self-comprehensive, self-referencing power, it would be able to inquire into anything it chose to inquire into - very much as described by the member for Nelson.
I have long been a passionate advocate of the Public Accounts Committee being given that power. It is considered to be the most powerful committee of the parliament, yet it is still muzzled, up until now, by the majority of members in this House, which means the references it chooses to look into are ones contained in standing orders, or such references as given to it by the government, or such references as given it by this House.
The Public Accounts Committee has as one of its servants a servant of this parliament as a whole, the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has repeatedly said in the past and, I suspect if you asked him the same question now he would not alter his answer - that the committee is client - which means he spends more time reporting to the committee than he actually spends reporting to this House; and as an officer of this House, within the structure of the committee system, that is an entirely appropriate worldview for the Auditor-General to have.
However, there is an expectation amongst government members, and I certainly note the Leader of Government Business has this worldview, that in some fashion the committee should be led around by the Auditor-General. May I say that is not the case? What is the case is the Auditor-General should work for the committee, and if the committee finds itself investigating something in the operation of government, and it strikes an area where it does not have sufficient expertise, then the committee may well choose to bring the Auditor-General on board, because the Auditor-General works, essentially, for the committee, as he does for this parliament as a whole.
The committee members of the Public Accounts Committee are elected representatives of the people of the Northern Territory. There is an expectation, in fact, it is implicit in the title of the committee itself - a public accounts committee - that it is able to examine the public account up to, and including, examining how that public account is expended, which means actually going and looking where the money is being spent.
One of the issues I have raised in the Public Accounts Committee, and also in this House, is an example of how the public account is being spent, and that is the example of the Bronto, which is a magnificent piece of firefighting equipment aimed at firefighting in tall buildings, however, it remains idle for two of the three daily shifts, as a general rule, by virtue of the fact that the machine does not have sufficient licensed drivers.
I believe it is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to look into, because it is an asset which is not sufficiently used by virtue of a simple oversight. I am aware there is a call-out system to have someone drive the Bronto if there is a fire, but can you imagine the Coroner’s report on the value, if it comes out that several people died in a tall building fire because it took the Bronto an extra 50 minutes to get to the scene because they had to call out the driver? That is just one example of how the public account and Territorians come into contact with each other.
The public account does not operate in a vacuum; it does not operate in isolation of everything else that is happening, in fact, money is the language of government services in the fact that without it there is no government service to provide. Consequently, I believe there should be a robust, powerful and inquisitorial Public Accounts Committee for the purposes of making certain, and reassuring members of this House and, ipso facto, all Territorians, that the public account is being expended in an efficient and effective manner.
Consequently, I do not believe the Public Account Committee should be hamstrung by waiting for references; it certainly should not be a client of the Auditor-General but, indeed, the other way around. And I would urge all honourable members to turn their minds to the function of the Public Accounts Committee, what the public account actually means to Territorians, and Territorians have the reassurance of having an effective oversight, which is more than just the Auditor-General, more than just the Ombudsman, but is actually oversighted by elected members of parliament.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Port Darwin has said. I agree the Public Accounts Committee is probably one of the most important committees of this parliament. It has a very important function to scrutinise, as he has pointed out, in collaboration with and, as a result of, reports made by the Auditor-General into the public account. That is very important and, as an incoming government, we were very firm we wanted departments to respond to the findings of the Auditor-General in his report, and say on the public record what they were doing to address important issues raised by the Auditor-General. From time to time, departments give reasons why they may not be able to fully implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General. I believe this has put more transparency into the process.
I have not had a great deal of time from when the member for Port Darwin moved this motion to sit down and research what happens in other jurisdictions. In a conversation with the member for Nelson, he has a fairly simple matrix showing that other jurisdictions have self-referral powers, in general, to the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to investigate what those self-referral powers are; whether they are a blank cheque, whether they are carte blanche as the motion put forward by the member of Port Darwin, or whether there might be some structures and functions around that self-referral process. That is the first point.
I will be moving an amendment that this should go back to the Public Accounts Committee and there should be more discussion and research. I would like to know the views of the Auditor-General directly into the Public Accounts Committee; I would like to find out what other jurisdictions do, and what the processes are. At another level - and I may well prove to be incorrect - reading through our current standing orders, Standing Order 21A(b) in relation to the Public Accounts Committee is not unlike the motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin. I ask the question: is the member for Port Darwin’s proposal actually going to have the result he intends? It may well be the final intention of the Public Accounts Committee; I am not going to pre-empt that.
In that context, I move an amendment to add at the end of the motion of the member for Port Darwin that:
- This proposed amendment to Standing Order 21A be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for inquiry and report at the November sittings 2009, taking into account other parliamentary jurisdictional practices and procedures dealing with or having similar provisions in the terms of reference given to their Public Accounts Committees, or equivalent committees.
In essence, my amendment is saying: let us have a look at it within the Public Accounts Committee; let us find out what happens in other jurisdictions; let us find out what our own Auditor-General says. At one level, I do not believe we should be duplicating the work of the Auditor-General; we should be looking at ways we can complement the resources he has. I am not coming down one way or the other on this particular amendment, or step forward in the Public Accounts Committee. All I am saying to this House is: we need to have a look at it; we need to find out more. It is in that context that I move this amendment to the original motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support exactly what the member for Port Darwin is doing, but the amendment gives us time to just check what the ramifications are. I spoke to the Attorney-General this morning, I had a chat with him about it and he gave me the matrix. There are certainly self-referral powers: the Commonwealth has them, and New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania have them. In South Australia, the committee does not have them, they have broad powers which maybe interpreted in such a way as they are busy doing it. The Australian Capital Territory also has them.
I believe it is a good idea, but we would be wise to take it back to the PAC to have a look at. What does it need? Do we leave it like that, or are there ramifications we have not identified?
Member for Port Darwin, I am not saying it is not a good idea, I believe we need to look at it more carefully before we introduce it. I hope we can bring it back in the next sittings of parliament and pass it; but I believe it would be good to discuss it fully before we approve it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will grudgingly accept the amendment, simply because I know that we will simply lose it.
However, I say to the member for Nelson with all due respect: for the member for Nelson to rely on the argument that we do not quite know what will be the result of this amendment to the Public Accounts Committee, rings slightly hollow in circumstances where you have introduced a new cooperative council, which you or the government still cannot in any effective way describe in any structural form. You cannot even tell me if it is a subcommittee of Cabinet, or a committee of this House - I have no idea - and in your own words, member for Nelson, was something that was hobbled together in a few days ...
Mr Wood: Two different things.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not two different things. The principle remains consistent, and the principle is this: if you insist on having things prepared and insist on knowing what the ramifications of a particular process is, then I would urge you to consider the approach you have chosen in relation to your cooperative council, whatever it may be.
However, I have not hinged the future of the Northern Territory on the Public Accounts Committee as the member for Nelson has done with the cooperative council, or whatever it is going to be called. I grudgingly accept the amendment, or will not be opposing the amendment on the grounds it will get through on the numbers anyhow. I thank the Leader of Government Business for a forthright discussion prior to this. I knew that this was coming.
As a consequence of that, we will go through the motions and it will be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. But I do ask the minister, who sits on the Public Accounts Committee, that an honest and open approach be taken in the committee towards this, and we do get a comprehensive suggestion back to this House in November.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment as moved by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Appointment of Committee - Select Committee on the Territory Health Services
Appointment of Committee - Select Committee on the Territory Health Services
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
1. The Assembly appoints a committee known as the Select Committee on the Territory Health Services, comprising:
- one government member nominated by the Chief Minister, and one opposition member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition;
- one Independent member, with the Chair of the committee being the opposition member; and the government member Deputy Chair of the committee, with members being nominated no later than 20 August 2009.
2. The committee be empowered to inquire into and report on the provision of health services in the Territory and the efficiency of Territory hospitals, with particular references to:
- (a) health funding and outcomes as a result of this funding, including Territory and federal funding;
(b) blockages within the health system;
(c) inefficiencies within the health system and within the hospitals;
(d) type, number of and effectiveness of primary healthcare measures, programs and policies;
(e) staffing of the health system, including areas of staffing need, staffing shortages, staff turnover rates and staffing morale;
(h) use of private healthcare services, elective waiting lists, outpatient waiting lists and service standards within our hospitals and clinics;
- 3. The committee or a subcommittee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to sit in public or in private session notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly, to adjourn from place to place and have leave to report from time-to-time its proceedings and the evidence taken and make such interim recommendations as it may deem fit, and to publish information pertaining to its activities from time to time.
4. The committee have an inquiry term of six months from its date of establishment, with a requirement to provide a final report to be tabled within the Assembly no later than March 2010.
5. The committee be empowered to publish from day-to-day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and, unless otherwise ordered by the committee, a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
6. The foregoing provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
I start by saying this is not entirely the Labor government’s fault; health is very complex and it is a moving feast. It has ebbed and flowed for many years. I do, however, believe the current model, which we have had for a number of years in the Northern Territory, albeit under the Northern Territory Labor government, has been quite inadequate.
Northern Territory hospital funding is determined by an ad hoc combination of historical-based funding - and I have spoken about this before – that is delivery of core services plus additional resources based on the needs of the population. If you break that down, it is last year’s budget plus new initiatives, minus sufficiencies. Funding for Territory hospitals has doubled; in fact, we are looking at a billion-dollar Territory Health budget, yet there is no accountable, responsible modelling in place to make sure these hospitals are funded responsibly. Two reviews of hospital funding models have still not resulted in an adequate funding model for Northern Territory hospitals. This blanket approach has seen health outcomes for Northern Territorians plummet. Our hospitals are vastly different; the clientele which make up our hospitals are certainly very unique with different caseloads, and one blanket model of funding to address that is not working. That is point A.
The Minister for Health in 2007 made a statement ‘Building Better Hospitals’. He made mention of Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital quite regularly, but nothing about our smaller hospitals. We do have five hospitals in the Northern Territory, and they quite often get overlooked as we have seen with the recent hospital reports. It is concerning that while these smaller hospitals do not have the same pressures of our two main tertiary hospitals, Alice Springs and Darwin, they have their fair share of issues and the staff work under enormous pressure in those three other hospitals - Katherine, Gove and Tennant Creek - particularly when it comes to hospital boards and staffing. One unit, in particular, is of great concern, that is maternity services across some of these smaller hospitals.
It is concerning to see this blanket model of funding rolled out right across the Northern Territory. Again, a non-outcome based funding model for our hospitals.
The blockages within the health system: the AMA recommends bed occupancy rates need to be around 80% to 85% for hospitals to work efficiently. We are not seeing that; both RDH and Alice Springs are well in excess of 100%. The result of bed occupancy exceeding this recommended level is seen in excessive wait times, bed block or access block confronting our two major Territory hospitals.
The Northern Territory is currently placed sixth in the elective surgery waiting list, and on emergency department waiting times, we are last: 48% are not being seen within the recommended time frames for their category. We are seeing 100% of people in Category 1, which are those requiring immediate resuscitation, etcetera seen in the recommended time frame, but once we get to Category 2 down to Category 5, those figures radically drop off to the point where we are actually dragging the chain - we are last in the whole country. The median wait time for those waiting to be seen in our hospitals is also last, at 43 minutes. So, blockages in our health system and hospital system are of great concern.
Inefficiencies within the health system, despite having more beds – which the Health minister likes to suggest, and he may well be right - more beds per 1000 population than any other jurisdiction, but bed occupancy rates are still over 100% in the Territory’s two busiest hospitals. Reports by the Ombudsman and the Health Care Commissioner have repeatedly identified problems with the passing of information within the hospital system and the training of staff in hospital policy. So, inefficiency within the health system and within the hospitals are at alarming rates.
With regard to the type, number and effectiveness of primary health care measures programs and policies in this motion, there is a level of disunity in the development of social policy and coordination in the development of primary and preventative health care programs; alcohol policy is inclined to focus on the impact of alcohol on law and order and antisocial behaviour, as opposed to actually addressing the problems. Obviously, we need to strike a balance between the two, but the main focus is on law and order and the social issues which come with alcohol, as opposed to rehabilitation. So a great deal of money is going into the social and antisocial law and order side of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory – and not much on the preventative side of it. Illness prevention is less than 4% of the national average. If you combine all states and territories, our national health budget is less than 4% - so it is at alarmingly low rates; not a lot of effort is being channelled into illness prevention.
Heart disease and diabetes are two factors which have a significant impact on the health and life expectancy of the Territory’s Indigenous population. It is quite staggering to travel around Indigenous communities, which I have done in Central Australia, and the amount of people with Type 2 diabetes is alarmingly high. It is absolutely staggering to see the amount of Type 2 diabetes plaguing our Aboriginal communities in Central Australia and, indeed, right across the Northern Territory.
The government has committed itself to a $45m 10-year heart health plan. The focus of this election commitment is to expand cardiac rehabilitation services and deliver specialist equipment and major equipment upgrades both at Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital. However, there is no indication of any of this money will be diverted toward health interventions to prevent the exacerbation of unhealthy lifestyle choices escalating into full-blown heart attacks. Is some of this $45m going to be channelled into preventing that?
I believe we need to get to the bottom of this. $45m is a lot of money and, I daresay, if it was channelled into the right areas it would go a long way. There are nearly 90 000 heart attacks and chest pain events expected for 2009.
I turn to staffing. I have a great deal of stuff here to develop an argument on this, but I believe I know where the member for Nelson is going to stand on this, and I believe the government is probably not interested in supporting such a full and open inquiry, so I will not waste too much of the House’s time. But let us just turn to staffing of the health system, including areas of staffing needs, shortages, turnover rates and staff morale.
Each year our health workers have the highest separation rate of any other sector; at last count 44% of our health workers leave the Northern Territory. Anecdotal evidence is this is due to lack of medical accommodation and lack of affordable accommodation. A quick chat to the AMF certainly turns up some pretty surprising reasons why nurses do not stay here in the Northern Territory, and some of those are out of the Northern Territory government’s control because government cannot do everything and solve every single problem. If people simply want to leave the Northern Territory they are quite entitled to do so, and many do leave because they want to, but many do because of the enormous pressures they face in the Northern Territory Health sector and the lack of meaningful support from the Northern Territory Health department.
We need to look at more home-grown nurses, and more focus on vocational training, which I believe is very important. We moved away from the vocational training model about 20, 25 years ago; it is a national approach these days to do a university degree to become a nurse. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who have spent four years at university to become a nurse, spent three weeks on a ward and say, ‘Oh, my God, this is not for me’, and leave. So, vocational training is very important. These are some of the solutions we can endeavour to find if this inquiry gets under way.
Regarding effectiveness of service delivery and outcome improvements in regional and remote communities; there appears to be an overwhelming need to look closely at step-down programs where there is assistance and bedding in community centres to get people out of hospital and back to their homes. We often see in our hospitals a patient who, to all intents and purposes, should be discharged but is still utilising a hospital bed. This is adding to the situation with bed block and depriving those who desperately need beds in our hospitals from having one. Some assistance and care before returning home is very important, and this inquiry would go a long way to uncovering ways to provide that.
The appropriateness of the health department organisational structure: the appointment of the new head of hospitals is a start; it is a step in the right direction. However, there is intense pressure from the acute care sector to absorb the resources of the department, and this leads to primary care left wanting. We need to have a very good look at the break-up of funding. How much money is taken up by policy administration versus service delivery? Our Health budget is $1bn this year and we really do need to see how much of this money goes into administration and policy costs, as opposed to how much is actually being rolled out on the ground to provide better funding outcomes for the health of Territorians.
Turning to private health care services, elective waiting lists, outpatient waiting lists, and service standards within our hospitals, I go back to the statement, Building Better Hospitals, by the former Minister for Health in 2007, where he said the demand for public hospital services is exacerbated in the Northern Territory by the limited nature of the private health sector.
We do not see a great deal of investment in private health in the Northern Territory. In a recent story in The Centralian Advocate, the current Health minister said that no service provider was interested in setting up in Alice Springs. It has been Country Liberals policy for a long time to investigate the option of a private wing. The minister said that no service provider was interested in that; mind you, Healthscope said they have never been approached by the Northern Territory government and, in fact, they would be interested if approached.
We have touched on elective surgery waiting lists before. They are some of the worst outpatient waiting lists with the interval between the time the GP refers the patient to a specialist to the time the patient is seen by that specialist being extraordinarily long. Part of the government solution to bed block is to have public patients treated or operated on in the Darwin Private Hospital. We need to see how much this ties up resources for patients who pay for private health insurance. Is this an effective use of the private wing? Why are public patients being treated in the private wing? As I said, there are no private facilities in Alice Springs.
We have put forward some solutions; I have suggested many times in this parliament a Rapid Admission Unit at Alice Springs. The new emergency department, I know has been costed, but we are yet to see a sod of soil being turned; would go along way to help processing the large number of admissions through Alice Springs Hospital. A dedicated mental health facility in Central Australia would ease the numbers in the Alice Springs Hospital. These are all options for the government which are not being explored, and this inquiry would go a long way in uncovering some of these issues.
The terms and conditions of the grant of federal funding to the Northern Territory and the application of that funding to Territory Health Services; the huge increase in the Territory Health budget is almost certainly directly related to the introduction of the goods and services tax. We do not have a health funding model here in the Northern Territory.
In the budget reply speech, the Opposition Leader announced $900 000 to set a new direction in health funding which would involve a three stage process. The first stage is what you might call the diagnostic stage, to actually look at what is taking place. There has already been a large body of work undertaken here. We will take all the work and all the reviews from the last 10 years and undertake a diagnostic of this work - some of the reviews we still have not seen - to get an understanding of exactly where we are in the Northern Territory. This is an opposition policy which we put forward in the budget, and would see an investment of $100 000 to bring it all together; and this inquiry may uncover other options for better service delivery. We can go over that and we can have a look over at Hansard to check out the exactly process.
The second stage is understanding the unknown that is this black hole. Where are we? There would be $200 000 allocated to that, and the implementation would be towards the $600 000 mark. We need a funding model to ensure the money is going where it needs to go, and the outcomes from the funding are actually measured so we have measurable outcomes for the money put in. It goes to the heart of this whole motion that we have non-outcome based funding models for our Northern Territory hospitals and health sector; hence this motion being put forward tonight.
The outcomes, improvements, and state of dental health and dental health funding in the Northern Territory: I know the government has committed $1.5m in 2009-10, and $800 000 recurrent funding to reduce the number of people on the dental waiting list. We spoke about this in estimates. This is to deliver treatment to approximately 1300 patients on top of the number of patients currently being treated. If you have an oral health issue directly related to your general health, you will be treated as an emergency anyway. This is over and above that, and over and above those people already on waiting lists for dental health.
There is no line item in Budget Paper No 3 to determine the effectiveness of spending on dental health services. The government is under no obligation to publish dental waiting lists as it is with medical elective surgery and emergency department waiting times. This is of some concern.
During estimates, the minister claimed the program would bring the waiting list down by 50%. That is great to hear. If we could cut that waiting list down to 50%, or 50% of where it currently is; but how can you actually measure that if there are no published figures? That is the point. So, do we have to just believe the minister who says it has come down to 50%, or can we actually get some hard facts and measure those facts with the money versus the outcomes?
The role and efficiency of hospital boards in the Northern Territory; well, hospital boards have been allowed to languish, I have to say, under the Northern Territory Labor government. I can safely say that hospital board reports were tabled each year for all five hospitals under the Country Liberals.
We have not seen hospital board reports, or a commitment to do them, by this government until they have been caught out, and now we start to see a few filter in for the last few years. Essentially, we have three hospitals working outside the law. As I have said before, our three smaller hospitals are not operating inside the Hospital Management Boards Act and we have yet to see this year’s reports, but I believe they are not due until perhaps September, I do not have the act with me, but nevertheless this is of great concern.
How can we accurately fund our smaller hospitals, in fact, all our hospitals, but particularly these three with no boards? We need community representation in the hospitals to tell government what it is they need so the government can allocate those resources. We are not seeing this in our three smaller hospitals. I do know the two major hospital boards’ reports are tabled.
The issue of hospital boards really does need to be investigated. I know there is a hospital board’s review somewhere, the 2007 Health Consult Review into the Hospital Management Boards Act; we have not seen that yet, and I am not sure when we will see it. I am not sure if the minister has that review yet, or if he does not have it. When will he have it? And when will we start to see a review of the Hospital Management Boards Act?
There are many options. For example, should we pay people on hospitals boards? Do we need to start looking at some serious remuneration for people serving on these boards? You might not get eight or nine people in Tennant Creek, but you might get three or four. I believe there is much to be said when it comes to hospital boards throughout the Northern Territory, and this inquiry will go a long way to uncovering or unearthing some proactive solutions and get to the bottom of this. That is the whole point.
Short-, medium-, and long-term health needs planning and associated future funding programs in the Northern Territory. There is a level of disunity in the development of social policy in short-, medium-, and long-term plans to address the most urgent health problems across the Northern Territory. Alcohol policy is inclined to focus on the impact on law and order, as I have said.
I know we do not have much time, and we have much to get through. The motion is self-explanatory. I have spoken to the member for Nelson; I am not sure I put together a compelling argument, but I would like to hear what he has to say.
I have more I could add, but this is a general outline of where we stand and some of the reasons why we would like to have this motion supported.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to make clear from the very beginning that we are not going to support this motion. We believe this a matter the new Council of Territory Cooperation can self-refer, if the council regards such levels of investigation are warranted.
However, I place on the record the motion as it stands represents a duplication of many existing evaluations and reports required of the Department of Health and Families already fulfilled for national and Territory agreements. In the past, the opposition has complained of too much talking, too much consultation, and here they come with another committee to investigate hospitals. I do not want committees; I do not want investigations. We know what the problems are. I want solutions, and that is what we are working towards.
Every funding agreement we have with the Commonwealth comes with a requirement to account for outcomes and efficiencies of services provided. Our health system response continues with the formal inquiries from independent bodies such as the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Coroner, academic and scientific peer reviews, research studies, and evaluation by professional authorities such as training bodies and medical colleges.
Our health services, as you know, because you are a former Minister for Health yourself, are amongst the busiest in Australia and are provided by highly educated and committed staff within the department and across the Health sector.
Such a committee as purported by the opposition will require an enormous amount of input from health professionals, and will take them away from their core business of looking after the health of Territorians. They do not have time to spend in a committee giving evidence; they have to spend time in the operating theatre, on a ward, or in the emergency department.
In the new spirit of government, I would like to put on the record for the consideration of the opposition and Independent members, the massive effort this government has made in the health system and the significant outcomes we have achieved. We know there is always more to do in health, and we have plans in place to lead the health system in the future.
It is well-known this government has, for the first time ever, a billion-dollar budget for the Health department - when we came to government it was about $400m. So we have a massive increase of more than 100%. I am not going to go on about what happened in the past; how much money the CLP did not put in, and how much money the Howard government did not put in. As the opposition has said in the past, outcomes are not spending money. The reality is, unless you spend the money, you cannot get the doctors and nurses, and you cannot put programs in place to get outcomes.
Let me outline some of the outcomes we have achieved in the past few years. The life expectancy has improved for Aboriginal women by three years. The infant mortality for Aboriginal children has improved by 35%. Anaemia in Aboriginal children living in remote communities has fallen from almost 50% in 1999 to less than 30% now. The birth weights for Aboriginal infants are improving, and still births for Aboriginal mothers have declined by 38% between 1990 and 2005. The cervical cancer rates have declined in Territory women by 61%. There has been an even more dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% for non-Aboriginal women, and 92% for Aboriginal woman. The survival rate of heart attacks for Aboriginal Territorians has improved by 56%. The life expectancy of Centralians on renal replacement therapy has improved by 33%.
These are real outcomes. This is where the money we spend goes, and this what we have achieved. As I said before, we have a number of funding sources and funding from the Australian government for the 2009 specific purpose payments and national policy reforms for Northern Territory hospitals will receive additional funding to meet service demands in the target specific areas of concern.
This funding will specifically provide $145m under the new, national healthcare payment, an increase of 6% on 2008-09 funding. $5m to be invested in hospital and medical departments; $1.25m to expand sub-acute care including rehabilitation, geriatric, hospice and home services, with a further $2.6m planned in future years.
We have consistently attracted additional funds from the Commonwealth for the health system with an average growth of 14% since 2001. And the Australian History of Health and Welfare has consistently reported in the Expenditure on Health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Report that Aboriginal health-related expenditure in the Northern Territory per capita was more than triple the expenditure on non-Aboriginal people. We spent $4500 a year for every Aboriginal person in the Territory compared with $1200 for non-Aboriginal people.
The motion aims to inquire into the efficiency of Territory hospitals. Northern Territory hospitals already comply with extensive scrutiny nationally and locally in relation to their performance and efficiency in meeting the needs of Territorians. All five Northern Territory public hospitals are accredited with the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, ensuring quality care is provided to Territorians. This milestone was achieved and maintained under this Labor government.
Members would also be aware there have been four independent reviews of Royal Darwin Hospital which were publicly released in March this year. We also had other reviews done in other hospitals around the Territory regarding pediatric wards and the safety of paediatric wards. One common theme which emerged from the report on the Royal Darwin Hospital was communication, resources and coordination. On that we have to focus.
We have appointed Mr Alan Wilson as the head of hospitals; he is the manager of all Territory hospitals and he chairs the task force to oversee the implementation of their recommendations and steer the Royal Darwin Hospital in a strategic manner to position it well for the future.
Royal Darwin Hospital is a first-rate hospital with a very experienced and dynamic team of staff, and provides excellent care. Each year the Australian government publishes a report on the performance of public hospitals across Australia - that is the state of our public hospitals - the latest one was in June 2009, and the report consistently showed that our government has continued to increase our efforts in our hospitals to manage the health needs of Territorians.
We provide the most public hospital beds, and I thank the member for Greatorex for acknowledging that - 3.6 public hospital beds per 1000 population, well above the national average of 2.5 beds. We have the busiest emergency department with 742 presentations per 1000 population, compared to the national average of 321.
The Northern Territory far exceeds all other jurisdictions with 510 hospital patient admissions per 1000 population - three times the average admissions in the nation of 184 admissions per 1000 population. The higher admissions may be linked with the high levels of chronic illness in the Northern Territory, especially in relation to the Aboriginal population and limited access to primary health services such as general practitioners and private providers across the Territory. I would be very happy to sit down and discuss with any private provider who wants to establish a private facility anywhere in the Territory, but to date I have not had any inquiries, no one has made an appointment to come and see me, and no one has told me they are prepared to do it. We support both public service providers and private service providers. I would be very happy if someone puts a proposal on the table ...
Mr Conlan: Pick up the phone and ring them.
Mr VATSKALIS: The Minister for Health has more things on his mind rather than trying to entice private providers ...
Mr Conlan: What? Than investigating private health options?
Mr VATSKALIS: As you said before, the health system is very busy and, if there is a profit to be made, people would be queuing outside my door to establish a private facility, rather than the minister trying to offer subsidies which are not workable, as happens in other jurisdictions ...
Mr Conlan: Pick up the phone and say: ‘What do I have to do to get you into Alice Springs?’ That is all you have to do; it is simple. At least try.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government has implemented a strong program of growth in our hospitals since 2001. We have increased the capacity of hospitals with over 127 extra public hospital beds, including building a 24-bed Rapid Admission Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital; opened Ward 3B with 30 new, fully-funded beds; opened the new emergency department and critical care and operating theatres in 2003. The new emergency department under development at Alice Springs Hospital has a short stay unit, fast-track unit, isolation beds, and a new medical imaging department; we expanded resources in the Alice Springs Intensive Care and Coronary Care Units with an additional $11m recurrent since 2004-05.
We have discharge lounges to facilitate timeliness for patients leaving hospital and freeing up hospital beds; Hospital in the Home and Discharge Planning Services are provided seven days per week at both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital; a 12-bed hospice at Royal Darwin Hospital was established in August 2005; a state-of-the-art birthing centre opened in 2007 to provide high-quality midwifery care for birthing in a home-like environment for mothers assessed as low-risk delivery.
Construction is well advanced and staff recruitment has commenced for a new cancer facility, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre. In addition, a 26-room patient residential facility on the outskirts of the city will be refurbished to suit the needs of patients undergoing cancer treatment when they come from other areas in the Territory.
With regard to primary health care, planning in this sector is a collaborative responsibility of the NT Aboriginal Health Forum with three partners: the NT Department of Health and Families, the Commonwealth Department of Heath and Ageing, and the Aboriginal Medical Service Alliance of NT. The partners are currently in the process of detailed planning for the Expanded Health Services Delivery Initiative. This represents the Australian government’s sustainable primary health care follow-up to its earlier NT Emergency Response. The Expanded Health Services Delivery Initiative invests in primary health care reform across the areas of lifespan, regionalisation, increased Aboriginal employment, and service expansion in remote areas of the Northern Territory. Plans are now being developed to equitably and efficiently invest new funding of approximately $50m per year into primary health care across the Territory.
The issues facing Aboriginal health are complex, and there is no easy solution. However, the strategies this government is putting in place will see continued gains in health outcomes.
Once again, I thank the member for Greatorex for acknowledging the lack of private GPs in the Northern Territory. We have 52 GPs per 100 000 people, compared to 87 GPs per 100 000 people nationally. One example of how we are addressing this area of need is the Palmerston Super Clinic, a joint Australian government/Northern Territory government commitment. We launched Stage 1 of the Super Clinic in December 2008. More than 6000 patients have been seen, and that has reduced by 92% the number of people presenting at the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital ...
Mr Conlan: But there is no one there; you have not built it yet.
Mr VATSKALIS: The construction process for the new Palmerston Super Clinic has commenced. The tender was awarded in 2009 and is expected to be operational in 2010. In addition to that, we provided $1.4m to St John Ambulance for a new Palmerston ambulance service to provide 24/7 cover. This has improved response times in both Palmerston and Darwin.
For the first time, the workforce is not as mobile as it used to be. Workforce stability across the entire Department of Health and Families is at 78%. This represents a stable workforce. We know we have a young and mobile workforce in the Territory, and this is a reality faced by every department and, certainly, the Health department.
Our nursing workforce stability is at its highest level ever - 77% across the Northern Territory, and 80% at the Royal Darwin Hospital. However, as I said before, we have young staff who like to be mobile, so we providing many opportunities and incentives for these people to stay. In addition to that, we are working with the Charles Darwin University and Flinders University to establish the first-ever medical school in the Northern Territory. If we grow our own, they will stay here; we have seen that with midwives and with nurses. People who are trained here choose to stay here.
In addition to these initiatives, I am presenting a range of remote health worker reform initiatives worthy of exploration at the national level to the Australian Health Ministers Conference to be held on 4 September 2009. I have spoken about them to the Commonwealth Minister for Health, I have spoken to my colleagues about them, and they face the same problem, especially in Queensland and Western Australia, and I believe I have their support.
The agenda paper will introduce a number of initiatives, focused largely on increasing the health workforce in rural and remote areas. Four key initiatives are proposed:
- 1. remote allocation for Medical Benefits Scheme and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provider numbers;
2. expand remote Medicare rebates;
3. fringe Benefits Tax exemptions for community health employees; and
4. streamlining locum placement systems.
Elective surgery: yes, elective surgery waiting lists are far too long. People are waiting too long to have elective surgery, but since 2007 the combined efforts of the Northern Territory and Australian governments have resulted in a reduction of 31% in the total waiting list, and an impressive 43% reduction in patients waiting too long for their surgery.
Royal Darwin Hospital is about to open two new operating theatres through upgrades to the procedure room and an endoscopy theatre. I held discussions with Royal Darwin Hospital, and there will be a blitz on the endoscopy waiting list - they will complete 120 procedures within a fortnight, with additional lists conducted on Saturdays. The same thing will apply for elective surgery. I have had discussions with the department, and by October they will provide me with a plan of how they will address and significantly reduce that waiting list.
We know the waiting times at the emergency department are long. One of the main reasons for that is because, while we see Category 1 patients immediately, Category 3, 4 and 5 patients have to wait, and these are people who come to the emergency department because they cannot access a GP because they do not have the opportunity or the money to access a GP. As I said before, private GPs are very rare in the Territory, much rarer than anywhere else, so people come to the emergency department.
We are currently having discussions on how to address this issue: the possibility of establishing other clinics around the Territory like the Palmerston Super Clinic, to provide a solution. We are certainly not sitting down doing nothing; we are looking seriously at the situation with the emergency department.
We know the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital sees one admission every 10 minutes. That is an incredible number of admissions, but I was recently in Perth where a survey was done of all public hospitals around Australia and which showed the worst waiting times in Australia are actually in the public hospitals in Perth, not the Territory. I am not proud because we are not the worst, but what I am saying is, we have a problem, and we are working to address and resolve this problem.
Again, at the Dental Health Clinic there is a significant issue with waiting lists. One of the reasons is because we have a great difficulty in recruiting people in the Darwin region. I have to say all Central Australian dental positions were filled in 2009 but, unfortunately, this is not happening in Darwin where we had significantly lower rates, but by offering enhanced salary packages the vacancy rate has fallen from 40% to 13%. We put in place $1.5m for a dental blitz, plus $750 000 recurrent in order to reduce the waiting list for dental procedures.
A new hospital boards act is being developed, and I look forward to bringing it to the House in the very near future. This new act will improve the functioning of boards and enable the smaller, regional hospitals to establish effective community representation on their boards. The boards will have increased capacity to engage local stakeholders; contribute to improving standards of quality and accountability; and provide a local perspective for the development of policy and strategic directions.
In conclusion, health is an important matter for this government and for all Territorians. We have a strong track record in delivering more services than ever before, and targeting the areas of greatest need. This matter may be referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation by its membership and, if deemed necessary, may proceed with further inquiry into the health system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government does not support today’s motion.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess I know where the member for Nelson stands on this; he does not event want to contribute to the debate, which is very disappointing. He wants to refer it to the black hole, which is the committee, the grand council, or whatever it is called, which does not even exist.
The minister just really unloaded another bunch of spin. We know all this; we have heard it all before, and it is spin. The reason we need to have an inquiry is because the health system is busting apart. It is absolutely bursting at the seams. Despite the amount of money being poured into the health system and the Health department - $1bn - we are not seeing outcomes as a result of the amount of money. More and more money being poured into our health system, but we are not seeing any real outcomes. It is busting at the seams. We need an inquiry; there is no doubt about it. To refer this to the black hole which is the Council of Territory Cooperation or whatever it is going to be called - which does not even exist yet - is shameful.
The minister said no one has bothered to come and see him about setting up private health in Alice Springs. Has the minister bothered to pick up the telephone? Private health providers are not going to actually build the structure, minister. If the Territory government was to pick up the telephone and ask: ‘What do I need to do to get you into Alice Springs? We need some private health. We need to start investing in private health across the Northern Territory. What do I need to do?’ That is being proactive; it is called public/private relations - something that seems to be completely lost on the Labor government - a public/private partnership is what it is known as. I think it is absolutely shameful for the minister to say: ‘No one has bothered to come and see me. I am too busy to pick up the phone. I am the Health Minister. I am too busy to do it’. Minister, it is your job to get out there and provide the best possible health outcomes for Northern Territorians. You do need to provide infrastructure, and we are not seeing that.
The Palmerston Super Clinic - you claim it to be the great saviour - you have not even built it yet. You were given $10m by the Rudd government, which he promised two years ago …
Mr Vatskalis: The first stage is already operating.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, now they are talking about …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … the Palmerston hospital …
Mr Vatskalis: That is coming next.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: … the hospital, which was a cruel farce …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: … the previous Health minister said. To build a hospital out at Palmerston is a cruel farce; these are the words from the previous Health minister; shows how much compassion he had. Nevertheless, we committed to a hospital and now you realise it is probably a good idea and you are going to go ahead and build it. We will believe it when we see it - we have seen promise after promise. What is it? Look at what they do and not what they say. And we see it again with the oncology unit.
Health in the Northern Territory is in a shameful state. That is not taking anything away from the people who work in our Health department; they are under enormous pressure. We know that. All you have to do is look at the many reasons people are leaving the Health department and leaving the Northern Territory. It is because of the huge pressures they are placed under by the minister and his department. We have a department that has been provided with over $1bn; a department that continues, despite that $1bn, to deliver poor health results; a department that has been criticised many times by coronial after coronial. It is absolutely shameful. Health Complaints Commission report after Health Complains Commission report: staff shortages that have resulted in people dying in hospital wards.
This department is so determined to hide from scrutiny that it does not inform any of its ministers what is actually happening in the department. They are so scared and want to protect their own interests so much they will not even tell the minister what is going on. We have a department where staffing applications are sitting on the desks of CEOs and not being responded to. In fact, they do not keep to the budgets or work on those efficiencies. This was identified in the Health Complaints Commissioner’s report into Royal Darwin Hospital; it was a fact, it was said that is what is happening; the Health department that refuses to provide reports to the public, even under FOI application.
We have a whole list of FOIs still sitting there that this department and this government goes out of its way not to provide to the opposition. It is amazing what you will do not to provide information to the opposition. We have one here which has been referred to the Information Commissioner, in fact, because it is not happening - the acute care staffing: e-mail chain, Ashbridge, Griew and Campos; executive meeting minutes with approved Campos’ e-mails, all with the commissioner. The maternity review is with the commissioner. The paediatrics security is with the Information Commissioner …
Ms Lawrie: You had FOI with the CLP?
Mr CONLAN: There is correspondence with the Cornish report. Clarification of scope was requested on 23 March 2009, nurses in acute care staffing at Royal Darwin Hospital. This goes back to 2 September 2008, so we are approaching 12 months. What is the problem with that?
Ms Lawrie: No FOIs under the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: There are plenty of FOIs out there with the commissioner – and you know it. They are there with the commissioner and you are going out of your way not to provide the opposition with that information. It is plain and simple!
The status of the Alice Springs Hospital, emergency and communication system, that is still outstanding. Mind you, that was only in May, so we might get that next year.
What about outstanding reports? We have the Cornish report from 2006-08 into aeromedical services, only the executive summary and recommendations of 2008 have been publicly released; the 2007 Health Consultant Review into the Hospital Management Boards Act, which I mentioned in my opening remarks; the 2007 Bath Report, only the executive summary and recommendations have been released; the 2002 and 2007 Lingard reports into security at Royal Darwin Hospital - these are non-released reports. This is a government that goes out of its way not to provide information, not only to the opposition, but also the general public.
The culture of cover-up in the Health department is alive and well - always has been and, by the look of things, always will be. It is very disappointing not to see the support of the Independent member for Nelson. I believe he is making the wrong decision not to support this very comprehensive review which would not be very expensive in the grand scheme of things. We have a billion-dollar Health budget, but we are not delivering successful outcomes to the people of the Northern Territory, yet some of the excuses were that this review would be too expensive, take up too much time, not enough time to do it; we are all too busy to do it. You are too busy to pick up the phone and the public servants are too busy to take part in the review or appear to give evidence before the committee.
Upstairs on the third floor we have Action Committee staff just waiting to undertake this type of thing. We need to provide them with the work so that they can do it. Oh, no, the culture of cover-up is alive and well in the Northern Territory Health department. I have known it for a long time. I have known it ever since I came into this place, which has only been two years. It is staggering the amount of evidence pointing to the culture of cover-up in the Health department
We have seen it with one Health minister - I have seen two Health ministers in my time here and there have been four, maybe five, since this government came to power. It is a situation where the tail is wagging the dog, you are putting the horse before the cart - you can use every single metaphor you possibly know – it all applies to the Northern Territory Labor Party, and it particularly applies to the Northern Territory Health department. I am very disappointed the government will not support an open and accountable review.
You talk about openness and accountability in a new era of government with this new cooperation you have with the Independent member; he says he only received it yesterday and has not had much time to look at it. Well, it is self-explanatory, and if he has been listening to anything in this House in his time in parliament, and certainly over the last couple of years since I have been shadow Health spokesperson, then he should know exactly where we are and what state we are in with Health across the Northern Territory.
It is extremely disappointing, and a little rich, to suggest something that was dropped on his desk yesterday, he has not had much time to look at, when he drops on this side of the table an 11-page detailed document of an agreement with you guys at 10 am. But, that is for him and for his conscience. At midnight on Thursday night he did not know what he was doing, but at 10 am the next morning, he had an 11-page document. That is for him.
Nevertheless, it is the government that is not supporting this. It is very disappointing and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Ms McCarthy
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 Ayes and 12 Noes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 there being an equality of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I just note, honourable members, that, in fact, I did not use a casting vote as has been suggested. In fact, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says if there is an equality of votes the matter is found in the negative. It is totally up to the person in the Chair whether to cast the casting vote.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VIOLENT OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 4)
(Serial 4)
Continued from 28 October 2008.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this bill is an attempt by the Opposition Leader to cover up for the blunder from a little over a year ago, when he ran television commercials saying: ‘Commit a violent assault once, the sentence I leave to the discretion of the courts, but do it again and you are off to gaol’.
The bill today is nothing more than an attempt to overcompensate for this blunder. This bill from the Leader of the Opposition is almost identical to the amendments proposed by the member for Araluen during a debate on sentencing last year.
In contrast, the Labor government took a very clear position to the Territory election. There will be no second chance for people who commit serious violent assaults. If you commit a serious violent assault, you will go to gaol, first time, no second chances. It was part of a comprehensive justice plan which also includes limiting bail for serial violent offenders, and giving the community a real say in sentencing.
We have already passed and commenced our sentencing and bail amendments, correctly brought into the House by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. It was an election commitment which the Henderson government delivered by October of 2008.
We are also boosting the Territory’s prosecution resources, court capacity and witness assistance services. In Budget 2009, there will be an additional $3.3m to ensure our DPP is able to mount vigorous and timely prosecutions against violent offenders.
Our courts’ facilities are improved and our magistrates’ numbers increased to deal with the workload. This is in complete contrast to the opposition, who are all over the place. As I mentioned, the first attempt involved giving violent offenders a second chance. And in the second attempt, the Opposition Leader’s bill creates a confused and incredibly inflexible sentencing regime. Also, it seeks to remove important judicial discretion in sentencing.
The bill does not make any allowance for different circumstances in which the offence may occur, even though the culpability of offenders or the severity of the assault could vary considerably. The defence of provocation is gone.
The government’s approach is clear: commit a violent offence – you go to gaol. But we also respect the right of the court in relation to sentencing, the right of the court to determine the appropriate sentence. We believe the government gets the balance right; this bill does not. The government cannot support this bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we start with a typical, political take on this, fuelled by bitter cynicism when, staring in the face of the honourable member, is the 80% increase in violent assaults. In spite of all the bold, courageous assertions of the minister, the fact which you describe to be so effective and having the balance just right appears to be making no impact whatsoever on the culture of violence in our community; and you have no explanation for this. You offer no defence of your own record, once again couched in carefully selected words and fuelled by bitter cynicism and taking the political rather than the reality to guide you.
This bill sets out specific minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offenders, and that is dependent upon the severity of the violent offence and described, and all second and subsequent offences. I take note of the minister’s reference to the removal of discretion, which I take from a Labor politician as code for: Let us consider the sad story of the poor offender and take that into consideration before we make final judgment because, when all is said and done, the offender is not completely responsible’. That is the Labor approach and you see the evidence of that approach in the fact that violent assaults are on the increase because there is no effective consequence; there is no counter to that notion that a person is, in fact, responsible.
I make no apology, minister, for what you described as an inflexible approach. That is because we have a clear standard to defend, and assaults, particularly violent assaults on citizens, is unacceptable. So it is not hard to unpack the story behind the Labor decision to oppose this amendment because, once again, there is support for offenders, a preparedness to be ambivalent or casual about the notion of personal consequence and, as a result, we see the effect in the crime statistics. I cannot continue without referring to a previous assertion that there is no real connection between the crime statistics and the role of the police. There is, in the mind of the minister, no relationship between legislation and crime statistics, as if they are two separate entities, two separate realities.
The nature of your policy, the approach of your policy, the implementation of your policy, the attitude you have to it and the principles upon which it is based, will bear direct effect upon the crime and the cause of crime. Consequences must occur, and our community standards must be defended.
There is another point of weakness in the government position and, hopefully, we will be discussing measures to ensure a greater degree of truth in the way public messages are presented in time to come. It is that notion which the minister, the member for Karama, can assert with a look of earnestness - which, I believe, is wearing a bit thin with many Territorians - that we have the balance right and they will go to jail, but you do not actually deal with the possibility that they do time until the rising of the court. That is a gap which needs to be filled if you are deadly serious about providing a genuine consequence, albeit described as inflexible. Well, no apology. Certain principles and standards need to be reinforced. It takes courage to ensure a person bears responsibility and the wider community knows that there is a consequence, and standards will be defended.
I hope the argument I have put will persuade the honourable member but, somehow, with all my time in this Chamber, I doubt that; despite the foreshadowing of a new and different approach to debate and the contest of ideas, rather than bold assertions backed up because you were comfortable with 19 members and could say and do whatever you liked. It is a little different now, is it not?
I urge honourable members to support this so we are providing a clear consequence, we are defending community standards, and we are bearing a direct assault upon the culture of violence within our community by saying there is a consequence, community standards will be defended, and we make no apology for standing up and holding an individual responsible. There will be a consequence, and a message will be sent and, I believe, if we take this approach based on solid ground, there will be a change.
If government chooses to oppose this, I predict we will see the same upward movement in the crime statistics, particularly in violent assaults, because if you take the same attitude, the same approach and expect a different result - you are mad. So, I urge honourable members to support this bill.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Chandler Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Ms McCarthy
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there being 12 Ayes and 12 Noes, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, there being an equality of votes, the question is resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ADVERTISING BILL
(Serial 16)
(Serial 16)
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have consulted. In the interest of getting this right, to ensure this will fix a clear problem, I move – that:
- The Public Authorities Advertising Bill 2008 (Serial 16) standing in my name be postponed to a later hour.
However, I say ,so it is on the public record, that this later hour is the October sittings. Between now and then, given this matter has been on the Notice Paper for some time, we will work to bring this to resolution in October.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you are seeking leave to have that postponed?
Mr MILLS: Correct.
Motion agreed to; leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 20)
(Serial 20)
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes two changes on the current Information Act in relation to freedom of information.
The first change is the reason we cannot support this bill, because it completely undermines the Cabinet process. First, we need to understand the Cabinet process and the reasons behind it. The processes we have in the Northern Territory are, in the main, the same as in every other jurisdiction and based on the principles of good policy development.
The cornerstone of good policy development is the capacity of government agencies to provide Cabinet with frank and fearless advice. Good policy development, particularly for large and complex matters, requires much deliberation at many levels of government, with many stakeholders and, often, across many agencies, before Cabinet can make a fully informed decision which best addresses the needs of Territorians.
The development of a Cabinet submission is an iterative process: the advice from one agency or stakeholder requires further advice from another, and so on, often involving advice of Commonwealth agencies or bodies. This can mean the development of large and complex Cabinet submissions can take months and, in extreme cases, years, before they are finally considered by Cabinet. This inter-agency advice usually takes the form of initial, informal discussions between relevant agency officers prior to the formal distribution or circulation of a Cabinet submission to agencies for their formal advice, signed off by the agency’s CEO.
The first formal involvement of a minister in this process is the approval for the formal circulation of the Cabinet submission. The level to which a minister is involved depends on its importance and complexity but, up to this stage, it is possible the minister has not been involved in the detail of the submission and, in some cases, it is possible the minister is not the one bringing it forward. It is only after formal advice is received from the agency’s CEO that the submission is lodged by the minister for consideration by Cabinet.
As I said, this process is based on the same process undertaken by every government in Australia. It ensures proper policy development, frank and fearless advice, and allows government to make full and properly considered decisions.
The first proposed change in the bill from the member for Drysdale completely undermines this process. The change means a Cabinet submission which has not been considered by Cabinet could be subject to release under FOI. It would not be exempt. This could lead to absurd situations where an incomplete Cabinet submission with no legal advice or input, no budgetary advice, has not been seen by the relevant minister, who may not even be aware of its existence, could be released as a formal government document. Such a document could be totally inaccurate. It could be factually incorrect, and could be totally counter to government policy. The release of such a document would be misleading.
The possibility of such a draft Cabinet submission becoming public as an official government document would completely compromise the capacity of the public service to provide frank and fearless advice. The decisions made by Cabinet are important, and it is vital that such decisions involve calm, rational, considered deliberation and process. Protecting the integrity of government decision-making is important, and is why we cannot support this bill.
The second proposal contained in the bill is all fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived. As members are aware, this is within the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. So, while we agree with the intent of the member for Drysdale’s amendment, in this case the government will not go through the process in terms of developing a bill to enact this agreement. The government has proved it is prepared to undertake reform to improve transparency and accountability.
In debate last week, I pointed out when we came to government there was no estimates process, no freedom of information legislation, the Electoral Commission sat in the Department of the Chief Minister, and there was no whistleblower legislation. It was the Labor government which introduced FOI legislation into the Northern Territory after decades of refusal from the CLP to join contemporary practice with the rest of the country.
We look forward to continuing this process of reform to improve transparency and accountability. A clear agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson is to waive fees for government reports sought under the FOI process, and the government holds true to that commitment to the member for Nelson. We will be removing the requirement for fees to access government reports under the FOI process. That is distinctly different from just any witch-hunt someone may want to have as a member of parliament, requesting whatever e-mails there are, trying to grind down the business of normal government. It is understandable and appropriate to provide access to reports under FOI by waiving fees, but the strange and bizarre witch-hunt we have seen conducted by the opposition, the CLP, in terms of broadbrush e-mails from people - no, we will not grind down the good operations and functions of government because of their political whims and witch-hunts.
The government will not support this bill. This bill would ensure the public service would not be in a position to provide frank and fearless advice to the government. Any government wants its public service to get on with the business of testing progress within the jurisdiction by ensuring Cabinet submissions in draft stages and through all their iterative stages are fully tested and fully canvassed right across, not just the public service, but also through key stakeholders, external agencies and also where it involves the Commonwealth government.
So this bill just goes to show the opposition does not understand the need for frank and fearless advise from the public service, and the need to ensure that, unfettered, they can get on and do the job of assisting in good government.
Madam Speaker, we will not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill and will give you my reasons.
I thank the member for introducing the bill; I believe it does raise some very important points. At this time I have some concerns about dealing with documents which may have been prepared for Cabinet but not necessarily considered by Cabinet. We would then have to consider whether those documents had a dominant purpose for coming into existence
I know what the member is trying to do, but trying to decide which documents have a dominant purpose, without clear definitions and understandings, could certainly cause some disagreements over the definition and what was meant. I also feel this bill is basically saying simply because they have not got to Cabinet, therefore they should be available for FOI. That is an area, to be honest, member for Drysdale, that I would really need to give much more thought and consideration.
There are obviously major issues, as the Treasurer said, in relation to this. I believe we need to strike a balance between having as much information as possible accessible to the public, without affecting the need of government to have certain information not publicly available - because governments do sometimes have to make decisions using documentation not available to the public - and still allowing the Cabinet to do its job.
Whether this bill goes too far is what I am having trouble dealing with. We have had many discussions on this, and I certainly would not mind it coming back for some more debate. I am also willing to talk to government because part of the agreement is similar to what you have in your second amendment: that is no fee applies to an application or complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly - in the agreement it says for any reports. I believe some of the issues you are talking about may be brought under the definition of reports; I certainly believe that agreement is flexible enough,
I am happy to give this more consideration; what you are trying to do is a good thing. As I said, the more information available to the public, the less chance of secret squirrel business. But, at the present time I am not convinced I have enough information, there may be major issues I have not seen, or foreseen, so I would err on the side of caution. I am not saying this to avoid the issue, because I would certainly reconsider it at another time with more information before me.
I would like to have full discussion with the government to see if there are further grounds for agreement on what you are putting forward, or areas of common agreement which could be brought together.
I believe the idea behind it is good, but the practical application of it without having a chance to look the broader implications, how it applies in other states or jurisdictions, what are their guidelines, do they have a definition of ‘dominant purpose’; because they are certainly words lawyers would have a field day with.
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for bringing this to the parliament, but my reasons for not supporting it are as I have just explained.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to what the member for Nelson has had to say, and I am surprised about a couple of things. One, ‘I have not had enough time to look at this’. This has been on the paper since April, if memory serves me correctly. I would suggest to the member for Nelson that he has had sufficient time, plus some, to turn his mind to this issue.
Also, the spurious argument provided by both the member for Nelson and the Attorney-General in relation to this matter about: ‘This is going to open it up too much, and Cabinet will be compromised’ is arrant nonsense. That is not in the content of this bill and it would take a reading of the most liberal variety to arrive at the conclusion that is the intent or object or design of the legislative instrument before us now.
The simple fact is this bill is designed to prevent some of the circus acts we have seen committed, for lack of better words, in other jurisdictions. The business about Cabinet documents, this broad-ranging title of ‘Cabinet documents’ means that you can lock down any number of documents. In Queensland there was an example where, and I remember this from the original arguments, where Cabinet met in a room which was full of boxes of documents that had absolutely nothing to do with the Cabinet meeting of the day, and had absolutely everything to do with claiming those documents they wanted classified as ‘Cabinet documents’, to be ‘Cabinet documents’.
The operation of FOI, as much as it is lauded by the government as they champion their own brilliance in introducing freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory, something that would have happened in any instance, they have forgotten to tell Territorians that this legislative instrument they call ‘freedom of information’ is often referred to in the public arena as ‘freedom from information’.
Some examples of information which would have been useful and timely in some debates in the past, indeed, I believe one of these is still on foot. What about the e-mails between Campos and Griew over the death of Margaret Winter, as well as the management of the Royal Darwin Hospital? This side of the House applied for those e-mails, and what did we find? We found stonewalling and obfuscation and deliberate hiding behind the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.
This natural tension between the public right to know and the government’s right to govern, and often govern in confidence, is something which has been around for a long time. I draw honourable members’ attention to the case in 1985 of Howard versus the Treasurer. In that particular matter, the presiding judges - and I do not have the case in front of me, but it outlined a set of criteria which were considered reasonable exemptions. It discussed, at length, the natural tension in that case between those two competing interests – the competing interests of the right of the public to know, and the right of the government to do its business in an effective way without being undermined by documents leaking out.
The broad-ranging exemption of Cabinet documents is extremely intrusive and, basically, is being used by this government, and will continue to be used by this government, as a place to hide ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr Elferink: Listen to her. I ask you, would it not have been interesting a few years ago if the document which revealed the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the member for Wanguri, was briefed two days before the Bob Collins suicide attempt, in 2007 ...
Mr Henderson: Get out of the gutter.
Mr ELFERINK: Why was that document not tabled and made available then?
Mr Henderson: Because there is no document.
Mr ELFERINK: There is a document; we finally got it through FOI. You were briefed two days before that and, magically, Bob Collins made a suicide attempt …
Mr Henderson: You are a grub!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin knows he should be addressing his remarks through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you could address your remarks through the Chair and, perhaps, your volume could be somewhat lower.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, they are being very provocative.
We had to put in FOI after FOI to discuss this particular document. The document we finally received was a copy of the handwritten note which said …
Members interjecting.
Madam Speaker: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … by the Commissioner of Police two years, three years after the event …
Ms Lawrie: You got a briefing?
Mr ELFERINK: … from the Commissioner of Police saying he briefed the then Police minister and the then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne and Paul Henderson, of the imminent charges that were going to be laid …
Ms Lawrie: Charges that were laid.
Mr ELFERINK: … against the former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bob Collins. Two days later, Bob Collins died. Do you think that document would not have been of interest to the media at that time?
Ms Lawrie: Charges that were laid. So, what are you alleging?
Mr ELFERINK: Do you not think that would have been of interest to the media; that those particular people were advised - two days before the suicide attempt - that charges were imminent?
Ms Lawrie: Charges were laid.
Mr ELFERINK: Charges were imminent. I assure you they are the type of documents which should be available under FOI and – finally - are available under FOI. For this government to allege they are champions of the freedom of information in this jurisdiction is just rubbish. Their avoidance of dealing with these particular issues, these very straightforward and good suggestions, demonstrates they had no interest in freedom of information.
Moreover, people forget there is an arbiter in this process, and the arbiter is the Information Commissioner. When there is a requirement to make that determination about the tension between the public interest and the government’s right to keep information silent, let us give the power - and that is what this bill will do - of arbitration to the Information Commissioner.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank those members for their input. This bill came in some time ago, and it was a pretty simple bill. It is about making the government accountable. No doubt, the government will not support this bill because it will make government more accountable ...
Ms Lawrie: We are happy to be accountable.
Mr BOHLIN: It would appear you are not. It is about pro-disclosure; that is, encouraging governments to be free with their information, not hide behind a policy of non-disclosure at every possible opportunity.
It is been said by the member for Karama that, having amended section 156 with the inclusion of (2A):
- However, no fee applies to an application or complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly.
will lead to people putting in many claims.
That is very possible if a member wishes to see him or herself ousted at the next election, because it would make that person look like is a silly minister, like some on that side. If people go silly and request large volumes of information, it will have the potential for political embarrassment and, as such, it will prove self-limited, because you would not want to cause political embarrassment to yourself because you went down the path of finding out how many letters Joe Blow wrote about the soccer park to work out whether or not the soccer park needed more chairs. It will be self-limiting because the ministers requesting the information would not want to abuse the system and would not want to make themselves a political embarrassment.
Of course, if the government were truly open and accountable with this information, when presented with a request, there would be no need. It would also provide a self-limiting factor in the abuse of this provision if the information relevant was freely available. It also comes to the fact – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide. Those who refuse to supply information can only have things to hide – like crooks, they hide many things …
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand the iterative process, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: A government willing to hide information from other members of parliament can only something to hide.
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand the iterative process of government, do you?
Mr BOHLIN: The first part, amendments to section 44 …
Ms Lawrie: Frank and fearless advice, you do not understand it.
Mr BOHLIN: I will get to that part, and it is a pretty good part. I am glad you raised that, member for Karama.
We are proposing the amendment so the document was brought into existence for submission to and consideration by an executive body, and that was the dominant purpose for bringing the information into existence, that the information was submitted to and considered by the executive body.
At the moment, if a document currently exists and this parliament decides that this document, be it an e-mail or some other grubby form of document, is deemed by Cabinet, all of a sudden, because it may have something incriminating in it, to be a ‘Cabinet document’ it is, therefore, unreachable. Yet it was never intended to be a Cabinet document; its existence was never made as a Cabinet document. That is just an example of how hiding behind the Cabinet could be perverted at the current time. So, we say it must have an intent to be used in Cabinet in the first place.
This amendment to section 45 of the act is complementary already to the Rudd government’s amendment to the Commonwealth FOI laws, so we see a divide between this government and the federal parliament. We have reports made on Freedom of Information reform, a companion guide for 2009 to parliament, and it said we now need to start amending these reports so there is more accountability, but what we hide behind is a lack of accountability.
The member for Karama said this could affect the frank and fearless advice to government. And that is the exact reason why it should exist – to access the truth. If someone supplies provides fearless and frank advice, which one would expect to be the truth, then the public should know about the truth. Or do you oppose the thought of the public knowing the truth?
Ms Lawrie: You are an absolute fool. You do not understand.
Mr BOHLIN: Do you oppose the public knowing the truth, member for Karama? It would appear in this parliament that the member for Karama would oppose the idea of the public knowing the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The man is verballing me. Of course, I like the public to know the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Drysdale, can you make your comments through the Chair, and keep to the point, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are very supportive of the public sector providing frank and fearless advice to the government, and this does not limit that opportunity, in fact, it would encourage it because they would also know that the truth would be out there to make better decisions. It would be available to all members of parliament to make better decisions on governing the Territory. Some will say later: ‘It is all wishy-washy, what the member for Drysdale talked about’. But the reality is this is about making government accountable; a process that will assist in making government accountable, so that the truth is out there and is able to be read.
A part of the amendment of section 156, where we intend to insert after section 156(2A) about the fees, I will give you some examples of why it is important to get the truth, as you hear of some shows, ‘the truth is out there’, member for Nelson. These are examples of FOIs which, unfortunately, the member for Nelson probably would not be able to chase down, nor any other Independent, because of the prohibitive costs.
The nursing staff levels were submitted it on 2 September 2008. Then there was an agreement for several extensions and time requests; then there was a request for a review on 24 March 2009 due to a lack of response. Then we finally received an estimate of fees, member for Nelson, of $65 181, and at this stage, as an Independent, you would not be able to chase such information. That would deliver the requested information by 1 December 2012. There was a complaint submitted to the Information Commissioner on 12 May 2009 due to dissatisfaction with the cost and estimated time frame, because they said they will supply the information by 1 December 2012. Why is that important? Is that just after the next election?
A member: No, that is when it is on.
Mr BOHLIN: Right! So, this government is willing to hide behind an FOI until 2012. That is an example of why these amendments must be made, not the fact that initial fees were $65 000 - I must admit though it was re-assessed to $42 000, and the process still continues.
Here is another example. There one for health 1 September, submitted on 13 October 2008, received an estimate of fees of $10 464 - member for Nelson, could you afford to chase that? I honestly do not think so, at this stage - a deposit was paid in November 2008; and a review requested on 24 March 2009, due to lack of response. November 2008 – now we are in March - lack of response. The complaint was submitted to the Information Commissioner in May 2009 due to dissatisfaction with response of review. We expect a reply from Health in mid-September 2009.
Currently, we have nine outstanding health FOIs, most of them are before the commissioner, with complaints for dissatisfaction. This is a prime example of this government hiding the truth from the public.
The fees currently applied even to members of this Legislative Assembly are an example of this government hiding from the truth; that is why this bill is so important to the people of the Northern Territory for whom we all are here to work, and for whom we all intend to do our best.
They are simple amendments, they are wise amendments; they are in line with much of what is changing around Australia today. As I have said, this government is only going to refuse this bill because they have so much to hide.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr BOHLIN: They have so much to hide from the people; they are a failed government which has no way forward. In just one area alone, the Health department, this government wants to charge members of parliament tens of thousands of dollars, and they fail to deliver the reports, and they continue to hide - this is the importance of this bill. I put it to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 17)
(Serial 17)
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset, government will not be supporting this bill. However, having said that, the intent behind this bill is worthy of further consideration, and I will be outlining in my response how government intends to do so.
The intent expressed in this bill is, I believe, that a strong, independent voice on environment protection is in the Territory’s interest. That is what we are all about here in the House, and that is why this government established the Territory’s first Environmental Protection Authority which is independent and legislated. When government established the EPA it did so with a clear purpose: to create an organisation which filled a key gap in our environmental protection regime - that is the big picture - strategic issues.
That is what the EPA, with its independent board and staff, has been doing. It has some very important work on the go, and I will list a few of those activities: the review of the Environmental Assessment Act; establishment of the sustainability principles; and the review of the regulatory frameworks applicable to Darwin Harbour. The EPA has released discussion papers and is consulting directly with the community. This important strategic work is under way and it will, and should, continue.
I would, however, acknowledge that as important as this work is - the community wants more. It wants an EPA capable of taking up the hard questions on major developments. It wants an EPA that can probe regulatory processes, investigate complaints, and report on how our environment is tracking.
Government has agreed to make some changes to the EPA which responds to these community concerns. Those changes will encompass what I believe is the intent behind these amendments, but they will go further and will form a package that fits all together.
The government has no particular difficulties with those elements of this bill that seek to strengthen the reporting of the EPA to the Speaker and the Legislative Assembly. The EPA’s annual report is already required to be tabled, but there are some useful additional suggestions here. Government does not have difficulty with those elements of the proposed amendments which seek the EPA to be involved in advising and making recommendations on major projects.
Our main concern is we already have a process by which major projects are subject to environmental scrutiny, advice and recommendations, and it is administered through the Environmental Assessment Act. So this proposed amendment would create a parallel process and has the potential to create uncertainty for business and the community.
There will be a process for making the changes to the EPA which government has agreed to. It will be a comprehensive package, and it will involve the EPA, the board, and the member for Nelson, who has a strong interest in this area. I am more than happy to involve the member for Brennan to pick up on his ideas.
In the interests of clarity and in the interests of completeness, government will not be supporting these amendments.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I had some really interesting discussions today with the member for Brennan, and I appreciate what he is trying to do. There has been some documentation back from the EPA in relation to some of this, and there are five points in the agreement which need to be discussed with the EPA. I have had a letter from them saying they would like some more discussions on the agreement.
I believe there is an opportunity for all sides to come together on this, because the EPA is an important body. I would like to get together with the members for Brennan and Stuart to see if we can work together with the EPA - in other words, we go to see the EPA. Mr Andrew Tucker has invited me to meet with him about matters raised in the agreement. I believe the member for Brennan is trying to broaden some of the aspects in relation to the EPA and, in general, I support what he is trying to do.
If we can combine our resources and make sure we are working in conjunction with the EPA, because they are obviously interested in what happens, and there will be matters in relation to funding and are they working outside their brief. I know there is an amendment here which is to omit the words, ‘the Chief Minister decides’, because they were concerned about losing their independence. There are issues about whether they should be a regulatory body. During the big discussion about the EPA there were three different responses from the CLP, ALP and me as to what type of EPA should exist. And, of course, there were those famous discussions in parliament where we had the interim EPA, the not so interim EPA, and I do not know what other EPAs floating around at the time. Eventually, the government came up with a model.
The EPA has done some reviews of itself, where the public had input into what they thought was the role of the EPA. I believe this is a good opportunity to pick up what you are putting forward; especially making sure it comes back to parliament; that is good as well. We have already had an opportunity tonight with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister getting together to work through the Public Authority Advertising Bill; this may be another opportunity to sit down and work together. I would be happy if you want to put your name to the bill, along with the minister, and bring it forward as a combined bill, after consultation with the EPA. I believe that is a good way to go.
What you have done by introducing this bill is spurred a bit of activity, and spurred a bit of activity from the EPA. If the invitation is there from Andrew Tucker to discuss what is in the agreement, then we also discuss what is in your documentation. They obviously replied to some of what you suggest, and if we can overcome those concerns, let us see if we can combine our resources, because the EPA is about helping the Territory in relation to environmental matters, which we are all concerned about. We want to get the best we can from the EPA.
Even though I am not supporting this bill, I believe there is a chance here to work together as a parliament to come up with some good legislative outcomes, which I believe everyone would regard as the best way forward.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I suppose this is a bit of a lost opportunity to open the doors to the way forward.
The purpose of this bill was to provide the Environment Protection Authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements; that is all. This amendment was simple and does nothing more than ensure that the Environment Protection Authority continues to evolve into the authority that I, and many others, believe it should be, and most people expect it to be.
Section 21A sets out to diminish the threat that the EPA’s recommendations do not make it into the public domain through a process where neither a minister nor Cabinet can prevent them being tabled in this House. While section 5A provides more independence with the ability to assess major projects and provide recommendations to the parliament, and ultimately the people, it does not alter the necessity for a developer to undertake an environmental impact assessment. It does, however, offer government an independent view of any major development and perhaps provide a very sound perceptive; a sounding board, if you like, that can be used I deciding whether to approve a major development, or assessing an environmental impact statement.
This does not suggest in any way that the EPA can overrule government - it cannot overrule Cabinet - it can only advise and provide a recommendation after a thorough assessment. Nothing in this amendment prevents that or changes that. The government can still make a judgment at odds with the EPA for many other reasons, including on economic grounds. This amendment just ensures that such a decision would be made in an open and accountable manner - just what this current administration promotes as their new way of doing business - open and accountable, nothing more, nothing less.
In its current form, this act does not require the minister to inform the public of any recommendations received from the EPA. At the time I had the word of the then minister that she would ensure all EPA recommendations would be tabled in this House, and I appreciate that. But as we have seen over the last few weeks, time moves on, and again we have yet another minister for the Environment. We can protect this in legislation to ensure the recommendations remain open and accountable, whether it is a minister from the Labor government or a future Country Liberals government.
It should be noted again that the government has the propensity to reshuffle from time to time, to stack the decks or, as we have seen in recent weeks, to fill the gaps, shore up the ship or enter into a deal of a lifetime. I was confident in the then minister’s ability and believed her heart was in the right place when it comes to protecting the environment. When she gave me her word that all EPA recommendations would indeed be tabled to the parliament, I really did not have any reason to doubt her. I cannot have the same confidence in some of the other Cabinet members - perhaps the next minister, or the minister after that.
By way of example, I recall reading the National Environmental Report by the federal Environment minister, Mr Peter Garrett. What I found was a damning example of both a leadership and the unstable government we have here, was the fact that within the report was a photo of each of the state’s Environment ministers. Nothing unusual, except when you look at the glossy photos; there was a photo of the minister for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. When we get to the Northern Territory, you see not one photo, not two photos, but three photos - three photos of ministers from government, all in the time it took to prepare an annual report. Representing the Territory government was the former member for Goyder, the member for Karama, and the member for Arafura. Since then, we have had the member for Macdonnell, and now we have yet another member, the member for Stuart. Is that five ministers in less than two years? Is this what Territorians are supposed to believe is an example of good leadership and good, stable government?
Section 21A sits above individuals and ensures the carriage of any recommendations is made public. Section 21A will provide certainty and openness and accountability will be maintained. Section 21A has no impact on the EPA, as it only deals with an administrative process. A recent example where a decision from this government undermined the EPA was the decision on Arafura Harbour. This proposal was effectively killed off without any scientific assessment which an independent and resourced EPA could have provided; no due process whatsoever, and must have been seen by the EPA as a stab in the back, undermining their name, undermining their position to provide considered recommendations based on science development.
What message did this send to developers? Is this not a government that openly states it supports jobs, supports development, supports the economy, and supports Territorians? Before we get carried away about that particular proposal, it is an example of a major project where the EPA could have been vital, could have been relevant, and should have been given the opportunity to investigate further.
The reality is the EPA recommendation may not have supported that proposal. Perhaps it may have been able to provide options; perhaps it could have recommended minor or major changes; perhaps it could have suggested or recommended wholesale modifications to the proposal which provided major advantages for Territorians - such as a new, modern sewerage treatment facility to replace the Ludmilla treatment plant which today still pours untreated, raw sewage into the harbour. Sadly, we will never know, as the moment this government stepped in and killed off the proposal it fatally damaged the reputation of the EPA; perhaps cost Territorians thousands of jobs and certainly killed off any chance of improving the water quality in our harbour for many years to come.
So here lies the road ahead. Nothing in these amendments prevents or alters what the newly announced councils or council of councils, or whatever it is, can deliver. In fact, I put it to you that these amendments are perhaps the start of the independent journey of evolution for our EPA. Here lies the road ahead for a truly independent EPA. It does not provide any resistance, any hazards in the way ahead for your council of councils, and any positive improvement you can make with the EPA. In fact, it should be seen as assisting this journey, and if I can recommend anything to your council of councils, it is for you to address the current dreadful level of resourcing provided to the EPA. You cannot expect the authority to take on additional inquiries, additional projects, and additional investigations without providing the necessary resources.
The member for Nelson has indicated previously his support for an independent EPA, and I see nothing in here which should lead him to change his mind.
In my second reading speech, I attempted to show the current EPA akin to a security officer dressed up as a police officer. This reference certainly raised a few eyebrows in the community, and I was contacted by a number of people demanding why I was trying to turn the current EPA model into a fully regulated model with powers to shut down an industry. I was not, and I am not recommending such a model; I was simply demonstrating that, right around the world, the term EPA provides the average person with a perception that it is a fully regulated and powerful authority. Our model, with perhaps a few changes and better resourced, provides a valuable service. Our arguments that we call our authority not an EPA but, perhaps, an Environmental Advisory Council - as I said, it is akin to calling a security guard a police officer.
I will quote from a letter from the EPA which agrees, to an extent, with my argument:
- The Board agrees with the shadow minister, that is an expectation that comes with the name. Most jurisdictions have an EPA that has evolved from having a strictly regulatory focus, for example, the Safe Pollution Control Commissioner in New South Wales, which became the New South Wales EPA in 1992. And this is how they are recognised in the community.
In respect to the Bill itself, the EPA does not support Section 5A in its current form where it refers to the Chief Minister, as it considers this further erodes the independence of the authority. It further states if Section 5A is supported, it is strongly recommended that the reference to the Chief Minister is removed.
The end of the letter states:
- The EPA does not have comment or concern on other proposed amendments.
Therefore, I read in that that they basically support it. Let us support the EPA. Your support for these amendments demonstrates you are indeed interested in protecting our environment.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 19)
(Serial 19)
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill 2008 (Serial 19) be postponed to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Adjournment Debate Time Allocation
Adjournment Debate Time Allocation
Continued from 29 April 2009.
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this motion be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to talk about an important issue in my electorate, the issue of parking, and also access and egress from the Tipperary Waters area.
If you look at Dinah Court in particular, but also some of the other courts in the Tipperary Waters area, there is an ongoing issue with parking. It is a densely populated area; many people live in that area and there are many units in that area. Although car parks are available for each unit, should one or two social events be held over the weekend in one of those units, what happens is Dinah Court becomes overcrowded with cars. I guarantee you it is far too much for that small court, and also other courts in the area, to handle.
Along Frances Bay Drive, there is a stormwater drain between Frances Bay Drive and Tiger Brennan Drive, and along the edge of that stormwater drain there is ample space to provide a series of car parks, which would take some of the pressure off places like Dinah Court.
It would not cost a bomb to do. Angle parking along that strip would make a huge difference to the people who live in that area. That dusty little strip actually diminishes the quality of the place unnecessarily, and I am talking about Tipperary Waters as a whole. That strip should be wide enough to allow for angle parking so many more vehicles could park in the area and take the pressure of those little courts.
I can tell you, should we form government in the Northern Territory, sooner or later that would be one of the items on the forward works as far as I am concerned, because it is important for the people who live there.
I also raise the issue of access and egress for kids going to school in the Stuart Park area, across Tiger Brennan Drive from the Tipperary Waters area. Those kids have to cross Tiger Brennan Drive, often early in the morning, and we all know the volume of traffic that moves along Tiger Brennan Drive. It is time for the government to seriously consider some sort of pedestrian crossing or pedestrian overpass in that area. I am inclined to an overpass; I know they are expensive items, but it has been done across Bagot Road, and considering the volume of traffic that travels along Tiger Brennan Drive, and the number of people who have to move across that road, it would be a vast improvement on the risk run by kids having to cross that road on an almost daily basis.
I raised the issue of crossings last night in this House, I raise it again, and still the Ministers for Transport and for Planning remain utterly silent on these urgent issues. I ask, plead and continue to implore with the government to turn a benevolent eye on these issues, and to turn a benevolent ear to the pleas I make on behalf of those people who live in my electorate.
I also noticed today in Question Time the minister for Corrections was somewhat taken by an inter-modal model. I find it a very curious thing to say. I have some advice for the minister for Corrections.
I note the Minister for Corrections:
Supports an inter-modal model,
- Where there is inter-modal model confusion it is an
Inter-modal model muddle
Where the inter-modal model muddle happens because of a bottle
It is an inter-modal model muddle bottle fuddle
Where the inter-modal model muddle bottle fuddle is a policy doddle
It is an inter-modal model muddle bottle fuddle doddle
When the inter-modal model muddle bottle fuddle doddle and the bottle causes a widdle then
It is an inter-modal model muddle bottle fuddle doddle in a puddle
When the inter-modal model muddle fuddle doddle happens in a puddle then the minister
Will need an inter-modal model muddle fuddle bottle doddle cuddle round his middle.
My apologies to Dr Seuss, but I could not resist it. Sometimes, as a reflection on our reliance on bureaucratic terms where we could rely on plain English, we should be corrected.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about an extraordinary Territorian. Anna Benton was an ordinary woman who did extraordinary things. She was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, and a loving and loyal friend. She was a very proud and respected Larrakia woman of this community who taught her children never to forget where they came from and always remember to care for their land and culture and what was taught to them.
Her early life was not an easy one. She was placed in a home for part-coloured children run by the AAN Mission; the home was called Retta Dixon Home. The food and conditions were very basic but, Anna, in her pragmatic style, made the most of what were difficult times. She tells the story of a time when a new girl arrived at Retta Dixon and, because of the shortage of beds, Anna was told that she would have to share her bed. Because of her generous nature this was not going to be problem, but she did have one condition, that the new girl not be a bed wetter. She got a tired of getting up in the middle of the night to wash sheets.
Anna attended the old Darwin Primary School, along with other Retta Dixon children, and received a basic education. She was an excellent sportswoman, who was tall and slim and quite athletic. School sport days were a perfect opportunity for Anna to excel - and excel she did. She grew into a beautiful young woman and soon married and went on to raise eight children.
She was a very loving, but firm mother, who gave everything of herself to ensure her family had a loving and safe home. There were times when she was sorely tested when misfortune struck her family, and two of her children were affected. With her usual ‘grit the teeth and stand up and be counted’ style, she looked these difficult times straight in the eye and fought to ensure her family would overcome these difficulties. She was enormously proud of her family and the way in which they have all grown up to be lovely, fine people. She was a cook extraordinaire, as people will attest, particularly if you had the good fortune to taste her scones.
Everyone knows of her passion for Australian Rules Football and, in particular, her love and devotion to the Buffaloes Football Club. She wore her heart on her sleeve and was, and will be forever, one of their most ardent supporters.
She was admired and love by everyone who knew her for her loyal and generous ways, her wacky sense of humour, her incredible love of family, and her deep commitment to her brothers and sisters who were raised in the same home.
Many a heart has ached with sadness at her passing, because she meant so much to so many people; and she will be missed.
I also acknowledge Anna Benton. I had the good fortune to work with her many years ago. I pass my condolences to her children, Michael and Linda, and her extended family in Darwin and throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak briefly tonight of two events and activities in the rural area, if not Darwin. The first is the Darwin Patchwork and Quilters, who celebrated 25 years of activity in the Northern Territory with a spectacular display of quilts at the Darwin Entertainment Centre in late July 2009. There were over a 150 quilts of different sizes and categories on display from across the Northern Territory. The rural quilters were well represented through Jenny Armour, Christine Nathanael, Carol Birch, Shirley Graham, Sue Hanson, Pamela Pemberton, Debbie Selter, Belinda Shaw, and Peta Smith. Christine Nathanael, from the rural area, collected an award for Amateur Mixed Techniques, and Pamela Pemberton for Amateur Beginner Quiltmaker.
At the opening which I attended, there were over 200 people. The judge, Olga Walters, who came from interstate, spoke on the quilts and provided a great insight into the work, skills, and patience needed to make such fine work; which was very useful for someone like me who is not that familiar with patchwork and quilting.
The rural quilters meet at The Beehive at Freds Pass Reserve each Tuesday and Saturday mornings. I visit them mostly on Tuesdays and, while I am not a sewing person, I have a lot of fun when I am there. It does intrigue me though, why they cut up perfectly good material, only to sew it back together - a mystery only a quilter would understand, I suspect.
The other thing I point out is the rural quilters - and I am sure others have done it as well - after the Victorian bushfires made dozens and dozens of quilts which they sent down south to people and families who lost everything in the bushfires. They continue to do that in a very unassuming way, and they should be complimented for it.
My congratulations go to the Darwin Patchwork and Quilters for such a successful event and bringing such entertainment and joy to Territorians.
I would like to speak briefly about the Gangsters Ball which was recently held at Berry Springs Reserve. It is organised by the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club at the Berry Springs Community Hall, and was attended by 130 people. It was a fantastic night. They were appropriately clad in gangster outfits: double-breasted suits, hats, Tommy guns; the ladies had a thing about garters and low slung outfits and many of the ladies had a small pistol tucked into a garter and were always willing to show them off to anyone who was around. The children who attended also had a lovely time and they, too, were dressed appropriately in double breasted-suits with spats on their shoes. Many of them did not want to go home and continued to enjoy the evening.
They raised money after all their costs were covered on this night, and it was such a success they are thinking of making it an annual event.
The Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club have these types of event to raise money, particularly, for children’s charities. One they have donated to is the children’s ward at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I congratulate Ted Mumme and his club members and the people of Berry Springs, and elsewhere, who attended the event, supported the dinner dance, and for their on-going support for children’s charities.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the women of Groote Eylandt. Last month, we had a gathering of many women from Umbakumba, Angurugu, Alyangula and Bickerton or Milyakburra. The women came together to talk about many issues for women in the region, and I had the pleasure of taking the federal minister for Women, Tanya Plibersek, to Groote Eylandt to meet with the women and listen to the concerns they had.
I thank the Anindilyakwa Land Council for the support they provided in coordinating that event. It was quite an effort to bring all the women together but, I must say, it was certainly a meeting which the federal minister no doubt appreciated. It was her first trip to the island and the women raised issues we are dealing with now concerning the care and protection of our children and family violence in particular, the concerns about MJD and access for people with disabilities around the communities.
The Anindilyakwa Land Council has been encouraged by both the federal and Territory governments to help establish the group’s women’s forum there. I do thank the women of the East Arnhem shire for also attending Yananymul and Mavis for attending the meeting that day,
On the weekend at Groote Eylandt there was a big celebration also at the opening of the Alyangula Recreation Club - quite an enormous day on Saturday. It was also the Alyangula Picnic Day where people come into the township of Alyangula to have a fantastic day: races around the oval, they even had the greasy pole and many other events. It was a very hot, but successful day with all the football teams that started on the island.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Manager of the Alyangula Recreation Club with the opening of the extensions that evening, and finishing with fireworks. The extensions are magnificent, well worth members here going over to have a look at what the Recreation Club has done, even so far as establishing their own setup for smoking with facilities set up outside.
To the Manager, Geoff Wood, you have done a terrific job there. The Administrator, Belinda von Stieglitz, also Assistant Manager, Michael O’Keefe, the builders involved were Tony Martin and Peter Jenkins, and Mr Chris Renehan of Moonbeam Designs did the structural design work. Nicole Wheeler did the interior decorating and design, and it does look terrific. Well done, Nicole. Genevieve and Perry did the catering on the night. I also mention Perkins Shipping, which provided support through transporting materials at discounted rates; and, of course, GEMCO, the mining company, which provided support for the opening of the recreation club by providing cranes without charge.
I put on record the names of the committee for Picnic Day at Alyangula: John Hansen, an incredible man who began his time on Groote Eylandt as the school-based police constable, and now is working with GEMCO as their representative on the Picnic Day Committee; he was the main organiser for this year. And, on the committee, thanks go to: Brenton Walton, from Health, Safety and the Environment and Quality department; Sue Stevenson, from the same department; Christine Hobbs again, from the same department; Claire Shephard from the HR department; Carolyn Fletcher from the HR department; Richard Hobbs from MIP, the Manganese Improvement Process section; Tracy Rogers, also from the MIP department, and Linda Cruickshank from the port office.
Well done to all residents for making Picnic Day on Groote Eylandt such a terrific day. I certainly look forward to next year’s event.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I want to thank Alice Springs police for their hard and concerted efforts in providing their services to Northside in my electorate in Braitling, and their action of situating a police van at Braitling shops, the Northside shops, as they run their hot spot campaigns with many patrol cars, really targeting and focusing their efforts on cleaning up the Northside shops area.
I also encourage the police to follow a similar methodology in attacking antisocial behaviour and crime at the Larapinta shops. I will be forwarding correspondence to the minister for Police, the Chief Minister, asking him to speak with police and try to follow up that request so we can get the police van at Larapinta shops, and have that intensive police work done there. It is not so much about catching people, it is more about the presence, and making sure the residents of Larapinta know they have a police presence available, they can feel secure; and it is a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.
I was quite concerned today that the architect of the speed limit campaign, if I may call him that - the Labor member for Nelson - did not vote in support of the Country Liberals’ motion, my motion, to bring back open roads on the Barkly, Victoria and Stuart Highways in areas where road conditions permit.
I also express my disappointment to the member for Barkly, the Transport minister, for not supporting those people who have to travel the tyranny of distance in the Northern Territory on open roads.
It is disgraceful that this government has neglected roads in the Territory. As the member for Fong Lim said earlier today, Territory roads used to be the best roads in the country, now they are the worst. It is a disgrace.
Most people in this parliament have a lack of confidence in the member for Daly, especially his administration of SIHIP. I received the response to a question to Senator Scullion in the federal parliament yesterday. The federal government has advised Senator Scullion, in Questions on Notice, of a number of matters talking concerning SIHIP and where the money came from. Two particular paragraphs in this response concern me. I will read them:
- Our present program management costs are running at 11.4% and the government is working to reduce this to 8% by the end of the year ...
- The majority of this funding is not used to cover expenses incurred by the Northern Territory government, but to purchase the technical support needed to manage this program, including project managers, quantity surveyors, auditors, and design specialists.
That is concerning because, if we are spending 11.4% on those outsourced services, it makes me wonder: if we have 42 staff, as advised by government, now working for the Northern Territory government on SIHIP, exactly what are the administrative costs for those people? How much does it cost to hire Sports House? How much money is going to the Northern Territory government for programs such as employment programs? What is the commitment through training organisations such as CDU and Batchelor as a component of this project? What are the freight costs of this project? According to this letter from the federal government, the 11.4% is clearly not covering any of those.
What is the profit margin for the SIHIP alliance contractors? What is the profit margin for the subcontractors? Where are the mark-ups involved? It seems to me, based on this message I have received, that 70% is starting to sound very real.
I am also worried - I do not have the terminology here - but the new round of housing dollars which are going to represent approximately $1.7bn to the Territory over the next 10 years for housing includes the SIHIP money. It seems to me this may actually be going to top-up the extra component of SIHIP to try to get those numbers up to 750, where we have seen the failures in Nguiu, on the Tiwi Islands, go from 19 houses to 29 houses; Tennant Creek lose houses but, apparently, from yesterday, now getting new houses. I am worried the federal government will be topping up the failures of this Northern Territory government once again. I believe that is a real concern.
I would like government to take this on notice and investigate it further. I would also like to find out exactly how the person in charge of SIHIP, providing the advice - not speaking in a negative way about Jim Davidson - but how he was terminated, what was the involvement by this government, and exactly what happened. Because to me, it smells; If it looks like it, smells like it and tastes like it, then that seems to be it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak tonight about the magnificent event that is the Darwin Festival. I have been very lucky to attend a number of performances already, and although my dance card is close to full for the next couple of weeks, I am hopeful I can squeeze some more of the Darwin Festival into my schedule.
The Festival opened last Thursday, with the free Santos Opening Concert at the Amphitheatre - and what a wonderful night under the stars it was. Punters were treated to a range of music, from the smooth calypso sounds of the Garrangali Band from Yilpara, mixing it with the mojo of Neo, to the blues and reggae of the Kimberley’s Lorrae Coffin. Unfortunately, I had to leave before Troy Cassar-Daley hit the stage, but the feedback was his performance was also great.
Earlier the same day, I attended the opening of the Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair, and we were treated to a wonderful welcome to country that included a delightful rendition of Waltzing Matilda by well-known Darwin identity, Ali Mills. The fair was held in the Chan Building, and it was great to see the buzz happening around this building and in the park. I know a number of members of the Assembly took the opportunity to add to their Indigenous art and craft collections.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it had been my intension to attend Meow Meow and the Tiger Lillies on Friday night, but the business of this Assembly caused a change of plan. I understand both shows were sell-outs, which is great to hear, and both were received by appreciative audiences. The trouble with events like the Darwin Festival is there are not enough hours in the day to fit everything in.
On Saturday, I was pleased to be able to represent the Chief Minister at Pesona Indonesia and renew acquaintances with His Excellency Mr Harbangan Napitupulu, Consul of the Republic of Indonesia. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said what a remarkable event it was, and how it showcased the importance of communities getting together to celebrate diversity. I had to leave Pesona Indonesia before Jessica Mauboy performed, because I had a date with Mama Kin at the Lighthouse in Civic Park, and what a great date it was, with Danielle and Brother Michael and their heady mix of rhythm and blues. Then we were off again, this time to the Velodrome in Millner, to take in a performance of Endurance, Tracks Dance Company’s new show.
The member for Fong Lim has already provided the Assembly with a review of the show, and I agree with him, the Territory has a fantastic pool of talent, including the artistic directors of Tracks, Tim Newth and David McMicken. Tracks recently won the inaugural Outstanding Achievement in Youth or Community Dance Award at the Australian Dance Awards, and I have no doubt that Endurance will also win awards - it is a true Territory experience.
On Sunday evening, my wife and I again made our way to the Amphitheatre to watch Tom E Lewis and friends in a performance of Muyngarnbi: Songs from Walking with Spirits. By this time, I was feeling a bit like Lucky Starr, but I was not finished yet, so we headed up to the Lighthouse to listen to The Moving Targets, a great indie group which includes some of the members of the Leah Flanagan Band, one of Darwin’s favourite acts.
I was just catching my breath and enjoying the atmosphere of dining under the stars in Civic Park, chatting to some of the local arts community, when my ears pricked up at a 12-bar blues riff, and I was lured back into the Lighthouse by blues rock legend and the great music of Josh Thomas – fantastic! I hope to see some more festival events, and I will certainly be at the Amphitheatre this Friday for the Indigenous Music Awards. But as my electorate calls, I will leave this fair city, and on my way home visit the Katherine Flying Fox Festival this Saturday, and the coming Desert Harmony Festival in Tennant Creek, and soon the Desert Festival in Alice Springs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I encourage all members of the Assembly to attend some of our fabulous Northern Territory Festival events - and for the Darwin Festival - bravo!
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on Vietnam Veterans Day, the day which recognises Vietnam veterans. There was a service this afternoon on the Esplanade at the Cenotaph, where a gathering of approximately 300 people, not only Vietnam veterans, but members of the public, attended to recognise the service given by those men and women of the Armed Forces who participated in the Vietnam conflict.
There was an impressive march of previous veterans, and a fantastic service conducted by the MC, Mr John Jackson, and a wonderful address given by Lieutenant Colonel Shane Gabriel. He said when he first joined the Army and did his training he was trained by people who were Vietnam veterans, and how exact and how precise the skills of those veterans were, and passed on to those soldiers. Of course, now Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel finds himself in a senior position to lead the next generation of young soldiers.
I recall as a teenager, the Vietnam War was in full swing, and on the nightly news we would get pictures of what was happening in Vietnam. I could only sit and watch in awe at some of the conditions our men and women had to endure in that conflict. I recall my own father and grandfather talking to me about their involvement in both World War I and World War II, in jungle settings, especially my father in New Britain, and how difficult it was for them. The books he gave me to read about World War II and jungle warfare, and then watching the conflict in Vietnam on the television news bulletins at that time.
I also recall, just recently, a gentleman I know who is a World War II veteran, Mr John Moore, who passes on, not only to myself, but others who are prepared to listen, some of the lessons learnt during the times of conflict, particularly in World War II, which really makes me ponder, as I did sitting there this afternoon, on what it was like for those veterans.
About two-and-a-half years ago, I did a trip to Vietnam and spent some time there travelling around, especially in South Vietnam, and going to various places where the conflict occurred. One of those places was actually the Cu Chi tunnels, which were bombed on many occasions by both Australian and American troops to try to rid that area of the Viet Cong who were down there fighting for their side. Having got into the Cu Chi tunnels, which are infamous in Vietnam stories, and having walked, actually crawled, through these tunnels, one gets an appreciation of the things the soldiers had to put up with; particularly the Vietnam veterans known as the Tunnel Rats, who had to go into those tunnels and chase the Viet Cong out of them.
You can look at pictures and you can look at books, and you can read stories, but when you actually go into these tunnels, and they are only small, I literally had to get on my hands and knees and crawl through them, and in some areas I actually had to turn sideways on my hands and knees to get through; they are so narrow and so small, quite claustrophobic, in fact. But one gets a fine appreciation of what these people did.
I can only speak of the admiration I have for these men and women who went away and fought for their country, and helped change the course of history so we are still safe, in this country, from the things they went and fought against, and they passed their skills on to the next generation of military personnel of the Australian Defence Forces to continue to serve this country with great pride, to keep us safe and in a position where we can live the great lifestyle we have in Australia, and continue to protect us from issues and other peoples’ will that they would impose on us.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who participated in the recent Centralian Eisteddfod. There were 392 entries over the seven days of the Eisteddfod. Nearly all the schools in Alice Springs took part, with more than 1000 mostly young people taking to the stage over the week
It is fantastic to watch the opportunity the Eisteddfod gives to young Central Australians to shine. The entries this year covered instrumental groups and soloists, local performances, drama, recitals, readings, speeches and dance. The Centralian Eisteddfod Council believes it is its job to create a supportive environment so young people can perform in front of an audience - and the performances were terrific. Unfortunately, I do not have time to list all the winners, but if I can just mention a few.
Hayden Wackerman achieved the highest score of the Eisteddfod with an energetic drum solo. Hayden was awarded the Linda O’Brien Memorial Award.
There was a large field of instrumentalists with orchestral strings, piano, saxophones, flutes, trumpets, clarinets and trombones. Many entries came from the NT Music School program and commendations must go to the teachers who did a wonderful job of preparing their students for the public performances
The NT Music School took out the Australian Central Credit Union trophy for music. Liese Gordon won the Music Teachers Association Award, and also won the Centralian Eisteddfod Council trophy.
There were 16 school choirs from nine different schools participating, as well as school bands and the Alice Springs Town Band. The OLSH Jazz Players won the Alice Springs Town Council trophy, and the Big Band trophy. The OLSH schools did very well with OLSH Bath Street Choir winning the Marist Brothers Community trophy. St Philip’s College Junior Choir won the Taps, Tubs, Tiles trophy. St Philip’s also took out the International Training and Communications trophy.
The Larapinta, Sadadeen and Ross Park Primary Schools also won overall trophies in the Eisteddfod. In fact, I am told that Ross Park bussed in large numbers of students over the seven days to take part in the different sections. Two adjudicators were brought to town for the week, and the dance and speech adjudicator, Tracy-Lee McKinney, said it was one of the best Eisteddfod she had ever attended. I am told the adjudicators were also very impressed with the facilities and assistance offered by the Araluen Cultural Centre where the event was staged. We are very fortunate in Alice Springs to have such a great venue.
I am also in awe of the talent of our young people in Central Australia. Events such as the Eisteddfod give them a chance to show what they have. Public performance develops personal skills which, in turn, builds confidence and self-esteem. Congratulations to the teachers, parents, volunteers, and Araluen staff for supporting the performers in their onstage appearance.
Special thanks and congratulations to the Centralian Eisteddfod Council. The council, headed by President, John Cooper, with the committee of Roy Price, Paul Box, Jan Jennings, Liese Gordon, Meredith Campbell and Collette Johnson, does an absolutely magnificent job in staging the Eisteddfod. Roy Price, one the council members, said one of the council’s aims was to promote responsibility to strengthen our community. You can see the pride the young performers take in their achievements. I believe the Centralian Eisteddfod Council can be equally proud in giving our young people the opportunity to stand tall in the spotlight.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would also like to throw some weight behind two of the comments from the other side tonight about the arts and the music that comes from around the Northern Territory, whether it is in the Top End or in Central Australia. The talent we have is impressive and, unfortunately, as the member for Barkly said, there is just not enough time to get to all the events.
Unfortunately, for yourself and Hansard and the rest of the members here, last night I said that I was going to mention the Durack song and I am not going to sing it in full, but I will try to word it out so, unfortunately for you, Madam Speaker, you are going to have to listen to it but I believe it is a song written with the intent of hope, dignity and a belief in oneself.
It was written by a gentleman by the name of Mark Bunnett in 1998, and he also wrote the music which goes along with it and is played at every assembly.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, can I ask if you are actually going to sing?
Mr BOHLIN: I am going to pay lip service to singing and move the words smoothly in speech.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that we simply need to seek the leave of the House if a member wishes to sing.
Mr BOHLIN: I actually will not sing; I will word it out then.
Mr Styles: Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going before he does.
Mr BOHLIN: In that case, just in case it is interpreted as singing, may I seek leave to …
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: Pity help you all, Madam Speaker.
- Not so long ago, this land was barren earth,
A wilderness awaiting for time to do its work,
Arising from the dust a mighty school was born,
Today we call it Durack, to the 3 Ds we are sworn,
Determination, dignity, here at Durack it’s what we believe
As students we are determined to work hard and succeed,
We hold ourselves with dignity to learn well and to lead.
Like kings in grass castles they will put us to the test.
We are here at Durack, we will strive to do our best.
Determination, dignity, here at Durack, it is what we believe.
Madam Speaker, it is a very difficult song to get out at the best of times and, under the pressure of the House, of course, my singing was not that great …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the contrary, member for Drysdale, I thought it was very good.
Mr BOHLIN: It does put out some very important ethical standards for young Territorians to run their lives by, with determination and with dignity. I believe they are very basic but important paths to follow. People who have dignity, determination and respect, I believe, can always succeed.
So, I hope these young people at Durack listen to this song and, as they go through their years of schooling, understand the importance of the verses, and believe in themselves because, if you believe in yourself, you can achieve everything.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016