2008-11-27
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 3 notifying assent to bills passed in the October sittings of the Assembly.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Watiyawanu School students from Mt Liebig, Year 3 to Year 6 students, accompanied by Ms Maryse Turenne, Mr Mike Dunton, Mr Roderick Kantamara, Ms Rita Turner, and Ms Violet Napanangka.
I have been told that they have travelled by bus, stopping at Three Ways and Pine Creek, and they have not been to Darwin before. So, on behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the first meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government held in Canberra last Tuesday, 18 November. This meeting, hosted by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and the federal Minister for Local Government, Anthony Albanese, was an historic event. It focused on establishing closer links between local government bodies and the communities they represent. For the Northern Territory, it was a particularly timely event, coming just after the Henderson government’s much needed and historic local government reforms. It was also less than a month after the modernisation of our local government legislation, and landmark local government elections for our eight new shires.
This reform agenda was about ensuring a greater standard of service delivery across the Northern Territory, particularly in our regions, and of solid and well-managed shire councils with greater accountability to their constituents. As a result of the reforms, the majority of the Northern Territory is now incorporated within the local government areas. This enables our regional shires to work as partners with the Territory and federal governments in ensuring resources to support their communities.
I was privileged to participate in last week’s inaugural meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government. The council provides a forum in which local government can be involved in addressing issues of national importance.
I was very pleased to be joined in Canberra by some of the local government councils of the Northern Territory: Graeme Sawyer, the Lord Mayor of Darwin; Mr Robert Macleod, the Mayor of Palmerston; Murray Stewart, as the acting Mayor of Alice Springs; Anne Shepherd from Katherine; Peter Clee from the Wagait Shire Council; Mary Walshe from the Litchfield Council; Jeff Sowiak, the CEO of the Barkly Shire; and Kerry Moir and Tony Tapsell – he was delayed because they lost his bags - from the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
Evidence of the commitment of the Rudd government to this initiative was the presence of Kevin Rudd’s full Cabinet throughout the sessions. We were amongst more than 400 mayors and shire presidents and other local government representatives from around the country. It was an exciting opportunity to share and hear ideas about initiatives from our state and federal counterparts about local government reform, building regional economies, improving housing standards, making our cities more liveable, and closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
Arguably the most significant outcome of the meeting was the federal government’s strong commitment to supporting infrastructure development in the regions and communities. This was more than just words. Indeed, the Prime Minister supported this commitment with a $300m package: the regional and local community infrastructure program to drive community infrastructure programs, and create jobs in what we all know to be very uncertain global times. This one-off funding commitment was warmly welcomed right across the country.
In the Northern Territory, 16 local government councils will all benefit from more than $3.3m in funding. Breaking it down roughly: Alice Springs will get $230 000; Barkly $341 000; Belyuen $100 000; Central Desert $100 000; Coomalie $100 000; Darwin $313 000; East Arnhem $405 000; Katherine $193 000; Litchfield $152 000; MacDonnell $250 000; Palmerston $196 000; Roper Gulf $300 000; Tiwi Islands $100 000; Victoria Daly $271 000; Wagait $100 000; and West Arnhem $240 000.
This was a significant meeting of the local government councils from across Australia, and a commitment from the Prime Minister. It is a commitment shared by the Henderson government. I look forward to continuing to work with the Territory’s 16 local government councils on delivering better services to Territorians.
In closing, the timing of this did not allow for some of the new councillors to actually attend because of their elections, but this will be an annual event. I am sure the discussions at the plenary sessions next year will be a lot more robust, and we will have all our councillors from across the Territory represented.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Local Government for his report this morning. I welcome the information he has shared with us today. I have been made aware, through various media outlets, of the outcome of the local government meeting in Canberra. It is pleasing to see that a large number of our councils were able to attend in one form or another, and it is very pleasing to see that the Rudd government has seen fit to dish out a few dollars from their coffers to assist Northern Territory councils, particularly the new ones, which will need as much assistance as they can get, given their very new status in the Northern Territory.
The only concern I have is when this money is going to be spent; it is coming as a result of economic stimulus to try to push along the economics of the Northern Territory and right across Australia. The problem with that, with some councils, I daresay, it will sit in a bank account for some time until they can sort out their own internal issues. There are still a lot of councils out there that are not fully staffed. There is at least one council I know of that still does not have an office. Those internal issues need to be worked on before the bright spark of that money will ever be seen by the constituents within their council areas.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Although the Rudd government’s statement that this would help infrastructure in councils; in reality, it is not going to help a lot - the $3.3m for the Territory split over all those councils is actually very small pickings. In the case of Litchfield Shire, I think it is $152 000. It is nice; there is no doubt the ratepayers of Litchfield will appreciate that money. However, when it comes to, say, helping infrastructure, it would possibly build a playground. If you are looking at expanding roads or major infrastructure improvements like building a swimming pool, you would need a lot more money. You would probably need closer to the whole amount of $3.3m to build a decent swimming pool.
Whilst it is certainly appreciated that the government has put out this money, you have to keep your feet on the ground and say it is nowhere near the amount of money the Territory needs because, when it comes to local government funding, we are certainly the poor cousins because of the manner in which it is distributed by the Commonwealth. I also query, if you were looking at the amounts of money per population of councils, it is strange that some of our smaller councils are receiving substantially more than the bigger councils, yet some of the bigger councils require money to help with infrastructure.
I do not know on what basis the money was allocated; whether it was allocated on the size of the council in area, or on population, but it looks funny when you see a council like Litchfield with a population of around 18 000 receive $152 000, and you see some other councils with a population of about 6000 getting up in the region of $400 000. I am interested if the minister could give us some idea of the formula for the allocation of those funds.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. Member for Katherine, the money for the program has to be spent by 30 June 2009 or it will have to be handed back. I know most councils have a lot on their books about what they need to do with that money. I believe it will be an instant stimulus for those local communities; I am sure it will be spent very quickly.
Member for Nelson, I am not really sure about the allocation formula. I do know that there was a base funding of $100 000 there. Peter Clee from the Wagait Shire Council was rubbing his hands together, and he will let us know about that also.
It is a significant amount of money; $300m coming into Local Government. It is a one-off initiative, and I would hope it is followed up by much more money - $3.3m is basically 1%, which is about what we are in the Territory; but it is certainly welcomed.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, today I express the government’s appreciation for the hard work done by our Aboriginal Health Workers, and to congratulate winners and finalists in the 2008 Aboriginal Health Worker Awards which were held last Friday.
This year’s awards attracted 76 outstanding nominations under four categories: Remote, Urban, Specialised, and New Practitioner. The quality and number of these nominees clearly demonstrates the positive regard for the role of the Aboriginal Health Worker felt by colleagues, members of the general public, and people in the communities where they work.
Cheryl Patullo from the Palmerston clinic of Danila Dilba Health Service beat 12 other finalists to take out the top award, and also won the Urban Award. Cheryl has more than 20 years experience in the Northern Territory health sector and is a very deserving winner. Cheryl began her training on Groote Eylandt, and continued to work there in a variety of positions, including the management of three health centres. That is where I first met Cheryl many years ago and I saw her fine work firsthand. She has held many positions in both clinical and management areas, and has contributed to the quality of health care in East Arnhem and the urban areas of Darwin and Palmerston. She is a true role model.
I was very pleased to present awards to the category winners. Tony McMasters from the Aputula Health Centre, Central Australia Remote Health, was the winner of the Remote Award. Tony began his training as an Aboriginal Health Worker in 1992 in Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. In additional to clinical employment in Alice Springs, Groote Eylandt, Belyuen and Aputula, Tony has worked as a research assistant with the Menzies School of Health Research on a renal study. Tony has been based in Aputula for the past four years, and is currently the Acting Health Centre Manager.
The winner of the Specialised Award was Patrick Ah Kit from the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation. Patrick has been an Aboriginal Health Worker for 26 years. He trained at Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, where he worked as an Aboriginal Health Worker Manager and Educator. For the past seven years, Patrick has chosen public health as his area of employment. He is currently working in the Anyinginyi Health Centre in the area of men’s health. Importantly, Patrick has concentrated on giving health promotion as much emphasis as direct clinical care.
The winner of the New Practitioner Award was Katherine Coultard from the Ti Tree Health Centre. Katherine began her Aboriginal Health Worker training in 2006, and graduated from Central Australian Aboriginal Congress education branch at the end of 2007. Before graduating, Katherine had been working with Congress medical centre on the bush mobile program, and she has recently moved to Ti Tree where she is currently employed. Katherine is a single mother of two daughters, and I commend her for her determination to continue with her studies and contribute so much to the community where she now works.
I take this opportunity to thank the Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise; the Department of Health and Families Remote Health Branch; the federal Department of Health and Ageing; the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, for their ongoing support of this important event.
I particularly single out Rotary Club Darwin Sunrise. They do a fantastic job. They have the Paramedic Awards for ambulance people, who contribute so much, and a Katherine officer won this year. They do so much, the Darwin Rotary Sunrise, in these and other awards which they sponsor. I believe it is a great way of thanking those in the community who do fantastic work, like Aboriginal Health Workers, ambulance drivers and other paramedics, and it also highlights the volunteerism of Darwin Rotary Sunrise. There is such a breadth of membership and people who contribute so much, and I particularly congratulate them. I congratulate Cheryl, Tony and Patrick in Katherine, all the finalists, and all Aboriginal Health Workers for their outstanding work in the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, we recognise the great work done by Aboriginal Health Workers across the Northern Territory. We congratulate Patrick Ah Kit for his outstanding achievement this year in Aboriginal health. Of course, Aboriginal health is very important, and one of the big issues facing health across the Northern Territory.
I would like to mention the kids from Mt Liebig; hopefully they are practicing good health care at their community. Congratulations to all those people who have done a great job with Aboriginal health throughout the course of 2008.
This may be the last opportunity to walk down memory lane for the minister before the government gags the parliament, shuts it down, goes upstairs for the Speaker’s drinks rather than debating serious stuff. The minister has clearly failed across 2008. His attempt as Health Minister - I believe the oncology unit is a glowing example. It was promised in 2001 when they came to government; now it is seven years later and we have a helipad, I believe.
What about the Emergency Department at Alice Springs promised in 2005? It is still nowhere near completion. Coronial after Coronial; we have preventable deaths at RDH, and a nursing staffing crisis; patients stay awake during surgery, as highlighted on a television show last night. It is a culture of cover-up, a culture of denial by the Heath Minister and a systemic failure. It is not a very good report card for the Health Minister.
Minister, I hope 2009 is much better for the health of Territorians than it has been under your watch since you became Health Minister, and particularly since this government came to office in 2001.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his comments on Aboriginal health. All the issues the member for Greatorex has raised are very important issues. They are very difficult issues and I am more than happy to respond to them if the member for Greatorex wants to ask me questions in Question Time. They are difficult issues. Being Health Minister is not an easy portfolio, however, I am committed to driving change within the Northern Territory Health system.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I highlight a fantastic Territory-made DVD about Indigenous disabilities and, with the celebrations for the International Day of Disabilities next week, I thought it appropriate to speak about this DVD. It is titled Inspire, Include, Increase. I was lucky enough to attend the launch of this DVD last week; and I can vouch for the power of this particular production.
The DVD profiles five Indigenous Territorians with a disability: Peter Barnes, Dion Beasley, Joshua Campton, Joseph Lannigan and Cece Adams, who are all from across the Territory. Some members here may know Dion Beasley from Tennant Creek, who is outstanding for his cheeky dogs and cartoons and characters on T-shirts and in the paper. Inspire, Include, Increase shares the stories of their backgrounds, their hopes and aspirations.
The DVD’s central message is that disabilities should not be a barrier, and those living with disabilities should rightly aspire to a full and rich life. Adding to the DVD is the beautiful music and magic voice of our Territory ARIA winner and Northern Territory Australian of the Year, Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, with his song, I Was Born Blind; an outstanding role model for all Territorians.
The DVD is both an exploration of the lives of Indigenous Australians with a disability, and an affirmation of the capacity people with disabilities have to make an absolutely positive contribution to the communities in which they live. The driving force behind the DVD is Liz Reid from the National Disability Coordination Office, in partnership with YouthWorx and Charles Darwin University. Their collective vision and enthusiasm has produced a truly unique DVD which is an Australian first. I would encourage all members to take the time to have a look at it, and I am very happy to provide that opportunity.
Appropriately, the DVD’s national launch will take place in Melbourne on the International Day of People with a Disability, which is 3 December.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Professor Djapirri Mununggirritj from Yirrkala who was engaged as a cultural consultant on the DVD. The professor is a member of the Northern Territory Disability Advisory Council, and it is good to see a member of the advisory council making such a valuable contribution to enhance understanding and awareness. I encourage people to go to the screenings.
As Northern Territorians, we should be extremely proud that a DVD of this calibre has been produced using local people. It really is a first of its kind. I congratulate Peter, Dion, Joshua, Joseph and Cece on sharing their personal stories in the way they have. If any member would like to see it, please let me know.
It is also worth noting that tonight, in the Parliamentary Library; a book called Cassie will be launched. The central character in Cassie is actually based on Cece Adams, one of the five people in this DVD. Cassie is written by local author, Barry Johnsberg, and I am certainly looking forward to tonight’s launch and I encourage as many members here to come along to it in the Parliamentary Library.
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see initiatives like these, particularly as they are being driven by Territory people.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I was a little unclear. I gather it is a Northern Territory DVD, but it has a national launch, so the Territory is launching this nationally?
Ms McCarthy: Leading the way.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Ms McCarthy: Leading the way.
Ms CARNEY: Leading the way. That is terrific. Thank you for answering that. I wonder, since you attended the launch, and presumably you have copies of the DVD in your office, whether you would be good enough to deliver a copy to me today so that I can see it. I congratulate and applaud those who participated in it. It may have been that a certain amount of courage was required, and those people should be acknowledged accordingly.
I may have missed it, but I wonder whether the minister in her reply would indicate what the purpose really of the DVD is. There is no question about raising awareness and promoting a positive message. If that is the aim of the DVD, then we applaud that. As I said, I may have missed it, but I do not recall the minister saying exactly what the objective was of the DVD. To make a DVD is one thing, but to actually achieve results as a result of the production and launching of a DVD is something else entirely.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but I remember some time ago looking at disability funding over the last five or so years. I am not sure that it has received, frankly, the injection of funds that the area deserves. It tends generally not to be an issue which politicians in this country are focused on; I believe more energy and effort is required. I am hopeful that the minister will do what she can to ensure the sector receives appropriate funding.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on being part of the launch of this DVD. It is important that those people with disabilities are given the greatest opportunity to participate in society as equals.
I have not seen the DVD either, and I am interested to see it as well. I was thinking, when you raised the issue, that I had a constituent come to see me some time ago who asked me if we have an Office of Disability. I looked up the phone book and there is nothing there; then I looked up the website and it took me quite a while to find there is a very little, small page under the Department of Health for Office of Disability, which I think has an 1800 number and is based in Alice Springs. My understanding is it is not really an office; it is just a number where you can contact someone.
It gives one the impression - taking up from the member for Araluen - that we are not putting enough emphasis on dealing with some of the issues for people who are disabled. One area we could look at is having a real Office of Disability, in the major regional centres at least. I am interested to know whether the government does intend to do that because, at the moment, if a constituent or someone wanted to find out if there was an Office of Disability, unless they had a computer, they certainly would not find it via the phone book.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Araluen and Nelson for their contributions. I begin with you, member for Nelson. The issue of an Office of Disability is one that I am looking into right now. I have just returned from a trip to Melbourne to look at the Office of Disabilities there, which actually is leading the way in where we are going with regard to improving disability services. I hear your concerns about the 1800 number. It is something that was raised with me when I first took on the portfolio by Robyne Burridge and others. I am very anxious to see that we get that one right for people. Of course, people with disabilities in the Northern Territory need to have an access, and quality of life, to the best of their abilities just like any other Territorian. So, I am very keen to keep you updated on that area.
Regarding the member for Araluen’s question about the DVD; it is simply just that: an expression of people's personal stories. Sometimes, that is all it needs to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms McCARTHY: Come and see the DVD.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In June 2003, approximately 50 people met in Alice Springs for the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankuntjatjara (NPY) Lands Tri-jurisdictional Justice Initiatives Roundtable. The round table was attended by members of the NPY Women’s Council, magistrates, senior police, court administrators, Community Corrections officers, lawyers, and others with an interest in addressing the damaging effects of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, and other forms of offending behaviour in communities in the NPY region. Serious problems were identified at the round table, among them the complex justice issues and needs of people in this remote cross-border region.
The cross-border region of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia covers some 475 000 km2 and comprises approximately 10 000 people, 7500 of whom are Indigenous. These people are amongst the most isolated and disadvantaged in Australia. A cross-border justice project was established to respond to these problems which identified the need for legislation to respond.
The Cross-Border Justice Bill 2008 is one of the most innovative and groundbreaking legislative responses to a profound community problem we have seen in this country. This bill seeks to break down the barriers that borders create in the administration of justice in the cross-border region of Central Australia. Some of the major issues facing communities include: geographical isolation; poverty; remoteness and a small population base; lack of meaningful employment and training, and limited educational opportunities; significant substance misuse problems, including petrol sniffing; serious family violence and sexual assault issues; very poor health status, due to a range of social and environmental factors; significant mental health issues; and, lack of services, including justice services.
The population of the cross-border region is highly mobile, and the state and territory borders are of little significance to the residents in the region. Borders are seen as constructs for the communities who have lived in this region for centuries, well before the artificial and intangible borders were created. The people lived in and moved about the region according to their own long-standing traditions and customs. Until now, government services have been framed around the borders, rather than the needs of the communities they are intended to serve.
Additionally, the borders enable wrongdoers to evade police and the justice system, as justice services operate individually in each region. This further undermines the safety of communities in the region. The frequent movement of people throughout the region also causes significant difficulties for delivery of Justice services, as they cannot operate outside their jurisdiction. The three jurisdictions identified the importance of creating legislation to allow cross-border delivery of court, corrections and policing services.
Madam Speaker, this bill will enable the Northern Territory to participate in mutual cross-border justice schemes with South Australia and Western Australia. The effect of the cross-border justice scheme is to relax the rigidity with which state and territory borders are enforced, and therefore remove the legal restrictions imposed by the borders under the cross-border scheme. For the cross-border scheme to operate, each jurisdiction needs corresponding laws. A working group comprising the Solicitors-General of Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, developed the legislation to be enacted in each jurisdiction, and support the cross-border justice scheme.
It requires each jurisdiction to enact provisions in relation to three aspects of the criminal justice system: the exercise of police powers; the jurisdiction of summary courts; and, the enforcement of sentences and orders. This is achieved through legislating to authorise the application of one jurisdiction’s laws in the geographical areas of other jurisdictions, and, additionally: legislating to allow the application of laws of the other jurisdictions in the geographical area of the legislating jurisdiction. This effectively extends the geographical area of each jurisdiction.
Each jurisdiction will enact provisions so that, for each provision authorising the application its law in another jurisdiction, there will be a corresponding provision enacted by that other jurisdiction allowing that law to apply in their jurisdiction. This creates a legislative and administrative framework which will allow the justice systems to operate much more freely across the borders of the Northern Territory, South Australia, and Western Australia.
Western Australia was instructed and drafted a model bill for the mirror legislation, the Cross-Border Justice Bill 2008, which was assented to by the Western Australian parliament on 31 March 2008; and I thank the Western Australian government, and I digress here, the former Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, for taking the lead in drafting the model legislation. This bill is based on the model developed by the Western Australian government.
I will now outline the major features of the bill. This bill, in conjunction with the mirror legislation of Western Australia and South Australia, will allow police to be appointed as officers of all three jurisdictions, and to exercise the powers under the three jurisdictions.
The concept of cross-border policing is not new. For the past few years, multi-jurisdictional police stations have operated at Warakurna in Western Australia, and Kintore in the Northern Territory. Each police station is staffed by both Western Australian and Northern Territory Police officers. The Western Australian police officers hold appointments as Special Constables of the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory Police officers hold appointments as Special Constables of Western Australia.
Patrols of areas in both jurisdictions are conducted out of those police stations. However, legal restrictions mean that, whilst operating a patrol in the Northern Territory, the officers can only exercise their powers as Northern Territory officers; and while in Western Australia, they can only exercise their powers as Western Australian officers. Therefore, if on patrol in Western Australia they come across a person who is alleged to have committed an offence in the Northern Territory, the patrolling officers cannot arrest the person in Western Australia under the Northern Territory warrant. The person would have to be arrested and then dealt with under extradition laws.
Madam Speaker, this bill allows police to be appointed as officers of all three jurisdictions, and to exercise the powers under the three jurisdictions. Indeed, not only police officers, but also magistrates and corrections officers will be able to exercise powers under the three participating jurisdictions. This bill enables police, magistrates, fine enforcement agencies, community corrections officers, and prisons in one jurisdiction to deal with offences that may have been committed in one of the other participating jurisdictions.
The bill requires a certain criteria be met before a matter can be dealt with as a cross-border matter. This restricts the application of the legislation to those occasions where the interests of justice warrant the use of such an innovative scheme. The matter will fall within the scope of the Cross-border Justice Scheme only if the offence is connected to the relevant cross-border region.
The criteria which will determine whether there is a connection are:
the alleged offence occurred in the cross-border region;
the alleged offender was arrested in the cross-border region; and
or the alleged offender normally resided in the cross-border region either at the time of arrest or of the alleged offence.
Location of where the alleged offence occurred is the factor determining which jurisdiction’s laws will apply to the alleged offence; that is, if a person is arrested in the Northern Territory and charged with an offence alleged to have been committed in Western Australia, the Western Australian laws of apprehension, court procedure, criminal liability, and sentencing would be applied.
An important point to note is that the bill will only apply to matters which can be dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Youth Justice Court, or certain prescribed matters under the Traffic Act, including vehicle impounding matters, dealt with by the Local Court and the Alcohol Court. So matters falling within summary jurisdiction and aspects of indictable offences that magistrates are able to deal with, such as bail hearings and matters within the jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court fall within the scope of the bill.
More serious offences alleged to have been committed in the Northern Territory will continue to be dealt with by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
Generally, the Cross-Border Justice Bill does not create new laws for the administration of justice. Rather, it allows existing laws to be applied in other jurisdictions and allows the laws of those other jurisdictions to be applied in the Northern Territory. For example, each jurisdiction will appoint magistrates of the other participating jurisdictions to their own magistracy through their legislation governing the appointment of magistrates. Therefore, magistrates of South Australia and Western Australia will be appointed as Northern Territory magistrates under the relevant provisions of the Magistrates Act to administer justice under the cross-border scheme.
Convicted offenders will be sentenced according to the law of the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. However, the sentence will travel with the offender; that is, a person convicted of a South Australian offence but serving a custodial sentence in the Northern Territory will serve the sentence as if that person were in South Australia.
This bill enables a Northern Territory Police officer to:
arrest an alleged offender under Northern Territory law in a community in South Australia;
take the alleged offender to the nearest police station, which may be, depending on the community involved, in Warakurna in Western Australia;
charge the alleged offender under Northern Territory law; and, then
take the alleged offender to Alice Springs to have the matter heard before a Northern Territory magistrate.
The arrest, charges, hearing, and possible imprisonment can all be dealt with quickly, minimising the amount of travel for the alleged offender, victim, and witnesses.
This bill will create a much more effective system of justice administration in the cross-border regions. Currently, the Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 is the only law which deals with the apprehension of alleged offenders to allow them to be brought before a court in extradition proceedings. This means that if a police officer has arrested a person in connection with an offence alleged to have occurred in another state or territory, the police officer must bring the person before a magistrate in the state or territory where the arrest occurred.
The magistrate, however, can only remand the person to come before a court in the jurisdiction of the alleged offence. The person would then be admitted to bail or taken into custody to appear in that jurisdiction. The magistrate has no power to deal with the matter to the end.
The Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act will need to be amended for the Cross-Border Justice Bills of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia to take effect. The Commonwealth has announced its intention to make the necessary amendments to that act to accommodate the operation of the Cross-Border Justice Bills.
Fines enforcement is one area where substantive law is changed by the bill. The bill will allow a fine imposed under the law of one jurisdiction to be enforced against property located in any one of the other participating jurisdictions. This is necessary as, currently, once a fine is transferred from one jurisdiction’s fines enforcement agency to that of another, the receiving agency is only able to enforce the fine as if it were a fine of that jurisdiction. Under this bill, if the offender’s property is located in one of the other participating jurisdictions, it can be accessed for the purpose of enforcing the fine.
The inaugural cross-border scheme covers the cross-border regions described, being the area where the boundaries of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory intersect. However, the bill enables multiple cross-border schemes to operate. It allows for additional cross-border schemes to be introduced in the future where other border regions are shared. Each scheme will focus on a prescribed region, for example, the Kimberley region, or the Western Australian/South Australian border area of the Nullarbor Plain. At present, only the Western Australian/South Australian/Northern Territory boundary region will be prescribed at the commencement of the scheme.
There have been more than 200 officials involved with this project since its commencement and they are to be congratulated for their efforts. Countless effort has been contributed by relevant government departments to create the legislative framework and administrative details that will make this important initiative work at an operational level. There has also been overwhelming support from the judiciary.
In conclusion, I express my appreciation to the former Chief Executive Officer of the Justice Department, Mr Richard Coates, now Director of Public Prosecutions, for his insight, and that of his counterparts: the Chief Executive Officers of the Justice Departments in South Australia and Western Australia, Alan Piper and Kate Lennon. The guidance of the current Administrator of the Northern Territory, who was at that time the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, Mr Tom Pauling QC, is also appreciated.
As the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, I also acknowledge the support of the former Attorney-General of Western Australia, Jim McGinty MP, and the current South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson MP for their strong support in putting in place the plan which underpins this legislation.
Finally, and most importantly, I acknowledge and congratulate the NPY Women’s Council and Jane Lloyd, Chair of the Chief Minister’s Indigenous and Family Violence Advisory Committee, for their role in the instigation of this reform package.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to enable parks status to be declared seamlessly and expeditiously upon areas of land held by Aboriginal Land Trust, Park Land Trust, or by an Aboriginal landholding corporation that are leased back to the Northern Territory for the purposes of joint management of parks.
The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was introduced to this House in November 2003 to resolve outstanding native title and Aboriginal land rights claims over 27 of the Territory’s parks and reserves. To accommodate the new joint management arrangements established by the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was amended in February 2005 by the inclusion of Part 3 - Joint Management of Certain Parks and Reserves. A further amendment to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed by this House in September 2007 to enable additional jointly managed parks or reserves that are not scheduled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, to be included in the Part 3 Joint Management Provisions.
The legislation has assured a secure future for parks and reserves and has laid the foundation for the development of world-class joint management arrangements between the Northern Territory and the traditional owners of those areas.
I will take this opportunity to inform the House of the progress and achievements which have been made to date. Following the passing of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill by the federal parliament in June this year, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Honourable Jenny Macklin, established 13 Aboriginal Land Trusts to hold the title for parks and reserves listed in Schedule 1 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
Let me bring to the attention of members that the Commonwealth bill would not have passed through parliament without the support of the Territory’s two representatives in the Upper House – Senator Crossin and Senator Scullion. We thank the Senators for their support of joint management.
The passage of the bill allowed the long awaited transfer of titles and leaseback arrangements to commence.
On 28 October 2008, during the last sittings of this House, the first of the handovers of Aboriginal land occurred. A ceremony at the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve by minister Macklin handed the title of Devils Marbles and the Davenport Range National Park to the Ayleparrarntenhe and Erlterlapentye Aboriginal Land Trusts respectively. At the same ceremony, members of the land trust signed the leaseback documentation of those parks to the Territory for a period of 99 years. An adjacent area of the existing Anurrete Aboriginal Land Trust, as described in Schedule 5 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, will soon be added to the Davenport Range National Park through a lease to the Northern Territory under the same terms.
Notwithstanding the delays in the leaseback arrangements, joint management has been progressing well on the ground through planning, employment and training of traditional owners. The joint management plan for the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve is very well advanced, and public consultation has been completed. The final plan will be tabled in this House for the consideration of members.
To demonstrate the cooperative and equitable partnership mandated by the legislation and lease documentation, and now implemented on the ground, let me quote the vision statement for the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve draft joint management plan which was developed by the Kirda and Kurdungurlu,traditional owners and managers of the area, and the Parks and Wildlife Service. It reads:
This vision reflects respect, integrity, honesty and pride. It is also about teaching and sharing knowledge for future generations, and involving everyone, especially young people, old people and families. Most importantly, we recognise that it is not just talk.
Joint management plans for other parks and reserves are also well advanced following the appointment of a senior planner in each of the three regions. Draft plans for Flora River Conservation Reserve, Chambers Pillar Historical Reserve, Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve, Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve, Harrison Dam Conservation Reserve, Melacca Swamp Conservation Reserve, and the West MacDonnell National Park are expected to be tabled in this House in the first half of next year.
Another significant objective of joint management is to provide employment and economic development opportunities for traditional owners. The Parks and Wildlife Service recognises the training and work readiness requirements needed for many of the traditional owners and has developed a suite of employment and training initiatives to cater for these needs.
We are also aware of the significant challenges to overcome issues of remoteness and Indigenous disadvantage. Today, I make particular mention of progress in employment of traditional owners in remote regions of the Northern Territory. Parks and Wildlife and traditional owners are making good progress with employment programs in the Victoria River District and Katherine region. Recently, a female joint management trainee ranger graduated to a permanent T1 Ranger position at Gregory National Park. This is a significant achievement, as it is the first female joint management trainee to commence employment with Parks and the first to gain a T1 position. This appointment will provide an opportunity for another trainee in the future.
Four Wardaman traditional owners in the Katherine River district have been appointed to casual positions to work alongside permanent rangers and, with accredited training, will undertake general park maintenance duties and assist with flora and fauna surveys.
Under the flexible employment program, a fencing project on the southern boundary of Gregory National Park will employ traditional owners from the Kalkarindji and Daguragu communities. The Timber Creek-based Ngaliwurru-Wuli Aboriginal Association has been awarded a period contract through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to carry out fencing, park maintenance and construction work in the campgrounds and ranger stations of Gregory and Keep River National Parks.
In Central Australia, the flexible employment program has engaged participants from Alice Springs as well as remote communities including Ntaria, Amoonguna, Titjikala, Santa Teresa, Walkabout Bore, Ulpanyali, and residents from outstations serviced by Ingkerreke and Tjuwanpa Resource Centres. Over the past year, these workers have contributed to projects such as prescribed burning, flora and fauna surveys, weed management, fencing and the maintenance of park infrastructure and walking tracks. To date, joint management has resulted in 16 new positions for traditional owners, including permanent ranger positions, trainees and school-based apprentices.
The Parks and Wildlife Service intends to further increase the participation of traditional owners in its workforce and, through mentoring and structured training, ensure that these employees have the opportunity to progress through the ranger ranks to park manager positions in the future as their capacity and experience develops. A recent highlight was the award given to Graeme Talbot Junior as the Northern Territory School-based Apprentice of the Year. Graeme is Indigenous and works as a trainee ranger at Fogg Dam.
Today, I introduce a further amendment that will implement the full extent of the intended outcomes of the joint management provisions of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The amendment will address a technical and operational issue which has arisen through the leaseback of parks and reserves from Aboriginal and Park Land Trusts. In the case of 13 of the 17 parks and reserves listed in schedules 1 and 2 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, the area of land leased back to be a jointly managed park has changed. These changes to the park area have come about through adding areas such as:
former stock routes located within, or adjacent to a park;
For all intents and purposes, these additional areas have been managed by Parks and Wildlife rangers and, to the general public, would be considered as part of the existing Parks Estate.
Some areas which contain principally non-park interests, such as an Aboriginal Community Living Area, public roads and road reserves, corridors for transport, and areas for the supply of utilities were excluded from the grant of title. The consequence of these additions and exclusions is that the parks do not qualify as the same area of land to be re-declared as required by section 24 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The amendment will now allow the declaration of park status over the entire park area in a single process. Declaration as a park is required prior to the implementation of joint management plans and for the application of park by-laws, which ensure the safe and effective management of the natural and cultural values of the park.
The amendment will extend to other parks outside of those scheduled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act which, consistent with section 23A of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, are now able to be managed under these joint management provisions.
The bill expedites the process of park declaration for areas of Aboriginal-owned land which are leased back to the Northern Territory to be jointly managed national parks. Title to these areas is granted to land trusts on the basis that they be leased back as jointly managed parks and reserves.
Public consultation will be welcomed during the planning phase in the development of any draft joint management plans, which will be tabled in the House prior to gazettal and adoption.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Geothermal Energy Bill is to create an enabling framework to facilitate and regulate the exploration and extraction of geothermal energy resources in the Northern Territory. The framework for this bill is based on existing models established by the Northern Territory Petroleum Act, Mining Act, and Mining Management Act. Parts have also been utilised from the Victorian Geothermal Act. This model was adopted because operations associated with exploring and extracting geothermal energy, primarily drilling deep within the earth, are similar to petroleum and mining operations. Moreover, it provides a model with which the industry is familiar.
This bill has been developed following extensive public and industry consultation. My department produced a discussion paper which attracted considerable comment and was instrumental in setting the scene for the development of this legislation.
The decision to develop separate, stand-alone geothermal legislation was made so that geothermal energy resources would be recognised as a separate and new energy source, and could compete in its own statutory field with other natural resources, such as natural gas, coal, and a range of other potential energy sources, such as solar, wind and biofuels.
Geothermal energy is heat energy, derived from deep within the earth. This heat is stored in either subterranean water bodies, or in various geological layers that make up the earth. Geothermal energy is a valuable earth resource. Geothermal energy resources have the potential to provide clean, reliable, and renewable energy, capable of a wide range of uses. It has the potential to deliver energy with very low or no greenhouse gas emissions. This natural heat energy can be harnessed and used in a wide range of applications, including industrial and community heating. However, its main value in Australia is in generation of electricity, where it has the capacity to provide base load power equivalent to gas and coal-fired power stations.
The technology associated with exploration for and the development of geothermal resources is developing rapidly. Rising energy prices and greater government and market support for low emission energy has led to interest in geothermal energy rising across Australia and worldwide. New exploration techniques required to search for deep hot rocks are being led by Australian companies and research institutions.
Today, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Territory is positioned to attract and support commercial scale exploration and development of its geothermal energy resources. Without such legislation, the Territory will not attract investment dollars to find these new and exciting energy resources. Interest by industry to invest in geothermal resources is clearly demonstrated by the rush to take up prospective tenure, originally in South Australia, but now in Victoria, Tasmania, and Western Australia, where the attraction of major electricity markets justifies the high risk and exploration costs.
This bill is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the sustainable resource development of the Territory. It enables: investment in a new emerging energy industry; use of a clean, renewable and reliable energy resource which has a small eco-footprint; and potential for the development of energy intensive industries, particularly in regional Northern Territory.
The bill establishes that, like other earth resources, the heat energy within the earth belongs to all Territorians, and is therefore vested in the Crown. The bill also establishes property rights over geothermal energy and resources within particular areas. This allows the Territory government to grant a party exclusive right to geothermal resources in a specific area for exploration and potential development.
Secure title is needed by companies to enable them to raise finance for exploration and subsequent extraction and to benefit from any geothermal resource they may find. Furthermore, as geothermal resources develop in value, the bill provides opportunities for the Territory government to set a royalty on such resources to return some of their value to the state.
The bill provides for the grant of three different titles: a geothermal exploration permit to conduct exploration for heat sources; a geothermal retention licence where resources have been discovered, but cannot yet be commercially extracted; and a geothermal production lease on which to develop commercial resources that may be viable.
The bill provides some flexibility as to the duration, size and conditions associated with permits and licences. It sets size limits to the titles which can be varied with ministerial agreement when it is in the interest of the Territory. These measures are designed to ensure that work is conducted on the titles and will encourage a higher turnover of land and impede uncompetitive tenure warehousing.
The bill has provisions for grant of title: by tender for reserved areas through work programs, where the Territory government wishes to ensure that companies with proven capacity have access to key strategic geothermal regions and to harness competitive forces to optimise investment; and, by application ‘over the counter’ from interested parties for rights to explore for geothermal resources in any non-reserved areas.
These two key granting mechanisms will maximise the potential return to the Territory from exploration and extraction of geothermal energy, and will provide opportunity for innovative geothermal explorers to access land of their choice to develop energy intensive industries.
The bill is primarily intended to facilitate large scale commercial exploration and extraction of geothermal energy. It is anticipated that the commercial geothermal activities regulated under the bill will typically access geothermal resources 3 km to 5 km below the earth’s surface and not compete with other resources, such as petroleum and minerals, which would not be adversely affected, although cooperation between the various interest holders will be encouraged as mixed land use with multiple tenure will be allowed.
The bill provides for a range of other standard mechanisms to make geothermal permits, leases and licences workable. For example: ‘unit development’ which ensures cooperation between titleholders where a geothermal resource is discovered that crosses title areas; power for the minister to vary title conditions, and to allow transfer, surrender or cancellation of geothermal titles; and, sharing of information resulting from exploration and extraction of geothermal resources.
In establishing geothermal activities, the bill makes provision for notification of all landholders to ensure full consultation with both public and private landowners, as the case may be. Consideration of their interests may, where necessary, lead to payment of compensation to landowners. Geothermal activity will be subject to environmental assessment under Northern Territory environmental legislation and rigorous assessment by the responsible minister.
Furthermore, the bill provides for: strict controls on geothermal activity in parks and reserves and areas of high conservation values; consent of the relevant minister to access restricted Crown land; consent of the private landowner and compensation agreement for geothermal activities on private land; and, recognition of Aboriginal freehold land pursuant to the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
While geothermal activities are expected to pose limited risks and have a relatively small ecological footprint, it is vital that they are conducted responsibly and that rehabilitation of any impact on the natural landscape occurs. The bill therefore provides a range of measures to ensure geothermal activities are carried out in line with agreed operational plans, that geothermal titleholders have supplied rehabilitation bonds so the Territory government can rehabilitate sites where necessary.
The bill also provides for a range of offences, penalties and enforcement provisions to ensure that geothermal property rights are protected, and that geothermal activities meet community expectations for health, safety and environment protection. These provisions are modelled closely on the Petroleum Act, the Mining Management Act, and the new Work Health legislation which, have worked effectively to meet the needs of all stakeholders.
Geothermal technologies either extract heat from natural groundwater or from water circulated through hot dry rocks deep within the earth. This will mean that many geothermal operators will, in effect, require two rights – the right to the heat energy and a right to water. Geothermal industries, along with other users, must compete for access to water in the marketplace and protect the quality of any water discharged, including underground. This requirements is recognised in this legislation.
It is early days for the geothermal industry across Australia. As our understanding of the Territory’s geothermal resources and associated technologies grows, this legislation may evolve. However, in introducing this bill, the Northern Territory government is seeking to establish a forward looking framework to encourage substantial new exploration and, in due course, development of this community-owned resource. This bill seeks to ensure all aspects of the geothermal resource development will be conducted sustainably and in an open, transparent and consultative way which meets the community’s expectations.
I table this bill in the knowledge that this is a new industry that we are setting up in the Territory. I encourage the geothermal industry, other interested people affected by the legislation, and the public, to examine this bill and to provide comments to my department on any issue they may consider requires amendment. The Territory government is prepared to consider all such submissions and perhaps make committee stage amendments prior to passage of this bill.
I see this bill as a first step towards a future where geothermal energy businesses contribute substantially to the Territory’s use of renewable energy and to ecological and socially sustainable development, particularly of our rural and regional communities.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I pass on to the minister for Primary Industry my thanks for making available a number of your senior staff to conduct a briefing on the Livestock Bill. The briefing was very informative and went quite some way towards addressing some of the concerns I had with this bill. There were a number of issues I raised during this briefing, and I believe it to be quite appropriate to raise those issues in this forum so they may be recorded in Hansard.
I did not approach this matter with a view that I should oppose the introduction of this bill in any way. Rather, I sought to take a collaborative approach and point out issues that appear to me to be not easily understood, and parts of the bill that I believe may be deficient or defective in some way. I am in the fortunate position of having read and digested large amounts of legislation over many years, and so I bring to the table a vast amount of practical knowledge and experience in how legislation actually works on the ground. In light of that, I see it as part of my responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory to bring those attributes to this House to manifest in structured and considered debate.
The matters I raised with Primary Industry staff were varied, so my intention is to mention each of those issues individually. I invite the minister to respond to each of those issues so that his response is also recorded in the Hansard. The reason I ask for this occur is so there is a comprehensive statement of intent from the minister in relation to this bill. It is important to narrow down, not only the intent of the legislation as a whole, but also the intent of each individual section. Should administrative or legal issues arise at some time in the future, there should be a reference back to the intent by the lawmaker to assist in interpretation of the act or parts of the act.
Although not specifically stated, the list of repealed acts outlined in the schedule indicates that this bill seeks to rationalise and, then, repeal five existing acts of the Northern Territory parliament; those being: the Stock Diseases Act, the Exotic Diseases (Animal) Compensation Act, the Brands Act, the Stock Routes and Travelling Stock Act, and the Stock (Control of Hormonal Growth Promotants) Act. It does seem to make sense to simplify a pool of legislation, some of which has its roots in legislation that dates back to the 1920s. With the advent of new technology and contemporary issues such as equine influenza and avian influenza still hanging heavily in the air, without doubt, now is never too soon to have appropriate legislation to deal with matters such as those should they, once again, rear their ugly heads.
I will now deal with the matters I put during the briefing. Clause 4 of the bill relates to definitions, and I queried the definition of ‘cattle’. In the case of this legislation, ‘cattle’ means ‘bovine animals but does not include buffalo’. My query was whether exotic species such as banteng were included, or other exotic species from other countries such as Africa, for example. The response was that species not specifically referred to could be gazetted under the provisions of clause 5(2). Clause 5 defines ‘livestock’ as being; ‘crocodiles, cattle, buffalo, horses, camels, sheep, goats, pigs (including wild pigs), deer, llamas, alpacas, poultry, and honey bees’. Research tells me that most of the exotic-type animals I was referring to in my query would be included under bovine as they belong to the family of bovidae - essentially, with a cloven hoof and a real horn. This would include most of the cattle-type species, as well as goats and antelope, bison and yak. In consideration of this, it appears unlikely that the minister will ever have to gazette additional species under that section as most cattle, as we know them, will fall under that family. I provide that by way of advice for the minister and his staff.
I have looked at the definition of ‘poultry’. I want to point out that there were some issues which I raised in the briefing that were answered and satisfied. Since further reading and research on the bill, I have come up with a few other things, and this is one. The definition of ‘poultry’, as found in several Internet sources, is generally taken to mean domesticated birds or fowl, generally held to include chickens, doves, ducks, geese, grouse, guinea fowl, partridges, peafowl, pheasants, pigeons, quail, swans, and turkeys. The question I have at this juncture is: where do animals such as emus and ostriches fit into this legislation? They are, obviously, non-poultry birds that can and are kept for commercial purposes. Minister, I suggest that these species might become some of the first animals that need to be gazetted under clause 5(2) and, no doubt, there will be others as well.
From that point onwards, I found little to be overly concerned about, until I reached clause 54 of the bill, entitled ‘Emergency disease: treatment or destruction of certain structures’. Essentially, this is a power conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer to make certain orders under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are detailed in clause 54(1)(a) and (b), where a control program is established to control an emergency disease, and a residential structure is infected with an emergency disease and making an order is necessary to prevent the spread of that disease. Subclause (2) goes on to say that the CEO may order that the owner, or other person, must treat the residence in a specified manner and, further, if the residence has been treated and the treatment is inadequate, or, if the residence has not been treated and the CEO is satisfied that treatment would be inadequate, then the CEO can order the owner, or another person, to destroy the residence.
This may seem somewhat draconian, yet the circumstances under which, and I imagine this to be the case, orders of this magnitude would be both rare and, indeed, grave. The clause goes on further to say that a similar order can be made in respect of a structure, as differentiated from a residence, and equipment which is in or on the structure.
In the briefing with the department, I queried under what circumstances this type of action might take place. The example cited was of foot-and-mouth disease infected animals kept inside homes in the UK during the most recent outbreak.
Mr Elferink: I was there. It was truly horrible.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Would you like to finish this?
Mr Elferink: No, no.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is all right, John.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, animals were kept in the UK in residences to avoid them being detected or located by authorities; probably not a likely scenario in the Northern Territory because it is pretty hard to hide 10 000 head of cattle in your house, but should circumstances such as serious disease, such as foot-and-mouth, come into existence in this country, the potential threat to our various livestock industries could be, indeed, catastrophic.
Another example cited during the briefing, and this is probably more relevant to the Northern Territory, is the situation where a residence or a structure simply would not withstand the rigors of treatment and may be ordered to be destroyed as a result. I find that explanation to be quite real and pertinent, and within the realms of possibility in the Northern Territory.
While I am supportive of the fact that these measures should be legislated for, it would be my express hope that such powers would be used judiciously and with extreme caution, and certainly only as a matter of last resort. Having said that, I note that there is not a significant change to the existing power under the Stock Diseases Act, and that there are similar provisions in that legislation conferred under section 29 of the Stock Diseases Act.
From there, my thoughts turned to what, if any, compensation might be payable to a producer or farmer if the provisions of section 54 of the new act were invoked. I was able to turn to clause 69 of the bill to discover that compensation is, indeed, payable, but there are circumstances where compensation is not payable. I do not particularly have an issue with the circumstances under which compensation is not payable; however, there are some issues I would like the minister to clarify for the record in Hansard.
Clause 69 is to be read in conjunction with clauses 70, 71, 72 and 73, and they largely mirror the old act at sections 32 and 32A. By and large, I am satisfied with that legislation, but there are some queries I would like the minister to address. I will go into that now.
At clause 69(2) - and, again, this was explained in the briefing, but I just want it in Hansard – ‘destroyed things’, as they relate to compensation, are defined as:
If we go back to clause 54, the CEO can order the destruction of a residence, a structure or equipment, which I pointed out earlier. Yet clause 69 refers to things. Minister, my question is: does ‘things’ as mentioned in clause 69 include residences, structures, and equipment as they relate to clause 54 for the purposes of that Division 4?
I will move to clause 104, which raises matters relating to the power of entry for inspectors, and it states in part and is titled: ‘Entry of premises generally’ and I quote:
(a) enter any premises with the consent of the occupier or a person apparently in charge of the premises;
I have no issue with that paragraph.
(b) enter at any reasonable time, without consent, premises that are not residential premises;
I would like some explanation on that.
(c) enter residential premises under a warrant.
Part (b) appears to confer a power that could be seen to eclipse most of the similar powers conferred upon our police officers, and that is the power to enter a non-residential premises without a warrant. It is only under a very strict set of circumstances where police officers can enter, without a warrant, any premises at all, whether it be a structure or land or, for that matter, vehicles as well. A case in point is section 119 of the Police Administration Act titled ‘Urgent searches without warrant’ which says in part:
So you see that the police have to satisfy four things in that section, that there are circumstances which are serious, that they are urgent, and that it requires and justifies immediate search. Yet, subclause (b) of clause 104 does not carry anything like that, and for that reason it appears to me that this makes that section eclipse the powers that a police officer might have. Perhaps I do have a little problem with that. Police officers are very highly trained, and I do not think it is quite fitting with what a stock inspector should be doing. I really want to know if it is the intention of the minister to confer this power, such a strong power, which is the power for inspectors to enter non-residential premises without a warrant under this bill.
I move to section 105 which details the procedure for applying for and issue of a warrant under this bill. My question during the briefing was in the vein of: ‘why are warrants not able to be issued by justices?’ because the section refers to magistrates. Justices include Justices of the Peace, and I cited the fact that much legislation used by the police, when warrants can be issued, contained references to justices being able to issue warrants, and the reason for this, at least in part, would be so police officers can access Justices of the Peace after normal working hours to issue warrants in cases of emergency.
The advice I received during the briefing indicated that warrants issued under section 105 of this act would be applied for and obtained during normal working hours and would therefore be available through magistrates who would normally be expected to be available during those hours. I accept the explanation, but I would just ask the minister to reiterate this advice for the purposes of Hansard.
I now move to clause 106 (1). Clause 106 is titled ‘Effect and term of warrant’. Subclause (1) states:
In these circumstances, sections 107 and 108 relate to powers on entry and seizure respectively; but that is not the issue now.
I asked at the briefing whether the minister or Parliamentary Counsel considered it appropriate to beef up this power by including the words ‘by force if necessary’; thus making paragraph (a) read: ‘enter, by force if necessary, the residential premises specified in the warrant’. I cited the example where inspectors, armed with a warrant issued under the Livestock Act, encountered a locked door at the premises where they were authorised to enter under the warrant. Under the current draft of the bill, the inspectors would not have the power to break the lock to gain entry to the premises. I was advised that the inspectors would not wish to engage in this type of activity and would then call the police. At the time, I was satisfied with that explanation, it seemed quite reasonable, where forceful entry is required to enter premises, that the police should, indeed, become involved.
Further research has raised a couple of issues in my mind that certainly need to be clarified. I was advised that the intent of the legislation was to provide a limited power to inspectors, falling somewhat short of the powers generally held by police under warrants issued under other instruments. The reason provided during the brief was: when the situation exists where forceful entry would be required to enter a premises, then inspectors would remove themselves and seek the assistance of the police. The police assistance would be in the form of them obtaining a warrant under the provisions of, presumably, the Police Administration Act. They would then attend at the location, with the inspectors, where the police would use their powers to enter, because they do have the power to break open locks, etcetera, gain effective entry to the residence, and then the inspectors would be able to conduct their business inside that premises.
I raise this now so the minister’s advisors can have a look at this and do some research prior to the committee stage. It appears to me there may well be a fatal flaw in this explanation, consequently rendering the warrant provisions dead in the water under those uncertain circumstances. Here is a hypothetical situation which, in fact, is certainly within the realms of possibility: an inspector obtains a warrant under clause 104. To have a warrant issued, he must convince a magistrate, on reasonable grounds, there is reason to enter the residential premises; to find that, you need to refer to clause 105(2). No problems with that so far. They arrive at the residential premises and find they have a locked door and they cannot affect entry; remember, they do not have the power to use force to effect their entry, so in keeping with the advice I have received, they back off and call the police. They ask the police to assist. The police simply cannot rock up to the front door and kick it in. So, the only way they can do anything is to take out their own warrant under section 117 of the Police Administration Act.
This is where the problem arises. Section 117 of the Police Administration Act authorises the issue of a warrant to a police officer - and it is better if I quote in part. It says, in section 117(2):
The important words here are ‘anything relating to an offence’, and this is where the conflict arises. A police officer has to satisfy a number of requirements for the issue of a search warrant. One of those is that there has to be, on reasonable grounds, a belief that there is anything relating to an offence in the premises. Yet, the warrant issued under the Livestock Act does not have this requirement. So, for a police officer to successfully obtain a section 117 warrant, the inspector would have to detail to him a reasonable belief that there is, in the premises, anything relating to an offence, because the police officer will need that particular ground to bring before the magistrate. Then, that belief would have to be conveyed to a justice before the warrant can be issued.
If the inspector cannot convey that belief, the inspector does not have reasonable grounds himself to believe that there is anything relating to an offence in that premises, he cannot very well convey that to a police officer. There is a statutory requirement for that police officer to convey to a magistrate that there is anything relating to an offence in that premises. It is my contention that it would be impossible for a police officer, under those circumstances, to obtain a warrant and so entry to the premises would not be possible. Under those circumstances, effectively, a locked door would render a warrant issued under the Livestock Act as a lame duck - it just would not be exercisable and it could not be executed.
Clause 106(2) of the bill states: ‘The warrant remains in force for 1 month from the date of issue’. The use of the phrase ‘1 month’ is loose and open to interpretation. In the best case scenario, a month would be taken to mean 28, 29, 30 or 31 days and, in the worst case, some of the arguments which may well crop up are that a month could be a lunar month, a calendar month, or a solar month. It is my submission that that needs to be tightened up.
Warrants to enter and search any structure, and in particular residential premises, are statutory instruments of utmost importance and gravity. They necessarily give the person named in the warrant entrance to the sanctum sanctorum of another person. Apart from a physical assault - and this is through my experience in talking with victims of crime - entry into another person’s home can often be, and often is considered as a very serious invasion of their privacy, leaving a legacy of a feeling that can best be described as a violation. For that reason, the provisions of legislation around the issue of warrants cannot be, in any way, left loose or left to chance.
In pursuance of avoiding ambiguity on that particular clause 106(2), I proposed, during the briefing, an amendment to clause 106(2), to change ‘1 month’ to ‘28 days’ or ‘30 days’. Having a specified number of days removes ambiguity and is consistent with other legislation that contains warrant provisions, such as under the Police Administration Act. I note that warrants issued under section 117 of the Police Administration Act have a time limit of 14 days – so it does not say half a month - it says 14 days.
Madam Speaker, that is the crux of the issues I have with the bill. I do not stand here today criticising the bill or the way in which it was drafted. However, as I mentioned before, I do have a great deal of experience in dealing with legislation and digesting and understanding it, so, if I see an issue that I think may pose a problem, as I did at the briefing, I brought it up with the ministerial staff in an attempt to assist them to make the legislation more workable in its practical application on the ground.
Basically, I am relatively happy with the bill to be passed. I have not proposed amendments today. At the end of the day, if the ministerial staff and Parliamentary Counsel are satisfied that this legislation and all the provisions contained therein are workable, that they will not pose any problems down the track, then so be it. I guess it will be a matter of waiting to see if anything has to be tested to verify its veracity and how it may work in a practical application.
Minister, I thank you for allowing your staff to brief me on this and I appreciate the efforts that they put in; as a lot of hard work goes into something like this, particularly when you have to pore through five different pieces of legislation to bring it down into one act, which does make sense.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling the bill and finally pulling all the five pieces of legislation into one, which will obviously make it a lot easier from a management and regulatory point of view.
I understand the purpose of the legislation is twofold. One is to streamline the legislation referring to the animal industries, and to set in place rules of agricultural conduct for disease control in times of emergency, in particular in the animal industry. We know that animal movement is a fundamental component in the spread of disease. Effective monitoring of the livestock movement is critical to the timely management of disease outbreaks. I know the intent of this legislation is to protect our livestock, not only in the Territory, but Australia as a whole.
I understand the thrust of the bill. I have spoken to many of my constituents, and those in the business of livestock breeding and management, and while I know the intent of the bill is generally good, I too have some concerns regarding its efficacy; not in relation to the largely developed cattle industries, and maybe buffalo and camel industries, but in relation to its coverage of small animal industries, small farming. Very generally, large animals are kept by large, extensive and well organised, easily identifiable businesses, companies, cattle stations and some of the long established pastoral families. They have the resources to work with the legislation, and have access to a well organised industry group to lobby on their behalf, and I have spoken with the Cattlemen’s Association in this regard.
However, operators and individuals who own small commercial farms – poultry, bees and the like – are still in great numbers in the rural area in my electorate and across the Territory, and may not have been afforded the opportunity to have input into this legislation. It is for this reason that I have gone through the bill and gone across my constituency to see how the legislation will affect them in their businesses or in their farming.
Government’s job is to find the right balance in an industry, and while the main industries are important to the economy and to the Territory as they generate jobs and wealth for all, so too are the small operators or people who have the drive and vision for a clever Territory, and who also employ people and contribute to the economy, albeit on a smaller scale. While the legislation may be relatively easy for a large operator to manage, it may be burdensome for a small farmer or individuals who own poultry, bees, or even the camel and brumby industries, which are not mentioned in the legislation.
While the thrust of the bill is to protect the Territory from disease outbreak – I have no issue with that – and it should be noted that diseases often break out on small allotments and properties of five acres, and so a small property owner/breeder is just as important in this legislation as a large station owner. I applaud the efforts of industry, community and the government in working towards and protecting our Territory and country, and I am sure that all of the community thinks and wants the same.
This leads me to the Berrimah Farm, the headquarters for the department. Part of the work of the farm, and the department, and an important work component which is often overlooked by this government – in fact, I think ignored sometimes – is the sentinel cattle, sheep and poultry. In working towards promoting a safe and clean Territory, I am unclear as to what the government intends to do with this very important component of guardians that protect, not only the Northern Territory, but also Australia from animal diseases coming in from over the seas, such as blue tongue, foot-and-mouth and equine influenza, to name just a few of the more serious diseases. My question to the minister, and I know it is not necessarily a legislative issue: where will these animals be housed if the farm is to be closed?
In the beginning of the legislation there is a list of definitions, and I ask the minister: why is it only cattle, buffalo and horses have definitions? Cattle are listed, of course, as bovine; horses as equine; and, buffaloes as Bubalus bubalis, and yet, in clause 5, all livestock is listed as crocodile, cattle, buffalo, horses, camel, sheep, goats, pigs including wild pigs, deer, llamas, alpacas, cultured honey bees. If there is to be consistency in the legislation, the livestock mentioned in that clause should also include the definition, and they would include: camel as in camelid, pig meaning porcine, sheep means ovine animal, goat means caprine, crocodile means crocodilian, deer means cervine and bee means apiarian animal. I think we need that for consistency because they are listed in that section.
Also, in regard to definition, I believe there needs to be an improvement in the definition of poultry. This legislation is not only for the big property people, it is also for some of the small people and lay people, and I would suggest that the main species is absent from this definition - that is hens and roosters. It is this type of animal that can create a problem in our community and spread a serious disease, for example, avian influenza, commonly called bird flu.
I believe further clarity is required in the definition, and I know some people dispute this with me, to ensure there is no misunderstanding of the use of the word ‘mark’ when it comes to marking animals. I have been advised that marking in some of the sheep industry can mean castrating the young animal; perhaps we should take the word ‘mark’ out and put ‘identifiable mark on the animal’ in that section, because I am sure that is not the intent of the legislation, that animals are castrated to stand them out from a flock or herd.
In my electorate, there are people who own animals under permit, such as magpie geese and antilopines. I question if these will be classified as livestock by the minister and, if so, when and under what circumstances? And if there are issues with this, is this covered in this legislation?
In the second reading speech the minister did not mention, but I am sure he is aware that goats and sheep, as of 1 January 2009, will be required to have a property identification code, commonly called a PIC number, as part of the national livestock identification system, which is an agreement between the states and the Territory to enhance Australia’s ability to quickly and successfully contain a major food safety or disease incident within Australia.
At this stage, I am not sure what happened, perhaps it is a drafting issue – the bill is actually out of step with the explanatory statement from clause 5 onwards. For example, in the bill, clause 6 is Application of Criminal Code 8 but in the explanatory statement it is: act binds territories and other public bodies. As a result, the two documents do not match from that part onwards; perhaps that could be rectified before the final document is available for the general public.
In regard to some specifics: clause 14, which is ‘Brands for public pounds’, my question is: why do we need to have a brand as, generally, an animal will be branded already, and if it is not, that means the rightful owner will have to accept the brand put on it by the government and not his or her own brand if the livestock is returned? So I am just not clear about the meaning of that section.
‘Declaration and classification of notifiable diseases’, clause 30(2) to clause 30 (5) - these statements are not clear to me. I probably just need a little more clarification, and perhaps in committee stages I will ask the minister for details and a list of what would be considered to be notifiable diseases, emergency diseases, endemic and/or exotic diseases; and what would be the relationship between the diseases. I mean, in what situation could a disease go from one level, as I call it, to another level?
Clause 31 ‘Publication of list of notifiable diseases’ - there is a presumption, and maybe it is just a matter of changing some of the words, that everyone has access to the Internet across the Northern Territory and in remote communities. This is not the case, even in some sections of my rural area. So I will be asking the minister that the information of the diseases not only be placed on the government’s website, but also that a hard copy or paper trail for this kind of information be available to people from either the department or in a mail-out situation - fact sheets, posters and the like - so all avenues of communication are covered in case people cannot access the Internet. We know the Internet is not always particularly reliable or consistent across the Territory.
‘Emergency diseases’, clause 54 …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you mind if I just interrupt and acknowledge these students?
Ms PURICK: No, Madam Speaker. .
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kormilda College Year 9 students, accompanied by Ms Leanne Hedley and Mr Christopher Baker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: Clause 54 ‘Emergency disease: treatment or destruction of certain structures’: this section refers to emergency diseases only. I ask what happened to the outbreak of other diseases listed in the legislation which I previously mentioned - notifiable, endemic and exotic? It is wrong to assume, but can I extrapolate from this section’s wording that only emergency disease outbreak will be subject to potential residential destruction, and not a notifiable disease or an endemic disease? It has the one use of the one word ‘emergency’ disease; I need some clarification in that regard. If it is all of the diseases, then it needs to be in there; but if it is only for the emergency diseases, then perhaps it needs to be written out that the other diseases are not included in this section.
Clause 69 ‘Destroyed livestock and destroyed things’: this references moving stock to abattoirs for slaughter under clause 53. I am not clear as to when this would happen, and it concerns me that the abattoirs in question where they could be slaughtered - Alice Springs, Port Keats, Oenpelli, Maningrida and Kalkarindji – are a long way from various domestic centres where there might be an outbreak of disease and stock have to be transported long distances. We did have an abattoir in the rural area on Darwin’s outskirts but, regrettably, this closed and there is nowhere in the top part of the Territory where they could be slaughtered. Unless something is in the legislation which talks about portable or temporary abattoirs, it does need some clarification.
Clause 70 ‘General entitlement to compensation and other money’, is about when compensation is payable; my colleague from Katherine touched on this. I cannot work out where the compensation is payable and at what rates. Clause 72, ‘When compensation not payable’: I am looking for some clarification from the minister as to what would constitute omission, and who would decide on the omission status.
Clause 74 ‘Application of Division’ subclause (2): there is reference to an evaluation panel. I would query who these people would be, and with what qualifications and how will they be appointed. I know there is a limited number of people in the Northern Territory to do this work, so will there be people contracted from interstate? And what would be the process for this, given it is talking about evaluation?
Clause 95 ‘Chief Inspector may approve the form of documents’: I am a little unclear where this section fits in with the powers of the Registrar, which is listed in the legislation.
Clause 97 ‘Chief Inspector may give orders about seized things’: I would need examples of why livestock would be seized and what processes they would use to sell or auction the livestock. It says: ‘may give the following orders: livestock seized under this act may be sold by private sale or public auction’. I want some clarification, for example, if they seize beehives. How would they go about auctioning a beehive? Where would they do it? Would it be out by tender, for example? …
Mr Conlan: People buy beehives.
Ms PURICK: People do buy beehives. Clause 98, ‘Chief Inspector may restrict use of biological preparation and drugs’. I may not be reading this properly. It says the Chief Inspector may restrict use of biological preparation and drugs; and restrict the use of a biological preparation, chemical, or veterinary drug in the treatment of livestock. I am seeking clarification as to what exactly that means in ‘the powers’, because there are farmers or cattle people who treat them own stock with approved veterinary medicine. Is this section suggesting that somehow every person who treats their own stock with veterinary medicine will have to get a permit from the government? I am not quite clear about that. If that is the case, that is very concerning, because there is a substantial number of people in my electorate who treat their own livestock for a variety of ailments - in a cautionary way as well.
Clause 104, ‘Entry of premises generally’: is a very interesting section - a little concerning, but I understand the intent of the section:
Generally, if an inspector is going on to a property to either seize stock or to deliver something that is not particularly pleasant in regard to the running of that property and the animals, it is going to be a fairly hostile situation. People in the rural area are not known for their tact and quietness. I know it is not a legislative issue, but I am seeking some advice from the minister in regard to the training these inspectors would undertake in regard to dealing with hostile situations, because we do not want to see anything happen to the government officers in the performance of their duties. As I said, they can be an interesting lot in the rural area and in remote places, and we would not want any harm to come to anyone.
Clause 107 ‘Powers of entry on premises’: I believe is far too wide and all encompassing, and I would like clarification on the relationships with police powers, as it seems to me they are greater. It includes breaking and damaging of property –well, it is suggesting that - and who would compensate for the damage to personal property. I will be seeking some clarification from the minister in that regard.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I support the general thrust of the bill; however, I have some misgivings as to the full impact on the smaller end of the industries which would have to work with this legislation. I do not want to see a repeat of the situation that we had in the 1980s and 1990s where there was widespread destruction of buffalo under the brucellosis/tuberculosis eradication campaign, which did impact on small operators where their stock where killed and, after post mortem, it was found that the animals did not have the diseases. Also, there was large-scale killing from the air, from helicopters, and the carcasses were just left to rot. We do not want to see that kind of situation occur in the Territory in the future.
Madam Speaker, I hope that we have learnt from our past and that we continue to protect our environment, communities, and our animals in the Territory and Australia. If there is clarification given on some of these points, then I am more than happy to support the legislation and would be promoting it amongst the industries and my constituents who are impacted by the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation; it is extremely important legislation, especially in light of some of the diseases that have threatened Australia in recent times, such as avian flu or equine influenza. We need modern up-to-date legislation which deals with some of these issues in light of how livestock were moved some years ago and how livestock are moved today. We need contemporary legislation to deal with the issues now and into the future. I congratulate the government on doing that. It has certainly been a long task, and an important one.
I could be slightly cruel, minister, in saying that the size of the second reading, I sometimes believe, reflects what is important to the government when dealing with primary industry. I have always felt the department of Primary Industry is the poor cousin. You may disagree, but I think it is one of those areas that slipped off the agenda for this government. I am not saying it did not have other important areas it had to tackle, but I think agriculture, in general, in the Northern Territory is, to some extent, a sleeping giant that we really have not tapped into as well as we could have. I do believe that we need to put a lot more emphasis on the advancement of agriculture in the Northern Territory.
On another point, the member for Goyder mentioned the definition of poultry. I read that as well, but being a person who believes chickens are a very important part of society, I realised immediately that the word poultry is exactly that – it is chickens – and the rest is included. That is how important chickens are …
Mr Vatskalis: It is the definition by the Webster dictionary.
Mr WOOD: Yes. You have to know how the hierarchy works. Those things called ducks, geese and turkeys; they are second rate. I digress.
The member for Katherine and the member for Goyder have taken up many important issues. The issue regarding the movement of animals, for small farmers, especially in areas around Katherine and in the rural areas, and around the rural areas of Darwin, needs to be addressed. If you do take the letter of the law in relation to the movement of animals, you are not meant to move animals without having a waybill - by the way, the definition of waybill is very interesting, minister. Waybill means an approved form of waybill. I like that. I am not sure why it just does not tell you what a waybill is, but I found a waybill on the website and I know what it is, but the definition seems to be a …
Ms Purick: A bit obscure.
Mr WOOD: Yes. A bit like a circle, it goes round and round and does not quite tell you what it is.
The issue for members, like the member for Katherine, the member for Goyder and me, is how this bill will relate to the small livestock owner. Will they get into trouble – say the ex-member for Nelson, who has a large goat herd in my electorate, and she wants to take a few goats down the road to another place. Are they technically required to have a waybill? And, in practice, how would that work? Or is the government saying, ‘Perhaps in certain areas, the movement of animals, unless there is an emergency called, can be exempt from these clauses’?
In general, the issue of waybills and the movement of livestock obviously is something which is very important for the industry, especially with cattle. I did speak to the Cattlemen’s Association and they are happy with this bill, but they also realise this bill really was not designed for the small grower or the small farmer in relation to just a few animals. It is an area where I would like to hear the minister say that there will be some basic exemption for movement of cattle around those areas, otherwise – well, you would get a lot of bad reaction from people because they would find it was bureaucracy gone mad; and I think you would also clog up the system from the government’s point of view. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say in that area.
I thank members of the department for a really good briefing. At the briefing I asked whether anything in this act overrode any other acts, or clashed with other acts. I mentioned at that time about the NT Health Act, but I also knew there was something else around, because I had come across it after I had a complaint about stables.
The Public Health (Nuisance Prevention) Regulations cover a whole range of issues from the keeping of poultry and pigeons; stables, cow yards and cattle sheds to be paved and drained; cleansing of stables and cow yards, and, further down, it deals with sections 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, which I will read.
For instance, regulation 38, ‘Keeping of swine prohibited. For the purposes of regulation 41 and 48, but without limiting the generality of the expression “the occupier” in these Regulations, any person who has the charge, management or control of any place in which horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine kept in any place, shall be deemed to be the occupier of the land or premises referred to in those regulations if that place is situated on the land or on those premises’.
Then it goes on to say, in section 39, ‘Keeping of goats at Katherine and Alice Springs. The owner of any premises situated within a radius of one mile from the Post Office at Katherine or Alice Springs shall not keep or permit to be on those premises any goats’.
Regulation 40, ‘Keeping of cattle and goats at Darwin. The occupier of any premises situated within the Darwin Town Area described in a Schedule shall not keep or permit to be on those premises any cattle or goats’.
Regulation 41, ‘Keeping of stock. Subject to regulations 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, the occupier of any premises situated within an area which has not been declared by the minister to be an exempt area by notice in the Gazette shall not keep or permit to be on those premises horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine without the written permission of the Chief Health Officer or a person authorised by him in that behalf’.
Regulation 42, ‘Horses not to be kept on land in certain area. (1) A person shall not keep a horse in the Darwin Town Area on any land situated in the area described in a Schedule’.
Regulation 43, ‘Stable not to be erected without approval of Chief Health Officer’.
Regulation 44, ‘Horses not to be kept in non-exempt area except where approved stable provided’. This section’s regulation says the number of horses which may be kept. There is regulation 46, ‘Stable not to be erected’, and 47, ‘Power to serve notice on occupier or owner of premises’.
In part of the Public Health (Nuisance Prevention) Regulations, there is control by the Public Health Officer over animals and their movement. I am asking, does that particular group of regulations at all clash with this particular act? If so, are there any problems with that? I highlight that to see what your response is to that as well, minister.
It is a good bit of legislation. There are some issues which we can discuss through the committee stage, but overall it is a very important piece of legislation. As agriculture moves into different stages of development, as technology changes, even as new diseases crop up, we need legislation which can deal with all of that. This legislation certainly goes a long way to doing that, and I congratulate the department on the time and effort. There were obviously many people involved in putting this legislation together. There are some important issues, especially for the small grower, and in general I support this legislation and would be happy to ask some questions during committee stages.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as this is the last sitting day for the year, I take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy and safe Christmas. I also take the opportunity, while people are listening to the broadcast, to thank all parliamentary staff, particularly the Clerk, Mr Ian McNeill, and Deputy Clerk, and all the Hansard staff and Table Office staff for the extraordinary work they do for us during the sittings. Thank you very much.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Minister for Health for his abject failure to manage the Health Department on behalf of Territorians, and for his cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility for his role as Minister for Health.
Madam Speaker, this is another indication of the failures by this Health minister. In the previous sittings, we highlighted serious systemic failures in the health system across the Northern Territory, and this is under the watch of this Health Minister. He did not adequately answer questions from the opposition, from the media, or from Territorians in his ability to manage the health system, and we again believe he is not doing that here in this disgraceful, shameful, abhorrent situation with the rape of this five-month-old baby at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The Health Services Complaints Commissioner report, which was tabled to the opposition just today during the lunch break - snuck in, tabled under a whole pile of other documents to the opposition’s office; again, in an another attempt by this government to avoid scrutiny and, in this situation, one of the most serious of situations unfolding in the Health Department.
I will take us through some of the conclusions by the Commissioner as highlighted in that report. On 30 March – I will just back up there, Madam Speaker - the scope of the investigation for those listening and those in the gallery, and I quote from the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Report:
The conclusions of the Commissioner, and I quote:
There were no arrangements in place on the Paediatric Ward to ensure the safety and the inviolability of vulnerable patients.
The arrangements in place did not comply in any aspect with the Australian Standard which sets the benchmark for proper security.
The Terms of Reference did not require 5B to be assessed …
Amazingly, astonishingly, did not require Ward 5B to be assessed; some of our most vulnerable Territorians in Ward 5B, however, the terms of reference did not require 5B to be assessed.
They are the words of the Commissioner: ‘Can only be described as shameful’.
Following the rape of the infant, police were not notified for two hours.
They are the first two-and-a-half parts of the report tabled today by the government from the Commissioner.
The Australian Council of Healthcare Standards was not fully informed of the rape of this five-month-old; the Royal Darwin Hospital Security Review was not informed of the rape of this five-month-old; and the Royal Darwin Hospital Maternal and Child Health Clinical Risk Management Committee did not meet until two and half months after the rape of this five-month-old baby. The Health Complaints Commission was unable to determine the role of the Royal Darwin Hospital Board.
The Commissioner has concluded, and I quote:
The Commissioner also says:
This is an appalling situation and, again, highlighting the failures by the Northern Territory Health minister to take responsibility for the Health department. How can Territorians have confidence in their Health department and their health services when this is constantly happening under the watch of the Health Minister? He is a serial offender when it comes to this. There are numerous other situations which have unfolded over the last few years which we have highlighted in this House over the last few months. Numerous Coronials, two of which were preventable deaths – one of baby Georgia Rae Tilmouth just recently, and also the death of Mrs Margaret Winter, which was highlighted by a Coronial; two preventable deaths at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
There is a nurse staffing crisis, which the minister clearly knew about and did nothing about; failure to deliver adequate services to the Northern Territory public; adequate core services by government - that is health services - and the minister has failed to deliver them. How many more deaths? How many more preventable deaths? How many more children will be exposed as a result of the failure of this minister to direct his department and provide these adequate services to the Territory public?
We have mentioned the death of Georgia Rae Tilmouth. In the Northern Territory News, on the 14 November 2008 the story by Phoebe Stewart reads:
That is astonishing that the Health department lawyer objected to that letter being included as evidence. Again, it appears that this culture of cover up is alive and well, not only in areas of the Northern Territory government but particularly that of the Northern Territory Health department. There are many examples of inadequate services and systemic failures right across the board in Northern Territory hospitals.
We have highlighted areas of the Royal Darwin Hospital, but there are four other hospitals across the Northern Territory. How many children are at risk, minister, in other hospitals of the Northern Territory? Have these security measures been rolled out right across the rest of the Northern Territory? Can mothers rest assured their children will be safe in other hospitals across the Northern Territory, that is, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, not just the Royal Darwin Hospital?
The Ombudsman has also said the General Manager of the Royal Darwin Hospital did not produce, on demand, any copies of materials and reports of the board of management to the Ombudsman. This led the Ombudsman to conclude the incident of the rape of a five-month-old child was not considered important enough by the General Manager to report it to the management board. Can you believe that? If that is not important enough, what is? It is like security cameras being installed in the kitchen to prevent pilfering of people's lunches. Meanwhile, children are sleeping vulnerable in their cribs in the paediatric ward. It is astonishing, and it can only mean that the incident of rape of a five-month-old child, these are the words of the Commissioner, a five-month-old child was not considered important enough by the General Manager to report it to the management board.
On 14 November 2008, the Northern Territory News reported the resignation letter from Sharon Haste, Royal Darwin Hospital Maternity Services Manager, who said birthing services were not safe for women and their babies due to gross understaffing and inadequate skills mix. You would think she would know what she is talking about; I am sure she does. If she has said that, surely there are problems. It is curious that the minister could not answer how many times he has visited Royal Darwin Hospital since his verbal assurance that security cameras would be installed in the paediatric ward. He goes on trust; he trusts his advisors. He said he makes regular visits and offers courtesy to opposition members to visit the hospital, which yes, he does, but what proactive role does the minister take in his daily duties as the Minister for Health? What active role does he take when he visits the Royal Darwin Hospital? He was unable to answer that question.
The tabling today of the Ombudsman’s report into this terrible situation involving this five-month-old baby girl at Royal Darwin Hospital on 30 March 2006 reveals a staggering lack of security within the paediatric ward which led to this situation.
The government has been sitting on this and has known about this for two years; they have known about this for a long time. This incident occurred on 30 March 2006; it is now 27 November 2008. All of a sudden, the minister is shocked, horrified and disgusted. The television cameras are here, the media is here. He made a pre-emptive strike on us, knowing that we got hold of this, despite it being buried under a whole stack of other reports delivered to the opposition offices during the lunch break. Just to cover his back, he went out today and made an announcement of $1m to upgrade security throughout the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. He has known about this for a long time but, just to cover his back - if he could not quite sneak it through the scrutiny of the opposition before parliament rose for 2008 - came out with the announcement of $1m to upgrade security and implement those measures as recommended by the report.
Again, it highlights the inadequacies of the Health Minister and his department. It is curious that he has now appointed a Deputy CEO. It is clearly a bit of Tom and Jerry show between David Ashbridge and the Health Minister; this bloke, no doubt, whoever he is, will be the fall guy. Any other problems that arise in the Health department from now on, you can bet your bottom dollar, London to a brick, that it will not be the fault of the minister - because it never is; it will never be his responsibility - David Ashbridge will worm and weave his way of it as he has so craftily done recently and in previous situations; it will be the responsibility rather of this Deputy CEO. The question has to be: why can the CEO not take responsibility and take charge of all those duties that you have highlighted before in one of your answers? You would have thought that was the role of the CEO but, clearly, that is beneath the current CEO to do so. It is well beneath the minister to take an active role in his Health department, and so it will fall on the shoulders of the Deputy CEO who is yet to be appointed.
Mrs Margaret Winter died because of a lack of resources. There is currently another death before the Coroner, possibly due also to the lack of resources. The minister, ad nauseam in the last sittings, said that his role was to provide resources to the department. Essentially, we could have the Treasurer being the Minister for Health if it was just about resources. What is the point in having a Health minister if you are not taking any responsibility? It seems like the department is leading you around, minister.
The CCTV system in the paediatric ward is two years too late; it has not helped this young five-month-old baby, presumably because of a lack of resources. Is that why it is two years too late? We also notice the minister took $30m out of the Health department last year and, as a result of that, we have a nurse staffing crisis, as well as other systemic failures right across the board in Northern Territory Health.
How many other people have to die? How many more preventable deaths or heinously horrific situations, such as happened to this five-month-old baby, have to happen before the minister takes responsibility, takes some leadership, and provides the necessary resources to our hospitals? This is a discrete focus on the Royal Darwin Hospital but, again, the question has to be asked: what is happening in our hospitals across the Northern Territory? Are children safe in the paediatric ward at Alice Springs Hospital, at Nhulunbuy, at Tennant Creek and in Katherine?
This is a cowardly act. The minister has lied to this House, lied to the opposition to cover his tracks. He is very good at cutting through, avoiding the facts and getting right down to the spin. He does excel in it. This opposition has no confidence in him. The Territory public, if the media cycle is anything to go by; that is, letters to the editor, people on the street, the way it is being reported, the way the situation facing health has been reported. Clearly, the Territory public have no faith in this minister’s ability to address these systemic failures and these horrific events which are taking place right across the Northern Territory health system.
Madam Speaker, we have absolutely no confidence in this minister. We articulated that during the last sittings after the preventable death of Mrs Margaret Winter; and now we have this appalling situation with this five-month-old baby. For God’s sake, five-months-old! I see that the minister is visibly shaken by it, and who would not be? Quite frankly, who would not be? It is disgusting.
There are 21 recommendations by the Commissioner. Let us hope they will be implemented, and implemented immediately. Will $1m cover it? I am not sure, but whatever it takes to ensure the safety of children in hospitals should be of utmost importance and paramount to the Health Minister and to the department. The minister keeps blaming his department and will not take responsibility.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the opposition have absolutely no confidence in this minister. We ask him to step down. We still maintain that he is not doing a good job as Health Minister. In fact, he is doing quite the opposite – a rather appalling job, if what has happened and what has unfolded over the course of the last couple of years since he has been Health Minister is anything to go by. I know we have some other speakers but, essentially, we are censuring the Health Minister for his cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility for his role as Minister for Health.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I appreciate the fact this is a very serious issue, that today the opposition extended me the courtesy to give an explanation and to put forward what I and government are proposing, or have implemented, to address this very serious issue. In that spirit, I will reply, and I know the opposition do have a job to do. This is a very serious issue, and they need to prosecute this issue as hard as they can. I acknowledge that.
I do take responsibility for being the Minister for Health. There is, you know, it is part of political rhetoric, the rhetoric of cowardice. I wanted to debate this matter in Question Time today, and I knew that Question Time today would turn to this particular issue. As members opposite would be aware, under the act, I have six sitting days to actually table the report which was given to me by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner; so that could have been next year …
A member: If you had done that, it would have been suicide.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: Well, why would it be?
A member: Because you would have been hiding a report for three months.
Dr BURNS: I would have had the statutory right to do it, but I did not want to do it. What I wanted to do was bring this matter forward. It is a matter of great public importance.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I will be prepared to face the media today, but moreover, face this House, Madam Speaker. Those who know me well know I do not back down from my responsibilities - I never have, and I never will, Madam Speaker. I would have to say also that, being Health Minister, as you know, is a very hard undertaking and very difficult, and if you talk to any minister around Australia, any Health minister, they will tell you the same. I know that you crowd aspire to be government, but I can say, if you ever get to be government, the person who gets to be Health Minister, first off at least, is going to face a difficult task, and they will say they are facing a difficult task. I know what you are going to say, but give me the courtesy of saying what I have to say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … because it is a very difficult task. It is the hardest portfolio of the lot. I take it seriously, and I am committed to it. I am committed to driving change within this health system, for all the reasons that have been outlined here by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner, by the Coroner, and for all the reasons that I know of from my long experience in the health sector, the things that I know over many years have been wrong. So I am committed.
The question has been asked: ‘What is your responsibility as Health Minister?’ You say: ‘It is only about giving them the resources’. I said a lot more than that. It is not only about resources - it is about policy. I defy anyone who wants to be a minister and one day may be a minister, when you get there, you try to be involved with every operational decision, every operational matter that comes before a department, even the smallest department. It is impossible for any minister to do that.
You have challenged me. You have said, ‘Why did you not follow up? Why did you not do this? Why did you not do that?’ But the fact is, as ministers, we inquire and we ask questions; the same questions the Health Services Complaints Commissioner asks. However, she has the resources and the investigative power and it is obvious, she had an investigator on-site, she was able to peruse documents, she was able to interview individuals and she was able to come out with this comprehensive and excellent report. It is excellent in that it gets to the bottom of things. It tabulates and clearly shows the shortcomings in this matter and she goes on to make very specific recommendations in relation to this.
I am taking those 21 recommendations and I am ensuring, through the steps I have taken, that I have outlined before – Mr Jim O’Sullivan and Mr Ray Norman - to ensure those recommendations about security and about governance are implemented.
They are very difficult issues; there is no doubt. Since this incident in March 2006, a number of people who have been named in this report, some of them not directly named, but their names are in there through their position. Quite a number of those people have moved on; have moved out of the Health department, they are no longer in the department; and I have alluded to a number of those people in previous debate.
I am not going to go to names today, because we all know some of the names involved, members opposite, and some of those people who have been criticised within this report have made a major contribution to health in the Northern Territory. I have spoken to those people and I have told those people that I am upset and angry about this.
Mr Conlan: But you could not check to see if there were security implications at the …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Some members opposite know exactly what I am alluding to here. This is a very difficult issue, but I have foreshadowed to all of those people that I am going to drive change in relation to this and I have told them how I am going to drive it. I have specifically told the CEO, and others, that anyone who stands in the way of this change are out the door.
Mr Tollner: You are not driving change, the Commissioner is. The Commissioner is driving change. Be honest.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, that is …
Mr Tollner: You are not driving anything. You are asleep in the back seat.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am far from asleep, member for Fong Lim, far from asleep. In fact, since receiving this report I have lost a hell of a lot of sleep and am really concerned over this. I have been thinking, since I received this on Monday afternoon, of the way forward, and I have outlined – I do not think I need to outline it again – the plan that I have put in place to drive that change. In response to the debates that the member for Greatorex was alluding to in relation to the avoidable death of Mrs Winter, I have outlined the steps I am taking there.
As Health Minister, I am committed to driving change within our health sector. That is my commitment. I might run into a brick wall in doing that. I do not think so, because I am committed. I might have a lot of faults, but those people who know me very well know that I am absolutely dogged, and I will not give up.
The member for Greatorex asked a very important question about paediatric wards elsewhere in Australia, and I am giving the House the assurance here today that, as part of his task, Mr O’Sullivan will be looking at those other boards throughout the Territory and seeing whether they come up to the Australian standard. That is very important.
A member: They should be looked at immediately, right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It is a very important assurance. I am not contesting any of the shameful findings that have been found in this report. What I am outlining here is the way forward. As I have said, there have been a number of people who are no longer in the Health department who are at the bottom of this. There are some remaining, but the message has been given very clearly – that I am intent in driving that change, and nothing else other than the implementation of these recommendations is acceptable to me. I have made that very clear to the CEO and others in health and the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The member for Greatorex has asked whether I take an active role as Health Minister. I believe I do. I regularly visit Royal Darwin Hospital; I have regular meetings and have had regular meetings with clinicians and others; I regularly visit various parts of Royal Darwin Hospital and I have undertaken extensive travel through Royal Darwin Hospital. We are just not talking about the medical part and the nursing part; I am talking about the outlying parts also of Royal Darwin Hospital - the engineering parts and the laundry - I have made myself aware of the needs of Royal Darwin Hospital.
There has been a lot of talk about a hospital at Palmerston. The Chief Minister has given some undertakings. I am aware, and have been made aware in my meetings as recently as about three weeks ago with a variety of people at Royal Darwin Hospital, including clinicians, engineers and others, of the needs of Royal Darwin Hospital. As Health Minister, I am acutely aware of those things. Any state or territory government throughout Australia could apply all their appropriation in the budget to Health, and they still probably would not be able to fulfil the demand.
The tension between demand and resources in any jurisdiction in Australia is just incredible. I do not care what political colour you are - I am sure the new Western Australian Health minister will be finding the same challenges. So, it is okay to blame your predecessors or whatever, or the government if you are in opposition, but the cold hard reality is that there is increased demand within our system as there are more and more techniques, as people's expectations rise. That is the challenge for a Health minister. I am up for that challenge, and I will do the best I can to deliver the best health services for the people of the Northern Territory.
As I alluded to before, there have been a number of reports this year, coronials - and rightly so. The member for Greatorex alluded to them; there is this report and a whole stream of incidents which come out of 2006. There is no doubt about that, and I am committed to ensuring that in this hospital – and they particularly relate to the Royal Darwin Hospital - things are improved, measures are taken despite resistance and tardiness and lack of commitment from some; and the unacceptable delays which have been outlined in this report – that those things are improved. We are never going to have a perfect health system. That is impossible. We are never going to have a hospital where people do not die. But we want people to have confidence in our health system.
In every respect, I have faith in the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. I feel for them because they read these headlines and they will see the news tonight. I know the staff in the paediatric unit is very upset about everything that has happened; but there are endeavours. The issue of baby Tilmouth, which the member for Greatorex raised - yes, a terrible death, and the Coroner is yet to determine his findings in relation to that death. But, he did say in that particular case, and this was in the NT News - I do not have the date - in another article written by Phoebe Stewart:
In some of those areas there has been progress; the issues have been addressed and the Coroner has recognised progress. However, I believe this report from the Health Services Complaint Commissioner clearly illustrates, in a crucial area of security and safety, that issues were not addressed; there were not remedies in place despite assurances from various parts of the hospital.
In relation to the hospital board, I read the report of the Ombudsman very closely, and I am very concerned about what she found in a number of areas, not least all the lack of annual reports by the board since 2006. I place on the record that my office is aware there are outstanding reports from the Royal Darwin Hospital Board. I am making sure they are forthcoming and, of course, they will go through the process.
Regarding hospital boards and the Hospital Boards Act, as the Health Services Complaints Commissioner alluded to, there was a review which was carried out, I believe in 2006-07, by a consultant. I place on the Parliamentary Record that that review was completely inadequate, as was the consultancy. The consultant, in some cases, did not speak to hospital boards and hospital board members. When I became minister, and become aware of this consultancy, I said: ‘We are not going there’; and I started a process of meeting with those hospital boards myself, in both Alice Springs and Darwin, and I heard their issues.
The amendments to the Hospital Boards Act have taken longer than I would have liked, and I will tell the House why that is the case – because the Royal Darwin Hospital Board has quite a different focus and different demands in what they want to see in the revised act to the board in Alice Springs. What I had to do, in consultation with both boards, was to find a middle path which accommodated both.
Members should be aware the Chair of the Alice Springs Hospital Board, Mrs Margaret Wait, and Mr Mike Tyrrell have tended their resignations to me. They have said they will not be going back to the hospital board; they have had their time and will not be continuing after the 31 December this year. They also expressed to me, in their letters of resignation, their disappointment at the time it has taken for the Hospital Boards Act to be passed and become law. I am not going to deny that is the case, and I believe they have a right to be disappointed.
However, I came across a situation where I believe there was something being rammed through against the wishes of the hospital boards. They, obviously, have a role to play and they have their own perspectives and directions about where they want to go. I spent quite some time with the Alice Springs Hospital Board on a number of occasions, both meeting as a board and meeting with Margaret Wait, Mike Tyrrell and others individually. I have also spent time meeting with the Royal Darwin Hospital Board as well, and meeting individually with Mr Colin McDonald about amendments to the act.
It is probably only a matter of about a month or so ago that a draft version was ready to go before Cabinet. That is in process, but I do acknowledge that it has taken longer than is desirable. My aim was to try to accommodate the wishes of those two hospital boards because, to some degree, their directions and their requirements were quite disparate.
This is a very important issue. I believe I have demonstrated to this House that I am certainly focused on this particular issue, that I am taking steps to address the very serious issues that have been raised in the report by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner. I have alluded to the team I have engaged of Mr Jim O’Sullivan and Mr Ray Norman. I have also talked about the other reviews through the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards; Mr Norman and Mr O’Sullivan, where necessary, will be liaising with them also and, of course, I will be sending a copy of this report to the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, the review team.
I have had some discussions with the AMA, they are very happy with that review team; well, they know these are very senior people, is a better way to put it, with a high degree of respect within the medical and hospital community, and their independence to carry out this particular review. It is important they are aware of this report. I believe I am taking steps to address the very real issues and drive change within the health system in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I start by saying that my fury in relation to this issue is white hot. I have, through the whole of this debate sat here, and every time I think about what is going on and what this relates to, I have been thinking about my daughters, who are two years and three years old respectively. I think about this five-month-old child, who was raped in the hospital in 2006, and my gorge rises at it, my anger in relation to this is white hot.
I will endeavour to keep my language temperate during this censure motion, but I express to the House at the outset my fury at the failure of this government, and this minister in particular, to do what is necessary to prevent this shocking crime from occurring again. That is what this about, a five-month-old child being raped.
It was not a few months ago that this was the headline of the Northern Territory News: ‘Resign’, it says, dated 12 September 2008. People were baying for this minister’s blood because of his incapacity to effectively run the Health department. That was in relation to the death of Mrs Winter, and the front page of the Northern Territory News said this guy was no longer capable of running the Northern Territory Health department. And what was his excuse on that particular occasion? ‘Nothing to do with me! I only set policy. I only provide resources to the Health department. That is my job’, he said. ‘That is what I have to do, I do not get involved in the operational issues of the hospital. That is why I have nothing to do with it’.
Well, minister, at that time you were reminded by numerous people on this side of the House about the role of ministerial responsibility. Surely, minister, if you think about a five-month-old child being raped, as you come into the portfolio, you would take an active interest in what would have been the most serious part of your portfolio. Surely, you would have written down a list of things that you wanted to look at, and you would have asked yourself at some point: ‘my goodness, what should I ask myself and what I make absolutely sure has been done?’ Surely, this would have been, if not at the top, near the top of the list.
The fact is, this minister does know what is going on in his department. In the case of the death of Margaret Winter, the fact is the head that so-called rolled as a result of that, Mr Peter Campos, was doing what was expected of him because this minister had said to the Health department, you have to save some money. As a consequence, the department did what was necessary and Peter Campos, in my opinion, did what a faithful and loyal public servant does, which is why his head did not roll; he received the bureaucratic equivalent of a shaving cut.
Before this censure motion started, we heard in Question Time a minister essentially say, as a matter of course, being lied to by his department was how they do their business. He said he was being kept in the dark, he said he got a briefing, that it was all in hand, it was all going to be fixed and, to his astonishment and surprise afterwards, it was not fixed. If that is the case, then he should sack his CEO. I find it incomprehensible how he could not stand up in this place today and say, ‘I am lied to as a matter of course by my departmental heads, and I will not sack them’.
If this minister will not resign for cowardice, then he must fire his CEO because his CEO lied to him. That is the logic that he is trying to ask us to swallow, and it is incomprehensible that he would even run this argument. The CEO of the department has either lied to him or informed him, in which case if he is informed about what has happened in this particular instance, then this minister has deceived this House. If he is telling the truth in this place, then he has no control over his department whatsoever, because he is running the same defence that he ran as a result of the death of Margaret Winter.
I cannot begin to imagine how this CEO or this minister, or either of them, can stay - it is beyond belief. I heard the minister say he takes it seriously, and then say as a matter of some sort of honesty: ‘I have had this report in my possession since Monday and I have chosen three sittings days early to deliver it onto the table’. Are you truly expecting us to believe, minister, that you are doing us a favour by not sitting on this report until February next year when we sit again? Surely he has got to be kidding. He would suggest that the smart political thing to do would be to wait until February next year, before he ‘fessed up to what is, in my opinion, the most shocking and condemning report I have ever seen flow from the Ombudsman’s Office.
I cannot begin to tell you the dismay I felt when I read this quote from page 7 in the Executive Summary:
The cheese sandwiches in the kitchen are more important than the safety of babies. The minister says: ‘Yes, I visit the paediatric ward from time to time and I have a look around and it all looks pretty hunky-dory to me’. He never bothered to look up at the ceiling and say: ‘Hey, where are the security cameras you told me were in place?’ Never, ever thought to ask that question. ‘How is it going with the security, guys?’ he says at some point. He has been the minister for two years and it never occurred to him to say: ‘How is it going with the security system in the paediatric ward? I noticed you got a little publicity a while ago; a five-month-old baby got raped’.
For goodness sake, when does this guy actually take control of his department? And I hear what he has to say, that it is a difficult portfolio. Absolutely, so is the Secretary of Northern Ireland in England. It is a tough role, I accept that, but surely at some point you have to say to yourself: ‘Where are my priorities in this department? What am I actually trying to achieve? What are these issues that can come back to haunt me as a minister?’ Surely you write those things down somewhere. Minister, I also quote from the report again, page 7:
That is policy issue. The minister himself says this about policy. ‘I do the policy; the guys run the actual show’. Surely, transparency to which this government feigns subservience is a matter to which the minister would be turning his mind on a daily basis. Yet, we find the Ombudsman says transparency and accountability of the General Manager of the Department of Health and Families for the operation of the hospital is essentially absent.
Another quote:
These are systemic failures. This is not just an operational issue. These are legislative requirements. It is a legislative requirement, as I understand it, that the hospital boards provide annual reports. It was not a sitting ago, in relation to an unrelated issue, the minister was saying ‘Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa’ for failing to deliver annual reports in other areas.
This comes down to the confidence of the guy in charge - who is the minister. The death of Margaret Winter already demonstrated that he is not, in spite of his assertions that he takes his ministerial role seriously; demonstrating this by his actions. If he comes in here and says: ‘I became aware of this issue on Monday’. No, he became aware of the criticisms of the Ombudsman on Monday. He must have been aware of the issue for two years, and did nothing.
I am mortified, also on page 9 of that report where the Ombudsman says, and I read the whole quote because it is important:
Surely the minister would be asking himself: ‘Is the management board operating properly in all of these hospitals?’ We know they had trouble in Nhulunbuy, particularly over the last reports that have come down, because the Nhulunbuy Management Board annual report is actually the CEO’s report because there is no board; they cannot get the people together. I accept that. But you cannot say that for Darwin. Darwin is a different exercise and the legislative demands upon the Minister for Health are easily traced through the administrative arrangements which are tabled in this House every time there is a ministerial reshuffle.
It says which pieces of legislation which minister is responsible for. There is a list. Clearly this minister does not check that list and does not sit down with his CEO and say: ‘Look, I have responsibility for this act, this act, this act, this act, this act, this act and this act. What are my legislative requirements, what have I got to do under these particular bits of legislation?’ They dictate to a large degree what the minister’s job is. The minister has, by his own admission, essentially walked into this place and said: ‘I am ignorant of my legislative duties, not only in this specific area but also in my area of the Attorney-Generalship’.
Last time I had to catch him out on his reporting requirements in his role as Attorney-General. This time we find the Ombudsman has said that the minister has no idea, or no apparent idea, or his staff at the hospital has no apparent idea, of their responsibilities.
I am astonished to discover that the Ombudsman has had to choose her words extremely carefully in the way she puts this report together because there is an allegation, or the potential for an allegation, of a criminal misconduct on the part of one of the members of the staff at the hospital.
What the Ombudsman is saying is the General Manager has the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact he could produce no records because, otherwise, he would have committed an offence under the act.
All roads in a ministry lead to Rome, and Rome in this instance is the minister himself. I cannot begin to express my dismay and astonishment, as I have said before, about what has happened in this case. This is just an astonishing example of a minister whose eye has so completely and utterly been taken off the ball. He cannot do anything but confess to his ineptitude in the role and throw himself on his sword. There is no other honourable way for this minister to deal with the situation in which he now finds himself.
If this was truly just a one-off, perhaps there might be some wriggle room for the minister. However, this is not a one-off, and is not a rare event. It was not two-and-a-half months ago that Territorians were reading a headline on the front page of the Northern Territory News screaming: ‘Resign’. It was a plea and, if I remember what was inside that Northern Territory News, there were numerous articles dealing with this particular issue. There was a little vox pop number done on the street where the question was asked, and the majority, if not all of the people, said the guy has to go.
The position the minister finds himself in by suggesting that being lied to is part of the culture of his department, and not doing anything about it other than saying, ‘I am going to tell my CEO to fix this up’. No, mate, if you are being lied to, you have to get rid of the guy. It is as simple as that. If this is what happens, because this is the defence that was run in the Campos saga: ‘Oh well, I was not properly informed’. Oh well, we move him sideways from one department to the other’. No, no, no. If you are being lied to, then you sack the man and get rid of him; the guy is not trustworthy. You cannot say: ‘Oh, you are not trustworthy in this department; we are going to make you trustworthy over there’.
I hear the defence again in Question Time: ‘Oh, I was not fully informed’. No, that is bureau-speak to say: ‘I was not given all the information; therefore I was lied to by omission’. In the future, there cannot exist any trust between this CEO and this minister - it just cannot exist. If that is the truth; if what the minister is actually saying is true, as a consequence, one of them has to go, if not both of them. Think about it logically. Here is a guy in charge of the department. If he was in charge of a company and he was Chairman of the board and the CEO of the department walked into the boardroom and said: ‘Mate, production levels are going well and everything is going swimmingly’ and, and all of a sudden, he wakes up one day and he is bankrupt, or there is a major problem with the operation of the company, how long do you think that the CEO of that firm would last? He would be shot! In fact, he would be in breach of corporations’ laws. That is the seriousness of this dislocation. I simply cannot bring myself to believe this minister would retain a CEO if that is actually the quality of information that is coming to him.
Even if misjudgement or deceit by omission was happening 18 months earlier - because I got this briefing, everything was under control and I did not bother to check up, and that sort of thing - the fact is, the defence run in Question Time was there was either a deliberate deception by the minister, or there was a deception by omission. Either way, you cannot trust the guy; the minister cannot trust the CEO if what he did actually occurred.
I cannot say this minister is any longer fit to hold this role, because I would have expected, at the very least, an utter and complete condemnation of a CEO who had deceived him. So much so, that the answer to the question put to him in Question Time should have been this: ‘Yes, Madam Speaker, I was deceived by my department; I was misled by my department. I have fired the CEO. He will not have his contract paid out and, as far as I am concerned, the guy can go he’.
The fact is, I do not believe that that is the case, because if that is the defence this minister runs, then the very best defence is that he sticks his fingers in his ears and puts his hands over his eyes, the same way he did when a nurse tried to approach him at the Sunday markets and tell him about the issues with nurse staffing. That is the very best defence this minister has. The worst defence is that he was actually informed accurately by his department as to what was going on, and he has simply chosen to take the coward’s way out and blame the department; in which case he is lying …
A member: But then not act on it.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know that, that is up to the minister to know. Either way, I cannot see how he can, in good conscience, keep his seat as the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I agree with members opposite and with my colleague, the minister, that it was a horrible incident. I share the outrage with the member for Port Darwin. I have two young children. As a matter of fact, when they were younger, both my children were admitted to hospital for various reasons and, as a father, I would have been horrified if something like that had happened to my children. I believe all of us here are outraged by what happened to that child.
However, I am also outraged that that incident is used as a political weapon …
Mr Elferink: Oh, bullshit!
Mr VATSKALIS: … to attack the Minister for Health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is easy to sit here now, review an incident that happened two years ago when the minister was not even the minister, and throw stones at him as if it is somehow his responsibility. This incident happened two years ago; a complaint was lodged with the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission; it was investigated - 21 recommendations were made and submitted to the department of Health.
The department of Health is an interesting creature. I used to work for it, and I have quite a few stories to tell about what happened in the department, and how many things which happened in the department actually reached the minister, not only in this current time, but during the previous time, because I had the privilege to work in the ministerial office for a period of time under then minister, Steve Dunham.
Let me give you an example of what happened, and what the minister knew, and what reached the minister’s ears. I was a member of the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia. One day we received a phone call from the hospital, from a nurse, to advise us that a member of the Greek community had died in Katherine. That member of the community was then shoved into the morgue, into the freezer. He was there for three months, and the woman was outraged that a person would die, and was shoved, without dignity, into a freezer.
I recall I wrote on behalf of the community to the then Secretary, full of outrage that something like this happened. A few days later, I received a call from the ministerial office to ask if I wanted to be a ministerial liaison officer. I went up and we were discussing with Steve Dunham, the then minister, about this incident and he did not believe me, until I gave him a copy of my letter. He called up the Secretary and got a copy of the letter the Secretary wrote to the community. I recall, very clearly, Steve Dunham walking down the corridor on the fifth floor of the ministerial office, shaking his head in disbelief that something like this could happen, and the explanation he got from his then Secretary.
Steve Dunham might have different political opinions and different political views, but he was a good minister. He could not believe something like that could happen, that something like that would be hidden from him for three months and only found out because, by coincidence, I happened to be his ministerial liaison officer in his office.
The minister, whatever minister, does not directly put his hands into the operation of the department. I would be dreading it if this minister directed doctors how to treat their patients, how to do the nursing rosters or how to do something the department directed - an operational matter. The minister in our system relies heavily upon trust. Personally, as a minister, I trust my CEO. I believe it when I ask something of the CEO and the CEO comes back to me and says it is done. When something is done, it is done.
A member: But when he has lied to you, what do you do?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: It is very easy to say: if the CEO told him that, he should be sacked. You have to remember the layers in every department. What if the CEO was also misinformed and, based on this information, he advised the minister wrongly? What if the CEO asks: ‘Has this been done?’ And people below him say: ‘Yes, we have done it’. So he comes to me and says: ‘Minister, it is done’. If you do not trust your CEO, that what he says is right, then this whole system will fall apart.
I recall when I was the minister for Mines, there were a number of horrible incidents - people were killed, maimed. I asked my CEO to fix it. He came a few months later and told me it was fixed. I trusted him. Another incident happened a few months later and I called him in and said: ‘What happened?’ When we sat down, we found out there were people in the department who deliberately gave wrong information: that things were done when they were not done. As a result, a review of the department was carried out and some of the people in the department, below the CEO level, were not working in the department any more. My CEO kept his job for the simple reason he, in good faith, gave me wrong advice.
I believe it is very wrong to take the head off the CEO when he comes to you and, in good faith, gives you advice which he obviously believes is right, but he gives you wrong advice.
I agree with the member for Port Darwin. It is an outrage. When I read in the report that they put CCTVs in the kitchen to prevent pilfering of food, but failed to put CCTVs in the paediatric ward, I was outraged. I am pretty sure that person should have his head chopped off. However, the CEO was advised that it was done. The CEO was advised the CCTV was installed and was working. The CEO was advised all the measures were taken to prevent the reoccurrence of the same thing. In good faith, he advised the minister everything was fine.
If I was in his position, and I bet if you were in his position, you would have acted exactly the same - I am satisfied it is done. However, we have some mechanisms in place which are designed to go back and review the situation and provide adequate information to the minister - which happened. The Health Services Complaints Commissioner went back and reviewed the situation to find out if these things had happened; writes a report which is provided to minister, as is required, and the minister has six days to table this report.
The minister received the report on Monday, and it is only natural for the minister to sit down and study this report to find out what happened. I recall my colleague, the member for Johnston, was outraged on Monday and Tuesday, but he would not talk about it; he said there was something wrong with the Health department. He tabled the report 48 hours after he received it and studied it, and very soon after he had taken some drastic measures to make sure things like that will not happen in the department.
Let me put it bluntly. There are systemic problems in the Health department, and I will tell you why. In a place were we have 4000 employees, layers upon layers of management, so diverse that it is impossible to keep tabs on it, and you rely upon the CEO and others in the department to provide an accurate picture. Sometimes it does not happen, but most of the time it does. There are things which do not happen, and usually when things do not happen, some tragic event occurs and finds its way on to the front page of the newspaper. These events happen, and you find out, and you come here into the parliament and you front it, and you cop it, the same way he did.
To be called ‘coward’, to be called ‘incompetent’, I find offensive because I know that person personally; I have known him for a long time. He used to work in the Menzies School of Health Research. I know he is a man of integrity, a man who believes in what he is doing, and a man who hurts when he finds out that somebody in the department has stuffed up. Somebody died. Somebody was injured. Somebody did not receive the treatment they deserved to receive. I know how he felt about the young child when she died. I know how he felt when this pensioner died. But it is not his position to direct people how to provide medical treatment to those in hospital. We have people who are paid more than he is to provide medical care to people. If these people failed, it is unfair to say: ‘Minister, it is your fault because that person who administered treatment should have been administered another type of treatment’.
Yes, there is ministerial responsibility; but ministerial responsibility stops somewhere. You cannot say you have ministerial responsibility on technical or medical matters, or treatment, or writing the nurses’ roster. The government provides direction; the government provides the means for ministers and their portfolios to operate. Ministers do not tell their CEOs how to spend the money or how to do their business. I will be damned if I would tell my CEO how to run the Mining Management Act. He is getting paid to do that; he knows how to do that better than I do - I am not a mining expert.
I really regret what happened. I feel for the parents of that child. But I will not use anything like that as a political weapon to attack somebody. If you think that the member for Johnston is going to accept full responsibility because you said so - you are wrong. I know very well, if he had directed something to be done or not to be done, he would accept the responsibility and he would step down. If the member for Johnston had directed the department not to spend the money on those facilities or delay the facilities, I know he is honest enough and big enough to say he made a mistake; he would accept his mistake, and he would step down. But to call the member for Johnston a coward and a person who should accept responsibility for the inability or the incompetence and failures of people within the department, I believe is unfair.
You have to remember, we do not have a direct involvement with the selection of the staff. We rely upon the people in our department, and some of the people who have been employed maybe should not have been employed. But to call the minister responsible for things like that is completely unfair. I, with you, would call for his resignation if I knew the minister had directly instructed the department not to ensure the security for budgetary reasons, or to delay the security or if he said: ‘Do not worry, it will go away. She’ll be right.’ But he has not.
I do not recall any of the ministers from the CLP resigning for such actions. The only minister I recall was sacked because he tried to strangle a journalist. I do not recall anyone resigning; and there were deaths in the hospital then, and there were people who were mistreated in the hospitals then.
In the Health department and in the hospitals, things can go wrong. Unfortunately, when they go wrong they can result in people’s death and suffering; and we all regret that. We do not live in a perfect world; there is no way we can say everything in the Northern Territory, or anywhere in the world, is perfect. Kids have been kidnapped from hospitals in Australia and all over the world. Kids have been molested in hospitals. Kids have been killed in hospitals. People have been intentionally killed in hospitals. Nurses have stolen kids from hospitals and walked away with them. It happens. When you open the newspapers you see it, because we live in a crazy world where we have lost control and direction.
In this case, and I believe it is extremely unfair that this minister should be held responsible for something like this. First, he was not the minister when it happened. Second, he wanted things to happen and he strived for those things to happen. Third, he was misinformed about things which were happening. When the Complaints Commissioner came out with a report, it found that some of the recommendations have been acted upon and others had not been acted upon. To his credit, the minister acted within 48 hours when he received the report. He appointed Jim O’Sullivan and the ex-Secretary of the department, Ray Norman, whom I know personally. When I first came to work here, Ray Norman was the Secretary of the Health department. He is a man of integrity. He is a very honest man with passion for the Health department and for the community. I know of his personal life, and he is a man I respect highly.
I am telling you, they will get to the bottom of these things and they will provide information to the minister and the government - and the government will act. The minister will act. He has already acted; he has already taken measures. If it is necessary for the minister to take a surgical knife and perform radical surgery to the department, I am pretty sure he will do it. He will have my and my colleagues’ support. Even if people are squealing and yelling; if something has to be cut, he will do it. I have faith in him. I believe he is one of the best Health ministers we have had in the Territory and, as a person; the minister is someone who is unfairly targeted.
I know it makes headlines. It is politics. I understand that very well. At this time of the year we would usually come in here with the spirit of Christmas but, unfortunately, this time we are bare footed and getting stuck into each other. It looks good for the member for Greatorex to get stuck into the minister – it will probably make headlines. The opposition expect to come in here and start pointing fingers at people because someone does something in your department, so it is your fault; someone does something in mine, so it is my fault. A bus crashes because the brakes are no good, so the minister for Transport is responsible: ‘Did you check the brakes?’ How many times have we had a situation where government departments failed in their role because someone in the department stuffed up and did not do the right thing? You cannot …
Mr Conlan: You are comparing the rape of a child to the brakes on a bus. That is disgusting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Failed brakes on a bus can kill 40 people inside the bus …
Mr Conlan: Brakes on a bus and the rape of a child – you are trying to link them together. That is shameful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Failed brakes on a bus can kill 40 people – it has happened before. So do not try to lecture us and give us lessons.
I have absolute confidence in the Minister for Health. I said before, he is a person of integrity, an honest person. He is not a coward. If he was a coward, he would not be here tonight; it would be easier to say: ‘I am resigning. I am walking out’. Someone else can put the report to parliament’. That is not the act of a coward to be coming out in the media before Question Time - he could have done it after Question Time or 5 pm this afternoon. If he was a coward he would have done that. We know people in other parliaments who have done it. Why would he do it at 1.30 pm, just before Question Time? He is brave enough, honest enough, and strong enough to come out and face the music. The reality is, yes, there was a rape that happed before his time. You cannot hold him responsible for that. Yes, there were investigation recommendations put to the department. Yes, the department stuffed up. Yes, there were problems. You are getting stuck into the CEO and the minister. The reality is, both of them were misled. To try to hold them responsible is unfair.
I say again: politics is politics. What happened is abhorrent. I share your anger but, at the same time, to target one individual for the collective failure of a number of people in the Health department is unfair.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have another speaker on this.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the question has been put. I refer to Standing Order 78. Once that is put, there is no question.
Mr Tollner: No, no. We do not agree with that motion; that it be put.
Madam SPEAKER: It is Standing Order 78.
Mr Tollner: Well, we want a division.
Madam SPEAKER: Call the division. Is the division supported?
Mr Tollner: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: A division is called. You did not call a division.
Mr Tollner: We have called a division.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I know. Ring the bells. Now you have called a division, member for Fong Lim.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Greatorex be agreed to.
Mr Tollner: The ayes have it!
Madam SPEAKER: You need to call a division.
Mr Tollner: Can we have a division, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: You need to actually say ‘division’, member for Fong Lim, in our parliament. Is the division supported? Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, thank you very much to members for their contribution. Thank you very much for availing yourself of a briefing, I think it is very important that you do not fall for any piece of legislation, that you actually speak to the officials of the department who can clarify some of the questions. I know sometimes technical legislation has to be read more than once to understand some of the comments.
I will go through some of the issues that were raised. Member for Katherine, you made reference to other animals, including exotic animals, in clause 4 and clause 5 for the other animals to be included in the livestock. The point of the definition, I think the member for Nelson clarified it; we used the Webster’s Dictionary, for poultry as a chook, and it includes geese and every other species that are referred to: domestic ducks, geese and turkey, but poultry is the generic definition for chickens, hens or roosters.
In clause 54, you mentioned about the destruction of residences, especially why we would destroy a residence. The reason is, sometimes a residence has not been adequately disinfected, or is in such a state there is a danger of it falling apart. But if there is destruction of a residence, there is always the ability for the owner to seek compensation because, under clause 38, it has to be acquisitioned on just terms; and destruction of a residence because of an animal disease falls into the category of acquisition and has to be compensated in just terms under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Section 69(2), things, including a residence, equipment and everything that is included which is destroyed or somehow affected by the process of disinfection or as a result of disinfection. Section 104(1): entering without consent - that is actually not unique to this act. It existed in the previous act but also in other acts; officials have the power to enter premises.
For example, under the Health Act - which I, as an Environment Health Officer used to administer, in the Nuisance Regulations in section 5 it specifies a Health Officer can enter a premises if there is suspicion that a nuisance occurred, is about to occur, or a breach of the Health Act happens. It is a generic provision that happens in other legislation. I know you question the issue of the warrant. I have to say; when we apply for warrants, we apply for them under this act, under the livestock act, not under the Police Administration Act. It will be an inspector who applies to a magistrate for a warrant under this act and the warrant will be issued. Also, under clause 99, this act specifies the officer can ask any person for assistance; that includes the police. The police officer is covered under clause 99 of this act so he can accompany a person who has a warrant to go on to premises.
This happened before, for example, with the Grapevine Leaf Rust disease we had recently in Darwin. Officers went to a place which was locked; they obtained a warrant; they had already called the police, who came, and they entered the premises, in some cases, by breaking the locks. Most people are very cooperative. You will occasionally find one who will say: ‘That is my house. I do not want you to go in there. There is nothing wrong with my animal or my vine. Nick off.’ Then we would have to forcibly enter the area. This is under clause 105 and the police can be of aid.
With regard to the member for Goyder; there was a public notice in the newspapers in January, February 2007. There were a number of people who spoke to the department. I believe your mother voiced her concerns; she spoke many times to the department with regard to the situation about livestock. There was quite a lot of input from the industry. We spoke to the cattle industry, and they are quite happy with the fact that they now have this legislation which replaces that legislation. It makes it easier to understand and easier to utilise.
With regard to sentinel cattle – yes, there are sentinel cattle currently at Berrimah Farm; they are going to be relocated to Coastal Plains. If I had my way, I would like to spread the cattle further out, because if you have the cattle in one place, you only get information relating to that vicinity. When I was an Environmental Officer in Port Hedland, we had five locations with chickens to check them for Japanese encephalitis and other mosquito-borne diseases. The more spread you have of sentinel chickens or cattle, the better information you get. They will not be eliminated, they are going to Coastal Plains.
The question about not having definitions of goats and other animals; the reason for that is we originally had the definitions in the Definitions section, but the Parliamentary Counsel removed them and put them all together under the livestock provisions. However, everyone knows what a goat is, and if there is a doubt, they can always refer to the dictionary and the scientific names. About keeping antilopine kangaroos; they do not fall into this category because they are not livestock; they are wild animals which are kept by people.
I know there are no abattoirs in the Territory, apart from Alice Springs, Oenpelli and Kalkarindji. The reason is: when people are getting $1.80 live weight for their cattle, they are not going to sell it to the abattoirs for $1.30 by weight of the cattle. I would love to have more abattoirs, but that is a commercial decision which has to be made by the industry. However, I will support them; I will support anyone who comes to talk to us about real abattoirs.
The administration of chemicals and other things, clause 98: this does not refer to drugs you buy from the vet and administer yourself because you live far away. It refers to things which are not prescribed and which are not authorised, such as hormones and some other products that people use and which can create problems for our industry.
I refer to power of entry. Inspectors are not there to have a blue with the owners, they are trained in conflict resolution, and they always approach the owners with a request to enter. Most of the owners, 90%, would be really cooperative; 10% would be stroppy. If they are stroppy, the act provides power to people to enter and do what they have to do. You have to remember, it is called the Livestock Act, but it mainly refers to the cattle industry. That is an industry of $1.2bn, so we cannot and must not allow someone, for their own reasons, to jeopardise a $1.2bn industry because we cannot eliminate a disease in their area.
You remember what happened with the elimination of brucellosis/tuberculosis. Many people were not very happy, but the moment they realised they were being compensated, all of a sudden their attitude changed. However, we still had ongoing litigation with people who were adamant we could have nothing to do with their animals; we were not allowed to touch the animals or feed the animals, until they realised the risk to our industry.
I mentioned the input from most small commercial farms is measured by sentinels. You also queried what would happen if people had to move a small number of animals from one place to another. The problem we have is: when we move, say, five goats from point A to point B, it might not be a problem. The problem arises when you say: ‘I am going to move this number of animals from this place and put them somewhere where there are other animals’. There is always the risk of transmission of disease. However, the act has provisions for the Registrar, depending on the circumstances, to allow the transport of animals without waybills.
The reason we want to know where animals are is because, as we found in the United States of America, when there was an outbreak of mad cow disease and they tried to recall all the beef which had been slaughtered and had become hamburgers, unfortunately, they could not locate 235 animals. There is significant risk to the consumer when we do not know where the animals are or where they have come from. One of the successes of the NLIS is: we can tell you, from where you buy your meat in the supermarket, where the animals came from, and we can go and trace it back to its origin; and that is very effective.
There was a question about the compensation panel. There will be a compensation panel and it will be comprised of people with local expertise. The member for Goyder asked a question regarding what diseases are, how you define a disease, and why they are only listed on the Internet. No, they are not only listed on the Internet; the department will be producing them in hard copy and will provide them to people, and they will be in the Agnotes.
Regarding the differences between emergency, exotic and endemic diseases: an exotic disease is one which occurs overseas but not in Australia - and we do not want it here. The endemic disease is one that occurs in Australia. However, an emergency disease, when it occurs in Australia, we have a cost-sharing arrangement with other jurisdictions. For example, if foot-and-mouth disease occurs in the Territory, every single jurisdiction in Australia will contribute to remove and destroy all the animals from the particular farm involved. The definition of diseases depends on whether they are endemic or non-endemic, and if they fall into the category of cost-sharing.
The member for Nelson asked about the Health Act and the Livestock Act. This act applies to livestock, and does not conflict with the Health Act. The Health Act deals with transmission of disease from animal to humans, and also with nuisance. Keeping a horse or a cow in downtown Nightcliff, or in the centre of Katherine, is certainly going to create a nuisance. The other thing is, the Health Act binds the Crown. Every act has to agree with the Health Act and, if there is a conflict, especially in this area, the Health Act has precedence. This is the explanation.
I am very pleased to hear you support the act. It is very important we have a robust act because, and again I stress it: the only reason we are exporting 250 000 cattle to Indonesia is because the cattle from the Northern Territory in Australia are free of some of the diseases which are endemic in other countries. The moment we get one of these diseases, kiss our trade goodbye, because the Brazilians, who have a herd of 240 million cattle, can provide meat cheaper to Indonesia, to China, or to India. If they can pay 30 or 40 or 60 per kilo less from that market, that is where they will go, and we will be stuck here with 1.8 million cows we cannot sell anywhere.
I will be truthful with you; this is very important legislation. If I have to choose who to support - individuals who have two or three animals, or the industry - I will support the industry. There is no way I am going to water this act down to support people who have a vested interest in small animals. I am happy to work with these people; the department will work with these people to provide support and assistance, but this is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the Northern Territory because it supports one of our biggest and most robust industries.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I do not have too much that I want to take through the committee stage; there is just one main point of clarification, and it has to do with the warrant side of things.
Clause 99, I think you said, allows for an inspector to seek assistance, if necessary, for the purposes of the act. I still have some concerns about whether, say, under the circumstances which I outlined in my second reading: the inspectors came across a locked door to premises they wanted to enter. They have a warrant. They have taken the police with them, or gone away and come back with the police. Where do the police get the power to break open the lock?
Mr VATSKALIS: Under clause 104(1): ‘An inspector may do any of the following’: subclause 1(c): ‘enter residential premises under a warrant.’ In clause 105(1): ‘An inspector may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter residential premises.’ Then, if you go clause 99 it says: ‘An inspector may authorise a person to assist an inspector …’. The police will be there for assistance. They will not be there to break the lock. It is the inspector who actually has the power of entry and has the power to break the lock. The police are there for assistance. That is clause 99.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand what you are saying, however, I just have concerns that, unless specifically stated in the legislation, as you would find in legislation such as the Police Administration Act, that confers a power to break locks or do whatever they have to do. It seems to me that this clause 104(1(c) just assumes the power, rather than actually states it.
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 99 does not specifically refer to the police, it refers to ‘an inspector may authorise a person’. Now, if that person happens to be the police, the inspector may authorise the police officer to assist the inspector. It is not the policeman who takes the action to break the lock; he is there to assist the inspector take the action as prescribed by the act. It is the inspector who will apply for the warrant, it is the inspector who obtained the warrant to enter the premises which is locked, and the inspector may seek the assistance of the police and the inspector authorises the police officer to assist. That is clearly specified in the act. It is very similar to what happened in the Health Act: an authorised person to assist the authorisers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I understand what you are saying. My opinion, from having practiced this type of legislation with warrants and things, is there should be a specific reference to what can be done to effect an entry. It authorises entry to the residential premises, but it does not specifically say that you can break a lock to do so. I will not belabour the point, if the government is happy this will be satisfactory for the exercise of the powers by the inspectors, then I accept that and I guess we will have to see.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is historically the same provision as in the previous act and, historically, where police were called to assist; we did not have any problems. We never had any obstacles in the administration of the act, either using the police or any other person to assist the inspector.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the bill replaces the Plant Diseases Control Act 1979 and it is timely that it is reviewed and replaced, to ensure that the legislation is contemporary and in step with modern practices, given that it first came in over 25 years ago. It has been a long time in the making and I know that many hours have been spent on drafting this piece of legislation so it protects and promotes our plants and other industries, not dissimilar to the Livestock Bill with the livestock industries.
However, I have a few queries. It will impact on the large nurseries plus many small operators, and while some of the operators may be small scale, they are servicing an important part of the market, whether it be cut flowers, exotic fruits, tropical orchards or plant hire for offices in Darwin. Again, the legislation needs to have balance in the interests of both the high and low ends of the industry - the large operators and the small operators.
The most important aspect of new legislation is it must be workable, and that means across all sectors of the industry it will impact upon. It must be transparent and not cause any detrimental impact on people or businesses with regard to the size of their operation. In clause 6(1) it says, ‘a pest is an organism whether or not taxonomically classified’. My comment is: if a pest is classified, taxonomically or not, do you know exactly what the pest is, or if it is a pest at all? How do you know that if it is not classified as a pest?
Subclause (5) references an indigenous organism. My question is: what exactly is this, and how does it differ from a native organism? I guess it is the difference in definition of the two words – indigenous and native - because they are very different.
Clause 8A: Host plant. It says, ‘A host plant for a pest is a plant that is susceptible to, uses or harbours the pest’. If a pest is hosted by a plant, then it would be a symbiosis; and if the host plant benefits, then it would not be a pest to the host plant, it would actually be a benefit, not a pest. So, I have a query about that.
Clause 11(2): Affected by pest. It states: ‘Subsection (1) applies whether or not the pest has any apparent effect on the thing’. If the pest has no effect on the thing, then why is it considered to be a pest?
Clause 14: Prevention of spreading. It says, in subclause (2):
My question is: how is this going to work in the situation of rental properties, where the person may not physically own the property or the plant material on it which becomes infected? If they are going to be responsible, then perhaps that needs to be more clearly articulated in the legislation.
Clause 25: Requirement to give information. Subclause (d) refers to an inspector obtaining any other information. It seems a little extreme to me and it appears to give the inspector carte blanche to obtain anything from the owner of the said plant. The section already gives inspectors the right to obtain the person’s name, address and details about the said plant. What else would the inspector need? I am just seeking clarification as to what kind of further information the inspector might need if he already has a name and address and information about the plant in question?
One final comment is in regard to clauses 30 to 35, which are very encompassing and deal with plant health management plans. My only query is - and I understand the intent of it, the details in regard to: preparation, drafting of the plans, notification, gazettal, changing the plans, reviewing the plans, etcetera - but it is not clear to me exactly what the legal status of the plans would be. I am seeking clarification in that regard.
Other than that, it has been a long time coming and I hope the legislation is effective and achieves the outcomes; I also hope it is not onerous upon the industry, particularly the smaller end of the industry, which is predominantly in my electorate and the rural area.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I apologise for not leaping to my feet earlier, I think I misheard what was occurring – better late than never.
I am in support of this bill. Once again, I thank the minister for the time he allowed staff to spend with me in the briefing. I do commend them for their receptive response to the queries I raised.
And, as with the livestock bill, my attitude is in no way designed to be adversarial but rather in a cooperative manner, to make sure it is the best legislation which can be put in place and the most workable. For the same reasons as the previous bill was debated, the issues I raise are for the purposes of having them in Hansard so the minister has the opportunity to respond and have his intent recorded there as well, so there is a way for people to come back at a later time and look at the intent of the legislation.
These are the issues I raised during the briefing. Clause 11, which is entitled ‘Affected by pest’. I raised the issue about the definition of ‘close proximity’. Clause 11(1)(b) says: ‘is or has been in close proximity to, or in contact with, the pest’. This is in relation to whether a thing is actually affected by a pest. I raise the point that would have to be a subjective decision made at the time by the inspector, regarding that crop. I believe the advice I received was basically: a rockmelon plant would have a different ‘close proximity’ to a mango tree, given the size of the particular plants. I accept that. I just hope and trust that the inspectors would use their expertise and common sense in determining ‘close proximity’.
In relation to clause 13: Prevention of infestation, I raised subclause (a) under Fault elements. Clause 13 says:
And then it goes on from there. I raised the point of how difficult it is to prove that a person actually knows something when it comes to prosecuting them in a court of law. The minister has sought advice from Parliamentary Counsel, and there is quite a lengthy response to that. I accept and understand the response that came from Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the explanation. Later, I will table the response so it is available. There is another issue in the response which I will cover shortly, as it relates to something further on in the act.
Clause 21: Failure of owner to act. Clause 21(2) gives the Chief Inspector some powers including: ‘direct an inspector or another person to treat, or dispose of, the plants or materials’ and, ‘recover the expenses for the treatment or disposal from the owner’. I mention those clauses only in part; there is more to that section. Clause 21(3) says:
I take that to mean that the Chief Inspector can effectively place a caveat upon the land for unpaid costs associated with the administration of this act. I do not particularly have an issue with it; I raise it only so it is mentioned and so the minister has the opportunity to indicate that that is, indeed, his intention. He is nodding away madly over there, so that is no problem. I do not think I will be dealing with that type of issue in committee, although I may deal with some other issues in committee.
Clause 46: Power of exemption. I questioned some issues regarding the bill relating to this. I will read it:
I queried why an exemption would be given to a specified place, and under what circumstances. The explanation which was cited was, for example, the Ord River District which, I believe, encroaches into the Northern Territory, may be placed under a specific exemption; and some research laboratories and those types of facilities also might be exempt from the provisions of the act, or parts of this act. Again, I raise it just so it is on record, but I do not have a problem with any of that either.
One thing I did notice contrary to the Livestock Bill which we debated previously is that, although this act says that an inspector may seek a warrant …
Mr Vatskalis: What section?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Bear with me one second and I will find what section it is.
Mr Vatskalis: 23.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The inspector can seek a warrant, but unlike the previous bill, the Livestock Bill, there are no actual provisions in the act or in the bill for a process by which the warrant can be sought. The other bill said you can contact a magistrate, you can telephone and you must, on reasonable grounds, explain why you need a warrant. There is nothing in this bill which gives a clear path for an inspector to take when seeking a warrant.
I raise that, and again, it was a matter which was dealt with by way of a response from Parliamentary Counsel. I will bring this issue into committee. Even though there is an explanation here which says there are precedents for a format similar or identical to that adopted in the Plant Health Bill and other legislation, for example, 43(3) of the Livestock Act South Australia, and section 30 subsection 3 of the Dog and Cat Management Act of South Australia; I still think with warrants, as I mentioned before, you cannot leave warrants to chance, you cannot leave anything open to interpretation. They are extremely powerful statutory instruments and they should be used and obtained with the utmost care. There should be a mechanism, and quite a defined mechanism, in place to obtain that warrant.
Madam Speaker, we have not proposed any amendments to the act. I bring it to the attention of the minister; if the minister is satisfied that the mechanism he has in place in this bill will be sufficient for the operation of the bill as an act, then I have no problems. Again, I go back to the point that, often legislation has to be tested for its veracity to see whether it is actually going to work in a practical sense. I guess that will remain to be seen.
They are the only real issues that I have with this. We may not need to go to committee over this if the minister is able to respond in his next statement. This act is a good, powerful act. It is very much in the vein of the Livestock Bill; it is quite strong and it is designed to keep our industry safe. It is certainly a piece of legislation that is needed and required.
There is enormous economic benefit to having a strong horticultural and agricultural industry in the Northern Territory, and this act is certainly the mechanism by which that industry will be protected from, particularly, plant diseases. It is well written and I believe it will go a long way to ensuring that our industry is well protected in the Northern Territory. Again, I thank the minister for the briefing and for the hard work that has gone into the preparation of this bill; and I believe it will serve its purposes well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the government on bringing forth this bill. Just like the Livestock Bill, we do need some contemporary legislation which deals with contemporary issues in relation to the control of pests and how we deal with pests in the Northern Territory. There is one thing I have known since I started to grow vegetables in the Northern Territory - there has never been a shortage of pests, and if we got control of some, along came a few more.
I remember growing coconuts at Bathurst Island and I was actually exporting some of those to Darwin for George Brown. All of a sudden, along came the coconut beetle. Eventually, believe it or not, it seemed to find a balance with nature and it is not a pest any more as we knew it. People would know there was a time when the fruit fly was around, and if you travelled on the Arnhem Highway you would get pulled up by inspectors just past Lambells Lagoon, they would grab your tomatoes and take everything you had away from you. I remember, I had to laugh, because workers who went out to Window on the Wetlands - sometimes called Window on the Weedlands - could not take their lunch out there - it would be taken away from them because it contained fruit. So it certainly does affect us.
Panama disease, which I believe is one of the biggest disasters in the Northern Territory from a horticultural point of view we have ever had. We do not yet seem to have found a way to combat it, except by moving from one paddock to another; and with the price of land, I am not sure too many landowners or banana growers can actually do that. Perhaps the minister might one day bury his doubts on GM; we may end up with GM bananas. It has already been looked at in Queensland. There have been plenty of other diseases. Some are easier to eradicate than others, but the whole idea of having this act is to try to make sure we do not get any more disease.
If we are going to have legislation like this, we need to have education. I believe we have to continually make it known to people that you cannot bring in plant material, especially from overseas, because that is where I am sure a number of our diseases have come from. I do not believe the outbreak of citrus canker at Lambells Lagoon some years ago came from inside Australia. Panama disease certainly did not come from Australia; it came from overseas. The coconut beetle was not known in Australia, so it had to come from overseas. There has to be a lot more education, as well as adequate punishment for those people who potentially can destroy the horticultural industry, not only in the Northern Territory but all over Australia.
There are some interesting things in this legislation. One area where it differs from the livestock legislation is that inspectors have the power to seize and destroy plant material; which is fine, because if it is something like citrus canker, you cannot allow that particular disease to spread. It also differs from the livestock legislation in that there is compensation in the livestock legislation, but I do not see any compensation in this legislation. Recently we had an outbreak of a certain disease affecting citrus, specifically lime trees in Virginia, and I know of a particular person who did not want those plants destroyed, but the government believed the risk of that disease spreading to the rest of Australia was so great, they moved into the property and cut down those trees.
When that owner asked for compensation, they basically said: ‘Well, we will give you some new trees’. I am not sure whether that is exactly fair, especially if the trees were productive trees, and it does take some time for citrus to reach a productive bearing stage. So I am interested, minister, to find out whether there is some compensation for owners of plant material who, through no fault of their own, have had that plant material destroyed and taken away.
The other area I am interested in is the idea of management plans. That is a good idea, because it is where the government and the community can get together and look at controls over the introduction of certain plant material if they believe it is a risk to existing crops, or they believe that sort of crop should not be grown in their area. That has potential to be of benefit, too, in controlling pests and diseases.
The other area I would like the minister to comment on is Part 3, Certification of plant health, which deals with inspection certificates. There are accredited production places and plant health assurance schemes, which are the two main certificates. My question is: who actually pays? If it is the grower, what sort of cost will be incurred for the grower to become accredited? Having these schemes is good, especially if it reduces the amount of red tape in moving plant product from the Northern Territory to other states, but it would be interesting to know what the cost would be and who would bear the cost of developing those certificates.
Generally, it is a bill that sets out ways of controlling plants, pests and diseases by making sure healthy plants can be certified and moved throughout Australia; we know that sometimes is a problem, especially in relation to moving plants to Western Australia. The rest of the bill deals with how these conditions would be enforced, and the regulations which would allow the smooth running of this legislation.
I think it is an excellent bill. I thank the department for the briefing we had. It is a bill which is probably a long time overdue, because it replaces the 1979 bill, and the horticultural industry since 1979 has expanded right across the Territory. The government could do a lot more in the primary industry areas, especially horticulture. I am concerned about the way research tends to be focused; the Northern Territory is a pioneering area and we should be continually trying to find new varieties which commercial interests can take up and develop, since it is unlikely commercial interests will do the experimental work that, traditionally, governments have taken on.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank the minister for his bill, and I will support it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution. There are a number of issues here, and I thank members very much for bringing them to my attention; I will endeavour to explain. Yes, it is a modern bill. It is about time, because we were relying on something which was about 30 years old, and we have interests in the Territory which are worth about $164m, as at 2006.
The other thing we have with disease is the easy way people can travel from one place to another, and how quickly they can move from one place to another. If they make a mistake and bring some disease into the Territory, it can decimate our industry. It has happened before; it may happen again.
Member for Goyder, you referred to clause 6, the definition of a pest. In clause 6, it refers to a pest as an organism that feeds on a plant or causes an abnormal or unhealthy condition in a plant; which is straightforward. You also referred to clause 8, regarding the host. A host plant for a pest is a plant that is susceptible to, uses, or harbours a pest. That is true. That may be symbiosis for that particular plant, but for another plant it can be a pest. Sometimes we find plants, pests and insects also develop a symbiotic relationship; they rely upon each other but, if the pest, the micro-organism, moves to another plant, it becomes a pest which can destroy the plant.
What is ‘close proximity’? People say it is subjective, but the reality is we know very well how pests operate, how far they can spread, how high they can fly, how they can be transmitted; so ‘close proximity’ can be 1 cm or 2 km. Pests can be flies, micro-organisms or a virus; that depends on the pest. The scientists know the history and the physiology of the pest and how it is transmitted.
Clause 14, you mentioned preventing the spreading on rental properties. A person, first of all, has to know that there is a pest on their property and has to take reasonable measures if there is a pest on their property. The fault elements are when the person knows the place is affected and intentionally fails to take measures. If you have a property and you do not know there is a pest there, and you move somewhere else and take the pest with you; that is a defence. You say: ‘Well, I had no idea this pest was there. I had no idea that I could transmit it by taking it from one place to another. How am I going to prevent it?’
The reality is, how many of us know what kind of pests we have in our garden? It was only after some publicity that I discovered I had this silver white butterfly - what is the name of the white butterfly? The spiral butterfly. I only knew because something did not look right; there were things flying around and, when I turned the leaf upside down, it was there. I had no idea about it. The only way I found out was because I read in the newspaper there was an outbreak of this particular insect.
Regarding clause 25, you asked: what information do you have to give an inspector? The reality is, you can give all the information - name, address and telephone number - but, if I want to know whether you are going on holidays in the next 14 days because we might have to contact you and, if you are going on holidays, I need to know where you are going and if you have a telephone number. Inspectors have to take reasonable information so they can contact the person. Asking a person if they are going on holidays or they have been on holidays or where they can be contacted is reasonable.
Clause 35 deals with compliance. What was the question about clause 35, member for Goyder?
Ms Purick: Clause 55?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, clause 35, compliance.
Ms Purick: Yes, the plants.
Mr VATSKALIS: Pardon?
Ms Purick: The plants.
Mr VATSKALIS: 25? Okay. Obviously, I have it wrong.
Member for Katherine, clause 11(1)(b), ‘close proximity’. I explained - we know the history and physiology of a pest. Some pests fly, some crawl, so close proximity depends on the kind of pest. People know very well if there is a particular pest here, how far away it can affect another plant - it can fly, crawl, or be transported by our actions.
Clause 13: Prevention of infestation. You mentioned about knowledge of a risk, or being reasonably expected to know. If you have plant-related material and it is malformed, it has a funny appearance, it is reasonable to assume there is something wrong with the plant.
Clause 21(3) regarding the caveat. Yes, when we carry out an action, we can put a caveat on the title. It has happened before. I have done it myself as an environmental health officer. I walked onto premises; the people were away; there was no way to contact them to clean it up. We cleaned it up; got the bill for $1200 - and put it on the title. When the property was sold, the authorities took the $1200 to compensate.
Clause 46 – that is another one that you mentioned, about exemption from the legislation. Yes, that can happen because the department might wish to exempt an area because they are doing research on pests; you cannot apply that one when they are doing research on pests. The other thing that is important, when you have an agricultural area that saddles borders, for example the Ord River, an area that extends from Western Australia to the Northern Territory, we may choose to apply one regulation, because we have different regulations to Western Australia. We might decide, by agreement, to apply the Northern Territory regulations in both sections in that particular area, which is well defined, or we apply the Western Australian regulations.
The warrant. Warrants are explained very clearly in the brief you had but, yes, the Livestock Bill is a very prescriptive one – here it is not; in that one it said you can ring a magistrate to get a warrant, in this case it does not. The reason for that is because we do not consider something to be so urgent, like foot-and-mouth disease or bovine encephalitis, to pick up the phone and call a magistrate. Things tend to happen a bit slower than in the livestock situation. So we have never done it before, and we are not going to do it now.
Member for Nelson, seize and destroy. Yes, there are parts to seize and destroy material. However, in clause 71, people can apply for compensation. The member for Nelson referred to a particular producer that had some limes which were diseased and were destroyed and did not get compensation; which was not our fault, he was offered replacement trees, but he refused them. The problem was this - compensation can only be provided to commercial producers of a nationally significant industry where they already pay a levy.
The citrus canker in Queensland, all those people were compensated because the citrus industry in Australia is a nationally significant industry and the producers pay a levy, which then goes into a trust account, and from that levy people are paid compensation if there is an issue with their trees.
The issue of accreditation. The act gives the power to the Chief Inspector to apply fees and charges. It has not been decided yet, but what usually happens with accreditation is people pay one-off for accreditation and renewal. On the contrary, if officers of the department have to go to inspect every consignment, then the person will be charged from the moment the officers leave the office, travel expenses, the time they spend there, to the time they come back to the office. So the accreditation relies upon the producer getting up to scratch, getting trained, paying the fee for the original accreditation, then he might pay an annual fee rather than every time there is a consignment. In some cases, this could be 12, 15, 20 consignments they have to get an officer out to their farm to inspect and certify. So, ultimately, it is more economic to have the accreditation regime rather than the current constant inspection regime.
Hopefully, that answers all your questions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 10 February 2009, at 10 am in Parliament House, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I table, on behalf of the Chief Minister, the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the paper be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, the Remuneration Tribunal has completed its 2008 Report and Determination on the Entitlements of Members of the Assembly, including ministers and office holders. The determination was received by government on 20 October 2008. It must be tabled within six sitting days and may be disallowed in whole or in part within 10 sitting days of tabling.
The determination covers electoral allowances, additional salary of office for office holders, personal travel cost entitlements, and resettlement allowance. In respect of electoral allowances, the tribunal has increased the rate of electoral allowance by 7%, which takes into account the CPI for the period June 2007 to June 2008. The total takes account of the average increase in the number of constituents in electorates. The additional amount applying to rural electorates has been increased by 4.2% to reflect the CPI increase. The additional salary for office holders has been increased by 4% and is based on the percentage increase received by NT public servants between October 2007 and October 2008. The entitlement to 12 weeks of basic salary remains unchanged in respect of MLAs who retire involuntarily in certain circumstances, and who are not eligible for pension superannuation benefits to relate to their Assembly service. In respect to travelling allowances, these rates have been increased in accordance with Australian government tax office determinations.
As a general comment in its report, the tribunal noted that since the last RTD there have been significant changes to the boundaries of the rural electorates, but also observed that it would be difficult at the time of the 2008 review for members representing those electorates to quantify with accuracy their likely electoral expenses. For this reason, the tribunal foreshadows next year’s review will comprehensively examine the electoral allowance for all seats and particularly rural seats.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I table the report of the Ombudsman 2007-08.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper - Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
On 20 November 2008, the Ombudsman provided Cabinet with a copy of her annual report for the year ending 30 June 2008. The annual report contains a comprehensive assessment of the office’s performance and financial statements required under the Financial Management Act and the Treasurer’s Direction.
In summary, during the 2007-08 financial year, the total number of approaches or inquiries and complaints received by the Ombudsman increased by 18% from 2081 to 2454. Of the total approaches, 407 became complaints that were handled by the Ombudsman. Of the 407 complaints, 274 related to Northern Territory Police conduct, 30 related to complaints from prisoners, and 103 related to administration of Northern Territory government agencies.
Forty per cent of the complaints were finalised because an adequate explanation was provided by Northern Territory agencies, compared to 20% in 2006-07. Twenty-six case studies and two significant investigations - women in prison and general investigative process - were undertaken and the resolution of litigation above the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate administrative action of a health service provider.
On the issue of the litigation, the Ombudsman has pointed to a conflict in her dual role as Ombudsman and the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner, in particular, the increasing workloads of both positions and she recommended that government give consideration to establishing the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission as a separate working unit from the Ombudsman.
During 2007-08, the Ombudsman also undertook inspection of the Northern Territory Police records to report on the compliance with the legislation protecting the rights of citizens when surveillance devices are used and when telephone communications are intercepted. A report was provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 18 September 2008. The report identified that the Northern Territory Police were not complying with some aspects of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.
In her annual report, the Ombudsman has also made reference to the proposed Ombudsman Bill 2008 and the consequential amendments to the Information Act to exempt from disclosure information obtained by NT Police when investigating a complaint about police conduct. The Ombudsman considered that the amendment to the Information Act is contrary to her credibility, transparency of government and the rights of individuals who may have grievances about police conduct.
The Ombudsman appears to be under the misapprehension that the consequential amendment to the Information Act is acting to exempt from disclosure information obtained during all police investigations. The Ombudsman is incorrect. Investigation undertaken by Northern Territory Police through their normal disciplinary processes, and any information obtained, will still be subject to the Information Act.
Currently, the Information Act exempts from disclosure information obtained during the investigation of a complaint about police conduct made under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act where the Ombudsman undertakes the investigation. The amendment to the Information Act is simply providing the same status to information obtained by NT Police where a complaint about police conduct is made under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act and the Ombudsman asks the Northern Territory Police to investigate the complaint.
Pursuant to section 28 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, the report must be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within three sitting days after it is received by the minister. To meet the tabling requirements, the report must be tabled no later than 27 November 2008. Cabinet has approved the Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08 for introduction in the November 2008 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I table the 30th Annual Report of the Ombudsman.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought the information we had received from the government was that we were going on with the economic statement debate this evening.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister has just adjourned the House.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that but, if these guys want to start changing the rules halfway through, then at least the Whip could have the courtesy to tell us. It would be nice if the Whip did.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! We are in the adjournment debate now. The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister moved that the House be now adjourned. You have the obligation then to put that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We put that at the end. Is the House to now adjourn?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: A division is called; ring the bells.
Could you turn the bells off for a minute? We need a bit of clarification. Are we actually trying to close the House down?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, we are moving into the adjournment debate.
Madam SPEAKER: We are moving into the adjournment debate. Then we are just calling the Chief Minister on. We do not need a division. Chief Minister, you have the call. There is only a division at the end of this, as I said.
Mr Elferink: You are more interested in a piss-up than running the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. People on your side can talk about that if you want to.
Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding Territorian and Centralian, Mrs Joan Higgins. Joan was one of those people who always put her hand up, typifying the Northern Territory spirit of getting your hands dirty and involved.
Joan began her work as a youth worker in 1947 after being posted to Alice Springs during World War II as a voluntary aged detachment nurse. In 1965, Joan was appointed as the Director of the Alice Springs Youth Centre, a post she held until 1988 ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take it from the Chief Minister’s comment earlier that he, once again, wants to suggest that there is an issue of sobriety with members of this House ...
Mr Henderson: No, I did not. I did not say that at all.
Mr ELFERINK: I am prepared to provide a sample of my breath. Is the Chief Minister prepared to supply a sample of his?
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. You are a clown. You are an absolute turkey.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr Henderson: You are an absolute turkey!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Purick: Hey, stop picking on my rural area poultry. They are smarter than you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, I will be asking you to withdraw very shortly. Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order and there are no breathalysers in this Chamber required, thank you very much. The Chief Minister has the call and is adjourning.
Mr HENDERSON: The whole place is a joke …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for silly stunts; you should have been in a Monty Python skit.
Madam Speaker, getting back to something important instead of the puerile stunts from the member for Port Darwin, I will continue to talk about a fine Centralian and Territorian, Mrs Joan Higgins, who deserves to be recognised in this House, unlike the member for Port Darwin and his stupid, inane stunts.
In 1982, during Joan’s time as youth centre director, she was honoured with the first Centralian of the Year Award and a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the community. When the youth centre hall was renovated in 1991, Joan’s outstanding contributions to the Centre and the young people of Alice Springs were recognised with the naming of the Higgins Theatre.
Over the years, Joan has also been honoured with life memberships to the youth centre and the Alice Springs Golf Club, the naming of the Joan Higgins apartments located in Peuce Place, Sadadeen, and running leg 55 of the Commonwealth Games Queen’s batton relay in 2006. In addition to her work with the youth centre, Joan was heavily involved the Girl Guides, gymnastics, the Alice Springs Show Society and, up until ill-health struck last year, a member of the Australia Day Council. Joan’s contribution to the Alice Springs community cannot be overstated, and I thank her on behalf of all Territorians.
I also wish to pay tribute to the recently passed Phyllis Kittle, the matriarch of the Kittle family and, indeed, Alice Springs. Following her move to Tennant Creek at the age of 19, Phyllis met and married Len Kittle who, with his brother, Geoff, started the Kittle Brothers motor company in Tennant Creek. The expansion of the business saw Phyllis, Len and their six children move to Alice Springs in 1958. Phyllis kept her distance from the day-to-day running of the business, preferring to offer her support whilst being at home with her children.
Phyllis was very involved in the local community, volunteering for community organisations like Meals on Wheels, and was well-known for getting the family together. This was especially true following Len’s death in 2004 after almost 65 years of marriage. Phyllis will be sadly missed by the Alice Springs community and her large family.
I thank both of these strong Territory women for their contribution to Central Australia and the Territory, and I extend my sincere condolences to Mrs Kittle’s family.
I am sure you will know that 31 October was World Teachers’ Day. I spent the day in my electorate and visited a number of the schools. I went to Wanguri Primary School first and helped Assistant Principal, Leah Crockford hand out the awards for well-behaved students. I also handed out World Teachers’ Day badges to all the staff and thanked them for the wonderful job they are doing. The Wanguri choir also performed a number of songs which were absolutely incredible. My daughter, Isobel, is a proud member of the Wanguri choir and it is always great to see the kids singing. I am proud of the kids at Wanguri. The choir always sound great. Congratulations to the teachers.
Next up was a visit to Henbury School, where I put on a morning tea to thank the staff. Henbury School is a very special school in Darwin, with great students and wonderful teachers. I met new staff members and we had a great morning tea that was enjoyed by all.
Friday was also Dripstone Day - a day where all the students at Dripstone were released from schoolwork and spent the day visiting different stalls around the school, raising money for charities. The day started with a cross-country run of an approximately 1.5 km course through the school. Congratulations to Phoenix, who won the race over Alexandra - it was very close.
Next up was a chance to crop and colour your hair for charity. All money was raised for charity and, so far, $8262.90 has been counted. The highlight of the crop and colour was the school captain, Ritchie Barreto and groundsman, Kevin Remfrey who both got crops and colour.
There were so many activities on offer from different food and drinks stalls to photos with Chance Bateman or Cyril Rioli Jr. There was also an afternoon AFL match between Dripstone and Kormilda in the blinding heat. It was a tough game but, eventually, Kormilda walked away with the spoils.
Dripstone Day always culminates with a talent quest in the auditorium, and before I get to the talent quest, I would like to congratulate Greg Cilento who does enormous work at Dripstone as their Phys Ed teacher and is a key organiser of all the charity events there.
Dripstone Day always culminates with a talent quest in the auditorium. This year, I had the privilege of being asked to be one of the judges. There were well over 15 acts on stage. It was a real showcase of student talent. There was singing, bands, dancing, drama and a circus performance, which did amazing acts with two very large ribbons. It was a tough decision, but I and the other judges awarded first prize to the group Melanie Pond, a singing duet made up of Maria Ramilo and Susan Crute. The duo was also invited on to Hot 100 later that week to perform their song live and were absolutely fantastic.
This year, Dripstone Day raised $7903.65, all in one day, and all of that money will be donated to various charities from a great middle school in the northern suburbs of Darwin. A hearty congratulations - that is a lot of money, nearly $8000 by the students and teachers on the one day.
It has also been busy at Wanguri Primary School. Apart from the World Teachers’ Day celebration, there has been a Blue Light disco and a working bee. The disco was a great success, with all the kids enjoying themselves in a fun and safe environment. Santa stopped by for a visit, and all the kids, young and old, got a real kick of seeing Santa. Judging from the photos, everyone had a ball.
The November working bee was also a triumph, with a group of dedicated parents showing up to work on the beautiful school grounds. The garden beds were mulched, and many hands made for short work. Thanks to all the parents who gave up part of their Saturday morning to help the school.
At Holy Spirit Primary School, it never stops; there is always something going on. Just within the last month, Holy Spirit has elected new parent representatives, received a $250 000 grant, and raised money through a book fair. I welcome David Villa and Anne Myerscough to the Holy Spirit School Board. David is coming in as the new chair, following the relocation of former chair, Paul Albion. Anne takes over as deputy chair from Jane Sheehan, whose son is moving into middle school. There are also three teacher’s reps who are leaving the school board: Chris Simmonds, Michelle Proctor and Caroline Wright. I thank those who are moving on for all their hard work over this year, and warmly welcome the new faces on the school board.
Holy Spirit Primary School was recently advised that they were successful in their application for a block grant. This grant will provide the school with $250 000 to be spent on completing classroom renovations. This money will also go towards equipping classes with electronic smart boards and IT infrastructure. I cannot wait to head down next year and see all the changes.
Another fantastic event at Holy Spirit was the book fair. It t was well attended and the school received $635 as a commission for all the books sold.
Students at Leanyer Primary School have been involved in a Tournament of Minds program and have performed very well. They entered into two categories: Language and Literature, and Maths and Engineering. The following students received certificates of participation in the Language and Literature category: Cassandra de Vries, Racheel Dood, Bailey Duignan, Erin Gargan, Siobhan Bishop, John Byrne and Bailey Heatherington-Tait. The next lot of students received an NT regional final honourable mention for their second place overall in the primary school division: Sarah Banks, Tom Ford, Jasmin Hunkin, Toby Hunkin, Tatjana Linklater, Kaitlyn Maggs and Maddison Smith. Well done to everyone who participated in the Tournament of Minds.
Leanyer also participated in the University of New South Wales student competition this year. There were many students who received great results, and quite a few who received distinctions and high distinctions. Well done to Joanna Glinatsis and Toby Hunkin, who received a distinction in the spelling, as well as Florence Sadicon who received a high distinction. Jack Malin, Gabrielle White, Rochelle Basset, Jayson Beekman and Jordon Kerr each received a distinction in the writing competition, and Joanna Glinatsis received a high distinction. Gabrielle White, Jayson Beekman, Joel Jettner, Jarrod Perry and Aden Wilson received distinctions for the Maths test, and Joanna Glinatsis, Jayson Beekman and Douglas Lee each received a distinction for the English test.
There were many high achievers in the Westpac Maths competition too. Twelve students received credits: Nathan Gaijar, Joanna Glinatsis, Kane Milne, Florence Sadicon, Daniel Turner, Jayson Beekman, Thomas Ford, Jasmin Hunkin, Bailey Heatherington-Tait, Kristina Lee, Kylie Scrimegour, Maddison Smith. Seven more students received distinctions: Jack Malin, Gabrielle White, Joel Jettner, Lauren Maddock, Aden Wilson, Toby Hunkin and Rachael Thomas. This goes to show what a great bunch of smart kids we have at Leanyer. They are fantastic.
I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas and wish them all the best for 2009. I make a special mention of a few. I would like all the staff at Parliament House who do such a wonderful job: the cleaners, the security guards, the staff at Speaker’s Corner, and everyone else. Thank you for your hard work this year.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff, from the Clerk down, thank you, you do a great job and make this place tick. I make special mention of the Hansard staff for all your hard work and long hours.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you to my staff. It has been a tremendous effort from you in the last 12 months. You have all done a remarkable job. I hope some of you get a well-deserved break over the Christmas period because we will be working at the same pace for the next three years, and I know you are looking forward to it. I thank all my Caucus colleagues and their staff for all their contributions in the past ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Mr HENDERSON: You cannot do that in adjournment.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot do it in adjournment. There is no quorum required during adjournment debate.
Mr Tollner: Well, that is not true.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it is.
Mrs AAGAARD: Member for Fong Lim, speaking to the point of order. There is no quorum required during adjournment debates.
Mr Tollner: That is not true.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is true. Please resume your seat.
Ms Scrymgour: Sit down, you are a joke.
Mr Tollner: No.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have delivered my ruling, member for Fong Lim. A quorum is not required.
Mr HENDERSON: I hope I can get an extra couple of minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Tollner: Maybe you should discuss it with the Clerk.
Mr HENDERSON: Are you dissenting from the Speaker’s ruling?
I hope I get an extra couple of minutes. It is a great team, and I am excited to work with them in the coming year. We and the Territory have an exciting time ahead of us. A merry Christmas and big thank you to my Department of the Chief Minister led by Mike Burgess and all of you at DCM. You do a great job and I am looking forward to working with you all next year.
I thank all staff in Police, Fire and Emergency Services and, in particular, the frontline staff: the police on the beat, the firefighters, and the emergency services personnel who do a magnificent job in keeping the Territory safe. I thank the Police Commissioner, Paul White, for all his hard work this year. To all departments across government from the CEOs down across the entire public service, thank you, a merry Christmas. You help make the Territory tick and I thank you for your great efforts in 2008.
Moving from my Chief Minister hat to my member for Wanguri hat, I wish a merry Christmas to the following people. First, to my electorate officer, Morgan, thank you for holding the fort out at Hibiscus. It is hard as Chief Minister to spend as much time in your electorate as you would like, but you do a great job. Merry Christmas to Team Hendo: George and Tania, Roberta and Joana and Costa and Thammy. Thank you for your hard work this election year and merry Christmas. I wish a merry Christmas to all my constituents and thank you for the honour of electing me as your representative again for the fourth time. I am truly honoured and humbled, and I will continue to work hard for my electorate over the next three years. In particular, I wish a merry Christmas to Eddie and Jane Sepulveda, Denis and Carmen Newsham, Jasminder …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish all members of parliament a very safe and happy Christmas. I also thank parliamentary colleagues for their friendship and support over the past year.
In particular, I thank members of my department, the Department of the Legislative Assembly, especially the Clerk, Mr Ian McNeill, who is a person of great credibility, intelligence and humour and is a pleasure to work with. I also thank the Deputy Clerk of the Assembly, Captain David Horton, the parliamentary officers, particularly, Mrs Vicki Long for all her hard work for members during the year. The staff …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He has drawn the attention to the state of the House. Under standing orders, they cannot leave the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause while confer with the Clerk.
Dr Burns: And the member for Araluen did.
Ms Carney: My apologies, sorry.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, what is your point of order?
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been advised you are on a warning. You called attention to the state of the House when there was a quorum here.
Mr TOLLNER: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not realise there were people flowing through the doors.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are now on warning. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I continue thanking the staff in my department who provide us with an excellent service throughout the year and who work extremely hard for all members of parliament.
In the committee area, I thank Pat Hancock and Terry Hanley and the staff of the different committees. I thank the people working with Vicki Long in the Assembly. I thank the Table Office staff as well, particularly Mr Graham Gadd, and the people who work so hard for us in here, plus the Hansard staff. Helen Allmich and the people who attempt to translate what happens in this Chamber deserve our particular thanks.
I express gratitude to my own staff, Karen Philp and Vishal Mohan-Ram for their hard efforts over the past year and their loyalty and hard work for all members.
Moving to my electorate, I thank my electorate officer, Janet Webb, who I consider to be the best of the electorate officers over the 25 officers. I thank her for her very hard work and effort ...
A member: I do not know about that.
Mrs AAGAARD: There is a bit of debate but she has put in a great effort over several years now and she is a terrific person to work with.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to my husband, Simon, and my children. Being a member of parliament, you give up a lot. Your family misses out a lot in the effort we put in either in this place and in the greater part of the Northern Territory. We do that knowing our families do miss out a lot. Sometimes, we miss out on events. My son graduated last night from CSC. I was very sorry I was unable to see him receive the top prize for geology in the Territory last night. I am very proud of him. Congratulations, Michael.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD: He is at his formal tonight, so behave well, Michael.
Mr TOLLNER (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start I congratulate the member for Nightcliff and her success with her son. Congratulations, well deserved.
The story that emerged today with the Health Services Commissioner’s report into the rape of a five-month-old baby touched all of us. A dreadful story and the failings of the Health department were adequately covered in that report. The commissioner said that action taken by RDH after the rape to improve security was (a) slow, (b) inadequate, and (c) has not been adequately evaluated or reviewed to determine its effectiveness. That small sentence encapsulates the whole situation with Health, RDH, the Health department and, ultimately, somebody must bear responsibility for that.
The minister informed the parliament today that he only became the minister in August 2006, some months after the event occurred. There was no suggestion at all that the minister was responsible for the incident that happened at the time, but the minister does bear responsibility for how his department reacted to that incident since he became minister.
The minister informed the parliament today he received verbal advice and briefings when he was first made Minister for Health, and that he trusted Royal Darwin Hospital to implement measures that would see an incident like that not occur again. The thing that steeled the opposition to move a motion of sanction today was not that the incident had taken place, as dreadful as that was, but the way the minister has attempted to avoid scrutiny of this whole matter. That is what the opposition finds so abhorrent.
The minister received this report on Monday afternoon, he informed the parliament. It has taken until lunchtime today for the minister to table that report. It was not just tabled; it was hidden amongst a whole big batch of other reports, with the clear hope that everybody would miss it; we would go away to the Christmas break and the matter would never surface. Well, the matter did surface, and the minister has been asked some questions about it.
The minister has failed to provide any defence whatsoever. We heard in the censure debate today the minister making absolutely no attempt to defend himself or those of his department. What we heard was the minister pleading with this parliament, with the Chief Minister, to let him go ...
Mr Elferink: To let him off the hook.
Mr TOLLNER: Let him off the hook. The minister talked for quite some length about the difficulties of being a Health Minister, saying it was a tough job. I do not think there is anybody in this parliament or any other parliament would disagree with that. However, the fact is that the minister does have a tough job and the minister has to stand up and take responsibility for it. The censure motion was about the minister’s cowardice to stand up to scrutiny and to answer questions. This was demonstrated by his trying to sneak this report into the parliament.
For a long time now, my colleague, the member for Greatorex, has been talking about the culture of cover-up in the Health department. The minister cannot plead ignorance to this. He cannot say there has been no cover-up because this has been talked about ad nauseam since I and a whole range of other people in this place have been elected to this parliament. He has had quite substantial time to send the dogs into the Health department, to sniff around, find the problems and roll a few people. However, the minister says: ‘No’. The minister has done none of that at all.
One gentleman, the scapegoat, following the Ombudsman’s release of the report into the death of Margaret Winter, was moved sideways into another job somewhere else in the public service. That is really the only recrimination anybody in this place or in the department of Health has seen following the revelations of this culture of cover-up - a culture of cover-up that goes very deep and leads his department to fight the Ombudsman in court to keep a document from his own eyes. He supports this culture of cover-up. We saw, in sittings gone by, that the minister voted with the government to not allow the tabling of the report his own department was in court seeking to keep from his eyes. The opposition gave him the opportunity to have a look and see what the Ombudsman had to say about the culture of cover-up in the Health department, but the minister chose instead to bury his head in the sand.
This is cowardice. It is cowardice to the max, and is the reason why censure motions were run today. The minister does all he can to hide from the truth. He is not interested in finding the truth. There is a range of preventable deaths that have occurred: Georgia Rae Tilmouth, Margaret Winter. Now, we find the rape of a five-month-old baby - an absolutely dreadful situation. I have to ask the question: if that was your baby, how many members on the other side would be supporting this minister in allowing this cover-up to continue?
A member: None.
Mr TOLLNER: Yet, they seem to be able to sit there with straight faces and support this minister.
I do not seem to think that this minister has any other option but to step down. I do not think the Chief Minister has any other option but to sack the Health Minister. But that is not going to occur, because they are allowing the culture of cover-up to continue.
I note that the minister said today he has allocated $1m to a security upgrade. The very day that he decides to table the report, straight after he has given the report to the Clerk’s office, he has run out there to the media and said he is allocating $1m to a security upgrade. He is appointing a fellow called Jim O’Sullivan, and another fellow called Ray Norman to do an investigation. Finally, after two years, the minister is sending the dogs in. It has taken two years and this dreadful, damming report. The minister says he is doing all he can. The minister is not doing all he can. It is the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner who is running the department of Health, who has managed to send in the dogs.
I listened closely today to the minister’s explanations in his debate, the way he tried to defend himself - which he did not, of course. I was very keen to hear what had been done with the No 1 recommendation of the commissioner’s report. In fact, the first recommendation, I think it says: ‘deleted due to explanation by Department of Health and Families’.
The second recommendation is that the ‘Department of Health and Families immediately enter into negotiations with goodwill to pay compensation to the infant and her parents for the injuries she suffered’. I have heard nothing today, nothing from anywhere. I am not saying it has not happened, maybe it has happened. However, I would have thought if the minister was running out there briefing the media about putting $1m into security systems, and of cornering a couple of people to go in there and investigate the department, he would also address the very top priority of the recommendations the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner put to him; which is to go in there with goodwill to discuss the payment of compensation to the parents of the infant for the injuries that she suffered. We have heard nothing.
This is the level of compassion we get from this government - completely without compassion. You would think the first people a reasonably compassionate person, on hearing such a story would talk to and deal with would be the parents of that infant. You would think either the head of the Paediatric Ward, the head of the hospital, the CEO of the Health department, or maybe even, in such an extreme situation, the minister himself would make that phone call, or maybe even jump in a car and get around there and see those parents, and have a discussion with them to see what the government could do to assist or provide some recompense for the pain and anguish these people have had to go through. But nothing - absolutely nothing.
That lack of compassion is shown again today in a censure debate, where the minister for Business so callously gagged that debate, all in order to get to the Speaker’s Christmas drinks tonight. We saw it not 10 minutes ago: the Chief Minister coming in here and immediately adjourning the parliament. Why? Because the Chief Minister wants to get him and his team out there to Christmas drinks. How appalling is this? Do you people have no feelings whatsoever? This is a major issue. The last thing we would ever want to see is for that to happen again.
Somewhere in this report - I cannot put my fingers on it at the moment - a Detective Inspector went into the Paediatric Unit during some investigations, picked up a baby, put it in a pram and walked out. Not one question was asked - not one single question was asked. We have heard the story about the closed circuit television cameras, rather than being installed in the Paediatric Unit, were put in the kitchen because people were pilfering staff lunches, cheese sandwiches and the like. This is dreadful stuff.
He is a minister, who I believe when he says that he gets out to the Royal Darwin Hospital on a very regular basis, walks through the wards, talks to the people who run the show, and has discussions with the nurses and doctors. You wonder how this type of thing can go on right under his nose. Minister, I cannot believe you are an evil person. I cannot believe that at all. However, I believe there is a serious question regarding your competence. I seriously believe that you should consider looking at throwing in the job - giving it to someone else.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I suggest that we do not interrupt for dinner but we continue working through dinner. If people want to have dinner they can go upstairs and get it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Acting Leader of Government Business has requested we work through the dinner break, which sounds quite a reasonable request which I agree to. There is no debate or discussion on this and, of course, members are welcome to leave the Chamber to partake of dinner in the CPA Lounge.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone in this Chamber a festive season and a healthy and safe prosperous New Year. I hope you take care of your families and make sure that the New Year is great for everyone, so we can see everyone back.
I also wish the Clerk, the Legislative Assembly, Pat Hancock, Vicki, Gaddy, Helen and everyone in Hansard, Terry, Madam Speaker and her family, a festive and a healthy and safe prosperous New Year.
I also acknowledge my electorate officer in Alice Springs, John Rawnsley, who works so hard for me in my absence and does the 335 000 km2 or 338 000 km2 for me. I wish you and your family a safe and happy Christmas and New Year and hope to see you back in good form in the New Year so we can hit the ground running.
Mathew Fagan is my Chief of Staff and hope you are listening, Mathew. It is Mathew’s birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday to you and also wishing, Caroline, your wife, a safe and happy Christmas. Also my other staff, Andrew, Jacinta, Shannon, Dee, and Linda. Without these people, we cannot do our jobs and I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart. To my CEO, Jim Grant, and everyone who works with Jim in NRETAS and Parks and Wildlife. They are very special people who make us who we are and give us the capacity to stand in this House and look after Territorians.
I send special Christmas wishes to all Territorians, Central Australians and businesses in Alice Springs. Safe travels, safe journeys with families wherever you are going for your Christmas holidays. I hope we can get things back on track in Alice Springs. I am hoping that with my colleagues, the members for Braitling, Araluen, Greatorex and Stuart, that in the New Year we look at Alice Springs in a very different way and start helping our constituents to ensure we are the drivers for better results. I have a very special electorate, as the member for Port Darwin knows - the former member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: You do, indeed. I am jealous.
Ms ANDERSON: Very special. I wish every single person, man woman and child in the electorate of Macdonnell festive season wishes. I hope you all travel without drinking. Make sure you look after your families. Make sure you buy lots of food for the Christmas and New Year break and nurture your families and your children. Do not drink too much and God bless you all.
As Madam Speaker said earlier, we tend to forget the special people in our lives. It is our partners, our children. I say a thank you to my children. I have two who live and work in Perth, Clinton and Melissa Cash, Dorelle and Dereece and Taj, Samara, Payton and Emerson, Tahnee and Cameron and Liam. Especially my mum. My mum has always been the rock of my life. I take this opportunity to thank you for everything, mother. If you did not have the foresight to send me to school and help me with my children when I was so interested in my political career, I would not be standing here this evening saying the things I am. It was the goodness of your heart and the love you had for all your children. Thank you to Nicholas and my brothers and sisters out at Papunya, Sid and Janet, and my nieces and nephews and Amos and Linda, Natasha and Rosabelle and Faye.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish a number of people merry Christmas and thank a number of people. First, my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia. I thank them for everything that they have given to me throughout the year, and family, Trent, Kaye and Gladys, forthe support they have given me.
I acknowledge Hansard and Legies and everyone who helps to make this place run, including the Clerks.
I thank a couple of people in Alice Springs who helped us in the Country Liberal campaign this year. They are Michael Jones, Jenny Lillis and Suzanne Schroeder - people who have been instrumental in helping me get through the process. There have been a number of people who have also helped me with advice: Paul Ah Chee and Kim Lechleitner. I thank those two guys.
I thank the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s Office: Francine Chin, Michael Delosa, Kylie Silvey, Camden Smith, Leanne Britton, Greg Charter, Bonnie and James Lantry. James Lantry helped an awful lot and provided a lot of advice that makes it a lot easier.
I also thank an Aboriginal reference group I have in Alice Springs which helps us with a lot of policy advice and direction about some of the issues in town. That is very important.
I would also, like the member for Macdonnell, thank my electorate. There are some wonderful people there who I have spent a lot of time with. I acknowledge them for their assistance. I will not go through them name by name, but I will just collectively say thank you to all those people. Thank you for the well wishes. Thank you to my colleagues in Alice Springs, Matt Conlan and Jodeen Carney. They are great team members to have in our team in Alice Springs, and also my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. Whilst last night was not needed, the support those people gave me after the vitriolic incident where people on the other side refused to listen to the concerns of Alice Springs was very good. It shows a sign of a good team and leadership. Thank you very much, everybody.
Before I go on, I also thank a couple of people in Nigel Scullion’s office. Nigel provides me with great support, personally and professionally, along with some of his staff: Beverly, Lisa, Ron and Dee. Also, to Rick Setter and the Country Liberal Party.
A number of things of things have happened this last three months since the election. One thing of note is the injury to Rob Cook in the helicopter accident. People of Alice Springs and the bush came together and raised over $80 000 to support Rob Cook’s family while he is still in ICU in Adelaide. I know that many thoughts go out to Rob Cook. I am not going to run through everyone who has suffered an injury or, unfortunately, passed away, but my thoughts go out to those people, as do the thoughts of many people in Alice Springs.
I also pass on my thoughts for Rebecca Jones, the lady who, unfortunately, woke up in hospital in Alice Springs. I have spoken to her a couple of times and, whilst healing, she is in a very unfortunate state in being able to get on with things. She needs a lot of support and care, and I hope the hospital provides that. She is still trying to get over that trauma, so I hope she improves.
In relation to my Transport portfolio, what we were seeing before the election and a month or so after the election was a devastating increase in the road toll. It was going up and up, and we are at the highest levels. I think the road toll now is 71 on the last count. Since the election, with a strong opposition, we have been able to hold the government to account regarding road safety. What we have seen over the last couple of months is a gradual decrease in the accelerated numbers of people who are, unfortunately, passing away on our roads. It is not increasing as it was before. There is a renewed education campaign, more drink-driving blitzes out on the road. That has been brought about by us keeping on the government’s back, and that is a positive thing. Let us hope that over the Christmas period, there are no idiots on the road - they do not drink and drive - and we hope people get home safe. In Alice Springs, a lot of people travel to Adelaide for Christmas. All too often, we hear about people having accidents on the way home and not making it. We hope that that does not happen.
I heard a disturbing story today about a young boy who was stabbed in an incident of gang violence in Alice Springs the other day. I am not going to talk about him in person, but my thoughts go out to him. The riot of 50 people in Alice Springs last night also adds to the concern of the violence in Alice Springs. Not that the members on the other side would agree there are issues in Alice Springs, because they are okay. When people stand in this Chamber and try to raise concerns - I will save my responses for another time. When people try to raise concerns of a serious nature and other people want to leave it to 20 minutes of a personal attack, it is rather disappointing.
I have enjoyed working with a number of people on the other side, so far. The member for Johnston, I have enjoyed sitting across from you and watching things fire up and then calm down again. It is quite good. You are my opposite, so I get to see you more often than not. I have enjoyed working with a number of people here; it is quite good.
Until the government gets serious about some of the issues in the Territory, things will not improve and continue to deteriorate. Of concern to me, other than the road toll which I have already mentioned, the lack of planning, the law and order issues, and lack of suitable facilities to assist people in Alice Springs, I also think housing is a serious issue that has not been dealt with. It is a long way from being dealt with. There is a lack of housing in the Northern Territory which is seriously contributing to our problems in the Northern Territory. We hear of a housing crisis quite often in the national media, but that often relates to the price of housing, where it is a concern in the Territory. The actual crisis in the Territory is there is no housing. There is nowhere for people to live, and that is a serious issue. That is a long-term issue of failure, but it is something that needs to be addressed in the New Year. I hope the government looks to address that. I will be working with the government to try to make that work.
Lastly, I request the government put on the next General Business Day the motion I moved yesterday about the Sessional Committee for Central Australia Development. It is an opportunity the member for Macdonnell and I have both spoken about on a number of occasions. If the government votes against that, they are voting against Alice Springs and Central Australia. It is as simple as that. I hope the government in the New Year supports that.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute in the Northern Territory parliament to the men and women of Groote Eylandt. There are three communities in the Groote region, Angurugu, Umbakumba, Milyakburra, and the mining town of Alyangula. It is an honour to represent the people of Groote.
On many occasions in this House, I have spoken with great pride of their commitment to improving relations on a social and business level between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people on Groote. For example, the official opening of the Dugong Beach Resort in May this year was a culmination of many years of determined work by the Anindilyakwa Land Council, GEMCO and the previous councils and CDEP crews of Umbakumba and Angurugu. The personal and professional dedication of the former CEO of the ALC, the late Mr Ross Hebblewhite, was a driving factor behind the resort’s establishment.
Mr Hebblewhite was well-respected by all who knew him. Despite struggling with health problems in the final months prior to his death, he made an enormous effort to be present for the opening of the Dugong Beach Resort. On that special night, the Groote Eylandt Anindilyakwa Land Council Chair, Tony Wurramarrba, spoke passionately about the tourist resort’s real reason for being; that is, to provide genuine employment prospects for his people.
We have heard in this House the success of the alcohol permit system on Groote. We know about the major reduction in crime statistics as a result of the permit system. Groote is being watched by many towns and communities across the Territory as those places try to learn from Groote’s success. This by no means says that there are no problems – there will always be issues of some nature. The people of Groote must be commended on their ability to work so closely together on issues that impact on the way of life of all people.
I am often inspired on my regular trips to the island, trips that I consider as going home, where the warm welcomes from familiar faces make it an absolute pleasure to serve the people of Groote Eylandt. What saddens me is that all the good that happens on the island is forgotten or overlooked when an incident occurs that raises the interest of the media - incidents related to clan arguments in Angurugu, where people are forced to attend to calm the situation, or the evacuation of nurses or teaching staff, or both, from Umbakumba after threats to their safety for one reason or another.
I have witnessed such incidents in both Angurugu and Umbakumba. On those occasions I have seen the elders of the respective clan groups quickly gather to calm the tensions. Tonight, I want to share with my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the Chamber the recent events of a tragic accident near Angurugu where four young people lost their lives in a car accident in early October. Since that tragic day, the families on Groote have been gripped by sorrow as the funeral ceremonies took place one after the other. It is a tragic event that lingers in the hearts and minds of not just the families of the young people who died, but all the people involved with the attempt to try to help at the crash site and, then, try to allay the fears of loved ones unable to control their sorrow.
What I see here is a remarkable story of professional dedication, team work, and care and compassion for one another. I have asked members from the Alyangula Police, the mining company GEMCO, the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Angurugu Health Clinic to allow me to tell their story of that event to the House in an effort to pay tribute to all the people involved. I quote firstly from a letter from the Anindilyakwa Land Council manager, Richard Preece:
I also have a letter here from the nurse, Jenni Langrell from Angurugu clinic. She had this to say:
While I understand the accident is the subject of a police investigation on behalf of the NT Coroner, I share the thoughts of NT Police Superintendent, Colin Smith, responsible for the Northern Operational Service Division based in Katherine, which also includes Alyangula Police Station. He was able to compile these words for me tonight:
In my final minutes I wish each and every member of the House a happy and safe Christmas ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: To my understanding, there is no quorum required in the debate.
Ms Scrymgour: There is no quorum in adjournments. What do you mean there is? I thought that it is normal convention.
Mr Tollner: You threw convention out the window.
Ms Scrymgour: We know why you are doing it.
Mr Tollner: Out of the window. And decency and everything else.
Ms Scrymgour: Some of us do not drink, we are actually here.
Mr Tollner: And decency and everything else.
Ms Scrymgour: Unlike you guys.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura made an unparliamentary comment. I ask you to get her …
Ms Scrymgour: What was unparliamentary about that? What did I say?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard the comment. It was an unparliamentary comment and I ask the member to withdraw.
Ms Scrymgour: What did I say?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going to repeat it here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now have a quorum present. Member for Fong Lim, I did not hear the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura made an offensive comment to me. I heard it quite clearly across the Chamber. I ask you to ask her to withdraw that comment, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was just asking what the unparliamentary comments were that I was making. If there was anything that I said you thought was offensive or unparliamentary, I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura. Member for Arnhem, you have the call.
Ms McCARTHY: I wish each and every member of the parliament a happy and safe Christmas with your families. I look forward to next year. Many of us probably need some time out now with our families and friends for the Christmas break.
I say a special thank you to Charles in my electorate office whose dedication to the people of Arnhem is just outstanding. To my staff here - Jacki, Fred, Carly and Tania - you guys are just fantastic. We have come a long way in a very short time.
To the Legislative Assembly staff, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, the Table Office - Annette, Steven and Gaddy – thank you and I sincerely wish you all a happy Christmas. To Hansard - Helen and all your team - you are just wonderful. I wish you a happy and safe Christmas. Also to our other parliamentary staff - Tony and Owen, who is always waiting when I arrive in the car park, as he is for everyone, and Errol – I wish you all a wonderful and safe Christmas. To the drivers, thank you very much for the work you do in taking us where we need to go.
I thank my colleagues and wish each and every one of them a happy and safe Christmas, and look forward to seeing you all in the New Year. I also thank my husband and my sons, who are just wonderful. We could not really do this job without the support of our families. To my sisters and all my people in the Gulf Region, the Yanyuwa, Garawa, Mara and Gudanji peoples, I sincerely take them with me wherever I go, and I know they strengthen me in my travels across Arnhem. To all my constituents in Arnhem, I wish you all a happy and safe Christmas.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I try in this very last adjournment debate - or decent adjournment debate we have left in time - to capture the Christmas spirit which is about to capture us all a little. I have to thank Donna Mahoney of Dundee Downs who e-mailed this to several members. With the indulgence of members, I wish to – well, I suppose I have to sing the e-mail into the Parliamentary Record to endeavour to convey exactly what she was trying to say. I hope honourable members can forgive me for what I am about to do to their eardrums. In the spirit of Christmas, in the spirit of what Donna has offered to us and, in the hope of at least allowing a little levity in this House after not long and difficult, but short and difficult day. Here we go.
Merry Christmas, Hendo!
Mr Henderson: Thank you, John.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is our last week of sittings for 2008 and December is approaching quickly. I still have not bought presents for underneath the Christmas tree, or signed my Christmas cards, but I take this opportunity tonight to wish a number of people all the best for the season and thank them for their support this year.
It has been a big year in the electorate of Fannie Bay. We said goodbye to a great public servant, the former member, Clare Martin. She was a valuable mentor. I know there are many people in the electorate who join with me in wishing her all the best, not just for Christmas and the New Year, but for the new challenges she has ahead of her as the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mr GUNNER: They are challenges of significance to the Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Fannie Bay. Member for Fong Lim?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We have a quorum present. You have the call, member for Fannie Bay.
Mr GUNNER: They are challenges of significance to the Territory, and I know Clare will always have the interests of the Territory at heart.
Speaking of the heart, I thank my mum. Everyone in the Chamber knows Mum. The Clerk keeps her very busy and, as members of the Chamber can understand, Mum, with respect to her job, could not help me during the campaign. However, her support and confidence in me over the years have been crucial to me being where I am today, and I thank her very much.
I also thank my sister, Rebecca, with her daughter, Ava, under one arm, who is the hardest working campaign worker I have ever met. She was amazing. Quite genuinely, without her support, tasks such as letterboxing, setting up stalls, organising volunteers, making sure I had not forgotten anything I said I would do, and more, would not have been done. Thanks, Rebecca.
You do not have to look far to see where my sister got her hard work ethic from. Both my parents know the meaning of hard work. My dad took time off from his job, jumped in a car and headed up the track from Alice and did some serious hard yards in that last week; doing those grunt jobs that just needed to be done, and I thank him very much.
There are not many glamorous jobs in a campaign; it is just a lot of hard work. One of the hardest jobs is letterboxing. Letterboxing is one of those campaign tasks that needs a team of people prepared to get out there after work, with kids on the weekend, often in the heat of the day, dodging dogs, trying to find the letterboxes half the time. It is amazing how often a letterbox is not where you think it should be.
I thank Anna, Bev, Chris, Kayla, James, Cathy, Simon, Bear, Clare, Colleen, Fiona, Graham, Zinta and James, Jane, Jenny, John, Maria, Michael, Nicole, Bethany, Heather, Monica, Steve, Sam and Ellie, Pippa, Rachel, Dan and Kate, Bec, Sam, Tiff, Trish and Tony, Beth and Paul for consistently being there every time we had important information we wanted to get out to people in Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park. You did a great job. Even my opponent took time out from the campaign to acknowledge the hard work they were doing.
There are a number of others I also want to thank. Jenny almost did too much work. I started to feel guilty towards the end. She is indefatigable. She and Mark were incredibly reliable and you cannot ask anything more from a volunteer. Yet, Jenny also brought to the table undeniable quality. She was a rolled gold vollie. Annette was a source of great support. She always had a cheerful word and excellent advice. Sue spoke well on issues that were important to her, to Stuart Park and to education; she was a great help.
The Neve and Grace families – well, to be honest, I feel like they are my family - I thank very much. Trevor and Gail who treated me as family. Simon and Claire, Sam and Abby were troopers, always there to lend a hand, a word of advice, support, or a cold drink. Never underestimate the importance in a campaign of a cold drink. Doc and Zee’s careers have, unfortunately, taken them down south. You will be missed. Monica, John and Helen were supportive and informative; they are long-term residents with much corporate knowledge and credibility. Rob and John were always available to talk with. They always had sound counsel on some of those things you just do not think of until you are a candidate. David and Pippa were unwavering in their support, from a long way out. They live just around the corner from me, and I remember many nights after doorknocking I would drop past their place for a quiet chat. I assured them it had nothing to do with whether I felt like cooking that night. They were two of the people who kept me on track and grounded as a candidate. Alf was another. Alf starts work very early in the morning. His calls of support could almost be used as an alarm clock. His advice and experience was critical also in keeping me on track and grounded.
I also thank Travis, Sarah, Jamison, and Lily. What I appreciated most about Trav’s help was not just that he flew himself and his family up from Melbourne but that he did not go fishing until after polling day. Anyone who knows Trav knows how much of a sacrifice that was. Trav, or as he jokingly referred to himself during the campaign, ‘the eagle’, brought with him an energy and enthusiasm that gave the campaign team a huge lift in the last week. I mention Travis in detail because after my maiden speech he e-mailed me. In part, his e-mail read:
Just one – just one is all that he wants in all speeches. Thanks, Trav. If you do not know Trav, he looks like Rob Sitch in Hollowmen.
Another who jumped the plane was Danielle Bevins-Sundvall. She was amazing. I still remember the day when she casually e-mailed me saying she was happy to take some leave, fly up from Sydney and help out if I could use her. Friends like that are gold. Like Trav, she brought a fresh sense of energy to our campaign in the last week.
I thank my electorate office, Kate Densmore. Kate was also Clare’s electorate officer and I am very lucky to have her continue on. She is hard-working, energetic and has an excellent relationship with the general community. Her work with Clare and the residents of the Ross Smith Guest House was nothing short of extraordinary. Kate continues to be extraordinary every day. I am very sorry I will be losing her in January, but I wish her and her husband, Steve, all the best as they prepare for a new Densmore to bless this world.
Clare was an excellent local member and I thank her again for her support, as I do the Chief Minister and all my colleagues in the House, and those who are part of the team who are not here this term. I was genuinely touched by their support. There are two, which is dangerous, in particular I wish to thank. Ken Vowles our candidate for Blain, and Justine Luders-Searle, our candidate for Nelson. They took on very hard jobs and they did it with energy and enthusiasm. I am sure other members will understand that knowing they were out there working hard and that everyone here was working hard, made it easier for me to head out every day and get on with the job.
There are also a number of friends, family and colleagues interstate who were generous in their support during my campaign. Once the campaign ends though, the real work starts and I commend the professionalism of the Legislative Assembly staff in their assistance. I am sure all members would agree with me that we are very fortunate to have such excellent support from them when we are sitting.
To the Table Office - Graham, Steve and Annette; the committees - Terry, Pat, Robyn, Kim, Lauren, Diana and Jan; the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk and everyone in Hansard deciphering what we say: Helen and her team do a great job. To those who help settle us in: Greg Connors whose phone must ring off the hook - and what a moustache he has at the moment. I congratulate him on that and Gracey and Vish who are also growing fantastic moustaches for a very good cause. I thank Vicki Long and Brian Cook, Mary-Anne Almond, Eva, Alice and Parliamentary Services staff; Tony and Errol from Technical Services; Carmel, Stephen and Jo in Building Services; and those in Parliamentary Education. Also Sam, Esther and all the security officers.
There are others around the place, the Warhorse, Ryan, Frank and Vim. I sincerely hope I have not forgotten anyone there. I am sure I have. I wish them and all my colleagues the best over Christmas and New Year. I know we will all spend most of that time working, but I hope we have some time to relax with family and friends. I hope you all have a safe festive season.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will be very quick. I wanted to thank a few people and wish everyone a merry Christmas. It has been a big year this year, my first full year in parliament, and we had an election. I am pleased to have retained the health portfolio. I know there has been some rigorous debate on the other side - particularly between me and the Health Minister. I know I cannot draw attention to the presence or non-presence of people in the Chamber, but I would like to walk over there and shake his hand and say no hard feelings, have a good Christmas. We might see him upstairs for a drink, anyway. He has a very tough job, I know. That does not diminish the way we feel about the job that he has done this year. We still stand by that but it is not about him personally. Merry Christmas to the Minister for Health.
I thank the electorate of Greatorex which returned me this year. The privileged position I have representing the people of Greatorex and, indeed, the broader Alice Springs and Central Australian community is a fantastic job. It is great to be back in the job after the election in August. I thank everyone there.
I thank the local branch of the Country Liberals for all their support, headed by Michael Jones and the gang. My electorate officer, Karen Berry, who is in Darwin at the moment for our electorate officers training and our Christmas party tomorrow, merry Christmas and thank you for the great support over the course of the last 18 months. Also, the relief staff, Jan Burren and Sharon. Thank you to those girls as well for the work they do for me, and on behalf of the people of Greatorex.
The opposition staff: Terry Mills, the Leader of the Opposition has done a fabulous job this year leading this team. We have now a strengthened side of 11 and he has done a terrific job. I know he is very well-respected in the community and has the support of everyone in the parliamentary wing and the staff. The Chief of Staff, James Lantry, Greg Charter, Cam and everyone else in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, thank you so much for all your help this year.
Of course, I thank my family, my wife, Elara, for her support. Everyone has said the similar thing: that we cannot do this job without the support of our family and, particularly, our spouses. So, thank you to Elara for your support, and I am looking forward to more of it. There will be more required. I look forward to spending time with her over Christmas.
I am grateful to my immediate family; that is, my parents and my sister, Kim, and my niece and nephew, Ben and Jessie, and all my family and friends for all their support. I am thinking of you this Christmas. While they are in Brisbane, I will be here in the Territory.
I thank the Legislative Assembly staff for all their help, not only this year but particularly over the course of the last 18 months. Since I was first elected last year in the by-election, they have done a terrific job. Perhaps I got a little extra special treatment last year because I was the only new member, as opposed to the whole stack of new members who have come in since this election. It was great to have that one-on-one attention. They have shown me the ropes. To the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and everyone else in the Legislative Assembly, I appreciate all your help. I am looking forward to working with you again in 2009.
I wish everyone a very merry Christmas - all my parliamentary colleagues on this side and everyone on the other side. That is everyone in the Legislative Assembly – 25 of us. As I said, I suppose we can extrapolate those comments about the Minister for Health to everyone. We do go hammer and tongs and, sometimes, things get heated. Sometimes, we like each other and, sometimes, we do not like each other so much but, at the end of the day, we are only people and we all deserve respect for just being people. Merry Christmas to everyone here. To the Minister for Health, no hard feelings, but I know we will fire it up again next year. If we can just try to not take things too personally, I am sure we will better serve the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to doing that again in 2009.
Things can only get better for the Territory, I hope, with a revitalised and invigorated opposition and, indeed, a government that is committed to doing so much. Merry Christmas to everyone. Please drive safely. Do not drink and drive. Let us see if we can make the road toll for 2009a lot better than it has been this year. Have a safe and merry Christmas.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I join with the member for Greatorex; I agree with him. The opposition does have a role and we do need to have robust debate. I wish him, his wife and all of the opposition members and their families a merry Christmas and, hopefully, a safe New Year. Enjoy that time with your families, because it is an important time.
I feel I have to respond to a few things, particularly about the debate that is raging about bilingual teaching. In the period since I became Education minister, I have taken it to Cabinet which has endorsed the policy initiative which seeks to change the way we do education business in remote Indigenous community schools. The policy initiative is called Transforming Indigenous Education, and entails a broad range of measures including measures aimed at addressing poor attendance. These changes have not been conceived and developed with a view to disrupting or undermining the nine so-called bilingual or two-way learning schools. However, because of the proposed standardised content of the first four hours of classroom course work, the nine bilingual schools will, inevitably, be significantly affected.
I am deeply aware of the concerns people in many communities serviced by the nine bilingual schools are feeling about the changes, and I have spent some time in the recent past and present talking to Aboriginal people from those communities, especially Aboriginal people employed at relevant schools. I have sought to allay those concerns by providing accurate information as to the nature and scope of the changes. That is something I will continue doing well beyond the beginning of next year.
The policy decision to proceed with Transforming Indigenous Education has been made on the basis of evidence available from many different sources, of which academic reviews conducted on the basis of small samples comprise only one. I am absolutely convinced, as are my Cabinet colleagues, that educational outcomes have been deteriorating out bush for many years, including in the communities serviced by bilingual schools. Maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option. I am committed to introducing and implementing changes that can equip Indigenous kids from remote Territory communities with something approaching the same set of educational skills and capacities as kids who have attended schools in the main Australian population centres.
The achievement of national educational benchmarks and the completion of high school may not, of itself, be a golden bullet in getting real jobs for our young people but, without that minimum standard of achievements, they have little or no chance of meaningful career advancement - whether it is in public or private sectors. I will stand to be judged in future years for the policy initiative which I have developed and which Cabinet has endorsed.
I will accept that judgment in due course, but it galls me somewhat to be attacked for things that have been recently attributed to me or this government that do not form part of the policy initiative. The introduction into the current debate of such false claims seems to be a deliberate strategy by individuals who are wedded to a particular educational paradigm, and their effect is to obfuscate and distort the real issues at stake.
The first misrepresentation is that I have decreed only one hour of non-English teaching, which will be permitted to take place in the afternoon of any school day. I have never said that and it runs completely counter to my sincere and wholehearted commitment to maintaining and strengthening regional Aboriginal languages. My actual position is that I seek to encourage schools to run Aboriginal language classes for as many hours in the afternoon as the students and staff are willing to hold them. I welcome flexibility in these arrangements, and the involvement of members of the community with recognised skills and regional Aboriginal languages and knowledge of cultural matters which form part of the intrinsic subject matter of the vocabulary of such languages. The Aboriginal language class work should be structured and rigorous, and be focused on reading and writing in the child’s principal Aboriginal language.
It should also promote the incremental expansion of the child’s Aboriginal language vocabulary so as to enable detailed discussion and communication of practical and technical matters likely to be encountered in everyday modern life, as well as concepts and terminology related to traditional culture.
What I want to see happen, after detailed consultation between the department and each of the nine bilingual schools, is the development of a specific plan and policy for afternoon teaching in each school, setting out the content and duration of the classes to be taught to the extent that the duration of teaching is to exceed the normal daily classroom hours. In a Northern Territory government school, additional remuneration for the staff members involved is, obviously, a non-negotiable requirement that will be structured into the afternoon teaching plans for the bilingual schools.
The second misrepresentation is that Aboriginal teaching staff will lose their jobs as a result of the changes that are coming. My desire is, in fact, to deliver fully-fledged schoolteacher jobs to as many as possible of those Aboriginal people who are currently employed in our schools as a go-between assisting non-Aboriginal teachers to convey concepts and information to Aboriginal children whose English is not up to directly understanding all the words that come out of the non-Aboriginal teacher’s mouth.
Aboriginal teaching staff undertaking this role are to be found in both so-called English only schools, and in the nine schools that run two-way learning programs. In order for them to step up to the plate, so to speak, those who are interested in advancing their careers are unquestionably going to need further training. While most, if not all, speak their own language fluently and English reasonably well, few of them have a sufficiently profound understanding or command of English or mathematics to enable them to comprehensively and accurately interpret and translate the course content material the non-Aboriginal teacher is trying to get across. The problem is similar to the one encountered in Territory courtrooms and hospitals regarding the use of Aboriginal language interpreters. Very few of them have the usual NAATI third level minimum qualifications. For those Aboriginal teaching assistants who are up for it, I want to fast-track the upgrading of their skills so that they can be upgraded to fully-fledged teachers, gradually replacing some of the non-Aboriginal teacher positions in their community.
This process is the same as that being implemented in the Northern Territory Police Force to upgrade Aboriginal Community Police Officers to commissioned members of the Northern Territory Police Force. The training that will be required will not be available in the staff members’ home, and for each person who is prepared to leave their community for one or more periods of time to upgrade their skills, there will be a gap to fill in the school’s teaching staff. Additional Aboriginal teaching assistants will have to be recruited to fill such gaps. Some teaching assistants will not wish to undergo the pressure and the inconvenience of further training and will be content to remain in their existing role. That is fine, because conducting classes in English only is, obviously, not something that is going to miraculously happen on the first day of teaching in the 2009 school year.
Some children will still insist on speaking their Aboriginal language in class, and the non-Aboriginal teacher will experience difficulty in making him or herself understood. The Aboriginal teaching assistant role will remain vital, both in the go-between role and in trying to maintain discipline and control in the classroom, but over a comparative period of time, the non-Aboriginal teachers in the bilingual schools are going to have to dramatically increase their capacity to communicate directly with their pupils. I acknowledge as valid the criticism that there have not been enough teachers sent to remote and Indigenous communities where English is a second or third language, who have qualifications in teaching English as a Second Language. Within the budget constraints that apply to me, I will do my best to improve our resourcing of bush schools in this regard. To summarise the point, the job of Aboriginal teachers assistants are safe, but what I want to see happen for as many as possible, is for those jobs to be upgraded to fully-fledged teacher positions.
Regarding the third misrepresentation that the Northern Territory government is abandoning any commitment to the support and preservation of Aboriginal languages, let me make my position clear. I am not an assimilationist; I treasure and value the Aboriginal language and culture that has survived throughout the Northern Territory in many stages during the history of the last 200 years, despite enormous challenges and threats. In an ideal world, the Northern Territory government would have sufficient funding to provide significant resources for the preservation and maintenance of Aboriginal languages everywhere in the Northern Territory. In the real world, that is not possible and prioritised decisions have to be made.
It is very evident a small number of languages have achieved critical mass in their numbers of speakers. They are the ones which are more than just hanging on. They survive as vibrant living languages. Many of the others are atrophying from no or infrequent use. The languages that are dying are, of course, the ones most in need of expert recording and documentation so they are preserved for the future. That is the role for language centres and one-on-one research with elders. It is probably not something that can be fixed in schools. I do not confess to know the answer to this dilemma, but I will do my best as a minister to ensure that is addressed.
As regards to still actively-spoken languages, the situation appears straightforward where the great majority of people share a common language which they regard as their own. This covers the Warlpiri Triangle communities, Nguiu on Tiwi Islands and the Yolngu Matha speaking communities of Yirrkala. In all those schools, my intention is to fund and promote, for the long term, the most effective possible Aboriginal language courses to take place in as many hours as possible in the afternoon. In general, the Northern Territory government is going to be extremely reluctant to fund the production of extensive teaching material documentation in more than one language for any particular school.
The fourth misrepresentation is that our policy initiative Transforming Indigenous Education and, particularly, those parts that impact on bilingual education, is something that is imposed on us by the federal government. That is wrong. The moves by the federal government towards the standardisation of school curriculum content, in particular maths and English throughout the country, has occurred in tandem with, but independently of, the policy initiative developed by the Northern Territory government to tackle poor education outcomes in remote communities.
The fifth misrepresentation is that government’s policy initiative, in particular in regard to imposing a first four hours in English requirement on nine bilingual schools, has failed to take into account two reviews commission by the department - one which was submitted in 2005 and the other which has been recently leaked in its draft form. The authors of the 2004-05 report heavily qualified their results by reference with a very small sample size. The figures reported in the leaked draft document do not bear any meaningful resemblance to the figures which have been reported to me by the department, which I accept as reliable.
As I mentioned previously the clear story I am getting, both from the reported statistics and a range of anecdotal and other sources, is that except for an anomalous result for numeracy of Year 9, the outcomes are, at best, no better at bilingual schools than they are at so-called English only schools. There has been some selective referencing of child physiology studies. I completely accept for a child to be bilingual assists in that child’s brain development. If a child’s infant years are spent in Warlpiri, Tjirri, or Yolngu Matha speaking households, it is going to be beneficial to that child when it starts school to be taught in English. The child will, therefore, start getting used to speaking two languages from an early age.
As I have already acknowledged, it is of great importance Aboriginal children learn not just to speak their own language, but also to read and write it. That was one of Dr Marika’s great insights, and her achievements were outstanding in relation to the establishment of a program for teaching not just Aboriginal people but also Balanda, to speak, read and write her language.
The last thing I want to do is rubbish her memory by branding the program she developed. I want that program to be core education business at Yirrkala school in the second half of every school day but, just as Dr Marika saw the importance of getting her own kids properly educated in English, I want the children at all bilingual schools to get the full benefit of learning their second language - that is, English - from the beginning of their educational journey, not partway through when it is arguably too late.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas, as well. You have done a fine job. You were thrown into the deep end and you have made a great effort.
I acknowledge one of my staff members I did not get a chance to speak about in the last two nights. Alan Paton, our helper, came to me during the recent events around the exposure of the Casuarina Zone Substation. Alan has come from the electrical industry as both a worker and, more recently, from the Electrical Trades Union. Alan brought a wealth of knowledge from his technical background and also his history with the Power and Water Corporation when he was employed with them. I acknowledge his contribution to helping me through a difficult time, working with Power and Water and with the current ETU organiser, Trevor Gauld, and his membership, with getting a smooth transition and trying to build a better organisation for both the public and the workers within Power and Water. He has done a great job and I acknowledge everything he has done for me.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and pay tribute to those wonderful Territorians who have featured in the whirlwind of events that have set a life-changing experience for me in 2008.
First, I recognise, Elliot McAdam, the former member for Barkly, for my nomination and his belief in me. I recognise the members of the Barkly Branch of the ALP, especially the president, Kent Peak, and the secretary/treasurer, Kevin Diflo. I recognise all the members of the branch and their support.
To the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, from the remote cattle stations, to the communities, to the outstations, to the roadhouses, thank you very much for your trust you have placed in me to represent you in the Eleventh Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
To the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who both inspired me and encouraged me to take up the challenge; to my parliamentary colleagues, the colleagues who sit at the head of the mace. I thank you. You are known as the government of the Northern Territory. I thank the ministers of the government and the new members for their welcoming, guidance and mentoring in what will be a most successful term of government in the Northern Territory. I sincerely thank you for the wonderful cultural orientation and historical perspective of parliament, in addition to being a guiding light in a new chosen political life I have embarked upon.
To my parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House who sit at the tail of the mace. Thank you for being a robust opposition. I would like to share some advice given to me on returning to the Barkly about the robust nature of the new Northern Territory opposition. They were words of wisdom from an old political person, an astute person who reminded me that a robust opposition will make a stronger government. I thank you, members from the other side of the House, for that.
To the Department of the Legislative Assembly, thank you for a wonderful welcome. Thank you for some fantastic professional support. Thank you for a very fine induction into parliamentary life. To the House staff, Hansard, the Table Office, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk - an amazing effort and it is an amazing experience to work with you. Thank you. To the secretariat staff of the committees for your great professional support and the mentoring of a significant learning curve in the parliamentary process for both my colleagues and me.
To my family, Dawn McCarthy, thank you very much for your support as my wife and best friend. But Dawn, you must stop recruiting new members to the Labor Party. We do not have the boardroom to fit them in. To Robert, Abby and Reece in Cobar, it came as a shock. Hang on in there and enjoy the ride. To Thomas and Maria - Thomas keep moving the tonnes and Maria keep that creative edge happening. To Joseph McCarthy, I look forward to seeing you on the paddock next year. To the extended family of the McCarthys all over the country, thank you for your words of wisdom and fine support.
As a final comment for our parliamentary year, to everyone: good health and happiness to all; stay safe yet enjoy the festive season and the New Year. I look forward to seeing you all round the ridges in 2009.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 3
Message No 3
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 3 notifying assent to bills passed in the October sittings of the Assembly.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Watiyawanu School students from Mt Liebig, Year 3 to Year 6 students, accompanied by Ms Maryse Turenne, Mr Mike Dunton, Mr Roderick Kantamara, Ms Rita Turner, and Ms Violet Napanangka.
I have been told that they have travelled by bus, stopping at Three Ways and Pine Creek, and they have not been to Darwin before. So, on behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Australian Council of Local Government
Australian Council of Local Government
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the first meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government held in Canberra last Tuesday, 18 November. This meeting, hosted by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and the federal Minister for Local Government, Anthony Albanese, was an historic event. It focused on establishing closer links between local government bodies and the communities they represent. For the Northern Territory, it was a particularly timely event, coming just after the Henderson government’s much needed and historic local government reforms. It was also less than a month after the modernisation of our local government legislation, and landmark local government elections for our eight new shires.
This reform agenda was about ensuring a greater standard of service delivery across the Northern Territory, particularly in our regions, and of solid and well-managed shire councils with greater accountability to their constituents. As a result of the reforms, the majority of the Northern Territory is now incorporated within the local government areas. This enables our regional shires to work as partners with the Territory and federal governments in ensuring resources to support their communities.
I was privileged to participate in last week’s inaugural meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government. The council provides a forum in which local government can be involved in addressing issues of national importance.
I was very pleased to be joined in Canberra by some of the local government councils of the Northern Territory: Graeme Sawyer, the Lord Mayor of Darwin; Mr Robert Macleod, the Mayor of Palmerston; Murray Stewart, as the acting Mayor of Alice Springs; Anne Shepherd from Katherine; Peter Clee from the Wagait Shire Council; Mary Walshe from the Litchfield Council; Jeff Sowiak, the CEO of the Barkly Shire; and Kerry Moir and Tony Tapsell – he was delayed because they lost his bags - from the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
Evidence of the commitment of the Rudd government to this initiative was the presence of Kevin Rudd’s full Cabinet throughout the sessions. We were amongst more than 400 mayors and shire presidents and other local government representatives from around the country. It was an exciting opportunity to share and hear ideas about initiatives from our state and federal counterparts about local government reform, building regional economies, improving housing standards, making our cities more liveable, and closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
Arguably the most significant outcome of the meeting was the federal government’s strong commitment to supporting infrastructure development in the regions and communities. This was more than just words. Indeed, the Prime Minister supported this commitment with a $300m package: the regional and local community infrastructure program to drive community infrastructure programs, and create jobs in what we all know to be very uncertain global times. This one-off funding commitment was warmly welcomed right across the country.
In the Northern Territory, 16 local government councils will all benefit from more than $3.3m in funding. Breaking it down roughly: Alice Springs will get $230 000; Barkly $341 000; Belyuen $100 000; Central Desert $100 000; Coomalie $100 000; Darwin $313 000; East Arnhem $405 000; Katherine $193 000; Litchfield $152 000; MacDonnell $250 000; Palmerston $196 000; Roper Gulf $300 000; Tiwi Islands $100 000; Victoria Daly $271 000; Wagait $100 000; and West Arnhem $240 000.
This was a significant meeting of the local government councils from across Australia, and a commitment from the Prime Minister. It is a commitment shared by the Henderson government. I look forward to continuing to work with the Territory’s 16 local government councils on delivering better services to Territorians.
In closing, the timing of this did not allow for some of the new councillors to actually attend because of their elections, but this will be an annual event. I am sure the discussions at the plenary sessions next year will be a lot more robust, and we will have all our councillors from across the Territory represented.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Local Government for his report this morning. I welcome the information he has shared with us today. I have been made aware, through various media outlets, of the outcome of the local government meeting in Canberra. It is pleasing to see that a large number of our councils were able to attend in one form or another, and it is very pleasing to see that the Rudd government has seen fit to dish out a few dollars from their coffers to assist Northern Territory councils, particularly the new ones, which will need as much assistance as they can get, given their very new status in the Northern Territory.
The only concern I have is when this money is going to be spent; it is coming as a result of economic stimulus to try to push along the economics of the Northern Territory and right across Australia. The problem with that, with some councils, I daresay, it will sit in a bank account for some time until they can sort out their own internal issues. There are still a lot of councils out there that are not fully staffed. There is at least one council I know of that still does not have an office. Those internal issues need to be worked on before the bright spark of that money will ever be seen by the constituents within their council areas.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Although the Rudd government’s statement that this would help infrastructure in councils; in reality, it is not going to help a lot - the $3.3m for the Territory split over all those councils is actually very small pickings. In the case of Litchfield Shire, I think it is $152 000. It is nice; there is no doubt the ratepayers of Litchfield will appreciate that money. However, when it comes to, say, helping infrastructure, it would possibly build a playground. If you are looking at expanding roads or major infrastructure improvements like building a swimming pool, you would need a lot more money. You would probably need closer to the whole amount of $3.3m to build a decent swimming pool.
Whilst it is certainly appreciated that the government has put out this money, you have to keep your feet on the ground and say it is nowhere near the amount of money the Territory needs because, when it comes to local government funding, we are certainly the poor cousins because of the manner in which it is distributed by the Commonwealth. I also query, if you were looking at the amounts of money per population of councils, it is strange that some of our smaller councils are receiving substantially more than the bigger councils, yet some of the bigger councils require money to help with infrastructure.
I do not know on what basis the money was allocated; whether it was allocated on the size of the council in area, or on population, but it looks funny when you see a council like Litchfield with a population of around 18 000 receive $152 000, and you see some other councils with a population of about 6000 getting up in the region of $400 000. I am interested if the minister could give us some idea of the formula for the allocation of those funds.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. Member for Katherine, the money for the program has to be spent by 30 June 2009 or it will have to be handed back. I know most councils have a lot on their books about what they need to do with that money. I believe it will be an instant stimulus for those local communities; I am sure it will be spent very quickly.
Member for Nelson, I am not really sure about the allocation formula. I do know that there was a base funding of $100 000 there. Peter Clee from the Wagait Shire Council was rubbing his hands together, and he will let us know about that also.
It is a significant amount of money; $300m coming into Local Government. It is a one-off initiative, and I would hope it is followed up by much more money - $3.3m is basically 1%, which is about what we are in the Territory; but it is certainly welcomed.
Aboriginal Health Worker Awards
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, today I express the government’s appreciation for the hard work done by our Aboriginal Health Workers, and to congratulate winners and finalists in the 2008 Aboriginal Health Worker Awards which were held last Friday.
This year’s awards attracted 76 outstanding nominations under four categories: Remote, Urban, Specialised, and New Practitioner. The quality and number of these nominees clearly demonstrates the positive regard for the role of the Aboriginal Health Worker felt by colleagues, members of the general public, and people in the communities where they work.
Cheryl Patullo from the Palmerston clinic of Danila Dilba Health Service beat 12 other finalists to take out the top award, and also won the Urban Award. Cheryl has more than 20 years experience in the Northern Territory health sector and is a very deserving winner. Cheryl began her training on Groote Eylandt, and continued to work there in a variety of positions, including the management of three health centres. That is where I first met Cheryl many years ago and I saw her fine work firsthand. She has held many positions in both clinical and management areas, and has contributed to the quality of health care in East Arnhem and the urban areas of Darwin and Palmerston. She is a true role model.
I was very pleased to present awards to the category winners. Tony McMasters from the Aputula Health Centre, Central Australia Remote Health, was the winner of the Remote Award. Tony began his training as an Aboriginal Health Worker in 1992 in Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. In additional to clinical employment in Alice Springs, Groote Eylandt, Belyuen and Aputula, Tony has worked as a research assistant with the Menzies School of Health Research on a renal study. Tony has been based in Aputula for the past four years, and is currently the Acting Health Centre Manager.
The winner of the Specialised Award was Patrick Ah Kit from the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation. Patrick has been an Aboriginal Health Worker for 26 years. He trained at Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, where he worked as an Aboriginal Health Worker Manager and Educator. For the past seven years, Patrick has chosen public health as his area of employment. He is currently working in the Anyinginyi Health Centre in the area of men’s health. Importantly, Patrick has concentrated on giving health promotion as much emphasis as direct clinical care.
The winner of the New Practitioner Award was Katherine Coultard from the Ti Tree Health Centre. Katherine began her Aboriginal Health Worker training in 2006, and graduated from Central Australian Aboriginal Congress education branch at the end of 2007. Before graduating, Katherine had been working with Congress medical centre on the bush mobile program, and she has recently moved to Ti Tree where she is currently employed. Katherine is a single mother of two daughters, and I commend her for her determination to continue with her studies and contribute so much to the community where she now works.
I take this opportunity to thank the Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise; the Department of Health and Families Remote Health Branch; the federal Department of Health and Ageing; the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, for their ongoing support of this important event.
I particularly single out Rotary Club Darwin Sunrise. They do a fantastic job. They have the Paramedic Awards for ambulance people, who contribute so much, and a Katherine officer won this year. They do so much, the Darwin Rotary Sunrise, in these and other awards which they sponsor. I believe it is a great way of thanking those in the community who do fantastic work, like Aboriginal Health Workers, ambulance drivers and other paramedics, and it also highlights the volunteerism of Darwin Rotary Sunrise. There is such a breadth of membership and people who contribute so much, and I particularly congratulate them. I congratulate Cheryl, Tony and Patrick in Katherine, all the finalists, and all Aboriginal Health Workers for their outstanding work in the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, we recognise the great work done by Aboriginal Health Workers across the Northern Territory. We congratulate Patrick Ah Kit for his outstanding achievement this year in Aboriginal health. Of course, Aboriginal health is very important, and one of the big issues facing health across the Northern Territory.
I would like to mention the kids from Mt Liebig; hopefully they are practicing good health care at their community. Congratulations to all those people who have done a great job with Aboriginal health throughout the course of 2008.
This may be the last opportunity to walk down memory lane for the minister before the government gags the parliament, shuts it down, goes upstairs for the Speaker’s drinks rather than debating serious stuff. The minister has clearly failed across 2008. His attempt as Health Minister - I believe the oncology unit is a glowing example. It was promised in 2001 when they came to government; now it is seven years later and we have a helipad, I believe.
What about the Emergency Department at Alice Springs promised in 2005? It is still nowhere near completion. Coronial after Coronial; we have preventable deaths at RDH, and a nursing staffing crisis; patients stay awake during surgery, as highlighted on a television show last night. It is a culture of cover-up, a culture of denial by the Heath Minister and a systemic failure. It is not a very good report card for the Health Minister.
Minister, I hope 2009 is much better for the health of Territorians than it has been under your watch since you became Health Minister, and particularly since this government came to office in 2001.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his comments on Aboriginal health. All the issues the member for Greatorex has raised are very important issues. They are very difficult issues and I am more than happy to respond to them if the member for Greatorex wants to ask me questions in Question Time. They are difficult issues. Being Health Minister is not an easy portfolio, however, I am committed to driving change within the Northern Territory Health system.
Indigenous Disability Services – DVD Launch
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I highlight a fantastic Territory-made DVD about Indigenous disabilities and, with the celebrations for the International Day of Disabilities next week, I thought it appropriate to speak about this DVD. It is titled Inspire, Include, Increase. I was lucky enough to attend the launch of this DVD last week; and I can vouch for the power of this particular production.
The DVD profiles five Indigenous Territorians with a disability: Peter Barnes, Dion Beasley, Joshua Campton, Joseph Lannigan and Cece Adams, who are all from across the Territory. Some members here may know Dion Beasley from Tennant Creek, who is outstanding for his cheeky dogs and cartoons and characters on T-shirts and in the paper. Inspire, Include, Increase shares the stories of their backgrounds, their hopes and aspirations.
The DVD’s central message is that disabilities should not be a barrier, and those living with disabilities should rightly aspire to a full and rich life. Adding to the DVD is the beautiful music and magic voice of our Territory ARIA winner and Northern Territory Australian of the Year, Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, with his song, I Was Born Blind; an outstanding role model for all Territorians.
The DVD is both an exploration of the lives of Indigenous Australians with a disability, and an affirmation of the capacity people with disabilities have to make an absolutely positive contribution to the communities in which they live. The driving force behind the DVD is Liz Reid from the National Disability Coordination Office, in partnership with YouthWorx and Charles Darwin University. Their collective vision and enthusiasm has produced a truly unique DVD which is an Australian first. I would encourage all members to take the time to have a look at it, and I am very happy to provide that opportunity.
Appropriately, the DVD’s national launch will take place in Melbourne on the International Day of People with a Disability, which is 3 December.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Professor Djapirri Mununggirritj from Yirrkala who was engaged as a cultural consultant on the DVD. The professor is a member of the Northern Territory Disability Advisory Council, and it is good to see a member of the advisory council making such a valuable contribution to enhance understanding and awareness. I encourage people to go to the screenings.
As Northern Territorians, we should be extremely proud that a DVD of this calibre has been produced using local people. It really is a first of its kind. I congratulate Peter, Dion, Joshua, Joseph and Cece on sharing their personal stories in the way they have. If any member would like to see it, please let me know.
It is also worth noting that tonight, in the Parliamentary Library; a book called Cassie will be launched. The central character in Cassie is actually based on Cece Adams, one of the five people in this DVD. Cassie is written by local author, Barry Johnsberg, and I am certainly looking forward to tonight’s launch and I encourage as many members here to come along to it in the Parliamentary Library.
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see initiatives like these, particularly as they are being driven by Territory people.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I was a little unclear. I gather it is a Northern Territory DVD, but it has a national launch, so the Territory is launching this nationally?
Ms McCarthy: Leading the way.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry?
Ms McCarthy: Leading the way.
Ms CARNEY: Leading the way. That is terrific. Thank you for answering that. I wonder, since you attended the launch, and presumably you have copies of the DVD in your office, whether you would be good enough to deliver a copy to me today so that I can see it. I congratulate and applaud those who participated in it. It may have been that a certain amount of courage was required, and those people should be acknowledged accordingly.
I may have missed it, but I wonder whether the minister in her reply would indicate what the purpose really of the DVD is. There is no question about raising awareness and promoting a positive message. If that is the aim of the DVD, then we applaud that. As I said, I may have missed it, but I do not recall the minister saying exactly what the objective was of the DVD. To make a DVD is one thing, but to actually achieve results as a result of the production and launching of a DVD is something else entirely.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but I remember some time ago looking at disability funding over the last five or so years. I am not sure that it has received, frankly, the injection of funds that the area deserves. It tends generally not to be an issue which politicians in this country are focused on; I believe more energy and effort is required. I am hopeful that the minister will do what she can to ensure the sector receives appropriate funding.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on being part of the launch of this DVD. It is important that those people with disabilities are given the greatest opportunity to participate in society as equals.
I have not seen the DVD either, and I am interested to see it as well. I was thinking, when you raised the issue, that I had a constituent come to see me some time ago who asked me if we have an Office of Disability. I looked up the phone book and there is nothing there; then I looked up the website and it took me quite a while to find there is a very little, small page under the Department of Health for Office of Disability, which I think has an 1800 number and is based in Alice Springs. My understanding is it is not really an office; it is just a number where you can contact someone.
It gives one the impression - taking up from the member for Araluen - that we are not putting enough emphasis on dealing with some of the issues for people who are disabled. One area we could look at is having a real Office of Disability, in the major regional centres at least. I am interested to know whether the government does intend to do that because, at the moment, if a constituent or someone wanted to find out if there was an Office of Disability, unless they had a computer, they certainly would not find it via the phone book.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Araluen and Nelson for their contributions. I begin with you, member for Nelson. The issue of an Office of Disability is one that I am looking into right now. I have just returned from a trip to Melbourne to look at the Office of Disabilities there, which actually is leading the way in where we are going with regard to improving disability services. I hear your concerns about the 1800 number. It is something that was raised with me when I first took on the portfolio by Robyne Burridge and others. I am very anxious to see that we get that one right for people. Of course, people with disabilities in the Northern Territory need to have an access, and quality of life, to the best of their abilities just like any other Territorian. So, I am very keen to keep you updated on that area.
Regarding the member for Araluen’s question about the DVD; it is simply just that: an expression of people's personal stories. Sometimes, that is all it needs to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms McCARTHY: Come and see the DVD.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
CROSS-BORDER JUSTICE BILL
(Serial 23)
(Serial 23)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In June 2003, approximately 50 people met in Alice Springs for the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankuntjatjara (NPY) Lands Tri-jurisdictional Justice Initiatives Roundtable. The round table was attended by members of the NPY Women’s Council, magistrates, senior police, court administrators, Community Corrections officers, lawyers, and others with an interest in addressing the damaging effects of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, and other forms of offending behaviour in communities in the NPY region. Serious problems were identified at the round table, among them the complex justice issues and needs of people in this remote cross-border region.
The cross-border region of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia covers some 475 000 km2 and comprises approximately 10 000 people, 7500 of whom are Indigenous. These people are amongst the most isolated and disadvantaged in Australia. A cross-border justice project was established to respond to these problems which identified the need for legislation to respond.
The Cross-Border Justice Bill 2008 is one of the most innovative and groundbreaking legislative responses to a profound community problem we have seen in this country. This bill seeks to break down the barriers that borders create in the administration of justice in the cross-border region of Central Australia. Some of the major issues facing communities include: geographical isolation; poverty; remoteness and a small population base; lack of meaningful employment and training, and limited educational opportunities; significant substance misuse problems, including petrol sniffing; serious family violence and sexual assault issues; very poor health status, due to a range of social and environmental factors; significant mental health issues; and, lack of services, including justice services.
The population of the cross-border region is highly mobile, and the state and territory borders are of little significance to the residents in the region. Borders are seen as constructs for the communities who have lived in this region for centuries, well before the artificial and intangible borders were created. The people lived in and moved about the region according to their own long-standing traditions and customs. Until now, government services have been framed around the borders, rather than the needs of the communities they are intended to serve.
Additionally, the borders enable wrongdoers to evade police and the justice system, as justice services operate individually in each region. This further undermines the safety of communities in the region. The frequent movement of people throughout the region also causes significant difficulties for delivery of Justice services, as they cannot operate outside their jurisdiction. The three jurisdictions identified the importance of creating legislation to allow cross-border delivery of court, corrections and policing services.
Madam Speaker, this bill will enable the Northern Territory to participate in mutual cross-border justice schemes with South Australia and Western Australia. The effect of the cross-border justice scheme is to relax the rigidity with which state and territory borders are enforced, and therefore remove the legal restrictions imposed by the borders under the cross-border scheme. For the cross-border scheme to operate, each jurisdiction needs corresponding laws. A working group comprising the Solicitors-General of Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, developed the legislation to be enacted in each jurisdiction, and support the cross-border justice scheme.
It requires each jurisdiction to enact provisions in relation to three aspects of the criminal justice system: the exercise of police powers; the jurisdiction of summary courts; and, the enforcement of sentences and orders. This is achieved through legislating to authorise the application of one jurisdiction’s laws in the geographical areas of other jurisdictions, and, additionally: legislating to allow the application of laws of the other jurisdictions in the geographical area of the legislating jurisdiction. This effectively extends the geographical area of each jurisdiction.
Each jurisdiction will enact provisions so that, for each provision authorising the application its law in another jurisdiction, there will be a corresponding provision enacted by that other jurisdiction allowing that law to apply in their jurisdiction. This creates a legislative and administrative framework which will allow the justice systems to operate much more freely across the borders of the Northern Territory, South Australia, and Western Australia.
Western Australia was instructed and drafted a model bill for the mirror legislation, the Cross-Border Justice Bill 2008, which was assented to by the Western Australian parliament on 31 March 2008; and I thank the Western Australian government, and I digress here, the former Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, for taking the lead in drafting the model legislation. This bill is based on the model developed by the Western Australian government.
I will now outline the major features of the bill. This bill, in conjunction with the mirror legislation of Western Australia and South Australia, will allow police to be appointed as officers of all three jurisdictions, and to exercise the powers under the three jurisdictions.
The concept of cross-border policing is not new. For the past few years, multi-jurisdictional police stations have operated at Warakurna in Western Australia, and Kintore in the Northern Territory. Each police station is staffed by both Western Australian and Northern Territory Police officers. The Western Australian police officers hold appointments as Special Constables of the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory Police officers hold appointments as Special Constables of Western Australia.
Patrols of areas in both jurisdictions are conducted out of those police stations. However, legal restrictions mean that, whilst operating a patrol in the Northern Territory, the officers can only exercise their powers as Northern Territory officers; and while in Western Australia, they can only exercise their powers as Western Australian officers. Therefore, if on patrol in Western Australia they come across a person who is alleged to have committed an offence in the Northern Territory, the patrolling officers cannot arrest the person in Western Australia under the Northern Territory warrant. The person would have to be arrested and then dealt with under extradition laws.
Madam Speaker, this bill allows police to be appointed as officers of all three jurisdictions, and to exercise the powers under the three jurisdictions. Indeed, not only police officers, but also magistrates and corrections officers will be able to exercise powers under the three participating jurisdictions. This bill enables police, magistrates, fine enforcement agencies, community corrections officers, and prisons in one jurisdiction to deal with offences that may have been committed in one of the other participating jurisdictions.
The bill requires a certain criteria be met before a matter can be dealt with as a cross-border matter. This restricts the application of the legislation to those occasions where the interests of justice warrant the use of such an innovative scheme. The matter will fall within the scope of the Cross-border Justice Scheme only if the offence is connected to the relevant cross-border region.
The criteria which will determine whether there is a connection are:
the alleged offence occurred in the cross-border region;
the alleged offender was arrested in the cross-border region; and
or the alleged offender normally resided in the cross-border region either at the time of arrest or of the alleged offence.
Location of where the alleged offence occurred is the factor determining which jurisdiction’s laws will apply to the alleged offence; that is, if a person is arrested in the Northern Territory and charged with an offence alleged to have been committed in Western Australia, the Western Australian laws of apprehension, court procedure, criminal liability, and sentencing would be applied.
An important point to note is that the bill will only apply to matters which can be dealt with in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Youth Justice Court, or certain prescribed matters under the Traffic Act, including vehicle impounding matters, dealt with by the Local Court and the Alcohol Court. So matters falling within summary jurisdiction and aspects of indictable offences that magistrates are able to deal with, such as bail hearings and matters within the jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court fall within the scope of the bill.
More serious offences alleged to have been committed in the Northern Territory will continue to be dealt with by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
Generally, the Cross-Border Justice Bill does not create new laws for the administration of justice. Rather, it allows existing laws to be applied in other jurisdictions and allows the laws of those other jurisdictions to be applied in the Northern Territory. For example, each jurisdiction will appoint magistrates of the other participating jurisdictions to their own magistracy through their legislation governing the appointment of magistrates. Therefore, magistrates of South Australia and Western Australia will be appointed as Northern Territory magistrates under the relevant provisions of the Magistrates Act to administer justice under the cross-border scheme.
Convicted offenders will be sentenced according to the law of the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. However, the sentence will travel with the offender; that is, a person convicted of a South Australian offence but serving a custodial sentence in the Northern Territory will serve the sentence as if that person were in South Australia.
This bill enables a Northern Territory Police officer to:
arrest an alleged offender under Northern Territory law in a community in South Australia;
take the alleged offender to the nearest police station, which may be, depending on the community involved, in Warakurna in Western Australia;
charge the alleged offender under Northern Territory law; and, then
take the alleged offender to Alice Springs to have the matter heard before a Northern Territory magistrate.
The arrest, charges, hearing, and possible imprisonment can all be dealt with quickly, minimising the amount of travel for the alleged offender, victim, and witnesses.
This bill will create a much more effective system of justice administration in the cross-border regions. Currently, the Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 is the only law which deals with the apprehension of alleged offenders to allow them to be brought before a court in extradition proceedings. This means that if a police officer has arrested a person in connection with an offence alleged to have occurred in another state or territory, the police officer must bring the person before a magistrate in the state or territory where the arrest occurred.
The magistrate, however, can only remand the person to come before a court in the jurisdiction of the alleged offence. The person would then be admitted to bail or taken into custody to appear in that jurisdiction. The magistrate has no power to deal with the matter to the end.
The Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act will need to be amended for the Cross-Border Justice Bills of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia to take effect. The Commonwealth has announced its intention to make the necessary amendments to that act to accommodate the operation of the Cross-Border Justice Bills.
Fines enforcement is one area where substantive law is changed by the bill. The bill will allow a fine imposed under the law of one jurisdiction to be enforced against property located in any one of the other participating jurisdictions. This is necessary as, currently, once a fine is transferred from one jurisdiction’s fines enforcement agency to that of another, the receiving agency is only able to enforce the fine as if it were a fine of that jurisdiction. Under this bill, if the offender’s property is located in one of the other participating jurisdictions, it can be accessed for the purpose of enforcing the fine.
The inaugural cross-border scheme covers the cross-border regions described, being the area where the boundaries of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory intersect. However, the bill enables multiple cross-border schemes to operate. It allows for additional cross-border schemes to be introduced in the future where other border regions are shared. Each scheme will focus on a prescribed region, for example, the Kimberley region, or the Western Australian/South Australian border area of the Nullarbor Plain. At present, only the Western Australian/South Australian/Northern Territory boundary region will be prescribed at the commencement of the scheme.
There have been more than 200 officials involved with this project since its commencement and they are to be congratulated for their efforts. Countless effort has been contributed by relevant government departments to create the legislative framework and administrative details that will make this important initiative work at an operational level. There has also been overwhelming support from the judiciary.
In conclusion, I express my appreciation to the former Chief Executive Officer of the Justice Department, Mr Richard Coates, now Director of Public Prosecutions, for his insight, and that of his counterparts: the Chief Executive Officers of the Justice Departments in South Australia and Western Australia, Alan Piper and Kate Lennon. The guidance of the current Administrator of the Northern Territory, who was at that time the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, Mr Tom Pauling QC, is also appreciated.
As the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, I also acknowledge the support of the former Attorney-General of Western Australia, Jim McGinty MP, and the current South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson MP for their strong support in putting in place the plan which underpins this legislation.
Finally, and most importantly, I acknowledge and congratulate the NPY Women’s Council and Jane Lloyd, Chair of the Chief Minister’s Indigenous and Family Violence Advisory Committee, for their role in the instigation of this reform package.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
(Serial 24)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to enable parks status to be declared seamlessly and expeditiously upon areas of land held by Aboriginal Land Trust, Park Land Trust, or by an Aboriginal landholding corporation that are leased back to the Northern Territory for the purposes of joint management of parks.
The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was introduced to this House in November 2003 to resolve outstanding native title and Aboriginal land rights claims over 27 of the Territory’s parks and reserves. To accommodate the new joint management arrangements established by the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was amended in February 2005 by the inclusion of Part 3 - Joint Management of Certain Parks and Reserves. A further amendment to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed by this House in September 2007 to enable additional jointly managed parks or reserves that are not scheduled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, to be included in the Part 3 Joint Management Provisions.
The legislation has assured a secure future for parks and reserves and has laid the foundation for the development of world-class joint management arrangements between the Northern Territory and the traditional owners of those areas.
I will take this opportunity to inform the House of the progress and achievements which have been made to date. Following the passing of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill by the federal parliament in June this year, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Honourable Jenny Macklin, established 13 Aboriginal Land Trusts to hold the title for parks and reserves listed in Schedule 1 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
Let me bring to the attention of members that the Commonwealth bill would not have passed through parliament without the support of the Territory’s two representatives in the Upper House – Senator Crossin and Senator Scullion. We thank the Senators for their support of joint management.
The passage of the bill allowed the long awaited transfer of titles and leaseback arrangements to commence.
On 28 October 2008, during the last sittings of this House, the first of the handovers of Aboriginal land occurred. A ceremony at the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve by minister Macklin handed the title of Devils Marbles and the Davenport Range National Park to the Ayleparrarntenhe and Erlterlapentye Aboriginal Land Trusts respectively. At the same ceremony, members of the land trust signed the leaseback documentation of those parks to the Territory for a period of 99 years. An adjacent area of the existing Anurrete Aboriginal Land Trust, as described in Schedule 5 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, will soon be added to the Davenport Range National Park through a lease to the Northern Territory under the same terms.
Notwithstanding the delays in the leaseback arrangements, joint management has been progressing well on the ground through planning, employment and training of traditional owners. The joint management plan for the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve is very well advanced, and public consultation has been completed. The final plan will be tabled in this House for the consideration of members.
To demonstrate the cooperative and equitable partnership mandated by the legislation and lease documentation, and now implemented on the ground, let me quote the vision statement for the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve draft joint management plan which was developed by the Kirda and Kurdungurlu,traditional owners and managers of the area, and the Parks and Wildlife Service. It reads:
- To work as partners, 50:50, straight and true.
This vision reflects respect, integrity, honesty and pride. It is also about teaching and sharing knowledge for future generations, and involving everyone, especially young people, old people and families. Most importantly, we recognise that it is not just talk.
Joint management plans for other parks and reserves are also well advanced following the appointment of a senior planner in each of the three regions. Draft plans for Flora River Conservation Reserve, Chambers Pillar Historical Reserve, Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve, Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve, Harrison Dam Conservation Reserve, Melacca Swamp Conservation Reserve, and the West MacDonnell National Park are expected to be tabled in this House in the first half of next year.
Another significant objective of joint management is to provide employment and economic development opportunities for traditional owners. The Parks and Wildlife Service recognises the training and work readiness requirements needed for many of the traditional owners and has developed a suite of employment and training initiatives to cater for these needs.
We are also aware of the significant challenges to overcome issues of remoteness and Indigenous disadvantage. Today, I make particular mention of progress in employment of traditional owners in remote regions of the Northern Territory. Parks and Wildlife and traditional owners are making good progress with employment programs in the Victoria River District and Katherine region. Recently, a female joint management trainee ranger graduated to a permanent T1 Ranger position at Gregory National Park. This is a significant achievement, as it is the first female joint management trainee to commence employment with Parks and the first to gain a T1 position. This appointment will provide an opportunity for another trainee in the future.
Four Wardaman traditional owners in the Katherine River district have been appointed to casual positions to work alongside permanent rangers and, with accredited training, will undertake general park maintenance duties and assist with flora and fauna surveys.
Under the flexible employment program, a fencing project on the southern boundary of Gregory National Park will employ traditional owners from the Kalkarindji and Daguragu communities. The Timber Creek-based Ngaliwurru-Wuli Aboriginal Association has been awarded a period contract through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to carry out fencing, park maintenance and construction work in the campgrounds and ranger stations of Gregory and Keep River National Parks.
In Central Australia, the flexible employment program has engaged participants from Alice Springs as well as remote communities including Ntaria, Amoonguna, Titjikala, Santa Teresa, Walkabout Bore, Ulpanyali, and residents from outstations serviced by Ingkerreke and Tjuwanpa Resource Centres. Over the past year, these workers have contributed to projects such as prescribed burning, flora and fauna surveys, weed management, fencing and the maintenance of park infrastructure and walking tracks. To date, joint management has resulted in 16 new positions for traditional owners, including permanent ranger positions, trainees and school-based apprentices.
The Parks and Wildlife Service intends to further increase the participation of traditional owners in its workforce and, through mentoring and structured training, ensure that these employees have the opportunity to progress through the ranger ranks to park manager positions in the future as their capacity and experience develops. A recent highlight was the award given to Graeme Talbot Junior as the Northern Territory School-based Apprentice of the Year. Graeme is Indigenous and works as a trainee ranger at Fogg Dam.
Today, I introduce a further amendment that will implement the full extent of the intended outcomes of the joint management provisions of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The amendment will address a technical and operational issue which has arisen through the leaseback of parks and reserves from Aboriginal and Park Land Trusts. In the case of 13 of the 17 parks and reserves listed in schedules 1 and 2 of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act, the area of land leased back to be a jointly managed park has changed. These changes to the park area have come about through adding areas such as:
former stock routes located within, or adjacent to a park;
For all intents and purposes, these additional areas have been managed by Parks and Wildlife rangers and, to the general public, would be considered as part of the existing Parks Estate.
Some areas which contain principally non-park interests, such as an Aboriginal Community Living Area, public roads and road reserves, corridors for transport, and areas for the supply of utilities were excluded from the grant of title. The consequence of these additions and exclusions is that the parks do not qualify as the same area of land to be re-declared as required by section 24 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The amendment will now allow the declaration of park status over the entire park area in a single process. Declaration as a park is required prior to the implementation of joint management plans and for the application of park by-laws, which ensure the safe and effective management of the natural and cultural values of the park.
The amendment will extend to other parks outside of those scheduled under the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act which, consistent with section 23A of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, are now able to be managed under these joint management provisions.
The bill expedites the process of park declaration for areas of Aboriginal-owned land which are leased back to the Northern Territory to be jointly managed national parks. Title to these areas is granted to land trusts on the basis that they be leased back as jointly managed parks and reserves.
Public consultation will be welcomed during the planning phase in the development of any draft joint management plans, which will be tabled in the House prior to gazettal and adoption.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY BILL
(Serial 22)
(Serial 22)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Geothermal Energy Bill is to create an enabling framework to facilitate and regulate the exploration and extraction of geothermal energy resources in the Northern Territory. The framework for this bill is based on existing models established by the Northern Territory Petroleum Act, Mining Act, and Mining Management Act. Parts have also been utilised from the Victorian Geothermal Act. This model was adopted because operations associated with exploring and extracting geothermal energy, primarily drilling deep within the earth, are similar to petroleum and mining operations. Moreover, it provides a model with which the industry is familiar.
This bill has been developed following extensive public and industry consultation. My department produced a discussion paper which attracted considerable comment and was instrumental in setting the scene for the development of this legislation.
The decision to develop separate, stand-alone geothermal legislation was made so that geothermal energy resources would be recognised as a separate and new energy source, and could compete in its own statutory field with other natural resources, such as natural gas, coal, and a range of other potential energy sources, such as solar, wind and biofuels.
Geothermal energy is heat energy, derived from deep within the earth. This heat is stored in either subterranean water bodies, or in various geological layers that make up the earth. Geothermal energy is a valuable earth resource. Geothermal energy resources have the potential to provide clean, reliable, and renewable energy, capable of a wide range of uses. It has the potential to deliver energy with very low or no greenhouse gas emissions. This natural heat energy can be harnessed and used in a wide range of applications, including industrial and community heating. However, its main value in Australia is in generation of electricity, where it has the capacity to provide base load power equivalent to gas and coal-fired power stations.
The technology associated with exploration for and the development of geothermal resources is developing rapidly. Rising energy prices and greater government and market support for low emission energy has led to interest in geothermal energy rising across Australia and worldwide. New exploration techniques required to search for deep hot rocks are being led by Australian companies and research institutions.
Today, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Territory is positioned to attract and support commercial scale exploration and development of its geothermal energy resources. Without such legislation, the Territory will not attract investment dollars to find these new and exciting energy resources. Interest by industry to invest in geothermal resources is clearly demonstrated by the rush to take up prospective tenure, originally in South Australia, but now in Victoria, Tasmania, and Western Australia, where the attraction of major electricity markets justifies the high risk and exploration costs.
This bill is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the sustainable resource development of the Territory. It enables: investment in a new emerging energy industry; use of a clean, renewable and reliable energy resource which has a small eco-footprint; and potential for the development of energy intensive industries, particularly in regional Northern Territory.
The bill establishes that, like other earth resources, the heat energy within the earth belongs to all Territorians, and is therefore vested in the Crown. The bill also establishes property rights over geothermal energy and resources within particular areas. This allows the Territory government to grant a party exclusive right to geothermal resources in a specific area for exploration and potential development.
Secure title is needed by companies to enable them to raise finance for exploration and subsequent extraction and to benefit from any geothermal resource they may find. Furthermore, as geothermal resources develop in value, the bill provides opportunities for the Territory government to set a royalty on such resources to return some of their value to the state.
The bill provides for the grant of three different titles: a geothermal exploration permit to conduct exploration for heat sources; a geothermal retention licence where resources have been discovered, but cannot yet be commercially extracted; and a geothermal production lease on which to develop commercial resources that may be viable.
The bill provides some flexibility as to the duration, size and conditions associated with permits and licences. It sets size limits to the titles which can be varied with ministerial agreement when it is in the interest of the Territory. These measures are designed to ensure that work is conducted on the titles and will encourage a higher turnover of land and impede uncompetitive tenure warehousing.
The bill has provisions for grant of title: by tender for reserved areas through work programs, where the Territory government wishes to ensure that companies with proven capacity have access to key strategic geothermal regions and to harness competitive forces to optimise investment; and, by application ‘over the counter’ from interested parties for rights to explore for geothermal resources in any non-reserved areas.
These two key granting mechanisms will maximise the potential return to the Territory from exploration and extraction of geothermal energy, and will provide opportunity for innovative geothermal explorers to access land of their choice to develop energy intensive industries.
The bill is primarily intended to facilitate large scale commercial exploration and extraction of geothermal energy. It is anticipated that the commercial geothermal activities regulated under the bill will typically access geothermal resources 3 km to 5 km below the earth’s surface and not compete with other resources, such as petroleum and minerals, which would not be adversely affected, although cooperation between the various interest holders will be encouraged as mixed land use with multiple tenure will be allowed.
The bill provides for a range of other standard mechanisms to make geothermal permits, leases and licences workable. For example: ‘unit development’ which ensures cooperation between titleholders where a geothermal resource is discovered that crosses title areas; power for the minister to vary title conditions, and to allow transfer, surrender or cancellation of geothermal titles; and, sharing of information resulting from exploration and extraction of geothermal resources.
In establishing geothermal activities, the bill makes provision for notification of all landholders to ensure full consultation with both public and private landowners, as the case may be. Consideration of their interests may, where necessary, lead to payment of compensation to landowners. Geothermal activity will be subject to environmental assessment under Northern Territory environmental legislation and rigorous assessment by the responsible minister.
Furthermore, the bill provides for: strict controls on geothermal activity in parks and reserves and areas of high conservation values; consent of the relevant minister to access restricted Crown land; consent of the private landowner and compensation agreement for geothermal activities on private land; and, recognition of Aboriginal freehold land pursuant to the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
While geothermal activities are expected to pose limited risks and have a relatively small ecological footprint, it is vital that they are conducted responsibly and that rehabilitation of any impact on the natural landscape occurs. The bill therefore provides a range of measures to ensure geothermal activities are carried out in line with agreed operational plans, that geothermal titleholders have supplied rehabilitation bonds so the Territory government can rehabilitate sites where necessary.
The bill also provides for a range of offences, penalties and enforcement provisions to ensure that geothermal property rights are protected, and that geothermal activities meet community expectations for health, safety and environment protection. These provisions are modelled closely on the Petroleum Act, the Mining Management Act, and the new Work Health legislation which, have worked effectively to meet the needs of all stakeholders.
Geothermal technologies either extract heat from natural groundwater or from water circulated through hot dry rocks deep within the earth. This will mean that many geothermal operators will, in effect, require two rights – the right to the heat energy and a right to water. Geothermal industries, along with other users, must compete for access to water in the marketplace and protect the quality of any water discharged, including underground. This requirements is recognised in this legislation.
It is early days for the geothermal industry across Australia. As our understanding of the Territory’s geothermal resources and associated technologies grows, this legislation may evolve. However, in introducing this bill, the Northern Territory government is seeking to establish a forward looking framework to encourage substantial new exploration and, in due course, development of this community-owned resource. This bill seeks to ensure all aspects of the geothermal resource development will be conducted sustainably and in an open, transparent and consultative way which meets the community’s expectations.
I table this bill in the knowledge that this is a new industry that we are setting up in the Territory. I encourage the geothermal industry, other interested people affected by the legislation, and the public, to examine this bill and to provide comments to my department on any issue they may consider requires amendment. The Territory government is prepared to consider all such submissions and perhaps make committee stage amendments prior to passage of this bill.
I see this bill as a first step towards a future where geothermal energy businesses contribute substantially to the Territory’s use of renewable energy and to ecological and socially sustainable development, particularly of our rural and regional communities.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
LIVESTOCK BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I pass on to the minister for Primary Industry my thanks for making available a number of your senior staff to conduct a briefing on the Livestock Bill. The briefing was very informative and went quite some way towards addressing some of the concerns I had with this bill. There were a number of issues I raised during this briefing, and I believe it to be quite appropriate to raise those issues in this forum so they may be recorded in Hansard.
I did not approach this matter with a view that I should oppose the introduction of this bill in any way. Rather, I sought to take a collaborative approach and point out issues that appear to me to be not easily understood, and parts of the bill that I believe may be deficient or defective in some way. I am in the fortunate position of having read and digested large amounts of legislation over many years, and so I bring to the table a vast amount of practical knowledge and experience in how legislation actually works on the ground. In light of that, I see it as part of my responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory to bring those attributes to this House to manifest in structured and considered debate.
The matters I raised with Primary Industry staff were varied, so my intention is to mention each of those issues individually. I invite the minister to respond to each of those issues so that his response is also recorded in the Hansard. The reason I ask for this occur is so there is a comprehensive statement of intent from the minister in relation to this bill. It is important to narrow down, not only the intent of the legislation as a whole, but also the intent of each individual section. Should administrative or legal issues arise at some time in the future, there should be a reference back to the intent by the lawmaker to assist in interpretation of the act or parts of the act.
Although not specifically stated, the list of repealed acts outlined in the schedule indicates that this bill seeks to rationalise and, then, repeal five existing acts of the Northern Territory parliament; those being: the Stock Diseases Act, the Exotic Diseases (Animal) Compensation Act, the Brands Act, the Stock Routes and Travelling Stock Act, and the Stock (Control of Hormonal Growth Promotants) Act. It does seem to make sense to simplify a pool of legislation, some of which has its roots in legislation that dates back to the 1920s. With the advent of new technology and contemporary issues such as equine influenza and avian influenza still hanging heavily in the air, without doubt, now is never too soon to have appropriate legislation to deal with matters such as those should they, once again, rear their ugly heads.
I will now deal with the matters I put during the briefing. Clause 4 of the bill relates to definitions, and I queried the definition of ‘cattle’. In the case of this legislation, ‘cattle’ means ‘bovine animals but does not include buffalo’. My query was whether exotic species such as banteng were included, or other exotic species from other countries such as Africa, for example. The response was that species not specifically referred to could be gazetted under the provisions of clause 5(2). Clause 5 defines ‘livestock’ as being; ‘crocodiles, cattle, buffalo, horses, camels, sheep, goats, pigs (including wild pigs), deer, llamas, alpacas, poultry, and honey bees’. Research tells me that most of the exotic-type animals I was referring to in my query would be included under bovine as they belong to the family of bovidae - essentially, with a cloven hoof and a real horn. This would include most of the cattle-type species, as well as goats and antelope, bison and yak. In consideration of this, it appears unlikely that the minister will ever have to gazette additional species under that section as most cattle, as we know them, will fall under that family. I provide that by way of advice for the minister and his staff.
I have looked at the definition of ‘poultry’. I want to point out that there were some issues which I raised in the briefing that were answered and satisfied. Since further reading and research on the bill, I have come up with a few other things, and this is one. The definition of ‘poultry’, as found in several Internet sources, is generally taken to mean domesticated birds or fowl, generally held to include chickens, doves, ducks, geese, grouse, guinea fowl, partridges, peafowl, pheasants, pigeons, quail, swans, and turkeys. The question I have at this juncture is: where do animals such as emus and ostriches fit into this legislation? They are, obviously, non-poultry birds that can and are kept for commercial purposes. Minister, I suggest that these species might become some of the first animals that need to be gazetted under clause 5(2) and, no doubt, there will be others as well.
From that point onwards, I found little to be overly concerned about, until I reached clause 54 of the bill, entitled ‘Emergency disease: treatment or destruction of certain structures’. Essentially, this is a power conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer to make certain orders under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are detailed in clause 54(1)(a) and (b), where a control program is established to control an emergency disease, and a residential structure is infected with an emergency disease and making an order is necessary to prevent the spread of that disease. Subclause (2) goes on to say that the CEO may order that the owner, or other person, must treat the residence in a specified manner and, further, if the residence has been treated and the treatment is inadequate, or, if the residence has not been treated and the CEO is satisfied that treatment would be inadequate, then the CEO can order the owner, or another person, to destroy the residence.
This may seem somewhat draconian, yet the circumstances under which, and I imagine this to be the case, orders of this magnitude would be both rare and, indeed, grave. The clause goes on further to say that a similar order can be made in respect of a structure, as differentiated from a residence, and equipment which is in or on the structure.
In the briefing with the department, I queried under what circumstances this type of action might take place. The example cited was of foot-and-mouth disease infected animals kept inside homes in the UK during the most recent outbreak.
Mr Elferink: I was there. It was truly horrible.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Would you like to finish this?
Mr Elferink: No, no.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is all right, John.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, animals were kept in the UK in residences to avoid them being detected or located by authorities; probably not a likely scenario in the Northern Territory because it is pretty hard to hide 10 000 head of cattle in your house, but should circumstances such as serious disease, such as foot-and-mouth, come into existence in this country, the potential threat to our various livestock industries could be, indeed, catastrophic.
Another example cited during the briefing, and this is probably more relevant to the Northern Territory, is the situation where a residence or a structure simply would not withstand the rigors of treatment and may be ordered to be destroyed as a result. I find that explanation to be quite real and pertinent, and within the realms of possibility in the Northern Territory.
While I am supportive of the fact that these measures should be legislated for, it would be my express hope that such powers would be used judiciously and with extreme caution, and certainly only as a matter of last resort. Having said that, I note that there is not a significant change to the existing power under the Stock Diseases Act, and that there are similar provisions in that legislation conferred under section 29 of the Stock Diseases Act.
From there, my thoughts turned to what, if any, compensation might be payable to a producer or farmer if the provisions of section 54 of the new act were invoked. I was able to turn to clause 69 of the bill to discover that compensation is, indeed, payable, but there are circumstances where compensation is not payable. I do not particularly have an issue with the circumstances under which compensation is not payable; however, there are some issues I would like the minister to clarify for the record in Hansard.
Clause 69 is to be read in conjunction with clauses 70, 71, 72 and 73, and they largely mirror the old act at sections 32 and 32A. By and large, I am satisfied with that legislation, but there are some queries I would like the minister to address. I will go into that now.
At clause 69(2) - and, again, this was explained in the briefing, but I just want it in Hansard – ‘destroyed things’, as they relate to compensation, are defined as:
- Destroyed things are animal products or other things destroyed or made unfit for use under a control program relating to an emergency disease.
If we go back to clause 54, the CEO can order the destruction of a residence, a structure or equipment, which I pointed out earlier. Yet clause 69 refers to things. Minister, my question is: does ‘things’ as mentioned in clause 69 include residences, structures, and equipment as they relate to clause 54 for the purposes of that Division 4?
I will move to clause 104, which raises matters relating to the power of entry for inspectors, and it states in part and is titled: ‘Entry of premises generally’ and I quote:
- (1) An inspector may do any of the following:
(a) enter any premises with the consent of the occupier or a person apparently in charge of the premises;
I have no issue with that paragraph.
(b) enter at any reasonable time, without consent, premises that are not residential premises;
I would like some explanation on that.
(c) enter residential premises under a warrant.
Part (b) appears to confer a power that could be seen to eclipse most of the similar powers conferred upon our police officers, and that is the power to enter a non-residential premises without a warrant. It is only under a very strict set of circumstances where police officers can enter, without a warrant, any premises at all, whether it be a structure or land or, for that matter, vehicles as well. A case in point is section 119 of the Police Administration Act titled ‘Urgent searches without warrant’ which says in part:
(1) A member of the Police Force may, in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate search or entry without the
authority of an order of a court or of a warrant issued under this Part, without warrant -
So you see that the police have to satisfy four things in that section, that there are circumstances which are serious, that they are urgent, and that it requires and justifies immediate search. Yet, subclause (b) of clause 104 does not carry anything like that, and for that reason it appears to me that this makes that section eclipse the powers that a police officer might have. Perhaps I do have a little problem with that. Police officers are very highly trained, and I do not think it is quite fitting with what a stock inspector should be doing. I really want to know if it is the intention of the minister to confer this power, such a strong power, which is the power for inspectors to enter non-residential premises without a warrant under this bill.
I move to section 105 which details the procedure for applying for and issue of a warrant under this bill. My question during the briefing was in the vein of: ‘why are warrants not able to be issued by justices?’ because the section refers to magistrates. Justices include Justices of the Peace, and I cited the fact that much legislation used by the police, when warrants can be issued, contained references to justices being able to issue warrants, and the reason for this, at least in part, would be so police officers can access Justices of the Peace after normal working hours to issue warrants in cases of emergency.
The advice I received during the briefing indicated that warrants issued under section 105 of this act would be applied for and obtained during normal working hours and would therefore be available through magistrates who would normally be expected to be available during those hours. I accept the explanation, but I would just ask the minister to reiterate this advice for the purposes of Hansard.
I now move to clause 106 (1). Clause 106 is titled ‘Effect and term of warrant’. Subclause (1) states:
- A warrant permits the inspector to whom it is directed, and any person authorised under section 99 to assist the inspector, to do the following:
(a) enter the residential premises specified in the warrant;
(b) exercise any of the powers specified in sections 107 and 108.
In these circumstances, sections 107 and 108 relate to powers on entry and seizure respectively; but that is not the issue now.
I asked at the briefing whether the minister or Parliamentary Counsel considered it appropriate to beef up this power by including the words ‘by force if necessary’; thus making paragraph (a) read: ‘enter, by force if necessary, the residential premises specified in the warrant’. I cited the example where inspectors, armed with a warrant issued under the Livestock Act, encountered a locked door at the premises where they were authorised to enter under the warrant. Under the current draft of the bill, the inspectors would not have the power to break the lock to gain entry to the premises. I was advised that the inspectors would not wish to engage in this type of activity and would then call the police. At the time, I was satisfied with that explanation, it seemed quite reasonable, where forceful entry is required to enter premises, that the police should, indeed, become involved.
Further research has raised a couple of issues in my mind that certainly need to be clarified. I was advised that the intent of the legislation was to provide a limited power to inspectors, falling somewhat short of the powers generally held by police under warrants issued under other instruments. The reason provided during the brief was: when the situation exists where forceful entry would be required to enter a premises, then inspectors would remove themselves and seek the assistance of the police. The police assistance would be in the form of them obtaining a warrant under the provisions of, presumably, the Police Administration Act. They would then attend at the location, with the inspectors, where the police would use their powers to enter, because they do have the power to break open locks, etcetera, gain effective entry to the residence, and then the inspectors would be able to conduct their business inside that premises.
I raise this now so the minister’s advisors can have a look at this and do some research prior to the committee stage. It appears to me there may well be a fatal flaw in this explanation, consequently rendering the warrant provisions dead in the water under those uncertain circumstances. Here is a hypothetical situation which, in fact, is certainly within the realms of possibility: an inspector obtains a warrant under clause 104. To have a warrant issued, he must convince a magistrate, on reasonable grounds, there is reason to enter the residential premises; to find that, you need to refer to clause 105(2). No problems with that so far. They arrive at the residential premises and find they have a locked door and they cannot affect entry; remember, they do not have the power to use force to effect their entry, so in keeping with the advice I have received, they back off and call the police. They ask the police to assist. The police simply cannot rock up to the front door and kick it in. So, the only way they can do anything is to take out their own warrant under section 117 of the Police Administration Act.
This is where the problem arises. Section 117 of the Police Administration Act authorises the issue of a warrant to a police officer - and it is better if I quote in part. It says, in section 117(2):
- Where an information on oath is laid before a justice alleging that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is at a place anything relating to an offence, the justice may
issue a search warrant authorising a member of the Police Force named in the warrant to enter and search the place and seize anything relating to an offence found in the course
of the search at the place.
The important words here are ‘anything relating to an offence’, and this is where the conflict arises. A police officer has to satisfy a number of requirements for the issue of a search warrant. One of those is that there has to be, on reasonable grounds, a belief that there is anything relating to an offence in the premises. Yet, the warrant issued under the Livestock Act does not have this requirement. So, for a police officer to successfully obtain a section 117 warrant, the inspector would have to detail to him a reasonable belief that there is, in the premises, anything relating to an offence, because the police officer will need that particular ground to bring before the magistrate. Then, that belief would have to be conveyed to a justice before the warrant can be issued.
If the inspector cannot convey that belief, the inspector does not have reasonable grounds himself to believe that there is anything relating to an offence in that premises, he cannot very well convey that to a police officer. There is a statutory requirement for that police officer to convey to a magistrate that there is anything relating to an offence in that premises. It is my contention that it would be impossible for a police officer, under those circumstances, to obtain a warrant and so entry to the premises would not be possible. Under those circumstances, effectively, a locked door would render a warrant issued under the Livestock Act as a lame duck - it just would not be exercisable and it could not be executed.
Clause 106(2) of the bill states: ‘The warrant remains in force for 1 month from the date of issue’. The use of the phrase ‘1 month’ is loose and open to interpretation. In the best case scenario, a month would be taken to mean 28, 29, 30 or 31 days and, in the worst case, some of the arguments which may well crop up are that a month could be a lunar month, a calendar month, or a solar month. It is my submission that that needs to be tightened up.
Warrants to enter and search any structure, and in particular residential premises, are statutory instruments of utmost importance and gravity. They necessarily give the person named in the warrant entrance to the sanctum sanctorum of another person. Apart from a physical assault - and this is through my experience in talking with victims of crime - entry into another person’s home can often be, and often is considered as a very serious invasion of their privacy, leaving a legacy of a feeling that can best be described as a violation. For that reason, the provisions of legislation around the issue of warrants cannot be, in any way, left loose or left to chance.
In pursuance of avoiding ambiguity on that particular clause 106(2), I proposed, during the briefing, an amendment to clause 106(2), to change ‘1 month’ to ‘28 days’ or ‘30 days’. Having a specified number of days removes ambiguity and is consistent with other legislation that contains warrant provisions, such as under the Police Administration Act. I note that warrants issued under section 117 of the Police Administration Act have a time limit of 14 days – so it does not say half a month - it says 14 days.
Madam Speaker, that is the crux of the issues I have with the bill. I do not stand here today criticising the bill or the way in which it was drafted. However, as I mentioned before, I do have a great deal of experience in dealing with legislation and digesting and understanding it, so, if I see an issue that I think may pose a problem, as I did at the briefing, I brought it up with the ministerial staff in an attempt to assist them to make the legislation more workable in its practical application on the ground.
Basically, I am relatively happy with the bill to be passed. I have not proposed amendments today. At the end of the day, if the ministerial staff and Parliamentary Counsel are satisfied that this legislation and all the provisions contained therein are workable, that they will not pose any problems down the track, then so be it. I guess it will be a matter of waiting to see if anything has to be tested to verify its veracity and how it may work in a practical application.
Minister, I thank you for allowing your staff to brief me on this and I appreciate the efforts that they put in; as a lot of hard work goes into something like this, particularly when you have to pore through five different pieces of legislation to bring it down into one act, which does make sense.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling the bill and finally pulling all the five pieces of legislation into one, which will obviously make it a lot easier from a management and regulatory point of view.
I understand the purpose of the legislation is twofold. One is to streamline the legislation referring to the animal industries, and to set in place rules of agricultural conduct for disease control in times of emergency, in particular in the animal industry. We know that animal movement is a fundamental component in the spread of disease. Effective monitoring of the livestock movement is critical to the timely management of disease outbreaks. I know the intent of this legislation is to protect our livestock, not only in the Territory, but Australia as a whole.
I understand the thrust of the bill. I have spoken to many of my constituents, and those in the business of livestock breeding and management, and while I know the intent of the bill is generally good, I too have some concerns regarding its efficacy; not in relation to the largely developed cattle industries, and maybe buffalo and camel industries, but in relation to its coverage of small animal industries, small farming. Very generally, large animals are kept by large, extensive and well organised, easily identifiable businesses, companies, cattle stations and some of the long established pastoral families. They have the resources to work with the legislation, and have access to a well organised industry group to lobby on their behalf, and I have spoken with the Cattlemen’s Association in this regard.
However, operators and individuals who own small commercial farms – poultry, bees and the like – are still in great numbers in the rural area in my electorate and across the Territory, and may not have been afforded the opportunity to have input into this legislation. It is for this reason that I have gone through the bill and gone across my constituency to see how the legislation will affect them in their businesses or in their farming.
Government’s job is to find the right balance in an industry, and while the main industries are important to the economy and to the Territory as they generate jobs and wealth for all, so too are the small operators or people who have the drive and vision for a clever Territory, and who also employ people and contribute to the economy, albeit on a smaller scale. While the legislation may be relatively easy for a large operator to manage, it may be burdensome for a small farmer or individuals who own poultry, bees, or even the camel and brumby industries, which are not mentioned in the legislation.
While the thrust of the bill is to protect the Territory from disease outbreak – I have no issue with that – and it should be noted that diseases often break out on small allotments and properties of five acres, and so a small property owner/breeder is just as important in this legislation as a large station owner. I applaud the efforts of industry, community and the government in working towards and protecting our Territory and country, and I am sure that all of the community thinks and wants the same.
This leads me to the Berrimah Farm, the headquarters for the department. Part of the work of the farm, and the department, and an important work component which is often overlooked by this government – in fact, I think ignored sometimes – is the sentinel cattle, sheep and poultry. In working towards promoting a safe and clean Territory, I am unclear as to what the government intends to do with this very important component of guardians that protect, not only the Northern Territory, but also Australia from animal diseases coming in from over the seas, such as blue tongue, foot-and-mouth and equine influenza, to name just a few of the more serious diseases. My question to the minister, and I know it is not necessarily a legislative issue: where will these animals be housed if the farm is to be closed?
In the beginning of the legislation there is a list of definitions, and I ask the minister: why is it only cattle, buffalo and horses have definitions? Cattle are listed, of course, as bovine; horses as equine; and, buffaloes as Bubalus bubalis, and yet, in clause 5, all livestock is listed as crocodile, cattle, buffalo, horses, camel, sheep, goats, pigs including wild pigs, deer, llamas, alpacas, cultured honey bees. If there is to be consistency in the legislation, the livestock mentioned in that clause should also include the definition, and they would include: camel as in camelid, pig meaning porcine, sheep means ovine animal, goat means caprine, crocodile means crocodilian, deer means cervine and bee means apiarian animal. I think we need that for consistency because they are listed in that section.
Also, in regard to definition, I believe there needs to be an improvement in the definition of poultry. This legislation is not only for the big property people, it is also for some of the small people and lay people, and I would suggest that the main species is absent from this definition - that is hens and roosters. It is this type of animal that can create a problem in our community and spread a serious disease, for example, avian influenza, commonly called bird flu.
I believe further clarity is required in the definition, and I know some people dispute this with me, to ensure there is no misunderstanding of the use of the word ‘mark’ when it comes to marking animals. I have been advised that marking in some of the sheep industry can mean castrating the young animal; perhaps we should take the word ‘mark’ out and put ‘identifiable mark on the animal’ in that section, because I am sure that is not the intent of the legislation, that animals are castrated to stand them out from a flock or herd.
In my electorate, there are people who own animals under permit, such as magpie geese and antilopines. I question if these will be classified as livestock by the minister and, if so, when and under what circumstances? And if there are issues with this, is this covered in this legislation?
In the second reading speech the minister did not mention, but I am sure he is aware that goats and sheep, as of 1 January 2009, will be required to have a property identification code, commonly called a PIC number, as part of the national livestock identification system, which is an agreement between the states and the Territory to enhance Australia’s ability to quickly and successfully contain a major food safety or disease incident within Australia.
At this stage, I am not sure what happened, perhaps it is a drafting issue – the bill is actually out of step with the explanatory statement from clause 5 onwards. For example, in the bill, clause 6 is Application of Criminal Code 8 but in the explanatory statement it is: act binds territories and other public bodies. As a result, the two documents do not match from that part onwards; perhaps that could be rectified before the final document is available for the general public.
In regard to some specifics: clause 14, which is ‘Brands for public pounds’, my question is: why do we need to have a brand as, generally, an animal will be branded already, and if it is not, that means the rightful owner will have to accept the brand put on it by the government and not his or her own brand if the livestock is returned? So I am just not clear about the meaning of that section.
‘Declaration and classification of notifiable diseases’, clause 30(2) to clause 30 (5) - these statements are not clear to me. I probably just need a little more clarification, and perhaps in committee stages I will ask the minister for details and a list of what would be considered to be notifiable diseases, emergency diseases, endemic and/or exotic diseases; and what would be the relationship between the diseases. I mean, in what situation could a disease go from one level, as I call it, to another level?
Clause 31 ‘Publication of list of notifiable diseases’ - there is a presumption, and maybe it is just a matter of changing some of the words, that everyone has access to the Internet across the Northern Territory and in remote communities. This is not the case, even in some sections of my rural area. So I will be asking the minister that the information of the diseases not only be placed on the government’s website, but also that a hard copy or paper trail for this kind of information be available to people from either the department or in a mail-out situation - fact sheets, posters and the like - so all avenues of communication are covered in case people cannot access the Internet. We know the Internet is not always particularly reliable or consistent across the Territory.
‘Emergency diseases’, clause 54 …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you mind if I just interrupt and acknowledge these students?
Ms PURICK: No, Madam Speaker. .
_____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kormilda College Year 9 students, accompanied by Ms Leanne Hedley and Mr Christopher Baker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: Clause 54 ‘Emergency disease: treatment or destruction of certain structures’: this section refers to emergency diseases only. I ask what happened to the outbreak of other diseases listed in the legislation which I previously mentioned - notifiable, endemic and exotic? It is wrong to assume, but can I extrapolate from this section’s wording that only emergency disease outbreak will be subject to potential residential destruction, and not a notifiable disease or an endemic disease? It has the one use of the one word ‘emergency’ disease; I need some clarification in that regard. If it is all of the diseases, then it needs to be in there; but if it is only for the emergency diseases, then perhaps it needs to be written out that the other diseases are not included in this section.
Clause 69 ‘Destroyed livestock and destroyed things’: this references moving stock to abattoirs for slaughter under clause 53. I am not clear as to when this would happen, and it concerns me that the abattoirs in question where they could be slaughtered - Alice Springs, Port Keats, Oenpelli, Maningrida and Kalkarindji – are a long way from various domestic centres where there might be an outbreak of disease and stock have to be transported long distances. We did have an abattoir in the rural area on Darwin’s outskirts but, regrettably, this closed and there is nowhere in the top part of the Territory where they could be slaughtered. Unless something is in the legislation which talks about portable or temporary abattoirs, it does need some clarification.
Clause 70 ‘General entitlement to compensation and other money’, is about when compensation is payable; my colleague from Katherine touched on this. I cannot work out where the compensation is payable and at what rates. Clause 72, ‘When compensation not payable’: I am looking for some clarification from the minister as to what would constitute omission, and who would decide on the omission status.
Clause 74 ‘Application of Division’ subclause (2): there is reference to an evaluation panel. I would query who these people would be, and with what qualifications and how will they be appointed. I know there is a limited number of people in the Northern Territory to do this work, so will there be people contracted from interstate? And what would be the process for this, given it is talking about evaluation?
Clause 95 ‘Chief Inspector may approve the form of documents’: I am a little unclear where this section fits in with the powers of the Registrar, which is listed in the legislation.
Clause 97 ‘Chief Inspector may give orders about seized things’: I would need examples of why livestock would be seized and what processes they would use to sell or auction the livestock. It says: ‘may give the following orders: livestock seized under this act may be sold by private sale or public auction’. I want some clarification, for example, if they seize beehives. How would they go about auctioning a beehive? Where would they do it? Would it be out by tender, for example? …
Mr Conlan: People buy beehives.
Ms PURICK: People do buy beehives. Clause 98, ‘Chief Inspector may restrict use of biological preparation and drugs’. I may not be reading this properly. It says the Chief Inspector may restrict use of biological preparation and drugs; and restrict the use of a biological preparation, chemical, or veterinary drug in the treatment of livestock. I am seeking clarification as to what exactly that means in ‘the powers’, because there are farmers or cattle people who treat them own stock with approved veterinary medicine. Is this section suggesting that somehow every person who treats their own stock with veterinary medicine will have to get a permit from the government? I am not quite clear about that. If that is the case, that is very concerning, because there is a substantial number of people in my electorate who treat their own livestock for a variety of ailments - in a cautionary way as well.
Clause 104, ‘Entry of premises generally’: is a very interesting section - a little concerning, but I understand the intent of the section:
Generally, if an inspector is going on to a property to either seize stock or to deliver something that is not particularly pleasant in regard to the running of that property and the animals, it is going to be a fairly hostile situation. People in the rural area are not known for their tact and quietness. I know it is not a legislative issue, but I am seeking some advice from the minister in regard to the training these inspectors would undertake in regard to dealing with hostile situations, because we do not want to see anything happen to the government officers in the performance of their duties. As I said, they can be an interesting lot in the rural area and in remote places, and we would not want any harm to come to anyone.
Clause 107 ‘Powers of entry on premises’: I believe is far too wide and all encompassing, and I would like clarification on the relationships with police powers, as it seems to me they are greater. It includes breaking and damaging of property –well, it is suggesting that - and who would compensate for the damage to personal property. I will be seeking some clarification from the minister in that regard.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I support the general thrust of the bill; however, I have some misgivings as to the full impact on the smaller end of the industries which would have to work with this legislation. I do not want to see a repeat of the situation that we had in the 1980s and 1990s where there was widespread destruction of buffalo under the brucellosis/tuberculosis eradication campaign, which did impact on small operators where their stock where killed and, after post mortem, it was found that the animals did not have the diseases. Also, there was large-scale killing from the air, from helicopters, and the carcasses were just left to rot. We do not want to see that kind of situation occur in the Territory in the future.
Madam Speaker, I hope that we have learnt from our past and that we continue to protect our environment, communities, and our animals in the Territory and Australia. If there is clarification given on some of these points, then I am more than happy to support the legislation and would be promoting it amongst the industries and my constituents who are impacted by the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation; it is extremely important legislation, especially in light of some of the diseases that have threatened Australia in recent times, such as avian flu or equine influenza. We need modern up-to-date legislation which deals with some of these issues in light of how livestock were moved some years ago and how livestock are moved today. We need contemporary legislation to deal with the issues now and into the future. I congratulate the government on doing that. It has certainly been a long task, and an important one.
I could be slightly cruel, minister, in saying that the size of the second reading, I sometimes believe, reflects what is important to the government when dealing with primary industry. I have always felt the department of Primary Industry is the poor cousin. You may disagree, but I think it is one of those areas that slipped off the agenda for this government. I am not saying it did not have other important areas it had to tackle, but I think agriculture, in general, in the Northern Territory is, to some extent, a sleeping giant that we really have not tapped into as well as we could have. I do believe that we need to put a lot more emphasis on the advancement of agriculture in the Northern Territory.
On another point, the member for Goyder mentioned the definition of poultry. I read that as well, but being a person who believes chickens are a very important part of society, I realised immediately that the word poultry is exactly that – it is chickens – and the rest is included. That is how important chickens are …
Mr Vatskalis: It is the definition by the Webster dictionary.
Mr WOOD: Yes. You have to know how the hierarchy works. Those things called ducks, geese and turkeys; they are second rate. I digress.
The member for Katherine and the member for Goyder have taken up many important issues. The issue regarding the movement of animals, for small farmers, especially in areas around Katherine and in the rural areas, and around the rural areas of Darwin, needs to be addressed. If you do take the letter of the law in relation to the movement of animals, you are not meant to move animals without having a waybill - by the way, the definition of waybill is very interesting, minister. Waybill means an approved form of waybill. I like that. I am not sure why it just does not tell you what a waybill is, but I found a waybill on the website and I know what it is, but the definition seems to be a …
Ms Purick: A bit obscure.
Mr WOOD: Yes. A bit like a circle, it goes round and round and does not quite tell you what it is.
The issue for members, like the member for Katherine, the member for Goyder and me, is how this bill will relate to the small livestock owner. Will they get into trouble – say the ex-member for Nelson, who has a large goat herd in my electorate, and she wants to take a few goats down the road to another place. Are they technically required to have a waybill? And, in practice, how would that work? Or is the government saying, ‘Perhaps in certain areas, the movement of animals, unless there is an emergency called, can be exempt from these clauses’?
In general, the issue of waybills and the movement of livestock obviously is something which is very important for the industry, especially with cattle. I did speak to the Cattlemen’s Association and they are happy with this bill, but they also realise this bill really was not designed for the small grower or the small farmer in relation to just a few animals. It is an area where I would like to hear the minister say that there will be some basic exemption for movement of cattle around those areas, otherwise – well, you would get a lot of bad reaction from people because they would find it was bureaucracy gone mad; and I think you would also clog up the system from the government’s point of view. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say in that area.
I thank members of the department for a really good briefing. At the briefing I asked whether anything in this act overrode any other acts, or clashed with other acts. I mentioned at that time about the NT Health Act, but I also knew there was something else around, because I had come across it after I had a complaint about stables.
The Public Health (Nuisance Prevention) Regulations cover a whole range of issues from the keeping of poultry and pigeons; stables, cow yards and cattle sheds to be paved and drained; cleansing of stables and cow yards, and, further down, it deals with sections 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, which I will read.
For instance, regulation 38, ‘Keeping of swine prohibited. For the purposes of regulation 41 and 48, but without limiting the generality of the expression “the occupier” in these Regulations, any person who has the charge, management or control of any place in which horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine kept in any place, shall be deemed to be the occupier of the land or premises referred to in those regulations if that place is situated on the land or on those premises’.
Then it goes on to say, in section 39, ‘Keeping of goats at Katherine and Alice Springs. The owner of any premises situated within a radius of one mile from the Post Office at Katherine or Alice Springs shall not keep or permit to be on those premises any goats’.
Regulation 40, ‘Keeping of cattle and goats at Darwin. The occupier of any premises situated within the Darwin Town Area described in a Schedule shall not keep or permit to be on those premises any cattle or goats’.
Regulation 41, ‘Keeping of stock. Subject to regulations 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, the occupier of any premises situated within an area which has not been declared by the minister to be an exempt area by notice in the Gazette shall not keep or permit to be on those premises horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine without the written permission of the Chief Health Officer or a person authorised by him in that behalf’.
Regulation 42, ‘Horses not to be kept on land in certain area. (1) A person shall not keep a horse in the Darwin Town Area on any land situated in the area described in a Schedule’.
Regulation 43, ‘Stable not to be erected without approval of Chief Health Officer’.
Regulation 44, ‘Horses not to be kept in non-exempt area except where approved stable provided’. This section’s regulation says the number of horses which may be kept. There is regulation 46, ‘Stable not to be erected’, and 47, ‘Power to serve notice on occupier or owner of premises’.
In part of the Public Health (Nuisance Prevention) Regulations, there is control by the Public Health Officer over animals and their movement. I am asking, does that particular group of regulations at all clash with this particular act? If so, are there any problems with that? I highlight that to see what your response is to that as well, minister.
It is a good bit of legislation. There are some issues which we can discuss through the committee stage, but overall it is a very important piece of legislation. As agriculture moves into different stages of development, as technology changes, even as new diseases crop up, we need legislation which can deal with all of that. This legislation certainly goes a long way to doing that, and I congratulate the department on the time and effort. There were obviously many people involved in putting this legislation together. There are some important issues, especially for the small grower, and in general I support this legislation and would be happy to ask some questions during committee stages.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Christmas Greetings
Christmas Greetings
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as this is the last sitting day for the year, I take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy and safe Christmas. I also take the opportunity, while people are listening to the broadcast, to thank all parliamentary staff, particularly the Clerk, Mr Ian McNeill, and Deputy Clerk, and all the Hansard staff and Table Office staff for the extraordinary work they do for us during the sittings. Thank you very much.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Minister for Health
Proposed Censure of Minister for Health
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the Minister for Health for his abject failure to manage the Health Department on behalf of Territorians, and for his cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility for his role as Minister for Health.
Madam Speaker, this is another indication of the failures by this Health minister. In the previous sittings, we highlighted serious systemic failures in the health system across the Northern Territory, and this is under the watch of this Health Minister. He did not adequately answer questions from the opposition, from the media, or from Territorians in his ability to manage the health system, and we again believe he is not doing that here in this disgraceful, shameful, abhorrent situation with the rape of this five-month-old baby at Royal Darwin Hospital.
The Health Services Complaints Commissioner report, which was tabled to the opposition just today during the lunch break - snuck in, tabled under a whole pile of other documents to the opposition’s office; again, in an another attempt by this government to avoid scrutiny and, in this situation, one of the most serious of situations unfolding in the Health Department.
I will take us through some of the conclusions by the Commissioner as highlighted in that report. On 30 March – I will just back up there, Madam Speaker - the scope of the investigation for those listening and those in the gallery, and I quote from the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Report:
- On 30th March 2006 a five month old female infant was raped while an inpatient in the Paediatric Ward 5B at RDH. The Health and Community Services Complaints
Commission investigated the arrangements in place at Ward 5B for the protection of patients as well as any action taken by RDH in response to the severity of the incident.
The conclusions of the Commissioner, and I quote:
- 1. On 30th March 2006:
There were no arrangements in place on the Paediatric Ward to ensure the safety and the inviolability of vulnerable patients.
The arrangements in place did not comply in any aspect with the Australian Standard which sets the benchmark for proper security.
The Terms of Reference did not require 5B to be assessed …
Amazingly, astonishingly, did not require Ward 5B to be assessed; some of our most vulnerable Territorians in Ward 5B, however, the terms of reference did not require 5B to be assessed.
- By 30 March 2006 the recommendations in the report had not been implemented in Ward 5B. This failure can only be described as shameful.
They are the words of the Commissioner: ‘Can only be described as shameful’.
Following the rape of the infant, police were not notified for two hours.
- 2. Action taken by RDH after the rape to improve security was:
- (a) slow
- (b) inadequate, and
- (c) has not been adequately evaluated or reviewed to determine its effectiveness.
They are the first two-and-a-half parts of the report tabled today by the government from the Commissioner.
The Australian Council of Healthcare Standards was not fully informed of the rape of this five-month-old; the Royal Darwin Hospital Security Review was not informed of the rape of this five-month-old; and the Royal Darwin Hospital Maternal and Child Health Clinical Risk Management Committee did not meet until two and half months after the rape of this five-month-old baby. The Health Complaints Commission was unable to determine the role of the Royal Darwin Hospital Board.
The Commissioner has concluded, and I quote:
- In my view how RDH is managed, what leadership it has and how decisions are made, not only about clinical matters but about management, directly impacts on the
lack of security arrangements that led to the rape of the infant.
The Commissioner also says:
- The governance arrangements at RDH do not promote adequate transparent accountability of the General Manager and the Department of Health and Families for the
operation of the hospital.
This is an appalling situation and, again, highlighting the failures by the Northern Territory Health minister to take responsibility for the Health department. How can Territorians have confidence in their Health department and their health services when this is constantly happening under the watch of the Health Minister? He is a serial offender when it comes to this. There are numerous other situations which have unfolded over the last few years which we have highlighted in this House over the last few months. Numerous Coronials, two of which were preventable deaths – one of baby Georgia Rae Tilmouth just recently, and also the death of Mrs Margaret Winter, which was highlighted by a Coronial; two preventable deaths at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
There is a nurse staffing crisis, which the minister clearly knew about and did nothing about; failure to deliver adequate services to the Northern Territory public; adequate core services by government - that is health services - and the minister has failed to deliver them. How many more deaths? How many more preventable deaths? How many more children will be exposed as a result of the failure of this minister to direct his department and provide these adequate services to the Territory public?
We have mentioned the death of Georgia Rae Tilmouth. In the Northern Territory News, on the 14 November 2008 the story by Phoebe Stewart reads:
- The Royal Darwin Hospital has implemented changes to its birthing unit to minimise the risk of a death like that of Georgia Rae Tilmouth ever happening again.’ Georgia Rae
was born with her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck and shoulders on the 22 August 2006. On Wednesday, Deputy Coroner Celia Kemp told the court a resignation
letter written by former Royal Darwin Hospital Maternity Services Manager Sharon Haste, nearly a year after Georgia Rae’s birth, said the Royal Darwin Hospital birthing
services were not safe for women and babies due to gross understaffing and inadequate skills mix. Health department employee, Kevin Curry, objected to the letter being
included into the evidence.
That is astonishing that the Health department lawyer objected to that letter being included as evidence. Again, it appears that this culture of cover up is alive and well, not only in areas of the Northern Territory government but particularly that of the Northern Territory Health department. There are many examples of inadequate services and systemic failures right across the board in Northern Territory hospitals.
We have highlighted areas of the Royal Darwin Hospital, but there are four other hospitals across the Northern Territory. How many children are at risk, minister, in other hospitals of the Northern Territory? Have these security measures been rolled out right across the rest of the Northern Territory? Can mothers rest assured their children will be safe in other hospitals across the Northern Territory, that is, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, not just the Royal Darwin Hospital?
The Ombudsman has also said the General Manager of the Royal Darwin Hospital did not produce, on demand, any copies of materials and reports of the board of management to the Ombudsman. This led the Ombudsman to conclude the incident of the rape of a five-month-old child was not considered important enough by the General Manager to report it to the management board. Can you believe that? If that is not important enough, what is? It is like security cameras being installed in the kitchen to prevent pilfering of people's lunches. Meanwhile, children are sleeping vulnerable in their cribs in the paediatric ward. It is astonishing, and it can only mean that the incident of rape of a five-month-old child, these are the words of the Commissioner, a five-month-old child was not considered important enough by the General Manager to report it to the management board.
On 14 November 2008, the Northern Territory News reported the resignation letter from Sharon Haste, Royal Darwin Hospital Maternity Services Manager, who said birthing services were not safe for women and their babies due to gross understaffing and inadequate skills mix. You would think she would know what she is talking about; I am sure she does. If she has said that, surely there are problems. It is curious that the minister could not answer how many times he has visited Royal Darwin Hospital since his verbal assurance that security cameras would be installed in the paediatric ward. He goes on trust; he trusts his advisors. He said he makes regular visits and offers courtesy to opposition members to visit the hospital, which yes, he does, but what proactive role does the minister take in his daily duties as the Minister for Health? What active role does he take when he visits the Royal Darwin Hospital? He was unable to answer that question.
The tabling today of the Ombudsman’s report into this terrible situation involving this five-month-old baby girl at Royal Darwin Hospital on 30 March 2006 reveals a staggering lack of security within the paediatric ward which led to this situation.
The government has been sitting on this and has known about this for two years; they have known about this for a long time. This incident occurred on 30 March 2006; it is now 27 November 2008. All of a sudden, the minister is shocked, horrified and disgusted. The television cameras are here, the media is here. He made a pre-emptive strike on us, knowing that we got hold of this, despite it being buried under a whole stack of other reports delivered to the opposition offices during the lunch break. Just to cover his back, he went out today and made an announcement of $1m to upgrade security throughout the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. He has known about this for a long time but, just to cover his back - if he could not quite sneak it through the scrutiny of the opposition before parliament rose for 2008 - came out with the announcement of $1m to upgrade security and implement those measures as recommended by the report.
Again, it highlights the inadequacies of the Health Minister and his department. It is curious that he has now appointed a Deputy CEO. It is clearly a bit of Tom and Jerry show between David Ashbridge and the Health Minister; this bloke, no doubt, whoever he is, will be the fall guy. Any other problems that arise in the Health department from now on, you can bet your bottom dollar, London to a brick, that it will not be the fault of the minister - because it never is; it will never be his responsibility - David Ashbridge will worm and weave his way of it as he has so craftily done recently and in previous situations; it will be the responsibility rather of this Deputy CEO. The question has to be: why can the CEO not take responsibility and take charge of all those duties that you have highlighted before in one of your answers? You would have thought that was the role of the CEO but, clearly, that is beneath the current CEO to do so. It is well beneath the minister to take an active role in his Health department, and so it will fall on the shoulders of the Deputy CEO who is yet to be appointed.
Mrs Margaret Winter died because of a lack of resources. There is currently another death before the Coroner, possibly due also to the lack of resources. The minister, ad nauseam in the last sittings, said that his role was to provide resources to the department. Essentially, we could have the Treasurer being the Minister for Health if it was just about resources. What is the point in having a Health minister if you are not taking any responsibility? It seems like the department is leading you around, minister.
The CCTV system in the paediatric ward is two years too late; it has not helped this young five-month-old baby, presumably because of a lack of resources. Is that why it is two years too late? We also notice the minister took $30m out of the Health department last year and, as a result of that, we have a nurse staffing crisis, as well as other systemic failures right across the board in Northern Territory Health.
How many other people have to die? How many more preventable deaths or heinously horrific situations, such as happened to this five-month-old baby, have to happen before the minister takes responsibility, takes some leadership, and provides the necessary resources to our hospitals? This is a discrete focus on the Royal Darwin Hospital but, again, the question has to be asked: what is happening in our hospitals across the Northern Territory? Are children safe in the paediatric ward at Alice Springs Hospital, at Nhulunbuy, at Tennant Creek and in Katherine?
This is a cowardly act. The minister has lied to this House, lied to the opposition to cover his tracks. He is very good at cutting through, avoiding the facts and getting right down to the spin. He does excel in it. This opposition has no confidence in him. The Territory public, if the media cycle is anything to go by; that is, letters to the editor, people on the street, the way it is being reported, the way the situation facing health has been reported. Clearly, the Territory public have no faith in this minister’s ability to address these systemic failures and these horrific events which are taking place right across the Northern Territory health system.
Madam Speaker, we have absolutely no confidence in this minister. We articulated that during the last sittings after the preventable death of Mrs Margaret Winter; and now we have this appalling situation with this five-month-old baby. For God’s sake, five-months-old! I see that the minister is visibly shaken by it, and who would not be? Quite frankly, who would not be? It is disgusting.
There are 21 recommendations by the Commissioner. Let us hope they will be implemented, and implemented immediately. Will $1m cover it? I am not sure, but whatever it takes to ensure the safety of children in hospitals should be of utmost importance and paramount to the Health Minister and to the department. The minister keeps blaming his department and will not take responsibility.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the opposition have absolutely no confidence in this minister. We ask him to step down. We still maintain that he is not doing a good job as Health Minister. In fact, he is doing quite the opposite – a rather appalling job, if what has happened and what has unfolded over the course of the last couple of years since he has been Health Minister is anything to go by. I know we have some other speakers but, essentially, we are censuring the Health Minister for his cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility for his role as Minister for Health.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I appreciate the fact this is a very serious issue, that today the opposition extended me the courtesy to give an explanation and to put forward what I and government are proposing, or have implemented, to address this very serious issue. In that spirit, I will reply, and I know the opposition do have a job to do. This is a very serious issue, and they need to prosecute this issue as hard as they can. I acknowledge that.
I do take responsibility for being the Minister for Health. There is, you know, it is part of political rhetoric, the rhetoric of cowardice. I wanted to debate this matter in Question Time today, and I knew that Question Time today would turn to this particular issue. As members opposite would be aware, under the act, I have six sitting days to actually table the report which was given to me by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner; so that could have been next year …
A member: If you had done that, it would have been suicide.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: Well, why would it be?
A member: Because you would have been hiding a report for three months.
Dr BURNS: I would have had the statutory right to do it, but I did not want to do it. What I wanted to do was bring this matter forward. It is a matter of great public importance.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I will be prepared to face the media today, but moreover, face this House, Madam Speaker. Those who know me well know I do not back down from my responsibilities - I never have, and I never will, Madam Speaker. I would have to say also that, being Health Minister, as you know, is a very hard undertaking and very difficult, and if you talk to any minister around Australia, any Health minister, they will tell you the same. I know that you crowd aspire to be government, but I can say, if you ever get to be government, the person who gets to be Health Minister, first off at least, is going to face a difficult task, and they will say they are facing a difficult task. I know what you are going to say, but give me the courtesy of saying what I have to say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … because it is a very difficult task. It is the hardest portfolio of the lot. I take it seriously, and I am committed to it. I am committed to driving change within this health system, for all the reasons that have been outlined here by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner, by the Coroner, and for all the reasons that I know of from my long experience in the health sector, the things that I know over many years have been wrong. So I am committed.
The question has been asked: ‘What is your responsibility as Health Minister?’ You say: ‘It is only about giving them the resources’. I said a lot more than that. It is not only about resources - it is about policy. I defy anyone who wants to be a minister and one day may be a minister, when you get there, you try to be involved with every operational decision, every operational matter that comes before a department, even the smallest department. It is impossible for any minister to do that.
You have challenged me. You have said, ‘Why did you not follow up? Why did you not do this? Why did you not do that?’ But the fact is, as ministers, we inquire and we ask questions; the same questions the Health Services Complaints Commissioner asks. However, she has the resources and the investigative power and it is obvious, she had an investigator on-site, she was able to peruse documents, she was able to interview individuals and she was able to come out with this comprehensive and excellent report. It is excellent in that it gets to the bottom of things. It tabulates and clearly shows the shortcomings in this matter and she goes on to make very specific recommendations in relation to this.
I am taking those 21 recommendations and I am ensuring, through the steps I have taken, that I have outlined before – Mr Jim O’Sullivan and Mr Ray Norman - to ensure those recommendations about security and about governance are implemented.
They are very difficult issues; there is no doubt. Since this incident in March 2006, a number of people who have been named in this report, some of them not directly named, but their names are in there through their position. Quite a number of those people have moved on; have moved out of the Health department, they are no longer in the department; and I have alluded to a number of those people in previous debate.
I am not going to go to names today, because we all know some of the names involved, members opposite, and some of those people who have been criticised within this report have made a major contribution to health in the Northern Territory. I have spoken to those people and I have told those people that I am upset and angry about this.
Mr Conlan: But you could not check to see if there were security implications at the …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Some members opposite know exactly what I am alluding to here. This is a very difficult issue, but I have foreshadowed to all of those people that I am going to drive change in relation to this and I have told them how I am going to drive it. I have specifically told the CEO, and others, that anyone who stands in the way of this change are out the door.
Mr Tollner: You are not driving change, the Commissioner is. The Commissioner is driving change. Be honest.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, that is …
Mr Tollner: You are not driving anything. You are asleep in the back seat.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am far from asleep, member for Fong Lim, far from asleep. In fact, since receiving this report I have lost a hell of a lot of sleep and am really concerned over this. I have been thinking, since I received this on Monday afternoon, of the way forward, and I have outlined – I do not think I need to outline it again – the plan that I have put in place to drive that change. In response to the debates that the member for Greatorex was alluding to in relation to the avoidable death of Mrs Winter, I have outlined the steps I am taking there.
As Health Minister, I am committed to driving change within our health sector. That is my commitment. I might run into a brick wall in doing that. I do not think so, because I am committed. I might have a lot of faults, but those people who know me very well know that I am absolutely dogged, and I will not give up.
The member for Greatorex asked a very important question about paediatric wards elsewhere in Australia, and I am giving the House the assurance here today that, as part of his task, Mr O’Sullivan will be looking at those other boards throughout the Territory and seeing whether they come up to the Australian standard. That is very important.
A member: They should be looked at immediately, right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It is a very important assurance. I am not contesting any of the shameful findings that have been found in this report. What I am outlining here is the way forward. As I have said, there have been a number of people who are no longer in the Health department who are at the bottom of this. There are some remaining, but the message has been given very clearly – that I am intent in driving that change, and nothing else other than the implementation of these recommendations is acceptable to me. I have made that very clear to the CEO and others in health and the Royal Darwin Hospital.
The member for Greatorex has asked whether I take an active role as Health Minister. I believe I do. I regularly visit Royal Darwin Hospital; I have regular meetings and have had regular meetings with clinicians and others; I regularly visit various parts of Royal Darwin Hospital and I have undertaken extensive travel through Royal Darwin Hospital. We are just not talking about the medical part and the nursing part; I am talking about the outlying parts also of Royal Darwin Hospital - the engineering parts and the laundry - I have made myself aware of the needs of Royal Darwin Hospital.
There has been a lot of talk about a hospital at Palmerston. The Chief Minister has given some undertakings. I am aware, and have been made aware in my meetings as recently as about three weeks ago with a variety of people at Royal Darwin Hospital, including clinicians, engineers and others, of the needs of Royal Darwin Hospital. As Health Minister, I am acutely aware of those things. Any state or territory government throughout Australia could apply all their appropriation in the budget to Health, and they still probably would not be able to fulfil the demand.
The tension between demand and resources in any jurisdiction in Australia is just incredible. I do not care what political colour you are - I am sure the new Western Australian Health minister will be finding the same challenges. So, it is okay to blame your predecessors or whatever, or the government if you are in opposition, but the cold hard reality is that there is increased demand within our system as there are more and more techniques, as people's expectations rise. That is the challenge for a Health minister. I am up for that challenge, and I will do the best I can to deliver the best health services for the people of the Northern Territory.
As I alluded to before, there have been a number of reports this year, coronials - and rightly so. The member for Greatorex alluded to them; there is this report and a whole stream of incidents which come out of 2006. There is no doubt about that, and I am committed to ensuring that in this hospital – and they particularly relate to the Royal Darwin Hospital - things are improved, measures are taken despite resistance and tardiness and lack of commitment from some; and the unacceptable delays which have been outlined in this report – that those things are improved. We are never going to have a perfect health system. That is impossible. We are never going to have a hospital where people do not die. But we want people to have confidence in our health system.
In every respect, I have faith in the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. I feel for them because they read these headlines and they will see the news tonight. I know the staff in the paediatric unit is very upset about everything that has happened; but there are endeavours. The issue of baby Tilmouth, which the member for Greatorex raised - yes, a terrible death, and the Coroner is yet to determine his findings in relation to that death. But, he did say in that particular case, and this was in the NT News - I do not have the date - in another article written by Phoebe Stewart:
- I commend the institution, the hospital, for its obvious and manifest efforts to improve. The systems that were in place in 2006 are not the systems that operate today at
Royal Darwin Hospital … and give some confidence to the general public.
In some of those areas there has been progress; the issues have been addressed and the Coroner has recognised progress. However, I believe this report from the Health Services Complaint Commissioner clearly illustrates, in a crucial area of security and safety, that issues were not addressed; there were not remedies in place despite assurances from various parts of the hospital.
In relation to the hospital board, I read the report of the Ombudsman very closely, and I am very concerned about what she found in a number of areas, not least all the lack of annual reports by the board since 2006. I place on the record that my office is aware there are outstanding reports from the Royal Darwin Hospital Board. I am making sure they are forthcoming and, of course, they will go through the process.
Regarding hospital boards and the Hospital Boards Act, as the Health Services Complaints Commissioner alluded to, there was a review which was carried out, I believe in 2006-07, by a consultant. I place on the Parliamentary Record that that review was completely inadequate, as was the consultancy. The consultant, in some cases, did not speak to hospital boards and hospital board members. When I became minister, and become aware of this consultancy, I said: ‘We are not going there’; and I started a process of meeting with those hospital boards myself, in both Alice Springs and Darwin, and I heard their issues.
The amendments to the Hospital Boards Act have taken longer than I would have liked, and I will tell the House why that is the case – because the Royal Darwin Hospital Board has quite a different focus and different demands in what they want to see in the revised act to the board in Alice Springs. What I had to do, in consultation with both boards, was to find a middle path which accommodated both.
Members should be aware the Chair of the Alice Springs Hospital Board, Mrs Margaret Wait, and Mr Mike Tyrrell have tended their resignations to me. They have said they will not be going back to the hospital board; they have had their time and will not be continuing after the 31 December this year. They also expressed to me, in their letters of resignation, their disappointment at the time it has taken for the Hospital Boards Act to be passed and become law. I am not going to deny that is the case, and I believe they have a right to be disappointed.
However, I came across a situation where I believe there was something being rammed through against the wishes of the hospital boards. They, obviously, have a role to play and they have their own perspectives and directions about where they want to go. I spent quite some time with the Alice Springs Hospital Board on a number of occasions, both meeting as a board and meeting with Margaret Wait, Mike Tyrrell and others individually. I have also spent time meeting with the Royal Darwin Hospital Board as well, and meeting individually with Mr Colin McDonald about amendments to the act.
It is probably only a matter of about a month or so ago that a draft version was ready to go before Cabinet. That is in process, but I do acknowledge that it has taken longer than is desirable. My aim was to try to accommodate the wishes of those two hospital boards because, to some degree, their directions and their requirements were quite disparate.
This is a very important issue. I believe I have demonstrated to this House that I am certainly focused on this particular issue, that I am taking steps to address the very serious issues that have been raised in the report by the Health Services Complaints Commissioner. I have alluded to the team I have engaged of Mr Jim O’Sullivan and Mr Ray Norman. I have also talked about the other reviews through the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards; Mr Norman and Mr O’Sullivan, where necessary, will be liaising with them also and, of course, I will be sending a copy of this report to the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, the review team.
I have had some discussions with the AMA, they are very happy with that review team; well, they know these are very senior people, is a better way to put it, with a high degree of respect within the medical and hospital community, and their independence to carry out this particular review. It is important they are aware of this report. I believe I am taking steps to address the very real issues and drive change within the health system in the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I start by saying that my fury in relation to this issue is white hot. I have, through the whole of this debate sat here, and every time I think about what is going on and what this relates to, I have been thinking about my daughters, who are two years and three years old respectively. I think about this five-month-old child, who was raped in the hospital in 2006, and my gorge rises at it, my anger in relation to this is white hot.
I will endeavour to keep my language temperate during this censure motion, but I express to the House at the outset my fury at the failure of this government, and this minister in particular, to do what is necessary to prevent this shocking crime from occurring again. That is what this about, a five-month-old child being raped.
It was not a few months ago that this was the headline of the Northern Territory News: ‘Resign’, it says, dated 12 September 2008. People were baying for this minister’s blood because of his incapacity to effectively run the Health department. That was in relation to the death of Mrs Winter, and the front page of the Northern Territory News said this guy was no longer capable of running the Northern Territory Health department. And what was his excuse on that particular occasion? ‘Nothing to do with me! I only set policy. I only provide resources to the Health department. That is my job’, he said. ‘That is what I have to do, I do not get involved in the operational issues of the hospital. That is why I have nothing to do with it’.
Well, minister, at that time you were reminded by numerous people on this side of the House about the role of ministerial responsibility. Surely, minister, if you think about a five-month-old child being raped, as you come into the portfolio, you would take an active interest in what would have been the most serious part of your portfolio. Surely, you would have written down a list of things that you wanted to look at, and you would have asked yourself at some point: ‘my goodness, what should I ask myself and what I make absolutely sure has been done?’ Surely, this would have been, if not at the top, near the top of the list.
The fact is, this minister does know what is going on in his department. In the case of the death of Margaret Winter, the fact is the head that so-called rolled as a result of that, Mr Peter Campos, was doing what was expected of him because this minister had said to the Health department, you have to save some money. As a consequence, the department did what was necessary and Peter Campos, in my opinion, did what a faithful and loyal public servant does, which is why his head did not roll; he received the bureaucratic equivalent of a shaving cut.
Before this censure motion started, we heard in Question Time a minister essentially say, as a matter of course, being lied to by his department was how they do their business. He said he was being kept in the dark, he said he got a briefing, that it was all in hand, it was all going to be fixed and, to his astonishment and surprise afterwards, it was not fixed. If that is the case, then he should sack his CEO. I find it incomprehensible how he could not stand up in this place today and say, ‘I am lied to as a matter of course by my departmental heads, and I will not sack them’.
If this minister will not resign for cowardice, then he must fire his CEO because his CEO lied to him. That is the logic that he is trying to ask us to swallow, and it is incomprehensible that he would even run this argument. The CEO of the department has either lied to him or informed him, in which case if he is informed about what has happened in this particular instance, then this minister has deceived this House. If he is telling the truth in this place, then he has no control over his department whatsoever, because he is running the same defence that he ran as a result of the death of Margaret Winter.
I cannot begin to imagine how this CEO or this minister, or either of them, can stay - it is beyond belief. I heard the minister say he takes it seriously, and then say as a matter of some sort of honesty: ‘I have had this report in my possession since Monday and I have chosen three sittings days early to deliver it onto the table’. Are you truly expecting us to believe, minister, that you are doing us a favour by not sitting on this report until February next year when we sit again? Surely he has got to be kidding. He would suggest that the smart political thing to do would be to wait until February next year, before he ‘fessed up to what is, in my opinion, the most shocking and condemning report I have ever seen flow from the Ombudsman’s Office.
I cannot begin to tell you the dismay I felt when I read this quote from page 7 in the Executive Summary:
- There were still no recording cameras on the Paediatric Ward as at June 2008 although a CCTV system had been installed in the kitchen area to deter the pilfering of food.
The cheese sandwiches in the kitchen are more important than the safety of babies. The minister says: ‘Yes, I visit the paediatric ward from time to time and I have a look around and it all looks pretty hunky-dory to me’. He never bothered to look up at the ceiling and say: ‘Hey, where are the security cameras you told me were in place?’ Never, ever thought to ask that question. ‘How is it going with the security, guys?’ he says at some point. He has been the minister for two years and it never occurred to him to say: ‘How is it going with the security system in the paediatric ward? I noticed you got a little publicity a while ago; a five-month-old baby got raped’.
For goodness sake, when does this guy actually take control of his department? And I hear what he has to say, that it is a difficult portfolio. Absolutely, so is the Secretary of Northern Ireland in England. It is a tough role, I accept that, but surely at some point you have to say to yourself: ‘Where are my priorities in this department? What am I actually trying to achieve? What are these issues that can come back to haunt me as a minister?’ Surely you write those things down somewhere. Minister, I also quote from the report again, page 7:
- The governance arrangements at RDH do not promote adequate transparent accountability of the General Manager and the Department of Health and Families
for the operation of the hospital.
That is policy issue. The minister himself says this about policy. ‘I do the policy; the guys run the actual show’. Surely, transparency to which this government feigns subservience is a matter to which the minister would be turning his mind on a daily basis. Yet, we find the Ombudsman says transparency and accountability of the General Manager of the Department of Health and Families for the operation of the hospital is essentially absent.
Another quote:
- I have been unable to find out what role the Royal Darwin Hospital Board has had since its annual report of June 2006.
These are systemic failures. This is not just an operational issue. These are legislative requirements. It is a legislative requirement, as I understand it, that the hospital boards provide annual reports. It was not a sitting ago, in relation to an unrelated issue, the minister was saying ‘Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa’ for failing to deliver annual reports in other areas.
This comes down to the confidence of the guy in charge - who is the minister. The death of Margaret Winter already demonstrated that he is not, in spite of his assertions that he takes his ministerial role seriously; demonstrating this by his actions. If he comes in here and says: ‘I became aware of this issue on Monday’. No, he became aware of the criticisms of the Ombudsman on Monday. He must have been aware of the issue for two years, and did nothing.
I am mortified, also on page 9 of that report where the Ombudsman says, and I read the whole quote because it is important:
A notice to provide information and documents was served on the General Manger of the Royal Darwin Hospital on 14 January 2007. It specifically
required him to produce to the HCSCC:
“Any copy of all materials reports and minutes of the Board of Management relating to the sexual assault within the Paediatric Ward 31 March 2006.”
No document, agenda, minutes or report from or to the Management Board was produced.
This can only mean that the incidence of the rape of a five month old child was not considered important enough by the General Manager to report it
to the Management Board.
Surely the minister would be asking himself: ‘Is the management board operating properly in all of these hospitals?’ We know they had trouble in Nhulunbuy, particularly over the last reports that have come down, because the Nhulunbuy Management Board annual report is actually the CEO’s report because there is no board; they cannot get the people together. I accept that. But you cannot say that for Darwin. Darwin is a different exercise and the legislative demands upon the Minister for Health are easily traced through the administrative arrangements which are tabled in this House every time there is a ministerial reshuffle.
It says which pieces of legislation which minister is responsible for. There is a list. Clearly this minister does not check that list and does not sit down with his CEO and say: ‘Look, I have responsibility for this act, this act, this act, this act, this act, this act and this act. What are my legislative requirements, what have I got to do under these particular bits of legislation?’ They dictate to a large degree what the minister’s job is. The minister has, by his own admission, essentially walked into this place and said: ‘I am ignorant of my legislative duties, not only in this specific area but also in my area of the Attorney-Generalship’.
Last time I had to catch him out on his reporting requirements in his role as Attorney-General. This time we find the Ombudsman has said that the minister has no idea, or no apparent idea, or his staff at the hospital has no apparent idea, of their responsibilities.
I am astonished to discover that the Ombudsman has had to choose her words extremely carefully in the way she puts this report together because there is an allegation, or the potential for an allegation, of a criminal misconduct on the part of one of the members of the staff at the hospital.
- If the General Manager controls the flow of information to the Management Board there is insufficient accountability of the General Manager and the intention of the
Legislative Assembly in enacting the Hospital Management Boards Act can be subverted. In drawing this conclusion I am applying a presumption of innocence
to the General Manager because if there was a written report or entry on an agenda of the Management Board he would have produced it or else committed an
offence. If there was an oral report or discussion it would have appeared in the Board’s minutes. If there were no minutes taken or kept then the General Manager
has breached Section 20 of the Hospital Management Boards Act. I have drawn therefore an inference most favourable to the General Manager.
What the Ombudsman is saying is the General Manager has the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact he could produce no records because, otherwise, he would have committed an offence under the act.
All roads in a ministry lead to Rome, and Rome in this instance is the minister himself. I cannot begin to express my dismay and astonishment, as I have said before, about what has happened in this case. This is just an astonishing example of a minister whose eye has so completely and utterly been taken off the ball. He cannot do anything but confess to his ineptitude in the role and throw himself on his sword. There is no other honourable way for this minister to deal with the situation in which he now finds himself.
If this was truly just a one-off, perhaps there might be some wriggle room for the minister. However, this is not a one-off, and is not a rare event. It was not two-and-a-half months ago that Territorians were reading a headline on the front page of the Northern Territory News screaming: ‘Resign’. It was a plea and, if I remember what was inside that Northern Territory News, there were numerous articles dealing with this particular issue. There was a little vox pop number done on the street where the question was asked, and the majority, if not all of the people, said the guy has to go.
The position the minister finds himself in by suggesting that being lied to is part of the culture of his department, and not doing anything about it other than saying, ‘I am going to tell my CEO to fix this up’. No, mate, if you are being lied to, you have to get rid of the guy. It is as simple as that. If this is what happens, because this is the defence that was run in the Campos saga: ‘Oh well, I was not properly informed’. Oh well, we move him sideways from one department to the other’. No, no, no. If you are being lied to, then you sack the man and get rid of him; the guy is not trustworthy. You cannot say: ‘Oh, you are not trustworthy in this department; we are going to make you trustworthy over there’.
I hear the defence again in Question Time: ‘Oh, I was not fully informed’. No, that is bureau-speak to say: ‘I was not given all the information; therefore I was lied to by omission’. In the future, there cannot exist any trust between this CEO and this minister - it just cannot exist. If that is the truth; if what the minister is actually saying is true, as a consequence, one of them has to go, if not both of them. Think about it logically. Here is a guy in charge of the department. If he was in charge of a company and he was Chairman of the board and the CEO of the department walked into the boardroom and said: ‘Mate, production levels are going well and everything is going swimmingly’ and, and all of a sudden, he wakes up one day and he is bankrupt, or there is a major problem with the operation of the company, how long do you think that the CEO of that firm would last? He would be shot! In fact, he would be in breach of corporations’ laws. That is the seriousness of this dislocation. I simply cannot bring myself to believe this minister would retain a CEO if that is actually the quality of information that is coming to him.
Even if misjudgement or deceit by omission was happening 18 months earlier - because I got this briefing, everything was under control and I did not bother to check up, and that sort of thing - the fact is, the defence run in Question Time was there was either a deliberate deception by the minister, or there was a deception by omission. Either way, you cannot trust the guy; the minister cannot trust the CEO if what he did actually occurred.
I cannot say this minister is any longer fit to hold this role, because I would have expected, at the very least, an utter and complete condemnation of a CEO who had deceived him. So much so, that the answer to the question put to him in Question Time should have been this: ‘Yes, Madam Speaker, I was deceived by my department; I was misled by my department. I have fired the CEO. He will not have his contract paid out and, as far as I am concerned, the guy can go he’.
The fact is, I do not believe that that is the case, because if that is the defence this minister runs, then the very best defence is that he sticks his fingers in his ears and puts his hands over his eyes, the same way he did when a nurse tried to approach him at the Sunday markets and tell him about the issues with nurse staffing. That is the very best defence this minister has. The worst defence is that he was actually informed accurately by his department as to what was going on, and he has simply chosen to take the coward’s way out and blame the department; in which case he is lying …
A member: But then not act on it.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not know that, that is up to the minister to know. Either way, I cannot see how he can, in good conscience, keep his seat as the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I agree with members opposite and with my colleague, the minister, that it was a horrible incident. I share the outrage with the member for Port Darwin. I have two young children. As a matter of fact, when they were younger, both my children were admitted to hospital for various reasons and, as a father, I would have been horrified if something like that had happened to my children. I believe all of us here are outraged by what happened to that child.
However, I am also outraged that that incident is used as a political weapon …
Mr Elferink: Oh, bullshit!
Mr VATSKALIS: … to attack the Minister for Health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is easy to sit here now, review an incident that happened two years ago when the minister was not even the minister, and throw stones at him as if it is somehow his responsibility. This incident happened two years ago; a complaint was lodged with the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission; it was investigated - 21 recommendations were made and submitted to the department of Health.
The department of Health is an interesting creature. I used to work for it, and I have quite a few stories to tell about what happened in the department, and how many things which happened in the department actually reached the minister, not only in this current time, but during the previous time, because I had the privilege to work in the ministerial office for a period of time under then minister, Steve Dunham.
Let me give you an example of what happened, and what the minister knew, and what reached the minister’s ears. I was a member of the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia. One day we received a phone call from the hospital, from a nurse, to advise us that a member of the Greek community had died in Katherine. That member of the community was then shoved into the morgue, into the freezer. He was there for three months, and the woman was outraged that a person would die, and was shoved, without dignity, into a freezer.
I recall I wrote on behalf of the community to the then Secretary, full of outrage that something like this happened. A few days later, I received a call from the ministerial office to ask if I wanted to be a ministerial liaison officer. I went up and we were discussing with Steve Dunham, the then minister, about this incident and he did not believe me, until I gave him a copy of my letter. He called up the Secretary and got a copy of the letter the Secretary wrote to the community. I recall, very clearly, Steve Dunham walking down the corridor on the fifth floor of the ministerial office, shaking his head in disbelief that something like this could happen, and the explanation he got from his then Secretary.
Steve Dunham might have different political opinions and different political views, but he was a good minister. He could not believe something like that could happen, that something like that would be hidden from him for three months and only found out because, by coincidence, I happened to be his ministerial liaison officer in his office.
The minister, whatever minister, does not directly put his hands into the operation of the department. I would be dreading it if this minister directed doctors how to treat their patients, how to do the nursing rosters or how to do something the department directed - an operational matter. The minister in our system relies heavily upon trust. Personally, as a minister, I trust my CEO. I believe it when I ask something of the CEO and the CEO comes back to me and says it is done. When something is done, it is done.
A member: But when he has lied to you, what do you do?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: It is very easy to say: if the CEO told him that, he should be sacked. You have to remember the layers in every department. What if the CEO was also misinformed and, based on this information, he advised the minister wrongly? What if the CEO asks: ‘Has this been done?’ And people below him say: ‘Yes, we have done it’. So he comes to me and says: ‘Minister, it is done’. If you do not trust your CEO, that what he says is right, then this whole system will fall apart.
I recall when I was the minister for Mines, there were a number of horrible incidents - people were killed, maimed. I asked my CEO to fix it. He came a few months later and told me it was fixed. I trusted him. Another incident happened a few months later and I called him in and said: ‘What happened?’ When we sat down, we found out there were people in the department who deliberately gave wrong information: that things were done when they were not done. As a result, a review of the department was carried out and some of the people in the department, below the CEO level, were not working in the department any more. My CEO kept his job for the simple reason he, in good faith, gave me wrong advice.
I believe it is very wrong to take the head off the CEO when he comes to you and, in good faith, gives you advice which he obviously believes is right, but he gives you wrong advice.
I agree with the member for Port Darwin. It is an outrage. When I read in the report that they put CCTVs in the kitchen to prevent pilfering of food, but failed to put CCTVs in the paediatric ward, I was outraged. I am pretty sure that person should have his head chopped off. However, the CEO was advised that it was done. The CEO was advised the CCTV was installed and was working. The CEO was advised all the measures were taken to prevent the reoccurrence of the same thing. In good faith, he advised the minister everything was fine.
If I was in his position, and I bet if you were in his position, you would have acted exactly the same - I am satisfied it is done. However, we have some mechanisms in place which are designed to go back and review the situation and provide adequate information to the minister - which happened. The Health Services Complaints Commissioner went back and reviewed the situation to find out if these things had happened; writes a report which is provided to minister, as is required, and the minister has six days to table this report.
The minister received the report on Monday, and it is only natural for the minister to sit down and study this report to find out what happened. I recall my colleague, the member for Johnston, was outraged on Monday and Tuesday, but he would not talk about it; he said there was something wrong with the Health department. He tabled the report 48 hours after he received it and studied it, and very soon after he had taken some drastic measures to make sure things like that will not happen in the department.
Let me put it bluntly. There are systemic problems in the Health department, and I will tell you why. In a place were we have 4000 employees, layers upon layers of management, so diverse that it is impossible to keep tabs on it, and you rely upon the CEO and others in the department to provide an accurate picture. Sometimes it does not happen, but most of the time it does. There are things which do not happen, and usually when things do not happen, some tragic event occurs and finds its way on to the front page of the newspaper. These events happen, and you find out, and you come here into the parliament and you front it, and you cop it, the same way he did.
To be called ‘coward’, to be called ‘incompetent’, I find offensive because I know that person personally; I have known him for a long time. He used to work in the Menzies School of Health Research. I know he is a man of integrity, a man who believes in what he is doing, and a man who hurts when he finds out that somebody in the department has stuffed up. Somebody died. Somebody was injured. Somebody did not receive the treatment they deserved to receive. I know how he felt about the young child when she died. I know how he felt when this pensioner died. But it is not his position to direct people how to provide medical treatment to those in hospital. We have people who are paid more than he is to provide medical care to people. If these people failed, it is unfair to say: ‘Minister, it is your fault because that person who administered treatment should have been administered another type of treatment’.
Yes, there is ministerial responsibility; but ministerial responsibility stops somewhere. You cannot say you have ministerial responsibility on technical or medical matters, or treatment, or writing the nurses’ roster. The government provides direction; the government provides the means for ministers and their portfolios to operate. Ministers do not tell their CEOs how to spend the money or how to do their business. I will be damned if I would tell my CEO how to run the Mining Management Act. He is getting paid to do that; he knows how to do that better than I do - I am not a mining expert.
I really regret what happened. I feel for the parents of that child. But I will not use anything like that as a political weapon to attack somebody. If you think that the member for Johnston is going to accept full responsibility because you said so - you are wrong. I know very well, if he had directed something to be done or not to be done, he would accept the responsibility and he would step down. If the member for Johnston had directed the department not to spend the money on those facilities or delay the facilities, I know he is honest enough and big enough to say he made a mistake; he would accept his mistake, and he would step down. But to call the member for Johnston a coward and a person who should accept responsibility for the inability or the incompetence and failures of people within the department, I believe is unfair.
You have to remember, we do not have a direct involvement with the selection of the staff. We rely upon the people in our department, and some of the people who have been employed maybe should not have been employed. But to call the minister responsible for things like that is completely unfair. I, with you, would call for his resignation if I knew the minister had directly instructed the department not to ensure the security for budgetary reasons, or to delay the security or if he said: ‘Do not worry, it will go away. She’ll be right.’ But he has not.
I do not recall any of the ministers from the CLP resigning for such actions. The only minister I recall was sacked because he tried to strangle a journalist. I do not recall anyone resigning; and there were deaths in the hospital then, and there were people who were mistreated in the hospitals then.
In the Health department and in the hospitals, things can go wrong. Unfortunately, when they go wrong they can result in people’s death and suffering; and we all regret that. We do not live in a perfect world; there is no way we can say everything in the Northern Territory, or anywhere in the world, is perfect. Kids have been kidnapped from hospitals in Australia and all over the world. Kids have been molested in hospitals. Kids have been killed in hospitals. People have been intentionally killed in hospitals. Nurses have stolen kids from hospitals and walked away with them. It happens. When you open the newspapers you see it, because we live in a crazy world where we have lost control and direction.
In this case, and I believe it is extremely unfair that this minister should be held responsible for something like this. First, he was not the minister when it happened. Second, he wanted things to happen and he strived for those things to happen. Third, he was misinformed about things which were happening. When the Complaints Commissioner came out with a report, it found that some of the recommendations have been acted upon and others had not been acted upon. To his credit, the minister acted within 48 hours when he received the report. He appointed Jim O’Sullivan and the ex-Secretary of the department, Ray Norman, whom I know personally. When I first came to work here, Ray Norman was the Secretary of the Health department. He is a man of integrity. He is a very honest man with passion for the Health department and for the community. I know of his personal life, and he is a man I respect highly.
I am telling you, they will get to the bottom of these things and they will provide information to the minister and the government - and the government will act. The minister will act. He has already acted; he has already taken measures. If it is necessary for the minister to take a surgical knife and perform radical surgery to the department, I am pretty sure he will do it. He will have my and my colleagues’ support. Even if people are squealing and yelling; if something has to be cut, he will do it. I have faith in him. I believe he is one of the best Health ministers we have had in the Territory and, as a person; the minister is someone who is unfairly targeted.
I know it makes headlines. It is politics. I understand that very well. At this time of the year we would usually come in here with the spirit of Christmas but, unfortunately, this time we are bare footed and getting stuck into each other. It looks good for the member for Greatorex to get stuck into the minister – it will probably make headlines. The opposition expect to come in here and start pointing fingers at people because someone does something in your department, so it is your fault; someone does something in mine, so it is my fault. A bus crashes because the brakes are no good, so the minister for Transport is responsible: ‘Did you check the brakes?’ How many times have we had a situation where government departments failed in their role because someone in the department stuffed up and did not do the right thing? You cannot …
Mr Conlan: You are comparing the rape of a child to the brakes on a bus. That is disgusting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Failed brakes on a bus can kill 40 people inside the bus …
Mr Conlan: Brakes on a bus and the rape of a child – you are trying to link them together. That is shameful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Failed brakes on a bus can kill 40 people – it has happened before. So do not try to lecture us and give us lessons.
I have absolute confidence in the Minister for Health. I said before, he is a person of integrity, an honest person. He is not a coward. If he was a coward, he would not be here tonight; it would be easier to say: ‘I am resigning. I am walking out’. Someone else can put the report to parliament’. That is not the act of a coward to be coming out in the media before Question Time - he could have done it after Question Time or 5 pm this afternoon. If he was a coward he would have done that. We know people in other parliaments who have done it. Why would he do it at 1.30 pm, just before Question Time? He is brave enough, honest enough, and strong enough to come out and face the music. The reality is, yes, there was a rape that happed before his time. You cannot hold him responsible for that. Yes, there were investigation recommendations put to the department. Yes, the department stuffed up. Yes, there were problems. You are getting stuck into the CEO and the minister. The reality is, both of them were misled. To try to hold them responsible is unfair.
I say again: politics is politics. What happened is abhorrent. I share your anger but, at the same time, to target one individual for the collective failure of a number of people in the Health department is unfair.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have another speaker on this.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the question has been put. I refer to Standing Order 78. Once that is put, there is no question.
Mr Tollner: No, no. We do not agree with that motion; that it be put.
Madam SPEAKER: It is Standing Order 78.
Mr Tollner: Well, we want a division.
Madam SPEAKER: Call the division. Is the division supported?
Mr Tollner: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: A division is called. You did not call a division.
Mr Tollner: We have called a division.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I know. Ring the bells. Now you have called a division, member for Fong Lim.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Greatorex be agreed to.
Mr Tollner: The ayes have it!
Madam SPEAKER: You need to call a division.
Mr Tollner: Can we have a division, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: You need to actually say ‘division’, member for Fong Lim, in our parliament. Is the division supported? Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
LIVESTOCK BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, thank you very much to members for their contribution. Thank you very much for availing yourself of a briefing, I think it is very important that you do not fall for any piece of legislation, that you actually speak to the officials of the department who can clarify some of the questions. I know sometimes technical legislation has to be read more than once to understand some of the comments.
I will go through some of the issues that were raised. Member for Katherine, you made reference to other animals, including exotic animals, in clause 4 and clause 5 for the other animals to be included in the livestock. The point of the definition, I think the member for Nelson clarified it; we used the Webster’s Dictionary, for poultry as a chook, and it includes geese and every other species that are referred to: domestic ducks, geese and turkey, but poultry is the generic definition for chickens, hens or roosters.
In clause 54, you mentioned about the destruction of residences, especially why we would destroy a residence. The reason is, sometimes a residence has not been adequately disinfected, or is in such a state there is a danger of it falling apart. But if there is destruction of a residence, there is always the ability for the owner to seek compensation because, under clause 38, it has to be acquisitioned on just terms; and destruction of a residence because of an animal disease falls into the category of acquisition and has to be compensated in just terms under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Section 69(2), things, including a residence, equipment and everything that is included which is destroyed or somehow affected by the process of disinfection or as a result of disinfection. Section 104(1): entering without consent - that is actually not unique to this act. It existed in the previous act but also in other acts; officials have the power to enter premises.
For example, under the Health Act - which I, as an Environment Health Officer used to administer, in the Nuisance Regulations in section 5 it specifies a Health Officer can enter a premises if there is suspicion that a nuisance occurred, is about to occur, or a breach of the Health Act happens. It is a generic provision that happens in other legislation. I know you question the issue of the warrant. I have to say; when we apply for warrants, we apply for them under this act, under the livestock act, not under the Police Administration Act. It will be an inspector who applies to a magistrate for a warrant under this act and the warrant will be issued. Also, under clause 99, this act specifies the officer can ask any person for assistance; that includes the police. The police officer is covered under clause 99 of this act so he can accompany a person who has a warrant to go on to premises.
This happened before, for example, with the Grapevine Leaf Rust disease we had recently in Darwin. Officers went to a place which was locked; they obtained a warrant; they had already called the police, who came, and they entered the premises, in some cases, by breaking the locks. Most people are very cooperative. You will occasionally find one who will say: ‘That is my house. I do not want you to go in there. There is nothing wrong with my animal or my vine. Nick off.’ Then we would have to forcibly enter the area. This is under clause 105 and the police can be of aid.
With regard to the member for Goyder; there was a public notice in the newspapers in January, February 2007. There were a number of people who spoke to the department. I believe your mother voiced her concerns; she spoke many times to the department with regard to the situation about livestock. There was quite a lot of input from the industry. We spoke to the cattle industry, and they are quite happy with the fact that they now have this legislation which replaces that legislation. It makes it easier to understand and easier to utilise.
With regard to sentinel cattle – yes, there are sentinel cattle currently at Berrimah Farm; they are going to be relocated to Coastal Plains. If I had my way, I would like to spread the cattle further out, because if you have the cattle in one place, you only get information relating to that vicinity. When I was an Environmental Officer in Port Hedland, we had five locations with chickens to check them for Japanese encephalitis and other mosquito-borne diseases. The more spread you have of sentinel chickens or cattle, the better information you get. They will not be eliminated, they are going to Coastal Plains.
The question about not having definitions of goats and other animals; the reason for that is we originally had the definitions in the Definitions section, but the Parliamentary Counsel removed them and put them all together under the livestock provisions. However, everyone knows what a goat is, and if there is a doubt, they can always refer to the dictionary and the scientific names. About keeping antilopine kangaroos; they do not fall into this category because they are not livestock; they are wild animals which are kept by people.
I know there are no abattoirs in the Territory, apart from Alice Springs, Oenpelli and Kalkarindji. The reason is: when people are getting $1.80 live weight for their cattle, they are not going to sell it to the abattoirs for $1.30 by weight of the cattle. I would love to have more abattoirs, but that is a commercial decision which has to be made by the industry. However, I will support them; I will support anyone who comes to talk to us about real abattoirs.
The administration of chemicals and other things, clause 98: this does not refer to drugs you buy from the vet and administer yourself because you live far away. It refers to things which are not prescribed and which are not authorised, such as hormones and some other products that people use and which can create problems for our industry.
I refer to power of entry. Inspectors are not there to have a blue with the owners, they are trained in conflict resolution, and they always approach the owners with a request to enter. Most of the owners, 90%, would be really cooperative; 10% would be stroppy. If they are stroppy, the act provides power to people to enter and do what they have to do. You have to remember, it is called the Livestock Act, but it mainly refers to the cattle industry. That is an industry of $1.2bn, so we cannot and must not allow someone, for their own reasons, to jeopardise a $1.2bn industry because we cannot eliminate a disease in their area.
You remember what happened with the elimination of brucellosis/tuberculosis. Many people were not very happy, but the moment they realised they were being compensated, all of a sudden their attitude changed. However, we still had ongoing litigation with people who were adamant we could have nothing to do with their animals; we were not allowed to touch the animals or feed the animals, until they realised the risk to our industry.
I mentioned the input from most small commercial farms is measured by sentinels. You also queried what would happen if people had to move a small number of animals from one place to another. The problem we have is: when we move, say, five goats from point A to point B, it might not be a problem. The problem arises when you say: ‘I am going to move this number of animals from this place and put them somewhere where there are other animals’. There is always the risk of transmission of disease. However, the act has provisions for the Registrar, depending on the circumstances, to allow the transport of animals without waybills.
The reason we want to know where animals are is because, as we found in the United States of America, when there was an outbreak of mad cow disease and they tried to recall all the beef which had been slaughtered and had become hamburgers, unfortunately, they could not locate 235 animals. There is significant risk to the consumer when we do not know where the animals are or where they have come from. One of the successes of the NLIS is: we can tell you, from where you buy your meat in the supermarket, where the animals came from, and we can go and trace it back to its origin; and that is very effective.
There was a question about the compensation panel. There will be a compensation panel and it will be comprised of people with local expertise. The member for Goyder asked a question regarding what diseases are, how you define a disease, and why they are only listed on the Internet. No, they are not only listed on the Internet; the department will be producing them in hard copy and will provide them to people, and they will be in the Agnotes.
Regarding the differences between emergency, exotic and endemic diseases: an exotic disease is one which occurs overseas but not in Australia - and we do not want it here. The endemic disease is one that occurs in Australia. However, an emergency disease, when it occurs in Australia, we have a cost-sharing arrangement with other jurisdictions. For example, if foot-and-mouth disease occurs in the Territory, every single jurisdiction in Australia will contribute to remove and destroy all the animals from the particular farm involved. The definition of diseases depends on whether they are endemic or non-endemic, and if they fall into the category of cost-sharing.
The member for Nelson asked about the Health Act and the Livestock Act. This act applies to livestock, and does not conflict with the Health Act. The Health Act deals with transmission of disease from animal to humans, and also with nuisance. Keeping a horse or a cow in downtown Nightcliff, or in the centre of Katherine, is certainly going to create a nuisance. The other thing is, the Health Act binds the Crown. Every act has to agree with the Health Act and, if there is a conflict, especially in this area, the Health Act has precedence. This is the explanation.
I am very pleased to hear you support the act. It is very important we have a robust act because, and again I stress it: the only reason we are exporting 250 000 cattle to Indonesia is because the cattle from the Northern Territory in Australia are free of some of the diseases which are endemic in other countries. The moment we get one of these diseases, kiss our trade goodbye, because the Brazilians, who have a herd of 240 million cattle, can provide meat cheaper to Indonesia, to China, or to India. If they can pay 30 or 40 or 60 per kilo less from that market, that is where they will go, and we will be stuck here with 1.8 million cows we cannot sell anywhere.
I will be truthful with you; this is very important legislation. If I have to choose who to support - individuals who have two or three animals, or the industry - I will support the industry. There is no way I am going to water this act down to support people who have a vested interest in small animals. I am happy to work with these people; the department will work with these people to provide support and assistance, but this is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the Northern Territory because it supports one of our biggest and most robust industries.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I do not have too much that I want to take through the committee stage; there is just one main point of clarification, and it has to do with the warrant side of things.
Clause 99, I think you said, allows for an inspector to seek assistance, if necessary, for the purposes of the act. I still have some concerns about whether, say, under the circumstances which I outlined in my second reading: the inspectors came across a locked door to premises they wanted to enter. They have a warrant. They have taken the police with them, or gone away and come back with the police. Where do the police get the power to break open the lock?
Mr VATSKALIS: Under clause 104(1): ‘An inspector may do any of the following’: subclause 1(c): ‘enter residential premises under a warrant.’ In clause 105(1): ‘An inspector may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter residential premises.’ Then, if you go clause 99 it says: ‘An inspector may authorise a person to assist an inspector …’. The police will be there for assistance. They will not be there to break the lock. It is the inspector who actually has the power of entry and has the power to break the lock. The police are there for assistance. That is clause 99.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand what you are saying, however, I just have concerns that, unless specifically stated in the legislation, as you would find in legislation such as the Police Administration Act, that confers a power to break locks or do whatever they have to do. It seems to me that this clause 104(1(c) just assumes the power, rather than actually states it.
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 99 does not specifically refer to the police, it refers to ‘an inspector may authorise a person’. Now, if that person happens to be the police, the inspector may authorise the police officer to assist the inspector. It is not the policeman who takes the action to break the lock; he is there to assist the inspector take the action as prescribed by the act. It is the inspector who will apply for the warrant, it is the inspector who obtained the warrant to enter the premises which is locked, and the inspector may seek the assistance of the police and the inspector authorises the police officer to assist. That is clearly specified in the act. It is very similar to what happened in the Health Act: an authorised person to assist the authorisers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I understand what you are saying. My opinion, from having practiced this type of legislation with warrants and things, is there should be a specific reference to what can be done to effect an entry. It authorises entry to the residential premises, but it does not specifically say that you can break a lock to do so. I will not belabour the point, if the government is happy this will be satisfactory for the exercise of the powers by the inspectors, then I accept that and I guess we will have to see.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is historically the same provision as in the previous act and, historically, where police were called to assist; we did not have any problems. We never had any obstacles in the administration of the act, either using the police or any other person to assist the inspector.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PLANT HEALTH BILL
(Serial 15)
(Serial 15)
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the bill replaces the Plant Diseases Control Act 1979 and it is timely that it is reviewed and replaced, to ensure that the legislation is contemporary and in step with modern practices, given that it first came in over 25 years ago. It has been a long time in the making and I know that many hours have been spent on drafting this piece of legislation so it protects and promotes our plants and other industries, not dissimilar to the Livestock Bill with the livestock industries.
However, I have a few queries. It will impact on the large nurseries plus many small operators, and while some of the operators may be small scale, they are servicing an important part of the market, whether it be cut flowers, exotic fruits, tropical orchards or plant hire for offices in Darwin. Again, the legislation needs to have balance in the interests of both the high and low ends of the industry - the large operators and the small operators.
The most important aspect of new legislation is it must be workable, and that means across all sectors of the industry it will impact upon. It must be transparent and not cause any detrimental impact on people or businesses with regard to the size of their operation. In clause 6(1) it says, ‘a pest is an organism whether or not taxonomically classified’. My comment is: if a pest is classified, taxonomically or not, do you know exactly what the pest is, or if it is a pest at all? How do you know that if it is not classified as a pest?
Subclause (5) references an indigenous organism. My question is: what exactly is this, and how does it differ from a native organism? I guess it is the difference in definition of the two words – indigenous and native - because they are very different.
Clause 8A: Host plant. It says, ‘A host plant for a pest is a plant that is susceptible to, uses or harbours the pest’. If a pest is hosted by a plant, then it would be a symbiosis; and if the host plant benefits, then it would not be a pest to the host plant, it would actually be a benefit, not a pest. So, I have a query about that.
Clause 11(2): Affected by pest. It states: ‘Subsection (1) applies whether or not the pest has any apparent effect on the thing’. If the pest has no effect on the thing, then why is it considered to be a pest?
Clause 14: Prevention of spreading. It says, in subclause (2):
A person who is leaving a place that is affected by a declared pest must take reasonable measures to prevent the pest from spreading from the place.
My question is: how is this going to work in the situation of rental properties, where the person may not physically own the property or the plant material on it which becomes infected? If they are going to be responsible, then perhaps that needs to be more clearly articulated in the legislation.
Clause 25: Requirement to give information. Subclause (d) refers to an inspector obtaining any other information. It seems a little extreme to me and it appears to give the inspector carte blanche to obtain anything from the owner of the said plant. The section already gives inspectors the right to obtain the person’s name, address and details about the said plant. What else would the inspector need? I am just seeking clarification as to what kind of further information the inspector might need if he already has a name and address and information about the plant in question?
One final comment is in regard to clauses 30 to 35, which are very encompassing and deal with plant health management plans. My only query is - and I understand the intent of it, the details in regard to: preparation, drafting of the plans, notification, gazettal, changing the plans, reviewing the plans, etcetera - but it is not clear to me exactly what the legal status of the plans would be. I am seeking clarification in that regard.
Other than that, it has been a long time coming and I hope the legislation is effective and achieves the outcomes; I also hope it is not onerous upon the industry, particularly the smaller end of the industry, which is predominantly in my electorate and the rural area.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I apologise for not leaping to my feet earlier, I think I misheard what was occurring – better late than never.
I am in support of this bill. Once again, I thank the minister for the time he allowed staff to spend with me in the briefing. I do commend them for their receptive response to the queries I raised.
And, as with the livestock bill, my attitude is in no way designed to be adversarial but rather in a cooperative manner, to make sure it is the best legislation which can be put in place and the most workable. For the same reasons as the previous bill was debated, the issues I raise are for the purposes of having them in Hansard so the minister has the opportunity to respond and have his intent recorded there as well, so there is a way for people to come back at a later time and look at the intent of the legislation.
These are the issues I raised during the briefing. Clause 11, which is entitled ‘Affected by pest’. I raised the issue about the definition of ‘close proximity’. Clause 11(1)(b) says: ‘is or has been in close proximity to, or in contact with, the pest’. This is in relation to whether a thing is actually affected by a pest. I raise the point that would have to be a subjective decision made at the time by the inspector, regarding that crop. I believe the advice I received was basically: a rockmelon plant would have a different ‘close proximity’ to a mango tree, given the size of the particular plants. I accept that. I just hope and trust that the inspectors would use their expertise and common sense in determining ‘close proximity’.
In relation to clause 13: Prevention of infestation, I raised subclause (a) under Fault elements. Clause 13 says:
- Fault elements:
The person:
(a) knows there is a risk of the infestation of the plant or material by the declared pest …
And then it goes on from there. I raised the point of how difficult it is to prove that a person actually knows something when it comes to prosecuting them in a court of law. The minister has sought advice from Parliamentary Counsel, and there is quite a lengthy response to that. I accept and understand the response that came from Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the explanation. Later, I will table the response so it is available. There is another issue in the response which I will cover shortly, as it relates to something further on in the act.
Clause 21: Failure of owner to act. Clause 21(2) gives the Chief Inspector some powers including: ‘direct an inspector or another person to treat, or dispose of, the plants or materials’ and, ‘recover the expenses for the treatment or disposal from the owner’. I mention those clauses only in part; there is more to that section. Clause 21(3) says:
- In addition, the Chief Inspector may register under the Land Title Act a statutory charge, for an amount not exceeding the expenses, on any land of which
the owner is a registered owner.
I take that to mean that the Chief Inspector can effectively place a caveat upon the land for unpaid costs associated with the administration of this act. I do not particularly have an issue with it; I raise it only so it is mentioned and so the minister has the opportunity to indicate that that is, indeed, his intention. He is nodding away madly over there, so that is no problem. I do not think I will be dealing with that type of issue in committee, although I may deal with some other issues in committee.
Clause 46: Power of exemption. I questioned some issues regarding the bill relating to this. I will read it:
- (1) The minister may, by Gazette notice, exempt a specific place from the application of all or a specified provision of this Act.
(2) A regulation may provide for the control of pests at the place by applying (with or without changes) a law of a State or another
Territory as in force or existing at a time or from time to time.
I queried why an exemption would be given to a specified place, and under what circumstances. The explanation which was cited was, for example, the Ord River District which, I believe, encroaches into the Northern Territory, may be placed under a specific exemption; and some research laboratories and those types of facilities also might be exempt from the provisions of the act, or parts of this act. Again, I raise it just so it is on record, but I do not have a problem with any of that either.
One thing I did notice contrary to the Livestock Bill which we debated previously is that, although this act says that an inspector may seek a warrant …
Mr Vatskalis: What section?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Bear with me one second and I will find what section it is.
Mr Vatskalis: 23.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The inspector can seek a warrant, but unlike the previous bill, the Livestock Bill, there are no actual provisions in the act or in the bill for a process by which the warrant can be sought. The other bill said you can contact a magistrate, you can telephone and you must, on reasonable grounds, explain why you need a warrant. There is nothing in this bill which gives a clear path for an inspector to take when seeking a warrant.
I raise that, and again, it was a matter which was dealt with by way of a response from Parliamentary Counsel. I will bring this issue into committee. Even though there is an explanation here which says there are precedents for a format similar or identical to that adopted in the Plant Health Bill and other legislation, for example, 43(3) of the Livestock Act South Australia, and section 30 subsection 3 of the Dog and Cat Management Act of South Australia; I still think with warrants, as I mentioned before, you cannot leave warrants to chance, you cannot leave anything open to interpretation. They are extremely powerful statutory instruments and they should be used and obtained with the utmost care. There should be a mechanism, and quite a defined mechanism, in place to obtain that warrant.
Madam Speaker, we have not proposed any amendments to the act. I bring it to the attention of the minister; if the minister is satisfied that the mechanism he has in place in this bill will be sufficient for the operation of the bill as an act, then I have no problems. Again, I go back to the point that, often legislation has to be tested for its veracity to see whether it is actually going to work in a practical sense. I guess that will remain to be seen.
They are the only real issues that I have with this. We may not need to go to committee over this if the minister is able to respond in his next statement. This act is a good, powerful act. It is very much in the vein of the Livestock Bill; it is quite strong and it is designed to keep our industry safe. It is certainly a piece of legislation that is needed and required.
There is enormous economic benefit to having a strong horticultural and agricultural industry in the Northern Territory, and this act is certainly the mechanism by which that industry will be protected from, particularly, plant diseases. It is well written and I believe it will go a long way to ensuring that our industry is well protected in the Northern Territory. Again, I thank the minister for the briefing and for the hard work that has gone into the preparation of this bill; and I believe it will serve its purposes well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the government on bringing forth this bill. Just like the Livestock Bill, we do need some contemporary legislation which deals with contemporary issues in relation to the control of pests and how we deal with pests in the Northern Territory. There is one thing I have known since I started to grow vegetables in the Northern Territory - there has never been a shortage of pests, and if we got control of some, along came a few more.
I remember growing coconuts at Bathurst Island and I was actually exporting some of those to Darwin for George Brown. All of a sudden, along came the coconut beetle. Eventually, believe it or not, it seemed to find a balance with nature and it is not a pest any more as we knew it. People would know there was a time when the fruit fly was around, and if you travelled on the Arnhem Highway you would get pulled up by inspectors just past Lambells Lagoon, they would grab your tomatoes and take everything you had away from you. I remember, I had to laugh, because workers who went out to Window on the Wetlands - sometimes called Window on the Weedlands - could not take their lunch out there - it would be taken away from them because it contained fruit. So it certainly does affect us.
Panama disease, which I believe is one of the biggest disasters in the Northern Territory from a horticultural point of view we have ever had. We do not yet seem to have found a way to combat it, except by moving from one paddock to another; and with the price of land, I am not sure too many landowners or banana growers can actually do that. Perhaps the minister might one day bury his doubts on GM; we may end up with GM bananas. It has already been looked at in Queensland. There have been plenty of other diseases. Some are easier to eradicate than others, but the whole idea of having this act is to try to make sure we do not get any more disease.
If we are going to have legislation like this, we need to have education. I believe we have to continually make it known to people that you cannot bring in plant material, especially from overseas, because that is where I am sure a number of our diseases have come from. I do not believe the outbreak of citrus canker at Lambells Lagoon some years ago came from inside Australia. Panama disease certainly did not come from Australia; it came from overseas. The coconut beetle was not known in Australia, so it had to come from overseas. There has to be a lot more education, as well as adequate punishment for those people who potentially can destroy the horticultural industry, not only in the Northern Territory but all over Australia.
There are some interesting things in this legislation. One area where it differs from the livestock legislation is that inspectors have the power to seize and destroy plant material; which is fine, because if it is something like citrus canker, you cannot allow that particular disease to spread. It also differs from the livestock legislation in that there is compensation in the livestock legislation, but I do not see any compensation in this legislation. Recently we had an outbreak of a certain disease affecting citrus, specifically lime trees in Virginia, and I know of a particular person who did not want those plants destroyed, but the government believed the risk of that disease spreading to the rest of Australia was so great, they moved into the property and cut down those trees.
When that owner asked for compensation, they basically said: ‘Well, we will give you some new trees’. I am not sure whether that is exactly fair, especially if the trees were productive trees, and it does take some time for citrus to reach a productive bearing stage. So I am interested, minister, to find out whether there is some compensation for owners of plant material who, through no fault of their own, have had that plant material destroyed and taken away.
The other area I am interested in is the idea of management plans. That is a good idea, because it is where the government and the community can get together and look at controls over the introduction of certain plant material if they believe it is a risk to existing crops, or they believe that sort of crop should not be grown in their area. That has potential to be of benefit, too, in controlling pests and diseases.
The other area I would like the minister to comment on is Part 3, Certification of plant health, which deals with inspection certificates. There are accredited production places and plant health assurance schemes, which are the two main certificates. My question is: who actually pays? If it is the grower, what sort of cost will be incurred for the grower to become accredited? Having these schemes is good, especially if it reduces the amount of red tape in moving plant product from the Northern Territory to other states, but it would be interesting to know what the cost would be and who would bear the cost of developing those certificates.
Generally, it is a bill that sets out ways of controlling plants, pests and diseases by making sure healthy plants can be certified and moved throughout Australia; we know that sometimes is a problem, especially in relation to moving plants to Western Australia. The rest of the bill deals with how these conditions would be enforced, and the regulations which would allow the smooth running of this legislation.
I think it is an excellent bill. I thank the department for the briefing we had. It is a bill which is probably a long time overdue, because it replaces the 1979 bill, and the horticultural industry since 1979 has expanded right across the Territory. The government could do a lot more in the primary industry areas, especially horticulture. I am concerned about the way research tends to be focused; the Northern Territory is a pioneering area and we should be continually trying to find new varieties which commercial interests can take up and develop, since it is unlikely commercial interests will do the experimental work that, traditionally, governments have taken on.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank the minister for his bill, and I will support it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution. There are a number of issues here, and I thank members very much for bringing them to my attention; I will endeavour to explain. Yes, it is a modern bill. It is about time, because we were relying on something which was about 30 years old, and we have interests in the Territory which are worth about $164m, as at 2006.
The other thing we have with disease is the easy way people can travel from one place to another, and how quickly they can move from one place to another. If they make a mistake and bring some disease into the Territory, it can decimate our industry. It has happened before; it may happen again.
Member for Goyder, you referred to clause 6, the definition of a pest. In clause 6, it refers to a pest as an organism that feeds on a plant or causes an abnormal or unhealthy condition in a plant; which is straightforward. You also referred to clause 8, regarding the host. A host plant for a pest is a plant that is susceptible to, uses, or harbours a pest. That is true. That may be symbiosis for that particular plant, but for another plant it can be a pest. Sometimes we find plants, pests and insects also develop a symbiotic relationship; they rely upon each other but, if the pest, the micro-organism, moves to another plant, it becomes a pest which can destroy the plant.
What is ‘close proximity’? People say it is subjective, but the reality is we know very well how pests operate, how far they can spread, how high they can fly, how they can be transmitted; so ‘close proximity’ can be 1 cm or 2 km. Pests can be flies, micro-organisms or a virus; that depends on the pest. The scientists know the history and the physiology of the pest and how it is transmitted.
Clause 14, you mentioned preventing the spreading on rental properties. A person, first of all, has to know that there is a pest on their property and has to take reasonable measures if there is a pest on their property. The fault elements are when the person knows the place is affected and intentionally fails to take measures. If you have a property and you do not know there is a pest there, and you move somewhere else and take the pest with you; that is a defence. You say: ‘Well, I had no idea this pest was there. I had no idea that I could transmit it by taking it from one place to another. How am I going to prevent it?’
The reality is, how many of us know what kind of pests we have in our garden? It was only after some publicity that I discovered I had this silver white butterfly - what is the name of the white butterfly? The spiral butterfly. I only knew because something did not look right; there were things flying around and, when I turned the leaf upside down, it was there. I had no idea about it. The only way I found out was because I read in the newspaper there was an outbreak of this particular insect.
Regarding clause 25, you asked: what information do you have to give an inspector? The reality is, you can give all the information - name, address and telephone number - but, if I want to know whether you are going on holidays in the next 14 days because we might have to contact you and, if you are going on holidays, I need to know where you are going and if you have a telephone number. Inspectors have to take reasonable information so they can contact the person. Asking a person if they are going on holidays or they have been on holidays or where they can be contacted is reasonable.
Clause 35 deals with compliance. What was the question about clause 35, member for Goyder?
Ms Purick: Clause 55?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, clause 35, compliance.
Ms Purick: Yes, the plants.
Mr VATSKALIS: Pardon?
Ms Purick: The plants.
Mr VATSKALIS: 25? Okay. Obviously, I have it wrong.
Member for Katherine, clause 11(1)(b), ‘close proximity’. I explained - we know the history and physiology of a pest. Some pests fly, some crawl, so close proximity depends on the kind of pest. People know very well if there is a particular pest here, how far away it can affect another plant - it can fly, crawl, or be transported by our actions.
Clause 13: Prevention of infestation. You mentioned about knowledge of a risk, or being reasonably expected to know. If you have plant-related material and it is malformed, it has a funny appearance, it is reasonable to assume there is something wrong with the plant.
Clause 21(3) regarding the caveat. Yes, when we carry out an action, we can put a caveat on the title. It has happened before. I have done it myself as an environmental health officer. I walked onto premises; the people were away; there was no way to contact them to clean it up. We cleaned it up; got the bill for $1200 - and put it on the title. When the property was sold, the authorities took the $1200 to compensate.
Clause 46 – that is another one that you mentioned, about exemption from the legislation. Yes, that can happen because the department might wish to exempt an area because they are doing research on pests; you cannot apply that one when they are doing research on pests. The other thing that is important, when you have an agricultural area that saddles borders, for example the Ord River, an area that extends from Western Australia to the Northern Territory, we may choose to apply one regulation, because we have different regulations to Western Australia. We might decide, by agreement, to apply the Northern Territory regulations in both sections in that particular area, which is well defined, or we apply the Western Australian regulations.
The warrant. Warrants are explained very clearly in the brief you had but, yes, the Livestock Bill is a very prescriptive one – here it is not; in that one it said you can ring a magistrate to get a warrant, in this case it does not. The reason for that is because we do not consider something to be so urgent, like foot-and-mouth disease or bovine encephalitis, to pick up the phone and call a magistrate. Things tend to happen a bit slower than in the livestock situation. So we have never done it before, and we are not going to do it now.
Member for Nelson, seize and destroy. Yes, there are parts to seize and destroy material. However, in clause 71, people can apply for compensation. The member for Nelson referred to a particular producer that had some limes which were diseased and were destroyed and did not get compensation; which was not our fault, he was offered replacement trees, but he refused them. The problem was this - compensation can only be provided to commercial producers of a nationally significant industry where they already pay a levy.
The citrus canker in Queensland, all those people were compensated because the citrus industry in Australia is a nationally significant industry and the producers pay a levy, which then goes into a trust account, and from that levy people are paid compensation if there is an issue with their trees.
The issue of accreditation. The act gives the power to the Chief Inspector to apply fees and charges. It has not been decided yet, but what usually happens with accreditation is people pay one-off for accreditation and renewal. On the contrary, if officers of the department have to go to inspect every consignment, then the person will be charged from the moment the officers leave the office, travel expenses, the time they spend there, to the time they come back to the office. So the accreditation relies upon the producer getting up to scratch, getting trained, paying the fee for the original accreditation, then he might pay an annual fee rather than every time there is a consignment. In some cases, this could be 12, 15, 20 consignments they have to get an officer out to their farm to inspect and certify. So, ultimately, it is more economic to have the accreditation regime rather than the current constant inspection regime.
Hopefully, that answers all your questions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 10 February 2009, at 10 am in Parliament House, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I table, on behalf of the Chief Minister, the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008.
MOTION
Print Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Print Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the paper be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Note paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, the Remuneration Tribunal has completed its 2008 Report and Determination on the Entitlements of Members of the Assembly, including ministers and office holders. The determination was received by government on 20 October 2008. It must be tabled within six sitting days and may be disallowed in whole or in part within 10 sitting days of tabling.
The determination covers electoral allowances, additional salary of office for office holders, personal travel cost entitlements, and resettlement allowance. In respect of electoral allowances, the tribunal has increased the rate of electoral allowance by 7%, which takes into account the CPI for the period June 2007 to June 2008. The total takes account of the average increase in the number of constituents in electorates. The additional amount applying to rural electorates has been increased by 4.2% to reflect the CPI increase. The additional salary for office holders has been increased by 4% and is based on the percentage increase received by NT public servants between October 2007 and October 2008. The entitlement to 12 weeks of basic salary remains unchanged in respect of MLAs who retire involuntarily in certain circumstances, and who are not eligible for pension superannuation benefits to relate to their Assembly service. In respect to travelling allowances, these rates have been increased in accordance with Australian government tax office determinations.
As a general comment in its report, the tribunal noted that since the last RTD there have been significant changes to the boundaries of the rural electorates, but also observed that it would be difficult at the time of the 2008 review for members representing those electorates to quantify with accuracy their likely electoral expenses. For this reason, the tribunal foreshadows next year’s review will comprehensively examine the electoral allowance for all seats and particularly rural seats.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I table the report of the Ombudsman 2007-08.
MOTION
Print paper - Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Print paper - Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper - Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
On 20 November 2008, the Ombudsman provided Cabinet with a copy of her annual report for the year ending 30 June 2008. The annual report contains a comprehensive assessment of the office’s performance and financial statements required under the Financial Management Act and the Treasurer’s Direction.
In summary, during the 2007-08 financial year, the total number of approaches or inquiries and complaints received by the Ombudsman increased by 18% from 2081 to 2454. Of the total approaches, 407 became complaints that were handled by the Ombudsman. Of the 407 complaints, 274 related to Northern Territory Police conduct, 30 related to complaints from prisoners, and 103 related to administration of Northern Territory government agencies.
Forty per cent of the complaints were finalised because an adequate explanation was provided by Northern Territory agencies, compared to 20% in 2006-07. Twenty-six case studies and two significant investigations - women in prison and general investigative process - were undertaken and the resolution of litigation above the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate administrative action of a health service provider.
On the issue of the litigation, the Ombudsman has pointed to a conflict in her dual role as Ombudsman and the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner, in particular, the increasing workloads of both positions and she recommended that government give consideration to establishing the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission as a separate working unit from the Ombudsman.
During 2007-08, the Ombudsman also undertook inspection of the Northern Territory Police records to report on the compliance with the legislation protecting the rights of citizens when surveillance devices are used and when telephone communications are intercepted. A report was provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 18 September 2008. The report identified that the Northern Territory Police were not complying with some aspects of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.
In her annual report, the Ombudsman has also made reference to the proposed Ombudsman Bill 2008 and the consequential amendments to the Information Act to exempt from disclosure information obtained by NT Police when investigating a complaint about police conduct. The Ombudsman considered that the amendment to the Information Act is contrary to her credibility, transparency of government and the rights of individuals who may have grievances about police conduct.
The Ombudsman appears to be under the misapprehension that the consequential amendment to the Information Act is acting to exempt from disclosure information obtained during all police investigations. The Ombudsman is incorrect. Investigation undertaken by Northern Territory Police through their normal disciplinary processes, and any information obtained, will still be subject to the Information Act.
Currently, the Information Act exempts from disclosure information obtained during the investigation of a complaint about police conduct made under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act where the Ombudsman undertakes the investigation. The amendment to the Information Act is simply providing the same status to information obtained by NT Police where a complaint about police conduct is made under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act and the Ombudsman asks the Northern Territory Police to investigate the complaint.
Pursuant to section 28 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, the report must be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within three sitting days after it is received by the minister. To meet the tabling requirements, the report must be tabled no later than 27 November 2008. Cabinet has approved the Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08 for introduction in the November 2008 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I table the 30th Annual Report of the Ombudsman.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought the information we had received from the government was that we were going on with the economic statement debate this evening.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister has just adjourned the House.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that but, if these guys want to start changing the rules halfway through, then at least the Whip could have the courtesy to tell us. It would be nice if the Whip did.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! We are in the adjournment debate now. The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister moved that the House be now adjourned. You have the obligation then to put that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We put that at the end. Is the House to now adjourn?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: A division is called; ring the bells.
Could you turn the bells off for a minute? We need a bit of clarification. Are we actually trying to close the House down?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, we are moving into the adjournment debate.
Madam SPEAKER: We are moving into the adjournment debate. Then we are just calling the Chief Minister on. We do not need a division. Chief Minister, you have the call. There is only a division at the end of this, as I said.
Mr Elferink: You are more interested in a piss-up than running the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. People on your side can talk about that if you want to.
Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding Territorian and Centralian, Mrs Joan Higgins. Joan was one of those people who always put her hand up, typifying the Northern Territory spirit of getting your hands dirty and involved.
Joan began her work as a youth worker in 1947 after being posted to Alice Springs during World War II as a voluntary aged detachment nurse. In 1965, Joan was appointed as the Director of the Alice Springs Youth Centre, a post she held until 1988 ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take it from the Chief Minister’s comment earlier that he, once again, wants to suggest that there is an issue of sobriety with members of this House ...
Mr Henderson: No, I did not. I did not say that at all.
Mr ELFERINK: I am prepared to provide a sample of my breath. Is the Chief Minister prepared to supply a sample of his?
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. You are a clown. You are an absolute turkey.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr Henderson: You are an absolute turkey!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Purick: Hey, stop picking on my rural area poultry. They are smarter than you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, I will be asking you to withdraw very shortly. Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order and there are no breathalysers in this Chamber required, thank you very much. The Chief Minister has the call and is adjourning.
Mr HENDERSON: The whole place is a joke …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for silly stunts; you should have been in a Monty Python skit.
Madam Speaker, getting back to something important instead of the puerile stunts from the member for Port Darwin, I will continue to talk about a fine Centralian and Territorian, Mrs Joan Higgins, who deserves to be recognised in this House, unlike the member for Port Darwin and his stupid, inane stunts.
In 1982, during Joan’s time as youth centre director, she was honoured with the first Centralian of the Year Award and a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to the community. When the youth centre hall was renovated in 1991, Joan’s outstanding contributions to the Centre and the young people of Alice Springs were recognised with the naming of the Higgins Theatre.
Over the years, Joan has also been honoured with life memberships to the youth centre and the Alice Springs Golf Club, the naming of the Joan Higgins apartments located in Peuce Place, Sadadeen, and running leg 55 of the Commonwealth Games Queen’s batton relay in 2006. In addition to her work with the youth centre, Joan was heavily involved the Girl Guides, gymnastics, the Alice Springs Show Society and, up until ill-health struck last year, a member of the Australia Day Council. Joan’s contribution to the Alice Springs community cannot be overstated, and I thank her on behalf of all Territorians.
I also wish to pay tribute to the recently passed Phyllis Kittle, the matriarch of the Kittle family and, indeed, Alice Springs. Following her move to Tennant Creek at the age of 19, Phyllis met and married Len Kittle who, with his brother, Geoff, started the Kittle Brothers motor company in Tennant Creek. The expansion of the business saw Phyllis, Len and their six children move to Alice Springs in 1958. Phyllis kept her distance from the day-to-day running of the business, preferring to offer her support whilst being at home with her children.
Phyllis was very involved in the local community, volunteering for community organisations like Meals on Wheels, and was well-known for getting the family together. This was especially true following Len’s death in 2004 after almost 65 years of marriage. Phyllis will be sadly missed by the Alice Springs community and her large family.
I thank both of these strong Territory women for their contribution to Central Australia and the Territory, and I extend my sincere condolences to Mrs Kittle’s family.
I am sure you will know that 31 October was World Teachers’ Day. I spent the day in my electorate and visited a number of the schools. I went to Wanguri Primary School first and helped Assistant Principal, Leah Crockford hand out the awards for well-behaved students. I also handed out World Teachers’ Day badges to all the staff and thanked them for the wonderful job they are doing. The Wanguri choir also performed a number of songs which were absolutely incredible. My daughter, Isobel, is a proud member of the Wanguri choir and it is always great to see the kids singing. I am proud of the kids at Wanguri. The choir always sound great. Congratulations to the teachers.
Next up was a visit to Henbury School, where I put on a morning tea to thank the staff. Henbury School is a very special school in Darwin, with great students and wonderful teachers. I met new staff members and we had a great morning tea that was enjoyed by all.
Friday was also Dripstone Day - a day where all the students at Dripstone were released from schoolwork and spent the day visiting different stalls around the school, raising money for charities. The day started with a cross-country run of an approximately 1.5 km course through the school. Congratulations to Phoenix, who won the race over Alexandra - it was very close.
Next up was a chance to crop and colour your hair for charity. All money was raised for charity and, so far, $8262.90 has been counted. The highlight of the crop and colour was the school captain, Ritchie Barreto and groundsman, Kevin Remfrey who both got crops and colour.
There were so many activities on offer from different food and drinks stalls to photos with Chance Bateman or Cyril Rioli Jr. There was also an afternoon AFL match between Dripstone and Kormilda in the blinding heat. It was a tough game but, eventually, Kormilda walked away with the spoils.
Dripstone Day always culminates with a talent quest in the auditorium, and before I get to the talent quest, I would like to congratulate Greg Cilento who does enormous work at Dripstone as their Phys Ed teacher and is a key organiser of all the charity events there.
Dripstone Day always culminates with a talent quest in the auditorium. This year, I had the privilege of being asked to be one of the judges. There were well over 15 acts on stage. It was a real showcase of student talent. There was singing, bands, dancing, drama and a circus performance, which did amazing acts with two very large ribbons. It was a tough decision, but I and the other judges awarded first prize to the group Melanie Pond, a singing duet made up of Maria Ramilo and Susan Crute. The duo was also invited on to Hot 100 later that week to perform their song live and were absolutely fantastic.
This year, Dripstone Day raised $7903.65, all in one day, and all of that money will be donated to various charities from a great middle school in the northern suburbs of Darwin. A hearty congratulations - that is a lot of money, nearly $8000 by the students and teachers on the one day.
It has also been busy at Wanguri Primary School. Apart from the World Teachers’ Day celebration, there has been a Blue Light disco and a working bee. The disco was a great success, with all the kids enjoying themselves in a fun and safe environment. Santa stopped by for a visit, and all the kids, young and old, got a real kick of seeing Santa. Judging from the photos, everyone had a ball.
The November working bee was also a triumph, with a group of dedicated parents showing up to work on the beautiful school grounds. The garden beds were mulched, and many hands made for short work. Thanks to all the parents who gave up part of their Saturday morning to help the school.
At Holy Spirit Primary School, it never stops; there is always something going on. Just within the last month, Holy Spirit has elected new parent representatives, received a $250 000 grant, and raised money through a book fair. I welcome David Villa and Anne Myerscough to the Holy Spirit School Board. David is coming in as the new chair, following the relocation of former chair, Paul Albion. Anne takes over as deputy chair from Jane Sheehan, whose son is moving into middle school. There are also three teacher’s reps who are leaving the school board: Chris Simmonds, Michelle Proctor and Caroline Wright. I thank those who are moving on for all their hard work over this year, and warmly welcome the new faces on the school board.
Holy Spirit Primary School was recently advised that they were successful in their application for a block grant. This grant will provide the school with $250 000 to be spent on completing classroom renovations. This money will also go towards equipping classes with electronic smart boards and IT infrastructure. I cannot wait to head down next year and see all the changes.
Another fantastic event at Holy Spirit was the book fair. It t was well attended and the school received $635 as a commission for all the books sold.
Students at Leanyer Primary School have been involved in a Tournament of Minds program and have performed very well. They entered into two categories: Language and Literature, and Maths and Engineering. The following students received certificates of participation in the Language and Literature category: Cassandra de Vries, Racheel Dood, Bailey Duignan, Erin Gargan, Siobhan Bishop, John Byrne and Bailey Heatherington-Tait. The next lot of students received an NT regional final honourable mention for their second place overall in the primary school division: Sarah Banks, Tom Ford, Jasmin Hunkin, Toby Hunkin, Tatjana Linklater, Kaitlyn Maggs and Maddison Smith. Well done to everyone who participated in the Tournament of Minds.
Leanyer also participated in the University of New South Wales student competition this year. There were many students who received great results, and quite a few who received distinctions and high distinctions. Well done to Joanna Glinatsis and Toby Hunkin, who received a distinction in the spelling, as well as Florence Sadicon who received a high distinction. Jack Malin, Gabrielle White, Rochelle Basset, Jayson Beekman and Jordon Kerr each received a distinction in the writing competition, and Joanna Glinatsis received a high distinction. Gabrielle White, Jayson Beekman, Joel Jettner, Jarrod Perry and Aden Wilson received distinctions for the Maths test, and Joanna Glinatsis, Jayson Beekman and Douglas Lee each received a distinction for the English test.
There were many high achievers in the Westpac Maths competition too. Twelve students received credits: Nathan Gaijar, Joanna Glinatsis, Kane Milne, Florence Sadicon, Daniel Turner, Jayson Beekman, Thomas Ford, Jasmin Hunkin, Bailey Heatherington-Tait, Kristina Lee, Kylie Scrimegour, Maddison Smith. Seven more students received distinctions: Jack Malin, Gabrielle White, Joel Jettner, Lauren Maddock, Aden Wilson, Toby Hunkin and Rachael Thomas. This goes to show what a great bunch of smart kids we have at Leanyer. They are fantastic.
I wish all Territorians a safe and happy Christmas and wish them all the best for 2009. I make a special mention of a few. I would like all the staff at Parliament House who do such a wonderful job: the cleaners, the security guards, the staff at Speaker’s Corner, and everyone else. Thank you for your hard work this year.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff, from the Clerk down, thank you, you do a great job and make this place tick. I make special mention of the Hansard staff for all your hard work and long hours.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you to my staff. It has been a tremendous effort from you in the last 12 months. You have all done a remarkable job. I hope some of you get a well-deserved break over the Christmas period because we will be working at the same pace for the next three years, and I know you are looking forward to it. I thank all my Caucus colleagues and their staff for all their contributions in the past ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Mr HENDERSON: You cannot do that in adjournment.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot do it in adjournment. There is no quorum required during adjournment debate.
Mr Tollner: Well, that is not true.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it is.
Mrs AAGAARD: Member for Fong Lim, speaking to the point of order. There is no quorum required during adjournment debates.
Mr Tollner: That is not true.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is true. Please resume your seat.
Ms Scrymgour: Sit down, you are a joke.
Mr Tollner: No.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have delivered my ruling, member for Fong Lim. A quorum is not required.
Mr HENDERSON: I hope I can get an extra couple of minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Tollner: Maybe you should discuss it with the Clerk.
Mr HENDERSON: Are you dissenting from the Speaker’s ruling?
I hope I get an extra couple of minutes. It is a great team, and I am excited to work with them in the coming year. We and the Territory have an exciting time ahead of us. A merry Christmas and big thank you to my Department of the Chief Minister led by Mike Burgess and all of you at DCM. You do a great job and I am looking forward to working with you all next year.
I thank all staff in Police, Fire and Emergency Services and, in particular, the frontline staff: the police on the beat, the firefighters, and the emergency services personnel who do a magnificent job in keeping the Territory safe. I thank the Police Commissioner, Paul White, for all his hard work this year. To all departments across government from the CEOs down across the entire public service, thank you, a merry Christmas. You help make the Territory tick and I thank you for your great efforts in 2008.
Moving from my Chief Minister hat to my member for Wanguri hat, I wish a merry Christmas to the following people. First, to my electorate officer, Morgan, thank you for holding the fort out at Hibiscus. It is hard as Chief Minister to spend as much time in your electorate as you would like, but you do a great job. Merry Christmas to Team Hendo: George and Tania, Roberta and Joana and Costa and Thammy. Thank you for your hard work this election year and merry Christmas. I wish a merry Christmas to all my constituents and thank you for the honour of electing me as your representative again for the fourth time. I am truly honoured and humbled, and I will continue to work hard for my electorate over the next three years. In particular, I wish a merry Christmas to Eddie and Jane Sepulveda, Denis and Carmen Newsham, Jasminder …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish all members of parliament a very safe and happy Christmas. I also thank parliamentary colleagues for their friendship and support over the past year.
In particular, I thank members of my department, the Department of the Legislative Assembly, especially the Clerk, Mr Ian McNeill, who is a person of great credibility, intelligence and humour and is a pleasure to work with. I also thank the Deputy Clerk of the Assembly, Captain David Horton, the parliamentary officers, particularly, Mrs Vicki Long for all her hard work for members during the year. The staff …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He has drawn the attention to the state of the House. Under standing orders, they cannot leave the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause while confer with the Clerk.
Dr Burns: And the member for Araluen did.
Ms Carney: My apologies, sorry.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, what is your point of order?
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been advised you are on a warning. You called attention to the state of the House when there was a quorum here.
Mr TOLLNER: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not realise there were people flowing through the doors.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are now on warning. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I continue thanking the staff in my department who provide us with an excellent service throughout the year and who work extremely hard for all members of parliament.
In the committee area, I thank Pat Hancock and Terry Hanley and the staff of the different committees. I thank the people working with Vicki Long in the Assembly. I thank the Table Office staff as well, particularly Mr Graham Gadd, and the people who work so hard for us in here, plus the Hansard staff. Helen Allmich and the people who attempt to translate what happens in this Chamber deserve our particular thanks.
I express gratitude to my own staff, Karen Philp and Vishal Mohan-Ram for their hard efforts over the past year and their loyalty and hard work for all members.
Moving to my electorate, I thank my electorate officer, Janet Webb, who I consider to be the best of the electorate officers over the 25 officers. I thank her for her very hard work and effort ...
A member: I do not know about that.
Mrs AAGAARD: There is a bit of debate but she has put in a great effort over several years now and she is a terrific person to work with.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to my husband, Simon, and my children. Being a member of parliament, you give up a lot. Your family misses out a lot in the effort we put in either in this place and in the greater part of the Northern Territory. We do that knowing our families do miss out a lot. Sometimes, we miss out on events. My son graduated last night from CSC. I was very sorry I was unable to see him receive the top prize for geology in the Territory last night. I am very proud of him. Congratulations, Michael.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD: He is at his formal tonight, so behave well, Michael.
Mr TOLLNER (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start I congratulate the member for Nightcliff and her success with her son. Congratulations, well deserved.
The story that emerged today with the Health Services Commissioner’s report into the rape of a five-month-old baby touched all of us. A dreadful story and the failings of the Health department were adequately covered in that report. The commissioner said that action taken by RDH after the rape to improve security was (a) slow, (b) inadequate, and (c) has not been adequately evaluated or reviewed to determine its effectiveness. That small sentence encapsulates the whole situation with Health, RDH, the Health department and, ultimately, somebody must bear responsibility for that.
The minister informed the parliament today that he only became the minister in August 2006, some months after the event occurred. There was no suggestion at all that the minister was responsible for the incident that happened at the time, but the minister does bear responsibility for how his department reacted to that incident since he became minister.
The minister informed the parliament today he received verbal advice and briefings when he was first made Minister for Health, and that he trusted Royal Darwin Hospital to implement measures that would see an incident like that not occur again. The thing that steeled the opposition to move a motion of sanction today was not that the incident had taken place, as dreadful as that was, but the way the minister has attempted to avoid scrutiny of this whole matter. That is what the opposition finds so abhorrent.
The minister received this report on Monday afternoon, he informed the parliament. It has taken until lunchtime today for the minister to table that report. It was not just tabled; it was hidden amongst a whole big batch of other reports, with the clear hope that everybody would miss it; we would go away to the Christmas break and the matter would never surface. Well, the matter did surface, and the minister has been asked some questions about it.
The minister has failed to provide any defence whatsoever. We heard in the censure debate today the minister making absolutely no attempt to defend himself or those of his department. What we heard was the minister pleading with this parliament, with the Chief Minister, to let him go ...
Mr Elferink: To let him off the hook.
Mr TOLLNER: Let him off the hook. The minister talked for quite some length about the difficulties of being a Health Minister, saying it was a tough job. I do not think there is anybody in this parliament or any other parliament would disagree with that. However, the fact is that the minister does have a tough job and the minister has to stand up and take responsibility for it. The censure motion was about the minister’s cowardice to stand up to scrutiny and to answer questions. This was demonstrated by his trying to sneak this report into the parliament.
For a long time now, my colleague, the member for Greatorex, has been talking about the culture of cover-up in the Health department. The minister cannot plead ignorance to this. He cannot say there has been no cover-up because this has been talked about ad nauseam since I and a whole range of other people in this place have been elected to this parliament. He has had quite substantial time to send the dogs into the Health department, to sniff around, find the problems and roll a few people. However, the minister says: ‘No’. The minister has done none of that at all.
One gentleman, the scapegoat, following the Ombudsman’s release of the report into the death of Margaret Winter, was moved sideways into another job somewhere else in the public service. That is really the only recrimination anybody in this place or in the department of Health has seen following the revelations of this culture of cover-up - a culture of cover-up that goes very deep and leads his department to fight the Ombudsman in court to keep a document from his own eyes. He supports this culture of cover-up. We saw, in sittings gone by, that the minister voted with the government to not allow the tabling of the report his own department was in court seeking to keep from his eyes. The opposition gave him the opportunity to have a look and see what the Ombudsman had to say about the culture of cover-up in the Health department, but the minister chose instead to bury his head in the sand.
This is cowardice. It is cowardice to the max, and is the reason why censure motions were run today. The minister does all he can to hide from the truth. He is not interested in finding the truth. There is a range of preventable deaths that have occurred: Georgia Rae Tilmouth, Margaret Winter. Now, we find the rape of a five-month-old baby - an absolutely dreadful situation. I have to ask the question: if that was your baby, how many members on the other side would be supporting this minister in allowing this cover-up to continue?
A member: None.
Mr TOLLNER: Yet, they seem to be able to sit there with straight faces and support this minister.
I do not seem to think that this minister has any other option but to step down. I do not think the Chief Minister has any other option but to sack the Health Minister. But that is not going to occur, because they are allowing the culture of cover-up to continue.
I note that the minister said today he has allocated $1m to a security upgrade. The very day that he decides to table the report, straight after he has given the report to the Clerk’s office, he has run out there to the media and said he is allocating $1m to a security upgrade. He is appointing a fellow called Jim O’Sullivan, and another fellow called Ray Norman to do an investigation. Finally, after two years, the minister is sending the dogs in. It has taken two years and this dreadful, damming report. The minister says he is doing all he can. The minister is not doing all he can. It is the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner who is running the department of Health, who has managed to send in the dogs.
I listened closely today to the minister’s explanations in his debate, the way he tried to defend himself - which he did not, of course. I was very keen to hear what had been done with the No 1 recommendation of the commissioner’s report. In fact, the first recommendation, I think it says: ‘deleted due to explanation by Department of Health and Families’.
The second recommendation is that the ‘Department of Health and Families immediately enter into negotiations with goodwill to pay compensation to the infant and her parents for the injuries she suffered’. I have heard nothing today, nothing from anywhere. I am not saying it has not happened, maybe it has happened. However, I would have thought if the minister was running out there briefing the media about putting $1m into security systems, and of cornering a couple of people to go in there and investigate the department, he would also address the very top priority of the recommendations the Health and Community Service Complaints Commissioner put to him; which is to go in there with goodwill to discuss the payment of compensation to the parents of the infant for the injuries that she suffered. We have heard nothing.
This is the level of compassion we get from this government - completely without compassion. You would think the first people a reasonably compassionate person, on hearing such a story would talk to and deal with would be the parents of that infant. You would think either the head of the Paediatric Ward, the head of the hospital, the CEO of the Health department, or maybe even, in such an extreme situation, the minister himself would make that phone call, or maybe even jump in a car and get around there and see those parents, and have a discussion with them to see what the government could do to assist or provide some recompense for the pain and anguish these people have had to go through. But nothing - absolutely nothing.
That lack of compassion is shown again today in a censure debate, where the minister for Business so callously gagged that debate, all in order to get to the Speaker’s Christmas drinks tonight. We saw it not 10 minutes ago: the Chief Minister coming in here and immediately adjourning the parliament. Why? Because the Chief Minister wants to get him and his team out there to Christmas drinks. How appalling is this? Do you people have no feelings whatsoever? This is a major issue. The last thing we would ever want to see is for that to happen again.
Somewhere in this report - I cannot put my fingers on it at the moment - a Detective Inspector went into the Paediatric Unit during some investigations, picked up a baby, put it in a pram and walked out. Not one question was asked - not one single question was asked. We have heard the story about the closed circuit television cameras, rather than being installed in the Paediatric Unit, were put in the kitchen because people were pilfering staff lunches, cheese sandwiches and the like. This is dreadful stuff.
He is a minister, who I believe when he says that he gets out to the Royal Darwin Hospital on a very regular basis, walks through the wards, talks to the people who run the show, and has discussions with the nurses and doctors. You wonder how this type of thing can go on right under his nose. Minister, I cannot believe you are an evil person. I cannot believe that at all. However, I believe there is a serious question regarding your competence. I seriously believe that you should consider looking at throwing in the job - giving it to someone else.
____________________
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I suggest that we do not interrupt for dinner but we continue working through dinner. If people want to have dinner they can go upstairs and get it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Acting Leader of Government Business has requested we work through the dinner break, which sounds quite a reasonable request which I agree to. There is no debate or discussion on this and, of course, members are welcome to leave the Chamber to partake of dinner in the CPA Lounge.
____________________
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone in this Chamber a festive season and a healthy and safe prosperous New Year. I hope you take care of your families and make sure that the New Year is great for everyone, so we can see everyone back.
I also wish the Clerk, the Legislative Assembly, Pat Hancock, Vicki, Gaddy, Helen and everyone in Hansard, Terry, Madam Speaker and her family, a festive and a healthy and safe prosperous New Year.
I also acknowledge my electorate officer in Alice Springs, John Rawnsley, who works so hard for me in my absence and does the 335 000 km2 or 338 000 km2 for me. I wish you and your family a safe and happy Christmas and New Year and hope to see you back in good form in the New Year so we can hit the ground running.
Mathew Fagan is my Chief of Staff and hope you are listening, Mathew. It is Mathew’s birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday to you and also wishing, Caroline, your wife, a safe and happy Christmas. Also my other staff, Andrew, Jacinta, Shannon, Dee, and Linda. Without these people, we cannot do our jobs and I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart. To my CEO, Jim Grant, and everyone who works with Jim in NRETAS and Parks and Wildlife. They are very special people who make us who we are and give us the capacity to stand in this House and look after Territorians.
I send special Christmas wishes to all Territorians, Central Australians and businesses in Alice Springs. Safe travels, safe journeys with families wherever you are going for your Christmas holidays. I hope we can get things back on track in Alice Springs. I am hoping that with my colleagues, the members for Braitling, Araluen, Greatorex and Stuart, that in the New Year we look at Alice Springs in a very different way and start helping our constituents to ensure we are the drivers for better results. I have a very special electorate, as the member for Port Darwin knows - the former member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: You do, indeed. I am jealous.
Ms ANDERSON: Very special. I wish every single person, man woman and child in the electorate of Macdonnell festive season wishes. I hope you all travel without drinking. Make sure you look after your families. Make sure you buy lots of food for the Christmas and New Year break and nurture your families and your children. Do not drink too much and God bless you all.
As Madam Speaker said earlier, we tend to forget the special people in our lives. It is our partners, our children. I say a thank you to my children. I have two who live and work in Perth, Clinton and Melissa Cash, Dorelle and Dereece and Taj, Samara, Payton and Emerson, Tahnee and Cameron and Liam. Especially my mum. My mum has always been the rock of my life. I take this opportunity to thank you for everything, mother. If you did not have the foresight to send me to school and help me with my children when I was so interested in my political career, I would not be standing here this evening saying the things I am. It was the goodness of your heart and the love you had for all your children. Thank you to Nicholas and my brothers and sisters out at Papunya, Sid and Janet, and my nieces and nephews and Amos and Linda, Natasha and Rosabelle and Faye.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish a number of people merry Christmas and thank a number of people. First, my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia. I thank them for everything that they have given to me throughout the year, and family, Trent, Kaye and Gladys, forthe support they have given me.
I acknowledge Hansard and Legies and everyone who helps to make this place run, including the Clerks.
I thank a couple of people in Alice Springs who helped us in the Country Liberal campaign this year. They are Michael Jones, Jenny Lillis and Suzanne Schroeder - people who have been instrumental in helping me get through the process. There have been a number of people who have also helped me with advice: Paul Ah Chee and Kim Lechleitner. I thank those two guys.
I thank the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s Office: Francine Chin, Michael Delosa, Kylie Silvey, Camden Smith, Leanne Britton, Greg Charter, Bonnie and James Lantry. James Lantry helped an awful lot and provided a lot of advice that makes it a lot easier.
I also thank an Aboriginal reference group I have in Alice Springs which helps us with a lot of policy advice and direction about some of the issues in town. That is very important.
I would also, like the member for Macdonnell, thank my electorate. There are some wonderful people there who I have spent a lot of time with. I acknowledge them for their assistance. I will not go through them name by name, but I will just collectively say thank you to all those people. Thank you for the well wishes. Thank you to my colleagues in Alice Springs, Matt Conlan and Jodeen Carney. They are great team members to have in our team in Alice Springs, and also my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. Whilst last night was not needed, the support those people gave me after the vitriolic incident where people on the other side refused to listen to the concerns of Alice Springs was very good. It shows a sign of a good team and leadership. Thank you very much, everybody.
Before I go on, I also thank a couple of people in Nigel Scullion’s office. Nigel provides me with great support, personally and professionally, along with some of his staff: Beverly, Lisa, Ron and Dee. Also, to Rick Setter and the Country Liberal Party.
A number of things of things have happened this last three months since the election. One thing of note is the injury to Rob Cook in the helicopter accident. People of Alice Springs and the bush came together and raised over $80 000 to support Rob Cook’s family while he is still in ICU in Adelaide. I know that many thoughts go out to Rob Cook. I am not going to run through everyone who has suffered an injury or, unfortunately, passed away, but my thoughts go out to those people, as do the thoughts of many people in Alice Springs.
I also pass on my thoughts for Rebecca Jones, the lady who, unfortunately, woke up in hospital in Alice Springs. I have spoken to her a couple of times and, whilst healing, she is in a very unfortunate state in being able to get on with things. She needs a lot of support and care, and I hope the hospital provides that. She is still trying to get over that trauma, so I hope she improves.
In relation to my Transport portfolio, what we were seeing before the election and a month or so after the election was a devastating increase in the road toll. It was going up and up, and we are at the highest levels. I think the road toll now is 71 on the last count. Since the election, with a strong opposition, we have been able to hold the government to account regarding road safety. What we have seen over the last couple of months is a gradual decrease in the accelerated numbers of people who are, unfortunately, passing away on our roads. It is not increasing as it was before. There is a renewed education campaign, more drink-driving blitzes out on the road. That has been brought about by us keeping on the government’s back, and that is a positive thing. Let us hope that over the Christmas period, there are no idiots on the road - they do not drink and drive - and we hope people get home safe. In Alice Springs, a lot of people travel to Adelaide for Christmas. All too often, we hear about people having accidents on the way home and not making it. We hope that that does not happen.
I heard a disturbing story today about a young boy who was stabbed in an incident of gang violence in Alice Springs the other day. I am not going to talk about him in person, but my thoughts go out to him. The riot of 50 people in Alice Springs last night also adds to the concern of the violence in Alice Springs. Not that the members on the other side would agree there are issues in Alice Springs, because they are okay. When people stand in this Chamber and try to raise concerns - I will save my responses for another time. When people try to raise concerns of a serious nature and other people want to leave it to 20 minutes of a personal attack, it is rather disappointing.
I have enjoyed working with a number of people on the other side, so far. The member for Johnston, I have enjoyed sitting across from you and watching things fire up and then calm down again. It is quite good. You are my opposite, so I get to see you more often than not. I have enjoyed working with a number of people here; it is quite good.
Until the government gets serious about some of the issues in the Territory, things will not improve and continue to deteriorate. Of concern to me, other than the road toll which I have already mentioned, the lack of planning, the law and order issues, and lack of suitable facilities to assist people in Alice Springs, I also think housing is a serious issue that has not been dealt with. It is a long way from being dealt with. There is a lack of housing in the Northern Territory which is seriously contributing to our problems in the Northern Territory. We hear of a housing crisis quite often in the national media, but that often relates to the price of housing, where it is a concern in the Territory. The actual crisis in the Territory is there is no housing. There is nowhere for people to live, and that is a serious issue. That is a long-term issue of failure, but it is something that needs to be addressed in the New Year. I hope the government looks to address that. I will be working with the government to try to make that work.
Lastly, I request the government put on the next General Business Day the motion I moved yesterday about the Sessional Committee for Central Australia Development. It is an opportunity the member for Macdonnell and I have both spoken about on a number of occasions. If the government votes against that, they are voting against Alice Springs and Central Australia. It is as simple as that. I hope the government in the New Year supports that.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute in the Northern Territory parliament to the men and women of Groote Eylandt. There are three communities in the Groote region, Angurugu, Umbakumba, Milyakburra, and the mining town of Alyangula. It is an honour to represent the people of Groote.
On many occasions in this House, I have spoken with great pride of their commitment to improving relations on a social and business level between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people on Groote. For example, the official opening of the Dugong Beach Resort in May this year was a culmination of many years of determined work by the Anindilyakwa Land Council, GEMCO and the previous councils and CDEP crews of Umbakumba and Angurugu. The personal and professional dedication of the former CEO of the ALC, the late Mr Ross Hebblewhite, was a driving factor behind the resort’s establishment.
Mr Hebblewhite was well-respected by all who knew him. Despite struggling with health problems in the final months prior to his death, he made an enormous effort to be present for the opening of the Dugong Beach Resort. On that special night, the Groote Eylandt Anindilyakwa Land Council Chair, Tony Wurramarrba, spoke passionately about the tourist resort’s real reason for being; that is, to provide genuine employment prospects for his people.
We have heard in this House the success of the alcohol permit system on Groote. We know about the major reduction in crime statistics as a result of the permit system. Groote is being watched by many towns and communities across the Territory as those places try to learn from Groote’s success. This by no means says that there are no problems – there will always be issues of some nature. The people of Groote must be commended on their ability to work so closely together on issues that impact on the way of life of all people.
I am often inspired on my regular trips to the island, trips that I consider as going home, where the warm welcomes from familiar faces make it an absolute pleasure to serve the people of Groote Eylandt. What saddens me is that all the good that happens on the island is forgotten or overlooked when an incident occurs that raises the interest of the media - incidents related to clan arguments in Angurugu, where people are forced to attend to calm the situation, or the evacuation of nurses or teaching staff, or both, from Umbakumba after threats to their safety for one reason or another.
I have witnessed such incidents in both Angurugu and Umbakumba. On those occasions I have seen the elders of the respective clan groups quickly gather to calm the tensions. Tonight, I want to share with my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the Chamber the recent events of a tragic accident near Angurugu where four young people lost their lives in a car accident in early October. Since that tragic day, the families on Groote have been gripped by sorrow as the funeral ceremonies took place one after the other. It is a tragic event that lingers in the hearts and minds of not just the families of the young people who died, but all the people involved with the attempt to try to help at the crash site and, then, try to allay the fears of loved ones unable to control their sorrow.
What I see here is a remarkable story of professional dedication, team work, and care and compassion for one another. I have asked members from the Alyangula Police, the mining company GEMCO, the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Angurugu Health Clinic to allow me to tell their story of that event to the House in an effort to pay tribute to all the people involved. I quote firstly from a letter from the Anindilyakwa Land Council manager, Richard Preece:
- On Tuesday 7 October 2008, the Chairman of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, Tony Wurramarrba, told staff how he was concerned about the number of young people who had
been driving at Angurugu without a licence and how the police needed to visit to deal with it. But it was too late. Very shortly after, he heard there had been an accident and
left to find out what had happened. He was devastated to find out how serious the accident was, discovering that one of the victims was his grandson. It was the day before his
18th birthday.
Needless to say the whole Groote Eylandt community was in a state of shock and the emotional and economic costs have been huge. The accidents sucked all the energy away
from the community with relatives returning from far and wide to share the grief and take part in the funeral and ceremonial activities which had been needed on a large scale.
Whilst the community has felt huge grief, its effect was to pull distant families together to support each other and help each other cope with what had happened. It has been far too
difficult to understand why the accident occurred.
The Chairman of the Anindilyakwa Land Council, Tony Wurramarrba, has written to the Police, Health staff and GEMCO’s emergency people thanking them for the very professional
job they did after the accident.
…
- The community would like all members of the Legislative Assembly to note how appreciative they are of the help received by emergency workers after the accident.
I also have a letter here from the nurse, Jenni Langrell from Angurugu clinic. She had this to say:
- I would like to highly commend the Groote community members on how supportive they were to Health staff, Police and GEMCO personnel during the recent tragic MVA on
7 October 2008.
This was an extremely stressful time for all concerned and a high level of cooperation between all community members and personnel involved in the recovery process was
highly commendable.
A number of families showed extraordinary levels of support to each other and to those of us who were providing care. A united community presence was clearly visible and
should be recognised.
While I understand the accident is the subject of a police investigation on behalf of the NT Coroner, I share the thoughts of NT Police Superintendent, Colin Smith, responsible for the Northern Operational Service Division based in Katherine, which also includes Alyangula Police Station. He was able to compile these words for me tonight:
- A file will be provided to the Coroner in due course. For that reason I will confine my comments to the specific issue that I wish to raise here today. That is the significant efforts of a
number of people from government and non-government agencies that worked together to respond to what can only be described as a horrific and tragic accident that occurred
near Angurugu on Groote Eylandt at about 1.30 pm on Tuesday, 7 October 2008. The accident resulted in the deaths of four young people.
Ben and Bryonie Hegerty were driving home after a day out when they came across a distressed young Aboriginal woman on the Emerald River Road. At about the same time they
saw the female on the road, they saw the crashed vehicle on its roof. Ben Hegerty immediately attempted to free two trapped occupants from the vehicle, while Bryonie took the female
to the Angurugu Health Clinic. Ben smashed a window on the vehicle in order to gain access to the persons trapped inside but was unable to free anyone. A four-wheel drive vehicle
containing a number of Aboriginal persons also arrived at the scene. These persons became quite distressed and one of the females in the vehicle fainted. Ben ensured the female
who had fainted was okay before he enlisted the help of one of the males to assist him but all of the people became so distressed to the point whereby they left the scene.
Four members from GEMCO’s Security and Emergency Team, SERT, John Wheelock, Steve Muir, Peter Searle and Adam Smith, then arrived at the scene and immediately commenced
attempting to free the trapped people.
NT Police Officers, Matthew Allen, Glen Chatto and ACPO Betty Herbert attended a short time later followed by Senior Sergeant Lee Morgan and Sergeant Shane Arnison. Two additional
police officers, Sergeant Kevin Paice and Martin Metcalfe were sent to the Angurugu Health Clinic to assist with a large gathering of community residents who were clearly distressed
over what was unfolding. The police officers that attended Angurugu Clinic later stated that they were impressed with the professionalism displayed by the clinic staff in what were
incredibly difficult circumstances.
GEMCO’s community relations staff Wayne O’Neill and John Hansen also attended the scene along with GEMCO’s OH&S manager, Craig Parrick. GEMCO arranged for a crane to attend
the scene to free a trapped person and provided lighting, refreshments and general support for all.
Senior Sergeant Lee Morgan later made the comment: ‘Thankfully police, health and SERT are not often required to work together in incidents such as this one. However, it was reassuring
to witness the professionalism and cooperation of all people involved’.
And I finish with a personal account from GEMCO’s John Hansen who is also Groote’s first school-based police constable, prior to joining GEMCO recently:
- ‘The 7 October 2008 is a day that will remain with a lot of people. I remember hearing about the incident and being indecisive about whether to make our way to the site or not, wondering if
we would be of any use to anyone. The decision was made. I remember getting to the scene. I have driven to many like it but never a scene involving people I knew. The devastation was
obvious from the moment of our arrival: upturned car, Aboriginal families waiting in the wings behind the roadblock, ambulance and police on hand doing what had to be done. I remember
feeling the tension in the air. The first news: two dead, ambulance gone with the first load to the clinic, crane coming to lift the car out to move the roadblock back. That was the first three seconds.
I remember ACPO Betty crying in my arms and trying to fight back the tears myself. I remember Constantine and his family nearly going crazy not knowing who was hurt and who was dead.
Constantine telling me he was going to run amok if he did not find out soon. We were starving for information.
I remember telling Constantine that Lee had been given permission and that he would be able to have a look at one of the people who had died. Only one as the injuries to the other was so
great it would be a shock to see him. I remember Constantine promising he would be good and him saying how grateful he was. After the viewing I remember Constantine crying on my
shoulder telling me: ‘John, it is my brother, it is my brother’.
- I remember walking back to the others, Constantine breaking the news and the grief sweeping through the families like a wave, tears and wailing following it. I remember trying not to cry.
I knew this boy, I knew what his smiling face looked like. I could remember him. I remember being with the families at the health clinic. I remember the grief and the heartache of the
families. I remember feeling proud of the people showing so much control in such a difficult situation. I was so proud of them. My colleagues were so kind and thoughtful, genuinely trying
to do their best on every occasion – meals, a helping hand, reassurance, nothing was too much trouble.
And Jenny, what leadership! – controlled, compassionate, a true leader. She kept the lid on a very trying situation providing the information that was the trump card. Wisdom is a wonderful
thing. I remember looking at the faces of people I know well, the pain and suffering so visible. How do you console someone with so much grief? Was just being there enough? I remember
the morning after the land council. People so grateful for so little; still in shock, heartbroken but resilient. That spirit would not be broken. Those who were there will always remember the
7 October; two cultures standing side by side in grief, working together displaying a sense of community that would be the envy of any town’.
In my final minutes I wish each and every member of the House a happy and safe Christmas ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: To my understanding, there is no quorum required in the debate.
Ms Scrymgour: There is no quorum in adjournments. What do you mean there is? I thought that it is normal convention.
Mr Tollner: You threw convention out the window.
Ms Scrymgour: We know why you are doing it.
Mr Tollner: Out of the window. And decency and everything else.
Ms Scrymgour: Some of us do not drink, we are actually here.
Mr Tollner: And decency and everything else.
Ms Scrymgour: Unlike you guys.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura made an unparliamentary comment. I ask you to get her …
Ms Scrymgour: What was unparliamentary about that? What did I say?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard the comment. It was an unparliamentary comment and I ask the member to withdraw.
Ms Scrymgour: What did I say?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going to repeat it here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now have a quorum present. Member for Fong Lim, I did not hear the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura made an offensive comment to me. I heard it quite clearly across the Chamber. I ask you to ask her to withdraw that comment, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was just asking what the unparliamentary comments were that I was making. If there was anything that I said you thought was offensive or unparliamentary, I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura. Member for Arnhem, you have the call.
Ms McCARTHY: I wish each and every member of the parliament a happy and safe Christmas with your families. I look forward to next year. Many of us probably need some time out now with our families and friends for the Christmas break.
I say a special thank you to Charles in my electorate office whose dedication to the people of Arnhem is just outstanding. To my staff here - Jacki, Fred, Carly and Tania - you guys are just fantastic. We have come a long way in a very short time.
To the Legislative Assembly staff, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, the Table Office - Annette, Steven and Gaddy – thank you and I sincerely wish you all a happy Christmas. To Hansard - Helen and all your team - you are just wonderful. I wish you a happy and safe Christmas. Also to our other parliamentary staff - Tony and Owen, who is always waiting when I arrive in the car park, as he is for everyone, and Errol – I wish you all a wonderful and safe Christmas. To the drivers, thank you very much for the work you do in taking us where we need to go.
I thank my colleagues and wish each and every one of them a happy and safe Christmas, and look forward to seeing you all in the New Year. I also thank my husband and my sons, who are just wonderful. We could not really do this job without the support of our families. To my sisters and all my people in the Gulf Region, the Yanyuwa, Garawa, Mara and Gudanji peoples, I sincerely take them with me wherever I go, and I know they strengthen me in my travels across Arnhem. To all my constituents in Arnhem, I wish you all a happy and safe Christmas.
___________________
Distinguished Visitor
Damien Ryan – Mayor of Alice Springs
Distinguished Visitor
Damien Ryan – Mayor of Alice Springs
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I try in this very last adjournment debate - or decent adjournment debate we have left in time - to capture the Christmas spirit which is about to capture us all a little. I have to thank Donna Mahoney of Dundee Downs who e-mailed this to several members. With the indulgence of members, I wish to – well, I suppose I have to sing the e-mail into the Parliamentary Record to endeavour to convey exactly what she was trying to say. I hope honourable members can forgive me for what I am about to do to their eardrums. In the spirit of Christmas, in the spirit of what Donna has offered to us and, in the hope of at least allowing a little levity in this House after not long and difficult, but short and difficult day. Here we go.
- On the first month of Hendo, the public said to me:
A gang fight on every street.
- On the second month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Two hospitals wanted and
A gang fight on every street.
On the third month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted and
A gang fight on every street.
On the fourth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted and
A gang fight on every street.
On the fifth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted and
A gang fight on every street!’
On the sixth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
On the seventh month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
On the eighth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Eight generators roaring,
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!’
On the ninth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Nine councils stressing,
Eight generators roaring,
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
On the tenth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Ten reviews daily,
Nine councils stressing,
Eight generators roaring,
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
On the eleventh month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Eleven ministers waiting,
Ten reviews daily,
Nine councils stressing,
Eight generators roaring,
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
On the twelfth month of Hendo, the public said to me:
Twelve problems brewing,
Eleven ministers waiting,
Ten reviews daily,
Nine councils stressing,
Eight generators roaring,
Seven suburbs blacked out,
Six drunk drivers nightly,
Five times the debt,
Four prisons needed,
Three promises daily,
Two hospitals wanted, and
A gang fight on every street!
Merry Christmas, Hendo!
Mr Henderson: Thank you, John.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is our last week of sittings for 2008 and December is approaching quickly. I still have not bought presents for underneath the Christmas tree, or signed my Christmas cards, but I take this opportunity tonight to wish a number of people all the best for the season and thank them for their support this year.
It has been a big year in the electorate of Fannie Bay. We said goodbye to a great public servant, the former member, Clare Martin. She was a valuable mentor. I know there are many people in the electorate who join with me in wishing her all the best, not just for Christmas and the New Year, but for the new challenges she has ahead of her as the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mr GUNNER: They are challenges of significance to the Territory …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Fannie Bay. Member for Fong Lim?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We have a quorum present. You have the call, member for Fannie Bay.
Mr GUNNER: They are challenges of significance to the Territory, and I know Clare will always have the interests of the Territory at heart.
Speaking of the heart, I thank my mum. Everyone in the Chamber knows Mum. The Clerk keeps her very busy and, as members of the Chamber can understand, Mum, with respect to her job, could not help me during the campaign. However, her support and confidence in me over the years have been crucial to me being where I am today, and I thank her very much.
I also thank my sister, Rebecca, with her daughter, Ava, under one arm, who is the hardest working campaign worker I have ever met. She was amazing. Quite genuinely, without her support, tasks such as letterboxing, setting up stalls, organising volunteers, making sure I had not forgotten anything I said I would do, and more, would not have been done. Thanks, Rebecca.
You do not have to look far to see where my sister got her hard work ethic from. Both my parents know the meaning of hard work. My dad took time off from his job, jumped in a car and headed up the track from Alice and did some serious hard yards in that last week; doing those grunt jobs that just needed to be done, and I thank him very much.
There are not many glamorous jobs in a campaign; it is just a lot of hard work. One of the hardest jobs is letterboxing. Letterboxing is one of those campaign tasks that needs a team of people prepared to get out there after work, with kids on the weekend, often in the heat of the day, dodging dogs, trying to find the letterboxes half the time. It is amazing how often a letterbox is not where you think it should be.
I thank Anna, Bev, Chris, Kayla, James, Cathy, Simon, Bear, Clare, Colleen, Fiona, Graham, Zinta and James, Jane, Jenny, John, Maria, Michael, Nicole, Bethany, Heather, Monica, Steve, Sam and Ellie, Pippa, Rachel, Dan and Kate, Bec, Sam, Tiff, Trish and Tony, Beth and Paul for consistently being there every time we had important information we wanted to get out to people in Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park. You did a great job. Even my opponent took time out from the campaign to acknowledge the hard work they were doing.
There are a number of others I also want to thank. Jenny almost did too much work. I started to feel guilty towards the end. She is indefatigable. She and Mark were incredibly reliable and you cannot ask anything more from a volunteer. Yet, Jenny also brought to the table undeniable quality. She was a rolled gold vollie. Annette was a source of great support. She always had a cheerful word and excellent advice. Sue spoke well on issues that were important to her, to Stuart Park and to education; she was a great help.
The Neve and Grace families – well, to be honest, I feel like they are my family - I thank very much. Trevor and Gail who treated me as family. Simon and Claire, Sam and Abby were troopers, always there to lend a hand, a word of advice, support, or a cold drink. Never underestimate the importance in a campaign of a cold drink. Doc and Zee’s careers have, unfortunately, taken them down south. You will be missed. Monica, John and Helen were supportive and informative; they are long-term residents with much corporate knowledge and credibility. Rob and John were always available to talk with. They always had sound counsel on some of those things you just do not think of until you are a candidate. David and Pippa were unwavering in their support, from a long way out. They live just around the corner from me, and I remember many nights after doorknocking I would drop past their place for a quiet chat. I assured them it had nothing to do with whether I felt like cooking that night. They were two of the people who kept me on track and grounded as a candidate. Alf was another. Alf starts work very early in the morning. His calls of support could almost be used as an alarm clock. His advice and experience was critical also in keeping me on track and grounded.
I also thank Travis, Sarah, Jamison, and Lily. What I appreciated most about Trav’s help was not just that he flew himself and his family up from Melbourne but that he did not go fishing until after polling day. Anyone who knows Trav knows how much of a sacrifice that was. Trav, or as he jokingly referred to himself during the campaign, ‘the eagle’, brought with him an energy and enthusiasm that gave the campaign team a huge lift in the last week. I mention Travis in detail because after my maiden speech he e-mailed me. In part, his e-mail read:
- If fidelity to freedom of democracy is the code of our civic religion then surely Travis busting his gut for 120 hours to get me elected through his faithful service to that unwritten
commandment of being a ‘mate’ deserves at least a one sentence reference in any and all speeches.
Just one – just one is all that he wants in all speeches. Thanks, Trav. If you do not know Trav, he looks like Rob Sitch in Hollowmen.
Another who jumped the plane was Danielle Bevins-Sundvall. She was amazing. I still remember the day when she casually e-mailed me saying she was happy to take some leave, fly up from Sydney and help out if I could use her. Friends like that are gold. Like Trav, she brought a fresh sense of energy to our campaign in the last week.
I thank my electorate office, Kate Densmore. Kate was also Clare’s electorate officer and I am very lucky to have her continue on. She is hard-working, energetic and has an excellent relationship with the general community. Her work with Clare and the residents of the Ross Smith Guest House was nothing short of extraordinary. Kate continues to be extraordinary every day. I am very sorry I will be losing her in January, but I wish her and her husband, Steve, all the best as they prepare for a new Densmore to bless this world.
Clare was an excellent local member and I thank her again for her support, as I do the Chief Minister and all my colleagues in the House, and those who are part of the team who are not here this term. I was genuinely touched by their support. There are two, which is dangerous, in particular I wish to thank. Ken Vowles our candidate for Blain, and Justine Luders-Searle, our candidate for Nelson. They took on very hard jobs and they did it with energy and enthusiasm. I am sure other members will understand that knowing they were out there working hard and that everyone here was working hard, made it easier for me to head out every day and get on with the job.
There are also a number of friends, family and colleagues interstate who were generous in their support during my campaign. Once the campaign ends though, the real work starts and I commend the professionalism of the Legislative Assembly staff in their assistance. I am sure all members would agree with me that we are very fortunate to have such excellent support from them when we are sitting.
To the Table Office - Graham, Steve and Annette; the committees - Terry, Pat, Robyn, Kim, Lauren, Diana and Jan; the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk and everyone in Hansard deciphering what we say: Helen and her team do a great job. To those who help settle us in: Greg Connors whose phone must ring off the hook - and what a moustache he has at the moment. I congratulate him on that and Gracey and Vish who are also growing fantastic moustaches for a very good cause. I thank Vicki Long and Brian Cook, Mary-Anne Almond, Eva, Alice and Parliamentary Services staff; Tony and Errol from Technical Services; Carmel, Stephen and Jo in Building Services; and those in Parliamentary Education. Also Sam, Esther and all the security officers.
There are others around the place, the Warhorse, Ryan, Frank and Vim. I sincerely hope I have not forgotten anyone there. I am sure I have. I wish them and all my colleagues the best over Christmas and New Year. I know we will all spend most of that time working, but I hope we have some time to relax with family and friends. I hope you all have a safe festive season.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will be very quick. I wanted to thank a few people and wish everyone a merry Christmas. It has been a big year this year, my first full year in parliament, and we had an election. I am pleased to have retained the health portfolio. I know there has been some rigorous debate on the other side - particularly between me and the Health Minister. I know I cannot draw attention to the presence or non-presence of people in the Chamber, but I would like to walk over there and shake his hand and say no hard feelings, have a good Christmas. We might see him upstairs for a drink, anyway. He has a very tough job, I know. That does not diminish the way we feel about the job that he has done this year. We still stand by that but it is not about him personally. Merry Christmas to the Minister for Health.
I thank the electorate of Greatorex which returned me this year. The privileged position I have representing the people of Greatorex and, indeed, the broader Alice Springs and Central Australian community is a fantastic job. It is great to be back in the job after the election in August. I thank everyone there.
I thank the local branch of the Country Liberals for all their support, headed by Michael Jones and the gang. My electorate officer, Karen Berry, who is in Darwin at the moment for our electorate officers training and our Christmas party tomorrow, merry Christmas and thank you for the great support over the course of the last 18 months. Also, the relief staff, Jan Burren and Sharon. Thank you to those girls as well for the work they do for me, and on behalf of the people of Greatorex.
The opposition staff: Terry Mills, the Leader of the Opposition has done a fabulous job this year leading this team. We have now a strengthened side of 11 and he has done a terrific job. I know he is very well-respected in the community and has the support of everyone in the parliamentary wing and the staff. The Chief of Staff, James Lantry, Greg Charter, Cam and everyone else in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, thank you so much for all your help this year.
Of course, I thank my family, my wife, Elara, for her support. Everyone has said the similar thing: that we cannot do this job without the support of our family and, particularly, our spouses. So, thank you to Elara for your support, and I am looking forward to more of it. There will be more required. I look forward to spending time with her over Christmas.
I am grateful to my immediate family; that is, my parents and my sister, Kim, and my niece and nephew, Ben and Jessie, and all my family and friends for all their support. I am thinking of you this Christmas. While they are in Brisbane, I will be here in the Territory.
I thank the Legislative Assembly staff for all their help, not only this year but particularly over the course of the last 18 months. Since I was first elected last year in the by-election, they have done a terrific job. Perhaps I got a little extra special treatment last year because I was the only new member, as opposed to the whole stack of new members who have come in since this election. It was great to have that one-on-one attention. They have shown me the ropes. To the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and everyone else in the Legislative Assembly, I appreciate all your help. I am looking forward to working with you again in 2009.
I wish everyone a very merry Christmas - all my parliamentary colleagues on this side and everyone on the other side. That is everyone in the Legislative Assembly – 25 of us. As I said, I suppose we can extrapolate those comments about the Minister for Health to everyone. We do go hammer and tongs and, sometimes, things get heated. Sometimes, we like each other and, sometimes, we do not like each other so much but, at the end of the day, we are only people and we all deserve respect for just being people. Merry Christmas to everyone here. To the Minister for Health, no hard feelings, but I know we will fire it up again next year. If we can just try to not take things too personally, I am sure we will better serve the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to doing that again in 2009.
Things can only get better for the Territory, I hope, with a revitalised and invigorated opposition and, indeed, a government that is committed to doing so much. Merry Christmas to everyone. Please drive safely. Do not drink and drive. Let us see if we can make the road toll for 2009a lot better than it has been this year. Have a safe and merry Christmas.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I join with the member for Greatorex; I agree with him. The opposition does have a role and we do need to have robust debate. I wish him, his wife and all of the opposition members and their families a merry Christmas and, hopefully, a safe New Year. Enjoy that time with your families, because it is an important time.
I feel I have to respond to a few things, particularly about the debate that is raging about bilingual teaching. In the period since I became Education minister, I have taken it to Cabinet which has endorsed the policy initiative which seeks to change the way we do education business in remote Indigenous community schools. The policy initiative is called Transforming Indigenous Education, and entails a broad range of measures including measures aimed at addressing poor attendance. These changes have not been conceived and developed with a view to disrupting or undermining the nine so-called bilingual or two-way learning schools. However, because of the proposed standardised content of the first four hours of classroom course work, the nine bilingual schools will, inevitably, be significantly affected.
I am deeply aware of the concerns people in many communities serviced by the nine bilingual schools are feeling about the changes, and I have spent some time in the recent past and present talking to Aboriginal people from those communities, especially Aboriginal people employed at relevant schools. I have sought to allay those concerns by providing accurate information as to the nature and scope of the changes. That is something I will continue doing well beyond the beginning of next year.
The policy decision to proceed with Transforming Indigenous Education has been made on the basis of evidence available from many different sources, of which academic reviews conducted on the basis of small samples comprise only one. I am absolutely convinced, as are my Cabinet colleagues, that educational outcomes have been deteriorating out bush for many years, including in the communities serviced by bilingual schools. Maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option. I am committed to introducing and implementing changes that can equip Indigenous kids from remote Territory communities with something approaching the same set of educational skills and capacities as kids who have attended schools in the main Australian population centres.
The achievement of national educational benchmarks and the completion of high school may not, of itself, be a golden bullet in getting real jobs for our young people but, without that minimum standard of achievements, they have little or no chance of meaningful career advancement - whether it is in public or private sectors. I will stand to be judged in future years for the policy initiative which I have developed and which Cabinet has endorsed.
I will accept that judgment in due course, but it galls me somewhat to be attacked for things that have been recently attributed to me or this government that do not form part of the policy initiative. The introduction into the current debate of such false claims seems to be a deliberate strategy by individuals who are wedded to a particular educational paradigm, and their effect is to obfuscate and distort the real issues at stake.
The first misrepresentation is that I have decreed only one hour of non-English teaching, which will be permitted to take place in the afternoon of any school day. I have never said that and it runs completely counter to my sincere and wholehearted commitment to maintaining and strengthening regional Aboriginal languages. My actual position is that I seek to encourage schools to run Aboriginal language classes for as many hours in the afternoon as the students and staff are willing to hold them. I welcome flexibility in these arrangements, and the involvement of members of the community with recognised skills and regional Aboriginal languages and knowledge of cultural matters which form part of the intrinsic subject matter of the vocabulary of such languages. The Aboriginal language class work should be structured and rigorous, and be focused on reading and writing in the child’s principal Aboriginal language.
It should also promote the incremental expansion of the child’s Aboriginal language vocabulary so as to enable detailed discussion and communication of practical and technical matters likely to be encountered in everyday modern life, as well as concepts and terminology related to traditional culture.
What I want to see happen, after detailed consultation between the department and each of the nine bilingual schools, is the development of a specific plan and policy for afternoon teaching in each school, setting out the content and duration of the classes to be taught to the extent that the duration of teaching is to exceed the normal daily classroom hours. In a Northern Territory government school, additional remuneration for the staff members involved is, obviously, a non-negotiable requirement that will be structured into the afternoon teaching plans for the bilingual schools.
The second misrepresentation is that Aboriginal teaching staff will lose their jobs as a result of the changes that are coming. My desire is, in fact, to deliver fully-fledged schoolteacher jobs to as many as possible of those Aboriginal people who are currently employed in our schools as a go-between assisting non-Aboriginal teachers to convey concepts and information to Aboriginal children whose English is not up to directly understanding all the words that come out of the non-Aboriginal teacher’s mouth.
Aboriginal teaching staff undertaking this role are to be found in both so-called English only schools, and in the nine schools that run two-way learning programs. In order for them to step up to the plate, so to speak, those who are interested in advancing their careers are unquestionably going to need further training. While most, if not all, speak their own language fluently and English reasonably well, few of them have a sufficiently profound understanding or command of English or mathematics to enable them to comprehensively and accurately interpret and translate the course content material the non-Aboriginal teacher is trying to get across. The problem is similar to the one encountered in Territory courtrooms and hospitals regarding the use of Aboriginal language interpreters. Very few of them have the usual NAATI third level minimum qualifications. For those Aboriginal teaching assistants who are up for it, I want to fast-track the upgrading of their skills so that they can be upgraded to fully-fledged teachers, gradually replacing some of the non-Aboriginal teacher positions in their community.
This process is the same as that being implemented in the Northern Territory Police Force to upgrade Aboriginal Community Police Officers to commissioned members of the Northern Territory Police Force. The training that will be required will not be available in the staff members’ home, and for each person who is prepared to leave their community for one or more periods of time to upgrade their skills, there will be a gap to fill in the school’s teaching staff. Additional Aboriginal teaching assistants will have to be recruited to fill such gaps. Some teaching assistants will not wish to undergo the pressure and the inconvenience of further training and will be content to remain in their existing role. That is fine, because conducting classes in English only is, obviously, not something that is going to miraculously happen on the first day of teaching in the 2009 school year.
Some children will still insist on speaking their Aboriginal language in class, and the non-Aboriginal teacher will experience difficulty in making him or herself understood. The Aboriginal teaching assistant role will remain vital, both in the go-between role and in trying to maintain discipline and control in the classroom, but over a comparative period of time, the non-Aboriginal teachers in the bilingual schools are going to have to dramatically increase their capacity to communicate directly with their pupils. I acknowledge as valid the criticism that there have not been enough teachers sent to remote and Indigenous communities where English is a second or third language, who have qualifications in teaching English as a Second Language. Within the budget constraints that apply to me, I will do my best to improve our resourcing of bush schools in this regard. To summarise the point, the job of Aboriginal teachers assistants are safe, but what I want to see happen for as many as possible, is for those jobs to be upgraded to fully-fledged teacher positions.
Regarding the third misrepresentation that the Northern Territory government is abandoning any commitment to the support and preservation of Aboriginal languages, let me make my position clear. I am not an assimilationist; I treasure and value the Aboriginal language and culture that has survived throughout the Northern Territory in many stages during the history of the last 200 years, despite enormous challenges and threats. In an ideal world, the Northern Territory government would have sufficient funding to provide significant resources for the preservation and maintenance of Aboriginal languages everywhere in the Northern Territory. In the real world, that is not possible and prioritised decisions have to be made.
It is very evident a small number of languages have achieved critical mass in their numbers of speakers. They are the ones which are more than just hanging on. They survive as vibrant living languages. Many of the others are atrophying from no or infrequent use. The languages that are dying are, of course, the ones most in need of expert recording and documentation so they are preserved for the future. That is the role for language centres and one-on-one research with elders. It is probably not something that can be fixed in schools. I do not confess to know the answer to this dilemma, but I will do my best as a minister to ensure that is addressed.
As regards to still actively-spoken languages, the situation appears straightforward where the great majority of people share a common language which they regard as their own. This covers the Warlpiri Triangle communities, Nguiu on Tiwi Islands and the Yolngu Matha speaking communities of Yirrkala. In all those schools, my intention is to fund and promote, for the long term, the most effective possible Aboriginal language courses to take place in as many hours as possible in the afternoon. In general, the Northern Territory government is going to be extremely reluctant to fund the production of extensive teaching material documentation in more than one language for any particular school.
The fourth misrepresentation is that our policy initiative Transforming Indigenous Education and, particularly, those parts that impact on bilingual education, is something that is imposed on us by the federal government. That is wrong. The moves by the federal government towards the standardisation of school curriculum content, in particular maths and English throughout the country, has occurred in tandem with, but independently of, the policy initiative developed by the Northern Territory government to tackle poor education outcomes in remote communities.
The fifth misrepresentation is that government’s policy initiative, in particular in regard to imposing a first four hours in English requirement on nine bilingual schools, has failed to take into account two reviews commission by the department - one which was submitted in 2005 and the other which has been recently leaked in its draft form. The authors of the 2004-05 report heavily qualified their results by reference with a very small sample size. The figures reported in the leaked draft document do not bear any meaningful resemblance to the figures which have been reported to me by the department, which I accept as reliable.
As I mentioned previously the clear story I am getting, both from the reported statistics and a range of anecdotal and other sources, is that except for an anomalous result for numeracy of Year 9, the outcomes are, at best, no better at bilingual schools than they are at so-called English only schools. There has been some selective referencing of child physiology studies. I completely accept for a child to be bilingual assists in that child’s brain development. If a child’s infant years are spent in Warlpiri, Tjirri, or Yolngu Matha speaking households, it is going to be beneficial to that child when it starts school to be taught in English. The child will, therefore, start getting used to speaking two languages from an early age.
As I have already acknowledged, it is of great importance Aboriginal children learn not just to speak their own language, but also to read and write it. That was one of Dr Marika’s great insights, and her achievements were outstanding in relation to the establishment of a program for teaching not just Aboriginal people but also Balanda, to speak, read and write her language.
The last thing I want to do is rubbish her memory by branding the program she developed. I want that program to be core education business at Yirrkala school in the second half of every school day but, just as Dr Marika saw the importance of getting her own kids properly educated in English, I want the children at all bilingual schools to get the full benefit of learning their second language - that is, English - from the beginning of their educational journey, not partway through when it is arguably too late.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas, as well. You have done a fine job. You were thrown into the deep end and you have made a great effort.
I acknowledge one of my staff members I did not get a chance to speak about in the last two nights. Alan Paton, our helper, came to me during the recent events around the exposure of the Casuarina Zone Substation. Alan has come from the electrical industry as both a worker and, more recently, from the Electrical Trades Union. Alan brought a wealth of knowledge from his technical background and also his history with the Power and Water Corporation when he was employed with them. I acknowledge his contribution to helping me through a difficult time, working with Power and Water and with the current ETU organiser, Trevor Gauld, and his membership, with getting a smooth transition and trying to build a better organisation for both the public and the workers within Power and Water. He has done a great job and I acknowledge everything he has done for me.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and pay tribute to those wonderful Territorians who have featured in the whirlwind of events that have set a life-changing experience for me in 2008.
First, I recognise, Elliot McAdam, the former member for Barkly, for my nomination and his belief in me. I recognise the members of the Barkly Branch of the ALP, especially the president, Kent Peak, and the secretary/treasurer, Kevin Diflo. I recognise all the members of the branch and their support.
To the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, from the remote cattle stations, to the communities, to the outstations, to the roadhouses, thank you very much for your trust you have placed in me to represent you in the Eleventh Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
To the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who both inspired me and encouraged me to take up the challenge; to my parliamentary colleagues, the colleagues who sit at the head of the mace. I thank you. You are known as the government of the Northern Territory. I thank the ministers of the government and the new members for their welcoming, guidance and mentoring in what will be a most successful term of government in the Northern Territory. I sincerely thank you for the wonderful cultural orientation and historical perspective of parliament, in addition to being a guiding light in a new chosen political life I have embarked upon.
To my parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House who sit at the tail of the mace. Thank you for being a robust opposition. I would like to share some advice given to me on returning to the Barkly about the robust nature of the new Northern Territory opposition. They were words of wisdom from an old political person, an astute person who reminded me that a robust opposition will make a stronger government. I thank you, members from the other side of the House, for that.
To the Department of the Legislative Assembly, thank you for a wonderful welcome. Thank you for some fantastic professional support. Thank you for a very fine induction into parliamentary life. To the House staff, Hansard, the Table Office, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk - an amazing effort and it is an amazing experience to work with you. Thank you. To the secretariat staff of the committees for your great professional support and the mentoring of a significant learning curve in the parliamentary process for both my colleagues and me.
To my family, Dawn McCarthy, thank you very much for your support as my wife and best friend. But Dawn, you must stop recruiting new members to the Labor Party. We do not have the boardroom to fit them in. To Robert, Abby and Reece in Cobar, it came as a shock. Hang on in there and enjoy the ride. To Thomas and Maria - Thomas keep moving the tonnes and Maria keep that creative edge happening. To Joseph McCarthy, I look forward to seeing you on the paddock next year. To the extended family of the McCarthys all over the country, thank you for your words of wisdom and fine support.
As a final comment for our parliamentary year, to everyone: good health and happiness to all; stay safe yet enjoy the festive season and the New Year. I look forward to seeing you all round the ridges in 2009.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016