2009-11-26
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 9.30 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I have great pleasure in announcing the Central Australian Arts Competition 2009 People’s Choice Award goes to the Living Waters Lutheran School, which will receive a cheque for $500. The artwork was completed by Year 6 student, Chad Lennon. Congratulations to the Living Waters Lutheran School. I thank the member for Braitling who has agreed to present this award to the school tomorrow.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge Year 3/4B students from Braitling Primary School, together with Miss Amanda Bond and Mrs Tracey-Lee Forester. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (Serial 78)
Bill presented and read a first time.Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I welcome the students, it is great to see them here.
I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act to enhance the existing legislation to better enable the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory to meet the objectives of the act.
The Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act was passed in 2004, with the objective of ensuring only persons who are fit and proper and who are appropriately qualified, are employed as teachers in the Northern Territory. It is the role of the Teacher Registration Board to administer the scheme of teacher registration which has existed in the Territory for five years, and also to facilitate the continuing competence of our teachers.
In the five years since the act was passed, there have been a number of developments nationally. The bill seeks to implement critical reforms identified in the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs National Framework, 2003, and the Council of Australian Governments National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality, signed in 2008. The bill also proposes a number of amendments to assist the board in its administration of the act. The changes proposed will strengthen the act, which will have a long-term benefit for students and teachers in our schools.
The bill provides for the introduction in the Northern Territory of new teacher registration categories and requirements which will support, enhance, and improve quality teaching. These new practices are fundamental to longer-term reforms, aimed at developing national consistency in teacher registration across jurisdictions, and a national accreditation system for pre-service teacher education courses. This bill also proposes important changes to the way in which the board conducts complaints and inquiries. This bill aligns the Northern Territory with other jurisdictional authorities.
First, the Teacher Registration Board will accredit initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Territory. Currently, the act does not explicitly empower the TRB of the Northern Territory to accredit pre-service teacher education programs. The act needs to be amended to ensure programs delivered by tertiary institutions in the Territory can be recognised for teacher registration purposes. This bill contains provisions to achieve the amendments necessary to support the national agenda, and to accredit home-grown initial teacher education programs. This is particularly important at a time when the education revolution aims to attract the best and brightest into teaching, and the Northern Territory must be part of this.
The second key change is this act proposes to introduce two categories of registration: provisional registration and full registration. The current legislation only allows one category of Registered Teacher. Under the provisions of this bill, new graduates will be granted provisional registration, and only experienced teachers will be granted full registration. This is an important initiative because it recognises teachers new to the profession need a period of supported induction into the profession. The category of provisional registration will also include teachers returning from extended periods of leave; teachers from overseas who have no teaching experience in Australian schools; applicants from other jurisdictions whose registration has lapsed; and teachers from New South Wales who come to us with a provisional accreditation from that state.
The introduction of this new category of registration sends a clear message that the Northern Territory places great importance on the currency of practice and ongoing professional competence of our teachers through our registration processes.
The Teacher Registration Board has developed professional standards of practice for graduate teachers and for competent teachers. These standards align with the Ministerial Council and the national framework, and they establish clear and rigorous expectations against which provisional and full registration may be granted.
The third key change to the registration procedures this bill introduces is once teachers are granted full registration, they will be required to demonstrate they have maintained their competence and professional experience as teachers as part of the registration renewal process. Under the existing provisions of the act, the board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the continuing competence of teachers. However, the board has no power to refuse to renew a teacher’s registration if the teacher pays the fee and completes the renewal application form.
The bill before members requires teachers registered in the Territory to demonstrate ongoing professional competence every five years. These new initiatives are important in ensuring not only that Northern Territory teachers are competent practitioners, but also because the bill will bring registration practices in the Territory into line with registration practices in other Australian jurisdictions and with the New Zealand Teachers Council. All other jurisdictions with regulatory authorities impose registration renewal requirements by which registered teachers are required to demonstrate ongoing competence and good character, meaning teachers maintain their professional competence and meet current standards of professional practice; it is time Territory teachers did the same.
A substantial part of this bill is made up of Part 6 of the act, which concerns the Teacher Registration Board’s inquiry and complaints function. These functions provide for the board to investigate matters which call into question whether a teacher is a fit and proper person, or is competent to teach. The proposed amendments largely correct anomalies in the current act and refine the board’s capacity to better meet the objectives of the act. The amendments include clarification of when the board may undertake a preliminary investigation into a matter brought to its attention, and when it must take the more costly option of going to a full inquiry, which must be chaired by a member of the legal profession. The purpose of amending this part of the act is to ensure an investigation of matters does not unnecessarily escalate to an inquiry, which is the case currently, owing to the ambiguity in the current legislation.
In addition, this bill extends the scope of protection from liability for relevant persons providing information to the board. This ensures the board can undertake preliminary investigations in an efficient and effective way, and safeguard those relevant persons who provide information to the board.
The community must be confident the Teacher Registration Board has powers to rigorously investigate matters of concern properly, and the teaching profession needs to know individuals who bring the profession into disrepute will be dealt with appropriately; students in our Territory schools deserve nothing less.
Finally, the House should note in refining the board’s capacity to seek additional information about teachers applying for registration or registration renewal in the Northern Territory, proper attention has been paid to compliance with privacy and information legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
For a number of years there have been concerns that conveyancing practice in the Northern Territory can operate in a way which fails to ensure prospective buyers are, at the earliest possible opportunity for optimal decision-making, provided with sufficient accurate information about a property they are considering buying.
Generally, lawyers and conveyancers will advise a buyer, if they do not have all the information about a property, they should only sign a contract which gives them an option to rescind the contract should they become aware, as a result of their own searches, of undesirable facts concerning the land or the building which would affect their decision to buy. Unfortunately, if a buyer delays signing a contract whilst they go off and do their own searches, they run the risk of being gazumped; that is, by someone who makes a higher offer for the property and signs a binding contract.
This legislation seeks to address this situation by obliging the sellers of land to make available for inspection by prospective buyers, at the time land is offered for sale, a draft contract of sale, and to disclose other relevant information concerning the property. Failure to disclose will give the buyer a right to rescind a contract, and could constitute an offence on the part of the seller. These obligations will apply in respect of the sale of most land in the Northern Territory. Land excluded, either in the act or the proposed regulations, includes: sales of units off the plan, the land in this context does not yet exist and the relevant acts have their own disclosure requirements; sales of land in a proposed subdivision, because the land in this context does not yet exist; land subject to a Crown lease containing a purpose clause requiring the development of the land; land subject to a development lease from the Land Development Corporation; and where a buyer makes an unsolicited offer to purchase the land.
The bill provides the minimum information to be available by way of disclosure to prospective buyers is: all information which can be obtained from the Land Titles Office in respect of the property, including registered encumbrances affecting the land; and details of unregistered leases and tenancy agreements.
The regulations will provide for the disclosure of further information to prospective buyers, including a building status report. In general, this report will, at a minimum, identify any inconsistencies between a building on the land and the approved drawings and identify any unapproved works. The detail of what is to be contained in this report is still being developed, but that is the general idea. The regulations will also deal with circumstances where the relevant provisions of the Building Act do not apply, as is the case in many areas of the Territory, and some other unique situations, where it may not be possible to determine whether existing buildings had to comply with the Building Act or where it is not possible to determine the status of the building.
The regulations will also provide for the qualifications of the persons who may provide a building status report. In addition to building practitioners qualified under the Building Act, the regulations will be drafted to permit other persons who have appropriate qualifications and experience, but are not formally qualified as a building certifier or building contractor, to provide a building status report. The intention is to reflect the current situation in the Territory where people with appropriate skills are able to prepare these reports.
As I mentioned, these regulations are still being finalised and officers from the Department of Justice will be working with stakeholders to ensure the wording in the regulations reflects this policy intent. The regulations will also provide an alternative to a building status report being provided. This alternative is a written warning to prospective buyers that the seller has not provided a building status report, with warnings to the buyer of the implications. This warning will be in a form approved by the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice.
This option has been included to allow a degree of flexibility, recognising there are situations where a status report may not be required by a prospective buyer, for example, where a building is to be demolished, or where the only building on land is a dilapidated old shed. There may be other situations where a building status report is not able to be obtained by a seller, for a variety of reasons. Examples include stringent time constraints or, perhaps, financial hardship. At the very least, in these situations the prospective buyer will be informed as to the possible consequences of not having the status report.
The regulations will also require that the seller provide copies of documents such as compliance certificates under the Swimming Pool Safety Act, rate notices, and information about key decisions made by a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Title Schemes Act. The regulations will also require sellers to disclose any personal knowledge they have regarding matters which may affect the land. This includes matters such as drug premises orders, flooding, storm tides, and seepage.
This bill also provides for a mandatory cooling-off period of four days for sales of residential land. In essence, buyers can change their mind in those four days and rescind the contract without suffering any penalty. However, the buyer can waive or reduce the cooling-off period if they obtain appropriate advice from a legal practitioner or a licensed conveyancing agent. However, there is no cooling-off period for purchase at an auction, or for purchases by unsuccessful bidders within two days of an unsuccessful auction.
The bill provides for a transitional period during which the new arrangements will not apply to properties listed for sale, or to contracts made prior to the commencement of the legislation.
This legislation is not intended to be for the purposes of the enforcement of the Building Act or other regulatory legislation. An owner of land has a right to sell land, even though a building may not comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Act or other legislation. Rather, the objective of this legislation is to improve the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing process for all concerned by ensuring, as far as practicable, the buyer has the same information as the seller at the earliest opportunity.
In a more perfect world, it would be useful for there to be authoritative records about buildings, including regulatory compliance, and this could be disclosed when land is being sold. However, this information does not currently exist and so, to a certain extent, this bill has to leave to the parties the decision about what other level of information is obtained regarding the building.
I note vendor disclosure legislation, in one form or another, has been in place in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales for many years. Similar legislation has been enacted in more recent years in the Australian Capital Territory. My understanding is, in those jurisdictions, it is accepted the legislation does work to achieve its objectives.
Before I conclude, I mention there has been some discussion about the practice of gazumping in the Territory. The mechanism set out in this bill is designed to give prospective buyers of property the opportunity to make a considered assessment of the property as soon as it is put on the market. This will mean buyers are not left having to make an interim arrangement, such as entering into a non-binding agreement to purchase, before they do all the prudent searches for information, which leaves them open to another prospective buyer coming forward with a higher offer. This scheme will minimise the opportunity for this sort of practice to occur by providing draft contracts of sale are prepared and available before a property can be made available for sale, and by giving buyers the minimum knowledge they might require to make a decision to enter into a binding contract of sale.
I pass my sincere thanks to the various stakeholders for their input into the development of this bill and the regulations. A number of legal practitioners, real estate agents, and other key stakeholders have spent many hours assisting the Department of Justice to refine the bill and the regulations to the stage where, we believe, we have a practical and workable solution to a problem which has been something of a thorn in the side for buyers of land in the Northern Territory for a number of years.
As a final note, I advise before this legislation commences, departmental officers will visit each major centre providing seminars on how the legislation will operate. The department will also work with stakeholders to prepare information material for the benefit of buyers and sellers.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation of tenancies in caravan and mobile home parks. It will provide long-term residents of these parks with the same level of protection and certainty other tenants enjoy. The bill also deals with a number of issues which arose as a result of a decision made by the delegate of the Commissioner of Tenancies in the matter of Holdeth Investments Pty Ltd v Lorraine Ivinson and Raymond Halliday, (the Holdeth case).
Part 2 of the bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act so it applies to caravan parks. As mentioned earlier, the aim of this part is to provide both caravan park owners and long-term residents with an appropriate level of certainty around long-term tenancies. It will give similar rights to long-term residents of caravan parks as for existing tenants of residential premises. However, despite the aim of ensuring consistency with other types of rental arrangements, there will be specific provisions relating to caravan parks, where appropriate, to accommodate the different circumstances and needs of such tenancies.
In developing these amendments, it was noted all Australian jurisdictions, other than the Australian Capital Territory, regulate caravan parks to varying degrees. Additionally, the NT has had no clearly defined framework for the regulation of caravan parks since the Caravan Parks Act was repealed in 2002. This has caused uncertainty for both residents and industry as to their rights and obligations. It should also be noted there has been public consultation undertaken around these reforms. An Issues Paper was publicly released in 2008, and the responses have informed the drafting of this bill. Additionally, there has been further targeted consultation during the drafting.
The key amendment is the one made to section 6(h). Currently, section 6(h) provides the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to a caravan or a mobile home located in a caravan park. Clause 6 of the bill amends section 6(h), so the act will apply to caravans unless the period of continued occupation of the caravan is less than 90 days.
Other amendments contained in the bill comprise modifications to the current legislation to clarify how the act applies to caravans, and to address the specific kinds of caravan park situations which differ from those which apply for ordinary residential tenancies. For example, section 24 of the act currently prohibits payments other than rent or a security deposit for the grant of a tenancy. This bill amends section 24 so it is clear a caravan park owner can require the payment of a deposit for access keys, and other devices relating to entering a caravan park or using the facilities of the caravan park. Other amendments along the same lines include those relating to the use and enjoyment of common areas and communal facilities.
Most of the provisions of the bill which are specific to caravan parks are contained in new Part 13A. The key provisions are those relating to park rules, resident’s committees, the obligations of caravan park owners, relocations, and sales of caravans on-site.
The bill permits caravan park owners to make caravan park rules. The coverage of these rules is limited to that set out in the proposed section 122C(2). They must only relate to matters such as common areas, noise, activities in the park, speed limits of vehicles, parking, motor vehicles, rubbish, pets, and structures. There is a capacity which permits regulations to be made that add matters to the list.
Each resident must be provided with a copy of the rules, and must be given notice of any changes to the rules. The Commissioner of Tenancies may, on application of a resident, order a rule is unreasonable. The Commissioner may then amend the rule to make it more reasonable.
The bill also provides for the establishment of resident committees to represent the common interests of residents. Owners will be obliged to consult with the relevant park’s committee, if one exists, prior to adding, changing, or repealing park rules.
The bill also sets out some specific obligations applying to caravan park owners, such as supplying residents with park rules and providing instructions or manuals for appliances provided as part of the resident’s premises or common area facilities. New section 122J of the act also requires caravan owners to provide 24-hour vehicular access to residents and 24-hour access to bathroom facilities.
The bill regulates situations where a park owner wants to move a resident from one caravan to another. New section 122K sets out the grounds for imposing such a requirement. Reasonable notice must be given of any such requirement; what is reasonable notice will vary in the circumstances. Thus, if the reason for the move is that of an emergency, health or safety, or for compliance with a law, the period of notice may be very short. If the move is required for the park’s development, the period of notice should be much longer.
New section 122M of the bill also provides a park owner cannot hinder or attempt to prevent the sale of a caravan. However, the resident, when selling a caravan, must tell the park owner of a proposed sale prior to the erection of a ‘for sale’ sign.
An important new provision is new section 88B which allows for a caravan park owner to immediately terminate a caravan park agreement if there has been serious misconduct by a resident. If a caravan park owner chooses this approach, rather than the more formal termination provisions under the act, he or she must apply to the commissioner within three days to have the termination validated. If the commissioner declares a termination invalid, he or she may also order the park owner to pay costs incurred as a result of the termination – for example, accommodation costs.
This is to discourage vexatious termination applications from being made and is not intended to impact on the ability of owners to make reasonable emergency terminations. This new termination process is in recognition of the particular circumstances of caravan parks. The government agrees caravan park owners require a way to be able to evict serious problem tenants more quickly than under the existing provisions of the act, which generally requires some form of prior notice. This is due to the communal nature of caravan parks and the impact a resident’s behaviour can potentially have on other tenants, their privacy, and ability to use and enjoy the premises without reasonable interference.
There was also some concern the existing notice period of 14 days for terminating fixed term tenancies was not appropriate for caravan park tenancies. Residents of caravan parks should have a longer period of notice as the particular circumstances of many of their tenancies can make moving out of a caravan park site much more difficult. It is not always just a matter of packing up and leaving, as with a house or apartment. Some caravan park residents have semi-permanent annexes and concrete sites, while others have gardens and picket fences. Accordingly, for caravan park agreements, the notice period relating to the termination at the end of a fixed term tenancy has been extended to 28 days.
The overall benefits of the proposed bill are many. The main one, perhaps, is that it will provide a clear definition of the rights and obligations of both owners and residents which can be effectively enforceable. Second, it will provide structured, clearly defined and enforceable termination provisions. This includes the new emergency termination process to allow for the immediate removal of tenants who cause serious damage or disruption in a park.
Third, both caravan park owners and long-term residents will have access to the existing complaint and dispute resolution processes under the act through the Office of the Commissioner of Tenancies. This process is free of charge. Currently, there is no formal mechanism for either the tenants or the owners to enforce their rights. For example, at the moment, if a resident damages common property, the owner must take legal action in the civil courts. Under the proposed changes, the owner will be able to access the free process where the commissioner has jurisdiction to make orders for compensation up to $10 000. On the other hand, tenants will be able to access the process if they believe their agreement has been unfairly terminated.
The Office of the Commissioner of Tenancies will be involved in a long implementation process. This will involve an education process and development of forms to assist owners and residents to understand their new rights and obligations. It is not anticipated that the act will be enacted until mid-2010. Regulations will need to be developed and drafted to underpin the new regulatory scheme, including a default caravan park agreement and the necessary forms. Further consultation on these will be undertaken prior to the commencement of the scheme.
These reforms are particularly important with the current economic climate and housing shortage. It will put long-term residents of caravan parks on the same footing as other types of tenants. The regulatory framework has been developed to try to reduce costs as much as possible, while ensuring a maximum benefit to both caravan park owners and long-term tenants.
I will now turn to the second aspect of the amendment contained in this bill: the operational amendments. The delegate’s decision in the Holdeth case was that the property agent was acting in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act, when the agent increased the tenant’s rent under a tenancy agreement using a memorandum of variation in circumstances, where the method to be used for increasing the rent was not agreed by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. This was despite the agreement of both parties to an increase of rent under the memorandum of variation. The use of memoranda of variation in this way has been a common practice of real estate agents in the NT over a number of years. A consequence of the delegate’s decision was that increased rents, paid under invalid memoranda of variation, may have been able to be claimed back by tenants from agents and landlords, even where a tenant and a landlord had knowingly agreed to the increase rent.
The delegate’s decision was the subject of an appeal to the local court. A decision in the appeal was handed down by Magistrate John Lowndes on 5 May 2009. Magistrate Lowndes overturned the decision of the delegate, finding the use of the memorandum of variation in the case in question was, in fact, valid. The case raised issues concerning equity, with the landlords having to pay compensation for breaches of the act in situations where the breach may have been agreed to by the tenant, and where the breach was in the long-term interest of the tenant. The outcome of the case is such that there is no need to amend the legislation to deal with the potential breach considered in the case.
However, the case raised a range of general issues around continued tenancies and the power of the commissioner or delegate to make certain orders. Accordingly, it is appropriate to clarify and amend the powers of the Commissioner of Tenancies, so the commissioner will be required to take into consideration the fact a tenant may have agreed to agree to a breach of the act when determining the extent of any compensation payable to the tenant. This is a modest amendment to the act, having regard to the fact section 122(3)(b) already provides that a tenant’s consent to the breach of a clause of a tenancy agreement can be taken into account.
An additional power will also be provided to the commissioner to pay the reasonable costs of obtaining a valuation, in order that a tenant may pursue a claim of excessive rent in a case which has sufficient merit. The commissioner must determine whether it is appropriate to make such a payment, and may take into account all relevant factors, including whether the tenant is financially able to cover the cost of the valuation or whether the application is vexatious.
Further amendments clarify that an initial condition report, conducted at the commencement of a tenancy, will continue to be valid for the entire length of time a tenant, or one of the tenants to the original lease, remains in occupation of the premises, even if a new lease is entered into or the original lease is extended, unless a new condition report is made. However, the amendments will ensure a landlord cannot require a tenant, whose tenancy has been, or is to be, extended, to vacate the premises for the purpose of undertaking a new ingoing inspection and preparing a new ingoing condition report.
Finally, the schedule to the bill contains miscellaneous statute law amendments as identified by Parliamentary Counsel. These only address minor technical matters.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the students in the gallery. We have Years 5 and 6 from Sadadeen Primary School, together with their Assistant Principal, Ms Wendy Haynes, and teachers, Mrs Heather Lysaght, Ms Lonia Mitchell, Ms Lauren Barrett, and ISAs, Mr Stephane Theriault and Ms Lynne Bielefeld.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Supreme Court Act in order to formalise a practice which has developed within the Supreme Court whereby the master, a registrar, or judges have acted as mediators in civil proceedings, usually at the request of both parties.
The Supreme Court Act currently does not specifically provide for the master, a registrar, or judges to act as mediators in Supreme Court proceedings. However, a practice has developed whereby judges have mediated matters, often resulting in a settlement.
The use of mediation benefits both the parties to a civil proceeding and the court. Most mediations run for less than a day, which results in considerable savings of time and costs for parties and the courts. Furthermore, even if mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator is often able to mediate elements of a case, resulting in shorter, more efficient trials, and savings of time and costs for both the parties and the court.
The bill also amends the Supreme Court Act, to ensure judges, a registrar and the master, and those persons participating in mediation, are provided with the same privileges, protection, and immunities under the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act when they are acting as mediators or are involved in a mediation, as is provided to them during civil proceedings in the Supreme Court.
The Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act provides that a member of the court, being a person who, either alone or together with others, decides cases brought before the court, incurs no criminal or civil liability for: exercising judicial powers; or, exercising administrative powers assigned to them in their judicial capacity; or, as the holder of a judicial office.
The Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act also provides that a person who participates in proceedings before a court or an administrative tribunal as a witness or representative incurs no civil or criminal liability for an honest and temperate statement, or an act in the course of that participation. However, the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act does not specifically provide such protection in circumstances where proceedings are mediated.
The bill, therefore, amends the Supreme Court Act to provide that judges, a registrar or the master, and those persons participating in mediation, are appropriately protected when mediating matters.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the trade measurement legislation and establish transitional provisions for the transfer of trade measurement functions to the Commonwealth and consequential amendments.
On 13 April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed to the establishment of a national system of trade measurement funded and administered by the Commonwealth. This decision was part of a national reform agenda to establish a seamless national economy to boost productivity and deliver better services to the community. The Northern Territory government welcomes the substantial progress made on the COAG reform agenda across business regulation and competition, and this bill delivers on one of those reforms.
Administration of trade measurement by the Commonwealth will commence on 1 July 2010, and transitional provisions have been developed in consultation with states and territories. The Commonwealth regulator will be the National Measurement Institute in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
The Commonwealth will be making offers of employment to officers currently employed by the states and territories in the regulation of trade measurement. Commonwealth, state and territory officials are working together on the transitional arrangements, including facilitating the transfer of staff and resources for the operation of the new national system.
The states and territories also agree to transfer to the Commonwealth specialist equipment and information used in administering trade measurement regulation. The legislation will repeal the Trade Measurement Act and the Trade Measurement Administration Act and make transitional provisions and consequential amendments.
The related Trade Measurement Regulations will expire once the acts are repealed. From 1 July 2010, the Trade Measurement Provisions in Commonwealth legislation will prevail over current state and territory trade measurement laws. To avoid legislative confusion and unwarranted duplication, the Northern Territory legislation should be repealed.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
You may recall, as part of a national project to reduce payroll tax compliance costs for businesses, the government introduced a new Payroll Tax Act 2009, which commenced on 1 July 2009. This new act is almost identical to the payroll tax legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and is consistent with Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
In keeping with the principle of harmonisation, all states and territories have announced they will be introducing new nexus rules for imposing payroll tax on wages paid to employees performing services in more than one state or territory in a calendar month. The Payroll Tax Amendment Bill 2009 gives effect to this, and follows a media release which I issued on 1 July 2009. As agreed between all states and territories, these amendments will be taken to operate from 1 July 2009. This ensures all jurisdictions have the same taxing nexus, so employers do not become liable for tax on the same wages in more than one state or territory.
However, until the Administrator’s assent is declared, employers are not required to submit returns based on the new rules. To alleviate any possible issues in the transition to the new nexus rules, taxpayers will be permitted to make any necessary changes as part of the annual adjustment process at the end of the 2009-10 financial year.
Under the new payroll tax nexus rules provided by the bill, where an employee provides services in more than one state or territory in a calendar month, payroll tax is to be paid to the state or territory in which the employee’s principal place of residence is located, this is instead of where the wages are paid, which is the nexus currently.
The place where wages are paid is usually determined by reference to where the employee’s bank account is located. Imposing payroll tax under the current nexus rule is problematic, outdated, and inequitable. Electronic commerce and centralised bank processing have resulted in accounts being located in jurisdictions which have no link to where an employee works or where an employer is based. This is inequitable, and causes problems for employers in complying with payroll tax legislation. Employers are often unaware of the location of the account where the wages of each employee is deposited.
The possible situation where an employee instructs an employer to deposit his or her wages into two different accounts is also problematic. Technically, this may result in the employer being liable to payroll tax in more than one state or territory and, yet, the employer may not be trading there. Moreover, if the Payroll Tax Act 2009 were administered in this way, ensuring payroll tax is paid to the correct states or territories, would place a significant red tape burden and compliance cost on both employers and the government.
Where the employee does not reside in Australia, under the new nexus rules, payroll tax is to be paid to the jurisdiction where the employer is located. The new nexus rules also provide for the unlikely event both the employee and the employer are not based in a state or territory.
Further details of the nexus rules are set out in the accompanying explanatory statement. Importantly, there is no change to the nexus applying where an employee provides a service wholly in one state or territory in a calendar month. This would be the case for the majority of employees. This nexus works well, and payroll tax will continue to be payable to the Territory for employees working in the Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill makes minor consequential amendments to the Mining Act. These amendments are a result of the Commonwealth introducing legislation relating to mining royalties for uranium and other prescribed substances in the Northern Territory. The bill proposes to amend the Mining Act to ensure existing provisions in the act, dealing with prescribed substances, support the Commonwealth’s new uranium royalty scheme. Unlike the other states, uranium in the Northern Territory is owned by the Commonwealth. Accordingly, royalties on this uranium are derived by the Commonwealth. It is important for there to be consistency between the Commonwealth and Territory legislation relating to royalties in respect of uranium mined in the Territory. This is because any inconsistency between the new Commonwealth legislation and the Territory legislation could render the Territory legislation inoperative to the extent of any inconsistency.
The Mining Act makes provision for any Commonwealth agreement which relates to the payment of royalties on uranium. One aspect of the new Commonwealth scheme is that it is not to apply to the Ranger Mine and for the Commonwealth’s royalty agreement with Ranger to be grandfathered. Accordingly, the amendments reflect this position in the Territory’s legislation as well as acknowledge the royalty arrangement for any new mines will be set by the Commonwealth’s Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009.
Although the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources has general responsibility for the Mining Act, these amendments form part of the royalty arrangements which apply in the Northern Territory, which fall within my responsibilities as Treasurer. Nonetheless, these amendments have been prepared in consultation with the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to apply the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the national law) as a law of the Northern Territory to implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, (the national scheme) in the Northern Territory to: declare the responsible tribunal for the Northern Territory for the purposes of the national law; and to make consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act.
The principal objective of the national law is to protect the public by establishing a national scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and students. Arrangements under the national scheme will: help health professionals move around the country more easily; reduce red tape; provide greater safeguards for the public; and promote a more flexible, responsive, and sustainable health workforce.
The national scheme was a recommendation of the Productivity Commission, which undertook, at the request of the Australian government, a research study to examine issues impacting on the health workforce including the supply of, and demand for, health workforce professionals and propose solutions to ensure the continued delivery of quality healthcare over the next 10 years. The commission’s report recommended a national scheme to deal with workforce shortages and pressures faced by the Australian health workforce, and to increase their flexibility, responsiveness, sustainability, mobility, and reduce red tape.
The national scheme is to be fully implemented by 1 July 2010, as set out in the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, signed by the Council of Australian Governments on 26 March 2008.
The implementation of the national scheme is relying on the national law, which is given effect by an act of the host jurisdiction, in this case, Queensland, which is then adopted and applied as a law of, and by, participating jurisdictions. The national law has been designed to facilitate the full implementation of the national scheme, consistent with the COAG agreement and the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council; a decision made following the significant consultation on implementation of the national scheme.
The national law is being implemented in three stages, with the first stage being achieved through the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008 (Qld), known as Bill A, which established the structural elements and entities, and enabled development of the national scheme. Bill A commenced from 25 November 2008.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009, (Qld), known as Bill B, represents the second stage. The national law, as set out in the schedule to Bill B, includes the full functions of the national scheme and will become the national law when it is passed into an act.
Bill B was tabled in the Queensland parliament on 6 October 2009, and it was passed unchanged into law by the Queensland parliament on 29 October 2009. Royal Assent was given on 3 November 2009.
The National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy commits jurisdictions to achieve key milestones in relation to the COAG agreement for the national scheme. To be eligible to receive its share of reward payments under the NPA, the Northern Territory must enact referencing legislation by the end of 2009.
Subject to introduction, debate, and passage of Bill B by the Queensland parliament, participating states and territories have been introducing, for debate in their parliaments, adopting or corresponding legislation known as Bills C. Bills C are to apply the national law as the law of that jurisdiction or, in the case of Western Australia, introduce corresponding laws to achieve the same effect. This represents the third stage of the legislation and is consistent with the NPA and COAG agreement to enable the national scheme to be fully implemented on 1 July 2010.
Subject to the passage of Bill B, some jurisdictions are progressing the consequential amendments needed to fully implement the national scheme, and to repeal existing, and relevant, health practitioner registration legislation through a staged approach to their own Bills C. The Australian government may also progress amendments to its legislation, in a Bill C, to support implementation of the national scheme. However, the Australian government will not need to adopt or apply the national law.
This bill is the adopting legislation for the Northern Territory, and will enable the Northern Territory to meet its obligation under the NPA. It is intended to introduce an amendment to this bill, in early 2010, to progress the consequential amendments and transitional provisions needed to fully implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory. This second stage will allow extra time to conduct consultations, on the consequential amendments and transitional matters, to ensure proposals for the Northern Territory are supported by local stakeholders.
The national scheme will initially apply to 10 health professions, as follows:
the nine health professions registered in each state and territory - medical, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dental (including dentists, dental prosthetists, dental therapists, dental hygienists), psychology, optometry, osteopathy, chiropractic; and
In addition, Health ministers, through the ministerial council, have included four more health professions within the national scheme. The four partially-regulated professions to be included from 1 July 2012 are: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice; Chinese medicine; medical radiation practice; and occupational therapy.
Nine Northern Territory professions will be covered by the national scheme from 1 July 2010. Aboriginal health work, occupational therapy, and radiography will join the national scheme on 1 July 2012. As of this date, the Northern Territory will not be responsible for the regulation of any health professions, and any professions seeking regulation in the future will be subject to the national scheme.
Extensive consultations, at a national and local level, have been conducted over the past 12 to 18 months. Significant changes have been made to Bill B to address stakeholder feedback and concerns including:
initial assignment of the accreditation function will be done by the ministerial council on commencement for a particular profession, after which the assignment of accreditation functions will be a matter for national boards;
The Northern Territory’s interests have also been represented throughout the process of drafting Bill B, through the Senior Director, People and Services, within the Department of Health and Families, who performed the role of Chair of the National Legislative Drafting Group.
Madam Speaker, to ensure my honoured colleagues are informed of all provisions, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), the Schedule of which is now the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, is tabled for information along with the explanatory notes for the act.
The Northern Territory is committed to upholding standards for health professions and protecting the safety and wellbeing of the community in the delivery of health services. The national scheme is a major step towards improving Australia’s health system.
This bill references the national law and is the adopting legislation to implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement and accompanying documents to the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the senior class from Wallace Rockhole School, together with Ms Maryse Turenne, Ms Angela Abbott, and Ms Melissa Powell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection Authority Act to provide the Environment Protection Authority, or EPA, as it is known, with new functions and strengthened powers.
The passage of the Environment Protection Authority Act in 2007 marked a very important moment, where the Territory’s environment protection framework came of age and we joined the rest of Australia in having a strong, independent environment watchdog.
The Environment Protection Authority Act established a new body specifically concerned with getting ahead of the curve. The new EPA was created to look at the big picture environment protection issues confronting the Territory. As set out in section 5 of the act, the EPA is tasked to:
(a) achieving best practice environmental policy and management;
Section 5 of the Environment Protection Authority Act is particularly instructive. The EPA is not a regulatory arm of government; it advises the government, industry, and the community, and is to apply the triple bottom line to its work: environment, economic and social perspectives.
Section 7 of the Environment Protection Authority Act goes further, in requiring that the EPA consult with agencies, businesses, and the community in going about its work and its advice must have regard to some very important principles and objectives including: ecologically sustainable development; sound science; best practice; consideration of regional variation; the desirability of a strong growing and diversified economy and a well informed and engaged private sector; the need to adopt cost-effective and flexible policy instruments, the need to be transparent in information availability and decision-making; and, importantly, government economic policy priorities for the Territory.
Of course, the quality of the advice and recommendations delivered by an EPA are not only determined by the matters I have already outlined, but also the manner in which the EPA can go about its business, and in this respect, the Environment Protection Authority Act is clear.
The EPA is independent from government in terms of the advice and recommendations it provides. I will, for the record, quote directly from the EPA act because there are some who would seek to portray the EPA as otherwise.
Section 8(1) of the act says:
Section 8(2) goes on to provide that:
These are the defining features of the EPA, which was created by this government. The EPA is independent in the advice and recommendations it provides. It is focused on strategic or system-wide issues, where it can make a difference, and is accountable to a set of strong principles grounded in ecologically sustainable development.
Upon the passage of the EPA act in 2007, the Environmental Protection Authority was created, and it is well and truly up and running, with a board of four very eminent people: Chair, Dr Andrew Tupper and board members, Professor Gordon Duff, Professor Donna Craig and Mrs Judith King.
The EPA has a budget in 2009-10 of $760 000. The EPA is currently undertaking three investigations: ESD principles for the Territory; a review of the Environmental Assessment Act; and a review of the regulatory framework to support sustainable development of the Darwin Harbour. All are very important bodies of work which are nearing completion, and I look forward to seeing the EPA’s advice and recommendations, as they come to hand.
Today, I introduce amendments to the EPA functions, which substantially strengthen its role. These amendments do not fundamentally change the nature of the EPA as originally created. The EPA will remain focused on the system-wide environmental issues facing the Northern Territory. However, these amendments will bring the EPA functions into a sharper focus, as the watchdog of the Northern Territory’s environment protection framework.
This incremental but important shift is made with two objectives. The first is to bring the EPA’s work into closer contact with the needs of Territorians and, second, to provide necessary oversight for the overall environment protection framework, at a time when the Northern Territory is on the cusp of major industrial expansion.
Consistent with these objectives, the amendments provide for the EPA to have three important capacities, namely: review of the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made in respect of projects which have undergone environmental assessment; evaluation of the effectiveness of the agency’s response to environmental incidents; and, third, the monitoring and public reporting of the cumulative environmental impacts from development.
These new capacities are ongoing by nature, and will be able to be exercised by the EPA without specific reference from the government or the community. In other words, these are issues the EPA is tasked to continuously keep an eye on. In addition to these capacities, the EPA will retain its current capacity to provide advice in respect of one-off investigations referred to it by the government or the community, or determined necessary as a result of the EPA’s own initiatives.
Importantly, the independence of the EPA has been further strengthened by removing the existing requirement for such investigations to conform to criteria and arrangements agreed between the minister and the EPA. Under these amendments the EPA will, for example, be able to provide advice on environmental impact statements for a major development, unfettered by the criteria and arrangements established under the existing EPA. To be clear, this may relate to some aspects of the EIS which the EPA sees fit to investigate, but it does not extend to administering the environmental assessment process; that responsibility will remain with the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
The bill also makes it clear that such advice, in respect to an active environmental assessment, can only come forward where the assessment has been directed after the commencement of these amendments. For major developments, already subject to an EIS, for example, the government is very clear business certainty demands rules are not changed during the course of an environmental assessment.
I turn now to the new ongoing capacities of the EPA established under these amendments. First, the bill provides for the EPA to be tasked with reviewing the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made after formal environmental assessment of a project has been completed. This function fills a critical gap in the current environment protection framework.
For environmental assessments of major development proposals, a proponent is required to investigate the full range of environmental risks; identify feasible alternatives to the proposal; and put forward safeguards for mitigating foreseeable environment impacts.
The government reviews the Public Environment Report or the Environmental Impact Statement, there is public comment and, on the advice of my department, I will make recommendations to the minister responsible for approving the development. These recommendations will potentially deal with matters to be addressed in approval and licences. Appropriate monitoring arrangements and further environmental work will be undertaken. These approvals and licences are many and varied and administered under a variety of portfolios. Ultimately, the success of the environment assessment depends on how well the recommendations flow through the various approving statutes. Critically, evaluating the link between the environmental assessment and the final approvals and ongoing regulation of a project can slip through the cracks.
Without regular review of the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of the recommendations made through the environmental assessment, there is potential for the assessment process to become disconnected from regulatory needs, for the community’s trust in the environmental assessment to be eroded, and for the system to deliver poorer environmental outcomes. By tasking the EPA with this function we are creating a stronger environment protection framework for the future.
Second, the EPA will be able to investigate and review the adequacy of agency responses to environmental incidents and report on improvements. This does not create a frontline pollution response function for the EPA, which will continue to reside with the respective agencies. However, if there is evidence of regulatory failure or community complaint, the EPA will be able to investigate whether the relevant processes, procedures, and laws exist in relation to the incident and, if they do, whether they have been appropriately applied. If such laws do not exist, the EPA will be able to make appropriate recommendations for the reform. This is the EPA acting as a watchdog on the environment protection system.
Of course, in some cases, there are existing processes for the review of an incidents’ response, such as what occurs after major spills in the marine environment through the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil and other noxious and hazardous substances. In such circumstances, the EPA, as a matter of course, would make itself aware of those arrangements and seek sensible arrangements to ensure any duplication is avoided, and the outcomes of established processes are taken into account in the exercise of the EPAs functions.
Third, under the bill, the EPA will be able to monitor and evaluate the cumulative impacts of development. While we have a good process for dealing with the impacts of individual development projects, it is easy to forget developments do not exist in isolation and it all adds up. At the end of the day, it is the overall condition of our environment which counts and, as the watchdog of the system, the EPA will be tasked to strategically monitor overall environmental conditions and how we are tracking.
The bill makes it clear this does not extend to monitoring undertaken for regulatory purposes. To undertake these new functions, the EPA will be given stronger powers to obtain relevant information. The bill creates new offences for failing to supply information when requested by the EPA, or supplying false or misleading information to the EPA. These offences are appropriate and commensurate with the importance of the role of the EPA.
Finally, the bill provides for the EPA to carry out its functions under improved arrangements of public transparency and accountability. Under the current arrangements, the EPA findings are to be reported publicly. The bill enhances this by requiring agencies to respond to EPA findings and for both the response and the findings to be tabled in the legislative assembly. The requirements are similar to those of the Auditor-General.
In conclusion, this bill represents the next step in the evolution of a strong EPA, which will provide leadership on environmental sustainability as we enter into a new age of industrial development across the Northern Territory. It does so, not by disturbing the existing regulatory framework delivered by various agencies, but by ensuring there is a strong watchdog on the whole system. This bill will create an EPA which is stronger, more independent, relevant and accountable to community needs. This bill creates an EPA for the 21st century.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ANZAC Hill High School Year 7 students, together with teacher, Mrs Michele Marshall and Year 7 Coordinator, Ms Mandy Hargreaves. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will give effect to the government’s commitment to adopt national model legislation for the effective management and control of risks to improve rail safety in the Northern Territory. This bill is based on the Model National Rail Safety Bill 2006 which was developed by the National Transport Commission following extensive consultations with rail organisations and rail safety regulators across Australia in 2005.
The aim of the national legislation has been to standardise and have a uniform approach to the regulation of rail safety in Australia. This approach to rail safety regulation has resulted in a model bill, which more clearly delineates the role and responsibilities of operator and regulator, which now specifically targets risk areas in rail operations, providing clarity in the chain of responsibility and, by doing so, improves the management and control of the risks associated with rail operations.
This bill also includes some provisions from South Australia’s Rail Safety Act 2007, which do not appear in the Model National Rail Safety Bill 2006. The inclusion of these provisions will help ensure the legislation operates seamlessly along the length of the Adelaide to Darwin railway.
High-profile fatal rail crashes in other states, such as at Waterfall in New South Wales, have demonstrated an ongoing need to improve upon the current rail safety legislative framework in order to achieve better safety outcomes. In addition to improvements in safety, the adoption of uniform legislation across Australia will assist both rail operators and rail infrastructure managers who carry on business across state and territory borders, as well as government agencies responsible for the regulation of railway operations. This will help reduce the amount of red tape which rail transport operators are faced with when seeking accreditation, both in the Territory and nationally.
In addition to a safety management system, rail transport operators will also be required to have specific plans for the management of security risks such as theft, assault, terrorism, and other criminal acts, emergencies, the health and fitness of their rail safety workers, rail safety worker fatigue, and alcohol and drug use by rail safety workers.
Australia has adopted a co-regulatory approach to rail safety which involves: the sharing of responsibilities for regulatory development; implementation and enforcement between industry and government; government setting performance-based obligations and specific duties necessary to achieve acceptable levels of safety; government oversight through the assessment of the capacity and competence of rail organisations to be safe; ensuring safety management systems are in place; monitoring the activities of, and safety outcomes achieved by, individual rail organisations; educating rail organisations on the way to improve safety, performance; and making rail industry participants accountable for achieving required safety outcomes, in return for allowing them the flexibility to identify and implement the most effective and efficient means of addressing risks of safety.
This co-regulatory approach will be enhanced by the provisions of this bill. In setting out the respective roles and duties of the responsible parties, the bill provides greater clarity to the function and responsibilities of the position of the Director of Rail Safety than is currently the case under our existing legislation. The safety obligations created by this bill are consistent with those contained in the Workplace Health and Safety Act which requires employers to ensure health and safety in the workplace, so far as it is reasonably practicable.
The bill allows for approval of compliance codes which will address matters such as: medical fitness assessments for rail safety workers; the management of fatigue for rail safety workers; and drug and alcohol testing programs for rail safety workers. Rail operators will be able to determine the most cost-effective means of meeting the requirements of an approved code, and their compliance with the code will satisfy certain regulatory obligations imposed on them under the legislation.
For the sake of consistency, the Northern Territory bill adopts some of the variations to the national model bill South Australia has included in its legislation. The variations are as follows: retaining the ability to appoint independent investigators to investigate and report on rail accidents or incidents; creating the power to issue a prohibition notice to someone carrying out works on land in the vicinity of a railway which threatened the operational integrity or safety of the railway; creating a power to grant exemptions; and allowing the regulator to release part of, or all, a report prepared by an operator into a notifiable incident, if the release is justified in the public interest or on some other reasonable grounds.
The bill introduces a new offence for a rail safety worker who has a prohibited drug, consistent with the Traffic Act, present in their body while carrying out rail safety work.
This bill will improve the existing co-regulatory scheme for the regulation of rail safety, and will improve the safety of rail operations and increase public confidence in rail transport safety through the imposition of a range of safety duties, by making a greater range of enforcement powers available to the Director of Rail Safety, and by strengthening the range of sanctions available to both regulators and the courts.
This bill will also provide rail transport operators with a national regulatory framework consistent with the rules they will be operating under in other jurisdictions and, in particular, in South Australia. These outcomes will benefit rail organisations and the community alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and attach a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly -
1. Adopt Recommendation No 1 of the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the 11th Assembly and the recommended changes to Standing Orders in Chapters IX and XII, as circulated to members; and
2. Note Recommendations 2, 3, and 4.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 24 November 2009.
In committee:
Proposed new clause 5A:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 29.1, standing in my name. This relates to the need to amend section 22 of the Education Act, which concerns action taken in the issue of truancy and, specifically, the issue of compulsion surrounding the question of responsibility of the parents.
Given this matter will bring in significant change, if properly implemented, not only in the expectations but in the requirements of parents, and it is not just to apply at the age of 15, cultural change must occur prior to that. If a child is repeatedly absent from school - declared a truant - and that could be five, six, seven, eight years old. At this stage I note, though there is a provision for a penalty to be imposed upon a parent who does not accept responsibility, to my knowledge there has not been a penalty applied.
This question has been asked time and time again at estimates, though the provision is there to require a penalty to be imposed upon a family or a parent who does not accept their responsibility to send a child to school, there is also the provision for a defence, which is, ‘well I tried and there is nothing I can do’. This is unacceptable because, if that defence is offered, obviously, and if it is successfully applied in 100% of the cases, where does the responsibility lodge? You lose the opportunity to bring about cultural and behavioural change at the point where it can be best applied, which is with families who are responsible for their children.
This amendment removes that defence. If a child does not attend, and if the issue is raised to the point of concern where a charge could be made and, you would assume, a penalty applied, and the defence, which is in the current section 22(5), states:
Obviously, the first place of refuge for any parents is to say, ‘well, it is very difficult and I do not know what to do and I have tried, therefore that is my defence’. That defence stands to provide protection against the imposition of a penalty on the grounds someone is responsible, you would assume the family.
If the child is not attending school repeatedly, and the issue is raised to such a level action needs to be taken, a penalty needs to be imposed and yet, there is a defence provision, nothing happens. Therefore, amendment 29.1, rather than just cut and dry with their defence or the imposition of a penalty of $200, that matter should then be referred to another agency, so that defence is removed; clearly, there is a problem which requires a response.
The agency which administers the Family Responsibility Agreements would be the agency which would determine a response. It removes the defence and ensures the central issue being parental responsibility - clearly there is a problem and, therefore, there is the opportunity, through the referral to the agency managing Family Responsibility Agreements, for an agreement to be entered into which would bring about a strengthening of the notion of responsibility, some remediation in parenting, and some requirement for behavioural change around parenting and the attendance at school.
If we do not bring measures such as this to apply, this will live in the domain of being aspirational. We will give it our shot and we will spend much money but there will not be the change we need at the required point, which is at the point of parents being assisted, if they need that assistance, a penalty being imposed if they are negligent, but some action being employed, which can occur if there is the removal of the defence like, ‘I tried and there is nothing I can do’. If that is the case, the question of responsibility moves from the ledger of the family to some netherworld and, in fact, it then sits with the state.
It is my firm conviction the state is an inefficient and ineffective body to carry that responsibility; in fact, it is improper for the state to assume responsibility in the first instance, and too quickly. We have seen through history, through time, the implementation of social policy, where the requirement is that the state, the government, and the different agencies of the government take over the role of parenting too quickly, and we end up in a place we do not want to be; we see the evidence all around us.
I urge honourable members to accept this removal of the defence is not - as in the view of some who may be sensitive to these matters who think, ‘that is a bit harsh, these poor parents tried’. What will occur then, if these poor parents tried, they will be given help at the point it is needed, because you need to get behavioural change. I believe, in the hands of families, with the proper support of agencies, there is a greater likelihood for attitudinal and behavioural change at the point you need it. Not quickly moving the parents off the scene, and saying: ‘You have tried, now the state is, in fact, the premier body’; no, the family is.
Therefore, I urge support for this amendment, the removal of the defence, and the referral of the matter of repeat non-attendance to the agency to administer a Family Responsibility Agreement.
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, before you respond, I draw your attention, honourable members, to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 and 8 students, from Araluen Christian College, who I am very pleased to see are attending school today, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs Jenny McAllan and Mr Mandla Khumalo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, in responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments, I preface my comments, by saying to the Leader of the Opposition, given the state of the parliament, and in a spirit of all wanting the same thing, we all want to improve attendance in our schools and better education outcomes from our system.
In regard to these amendments, I support the sentiment of what you are trying to do - we are talking about amending legislation, and there is significant consideration which needs to occur with the agency regarding the implication of the amendments. Are they going to effect the change you want? Are they going to introduce excessive bureaucratic and administrative arrangements on the agency?
We received these amendments late on Friday, and, I believe, had you brought them to us earlier, I would give you the professional commitment to have worked through these. We might have been able to reach an outcome which suits both of us, rather than amendments which I am going to say we cannot accept today. I will give good reasons why we cannot accept. However, I accept the intent of what you are trying to do and, I believe, we can get there another way consistent with the act, and some work we can do through regulations and cooperation.
I suppose we are, for the next two-and-a-half years, in a different position in regard to government legislation amendments coming from the opposition. My commitment to you, Leader of the Opposition, is if we get sufficient notice of amendments we will attempt a compromise, rather than trying to rush them through the parliament. At the end of the day, if amendments get up, they become law, and there are consequences we all need to be aware of as a result of that.
I am offering a spirit of cooperation. I am offering, before I make the specifics of my comments, an opportunity to sit down with the member for Nelson and the Chief Executive of the department, to see how, through other means, we can achieve the outcomes we want without specifically accepting these amendments, which are very prescriptive, and seek a way forward.
I go to the specific reasons why I cannot support the amendments put forward. If we start with compulsory attendance, at the outset, you are proposing several things. You are proposing Family Responsibility Agreements be part of the Education Act. The opposition is proposing to change the Education Act so, when a person is convicted of not sending their children to school, the matter is automatically referred by the court, through the youth justice provisions, to a Family Responsibility Agreement, which means two things. The first is a parent cannot raise the possible defence of every reasonable effort made, as is possible under the current act, and once convicted the court must refer the family to an FRA process.
Let me, in the first instance, deal with the defences. Most of us in this parliament are parents and, we believe, if a parent makes every effort to get their kid to school, by dropping them off at school, working with the school, the teachers, the principals, even marching them into the classroom and, for whatever reason within the circumstance of that family, or whatever reasons in regard to the behaviour of that child, if the child is so out of control as to refuse to stay in the school and the parent is doing everything they possibly can - you were talking of kids at the younger age, but this is to apply to all kids. If you are talking about 14, 15, 16-year-old kids, you are talking about young adults, - we all know these are difficult years for some teenagers and, despite the best efforts of the parents, some kids are going to run their own course.
We believe removing this defence of the parents making every best effort, to compel them into a court process, is fundamentally impractical, and seeking to punish parents who have done everything possible. We all know, within our families, whether it is our immediate families, extended families, or amongst our friends, there are great parents, who are doing everything they can, and the kid is off the rails. Everyone is trying to do everything they can, the kid is off the rails, and these provisions would see those parents being taken to court. We do not believe that is appropriate.
However, I share the same view in the intent of what you are trying to do. Where parents are not doing the right thing, we need to have better provisions in place to compel them to do so. We believe every parent should get their kids to school. We have undertaken significant effort to ensure parents do bring their kids to school and, once there, schools provide mechanisms to engage kids which keeps them there and improves literacy and numeracy.
We believe we need to apply the principle of natural justice through our legislation. In regard to natural justice, I believe a defence of every reasonable effort is natural justice. This is such a complex area; we do not believe you can apply black and white law. We also have to remember this legislation is extending the responsibility of a parent to a child until the age of 17. The reality of trying to compel a 16-and-a-half-year-old kid to attend school, when that young adult is refusing the direction of their parents, they may not be living at home with mum and dad - they might be couch surfing with mates or living with extended family, where the parents do not have any control over those kids - to compel those parents to attend court and explain those issues in court, we do not see it adds anything to what we are trying to do, which is to engage and keep kids in school. We believe there is a natural justice principle, where there does need to be a defence for parents who have done everything they can.
Prosecuting a parent for a child they have not had control of legally is not responsible and, at the age of 16, those young adults have certain rights. The effect of the opposition’s proposals would be to prosecute parents who had no control and are legally not responsible. On advice I have, it is also inconsistent with the principles in the Youth Justice Act.
The second issue is the Family Responsibility Agreements. I understand what the opposition is trying to do, but there is a failure to understand the process we currently engage in. At the moment, what you are saying is, the kid is not going to school, a prosecution takes place, and the judge is required to compel the parents to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement. Through our processes, we need to get to a Family Responsibility Agreement before we go to court, not after we go to court and, long before a case reaches prosecution, the government, through the appropriate agency, which is DET, the Department of Health and Families, or whoever, will have entered, or sought to enter, into a Family Responsibility Agreement with the family.
I acknowledge we need to do better in pursuing those Family Responsibility Agreements through DET, as opposed to the justice system, as a result of a kid getting caught up under the Summary Offences Act or whatever. I will talk about how we are going to do that, but DET is already an authorised agency, under the Youth Justice Act, to initiate proceedings for a Family Responsibility Agreement. We need to strengthen those processes within DET, and through our school systems, to be more proactive and to utilise the provisions which are already in place in the Youth Justice Act. I accept, and I have had discussions with the CE, schools and DET have to be much more proactive in this regard, but we need to do it before we get to court, not as a result of the court process, and, long before it reaches prosecution, we should have been through this process.
If it goes on to prosecution, it means the process has failed; the agreement would have been breached, we would have been in a court process over a Family Responsibility Order and, failing that, we would have been in court over an outright prosecution for failure to get a child to school. We have provisions under the Youth Justice Act, where DET, as an authorised agency, can seek to require a family to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement for failing to send their kids to school.
In the event there is a breach of the agreement, it can go back to the court and the court can compel an order on those parents to send their kids to school. At the end of the day, if the kids fail to go to school as a result of a Family Responsibility Order, the court can prosecute for failure to get their child to school. The provisions we already have are at the front of the process you are prescribing in your amendments. To date, the government is involved in around 40 Family Responsibility Agreements, arrangements, or in negotiations.
We have to remember Family Responsibility Agreements are voluntary, not compulsory, and are not legally binding because they are, in essence, an agreement. For the family entering into the agreement, support is provided by other government organisations. It could be the families need parenting support skills, which the Department of Health and Families would provide through positive parenting programs.
There could be issues in the family where the parent, the carers, or one of the family members in the home is suffering from drug and alcohol abuse and needs support, which is also provided as part of entering into the agreement. These agreements are facilitated arrangements, where agencies work with families with an agreed set of outcomes, which will include getting their children to school and encouraging parents to take account of the services available. If they are breached and not complied with, the agency can go back to court and seek an order.
Your amendments would see us do that work prior to getting to court, then the court would refer this back to a Family Responsibility Agreement, which we have already been through. The reality of the amendments, which the opposition has put up, would see us in an ever-revolving cycle of Family Responsibility Agreements. This is not the desired outcome, and we do not see the point of going back to a Family Responsibility Agreement which would have preceded any referral to court.
In the broader issue of attendance, the Opposition Leader made some comments. It is a number one priority in education for this government, and I agree there needs to be a real sense of urgency about attendance; it is not good enough. Serious targets have been set in the DET Strategic Plan released a couple of months ago: 80% attendance for remote schools within three years, and 90% or over for other schools. Our current attendance rates are not good enough, with approximately 65% average attendance in our remote community schools.
We need serious, strategic and high-level action to get this on track. We are going to expand the trial of the SEAM communities where non-attendance is chronically bad; this is the welfare quarantining. I have entered into agreements, and I will be making announcements, with Julia Gillard, in the not too distance future, to expand those SEAM trials to other communities across the Territory where attendance is chronically bad. We are doing some legislative work to appoint, through DET, authorised persons under section 30 of the existing act, to address truancy issues.
Currently, under the Education Act, the only authorised person who can issue a fine on a parent who is not sending their child to school is a uniformed police officer. Frankly, our uniformed police officers have better things to do than chase children and issue fines. We are going to bring back a broader definition and category of authorised persons who can issue fines, and address those truancy issues.
We will expand the number of DET staff available to pursue Family Responsibility Agreements with identified families under the Youth Justice Act. I am acknowledging, Leader of the Opposition, DET has to be more proactive in using its authority, under the Youth Justice Act, to pursue Family Responsibility Agreements, not just to be a part of those agreements as a consequence of juvenile offender behaviour relevant to the criminal justice system, which is where we are at the moment.
We will seek to amend section 30, to strengthen the role of these authorised officers to deal with truancy and non-enrolment and we will legislate to strengthen their roles and powers. We will lead the development, with the Australian government and other states, of a diagnostic process to determine the cause for non-attendance in our schools. The chronic under-attendance in Indigenous communities is a complex set of issues. We need carrots and sticks, and we need a better understanding of those issues, because it is not only in the Northern Territory, it is across Australia. We need to meet with Indigenous leaders and others to explore ways of limiting the impact of Sorry Business, ceremony, sporting and cultural events, and royalty payments. In remote communities there are a complex set of cultural behaviours which also detract from getting kids to school. Quite frankly, they should not be detracting getting those kids to school and we need to sit down and get agreement within Indigenous leaders around those issues. We will trial, as part of the low SES national partnership, in conjunction with communities, expanding the school years and Wet Season schooling options, so we can achieve the ambitious targets we have set.
At the moment, our years of schooling are the same, with the same term and semester times, and virtually the same hours of schooling. It does not matter whether you are at an urban Darwin school, a school in Arnhem Land, or a school in the Central Australian region, with different seasons, different climates and different requirements by those communities. We have stock-standard school semester and term times, and we need to be more flexible in regard to those issues. We need to appoint attendance champions and run targeted local and Territory-wide campaigns.
In regard to improving attendance rates, I am offering the opposition, and the Opposition Leader - who I know is passionate about this - if he, and the opposition, want to have a round table discussion and debate about increasing penalties for not sending kids to school, it is a debate I am happy to have. I have also said this to the member for Nelson. I have pretty hard line views on this. I am happy to have that discussion. I do not believe your amendments get us there for the reasons I have stated. I am happy to have a discussion in the three-way conversation we are committed to.
The penalties for not sending kids to school need to be reviewed. We are in the process of doing that already, as I have articulated. I am happy to have the discussion with the community about what those penalties should be. We need to have a broad community debate about this. We need to have under-attendance at school as a very serious community debate. We have a raft of measures we are pursuing, but the practical implications of the amendments we are debating today would mean the Family Responsibility Agreement process would become a never-ending, almost circular process. We need to get to Family Responsibility Agreements proactively, before the court process, not reactively, after a court process. As I have said, I believe there is some natural justice, not only principles but also practicalities, of having a defence under the act for parents who are doing everything they possibly can to get their kids to school, but, for whatever complex set of reasons, those kids are not attending school.
Dragging those parents to court and forcing them into a Family Responsibility Agreement, I do not believe, is going to effect the change the Leader of the Opposition is proposing. However, I support the sentiment of what you are trying to do. But the practicality and reality of embedding Family Responsibility Agreements into the Education Act at the end of the legal process, I do not believe is going to get the Opposition Leader where he wants to go.
Mr MILLS: It will be a very interesting and important debate. The Chief Minister says he believes kids should go to school, and I believe the member for Nelson has similar convictions; however belief is something you wrap with some policy muscle. What we have is wishful thinking. I have been given an argument why we will not go down this path and, I believe, there is a fundamental philosophical difference. The existing system which comes into play when a child is a repeat non-attender can activate section 22, which means the family is brought to account, with a penalty being imposed of $200, I understand.
I also understand, though the provision is there, you talk about carrots and sticks, I tell you, there are many carrots around, but the stick is not used; in my understanding, it is never used. It will be replaced by an attendance champion, and a whole raft of things which are going to come. That is unacceptable because, if you are serious about adding some muscle to the belief kids should go to school, we should take it a little further.
I believe there is some misunderstanding. First, if there is a provision which imposes a penalty – and you are saying natural justice and so on, they should be able to say: ‘I have tried everything; nothing I do seems to help’. Therefore, there should be another place you can go, because there is still a problem - the Family Responsibility Agreement. It is not an order; it is an agreement put in place so we can take it further. You cannot say: ‘We have given it a shot and we will get off the merry-go-round because there is nothing we can do. It is making us giddy trying to raise these kids, we will hand them somewhere else’. No. Take it to the next stage, where there is the capacity for some kind of agreement to be entered into which will strengthen the notion of responsibility, strengthen parenting, and bring some help where it is needed.
In my own electorate there are families who would respond if they were put into a place like that. They might grumble a bit, but they would respond, because they recognise, deep down, they need some help. They might suffer from substance abuse, they may have had a poor experience with schooling, they may be a little out of their depth, the kid is running rings around them, and there may be some assistance required. There are other agencies. There is some tremendous work which goes on in the community. The Family Responsibility Agreement process could bring all those threads together. However, we do not have anyone being penalised so there is no consequence; schooling is optional, really, and if it does get to that serious state, nothing happens; no next step is taken.
I admire Lee Kuan Yew, politically, for what he has done. I believe he made this statement: ‘There is no point in having a law you will not enforce’. What flows from having a law you do not enforce is contempt for all law and all regulation. If you are going to have something in place such as, ‘if you do that then this will happen’, any parent will tell you if you say: ‘If you do that again, I am going to do this’ and they do it again and nothing happens, you have a double problem next time around, because they think anything you say can be taken with a grain of salt; there is no strength to your word or your judgment. The next time you say: ‘Do not go near that line because if you go across the line something is going to happen’. If they go across the line nothing happens, so they can play near any line or play on the other side of the line permanently, because nothing will happen. No penalty is applied, no consequence flows on, and responsibility is exempted. The parents are told: ‘You gave it your best shot. You seem like nice people. You tried; kids are hard these days are they not?’ Wring your hands and off you go. That is unacceptable. And then to be put in the position where we are saying: ‘We understand what you are trying to do but, rest assured, there are all these things which are going to happen’.
I have been charged with not giving enough time to the government to have these things considered. The government has had these things on its watch for eight years. I listened to Labor in opposition, and it was concerned about these things. Labor has been in power for eight years and now we have this new arrangement. After eight years we have ‘gunna dos’ to fix this area. You are happy to talk to the three of us to see if we come to some place where we are all happy. I believe we have a contrast between wishful thinking and real belief, which would be implemented in policy with some real muscle and will effect real change.
I flavour what I am saying with experience. It has been referred to by me and others, who note I do talk to young people, particularly those who have fallen out of the system. It is not the 15-year-old who is a little confused about whether he will be a boilermaker or sit at the desk for another couple of years. It is kids from seven and eight, all the way through to 17, 18, and 19. It is most telling, kids sort of believe schooling is optional, parents are having a problem, there are wellbeing officers all over the place, and now there will be attendance champions singing songs, perhaps, about how nice it is to go to school. These kids are confused; they want someone to help them.
I have had young lads in the shopping centre - I have photographs, they posed, they wanted to take a photograph with me. These boys told me they want someone to give them some help about what they could do which is meaningful. I asked them what schools they went to, their ages, and what they wanted to do? It is enough to make a tough man soften considerably when these young lads – there would have been a kid in grade five, to a kid who should have been in Year 10, and one in Year 11, there were seven or eight of them - said they now want to do something and wonder if there is something they could do, which would give them a more hopeful future. They acknowledged they had trouble at school, they could not read very well. This was a frank admission in the shopping centre.
We have the typical sort of profile of kids who are unwilling, wild, and unruly, but there is another cohort now because there have been no parameters. They are not resisting anything or any standard, because there is no standard. Everyone is trying to help them, yet that help is weak, they have no structure and there are no consequences. As a result, they find things have little meaning and they want someone to give them a hand. I have mentioned this in parliament before. These boys really shocked me in what they had to say; they were very candid. I believe they represent others. You talk to young people and say: ‘What would you like to do? Level with me’. They will tell you what their aspirations are, but there is no standard which has been defended, no consequence for action, but there is good stuff occurring which seems to satisfy the interests of the system.
I remain concerned; I will remain in this space. I believe this amendment should be supported because we need to bring some definition to this, bring some strength to the propositions which are on the table, that schooling is, in fact, compulsory, that parents are responsible for their children, and if they have difficulty, if they have a problem because their kid is running amok or treating school with contempt, then there is something else which must occur; there must be some serious engagement. To say these things are already happening, to some degree, perhaps, they are. I would like a report on exactly what is happening, because it is crisis management which is happening in the department at the moment in this regard.
I would like the education system to be focused on education, and these sorts of matters could be dealt with by agencies which are specifically tasked for this purpose. Get on with the business of delivering quality education, defending quality standards, and making sure parents understand their responsibility. If help is required, it is delivered, and if they do not avail themselves of that, then there is a consequence. At the moment, there is nothing like that. There are all the pleasantries, and there is confusion and disconnect.
I believe this amendment, notwithstanding the explanation which has been provided, should be supported.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments, and again, I suppose, I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is the amendment will not work. It will not get to the outcome the Leader of the Opposition is seeking, because the Family Responsibility Agreement he is requiring the parents enter into would be after a successful prosecution and court process.
We are saying DET already has the capacity, and it needs to use that capability, and it will, to require parents to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement as a result of their kids’ non-attendance, prior to going into the court process, not after the court process. We get to where the Leader of the Opposition wants to be, at an earlier point in time. Failure to comply with the agreement would then go to court. However, the court is not to seek to order the family to enter into an agreement - and I do not know how that works because an agreement is consensual, so the court should be intervening at a point where the consensual agreement has broken down, and compel those parents into an order, not to an agreement. Leader of the Opposition, I agree with the intent of your amendment, but I believe the horse has already bolted by the time you get into the court process.
I am acknowledging DET has not been using its capacity, under the existing act, to request and require parents to enter into an agreement, with the consequences of not entering into an agreement being prosecution, the court process, and an order, as opposed to trying to achieve a successful prosecution.
I believe there would be legal challenges to removing any defence provisions in place, because there is a principle of natural justice which applies through the Westminster system. People are entitled to a defence argument for any charge which is put forward. I am not pretending to be a lawyer, but I have had enough briefings to know people are entitled to argue a defence. I believe there would be very real problems and legal challenges if the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion was to get up, because people are entitled to natural justice and not just black letter law - you have not done this, this is the ultimate penalty - when the parents have done everything they can.
I believe what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting will make it harder to achieve what he wants, through complex legal cases in court, when what we have to do is ensure – and I give a commitment, and I am happy to report back to the Leader of the Opposition - and an implementation plan for DET - we use the provisions which we already have, under the Youth Justice Act, to get parents into an agreement prior to going to court. I believe it is a ridiculous waste of everyone’s time to get to a court process and then the court requires a parent to go into an agreement.
The court should be adjudicating on cases where there has been an absolute failure. Where everything which should be done has been done and the parents are not living up to their responsibilities. Therefore, the court orders the parents to send their children to school, and if they do not go to school, there are penalties which apply, rather than have a court process in place where the parents have to sit down with the Department of Health and Families and DET, and enter into an agreement. If we are talking about ‘tough love’, my argument, Leader of the Opposition, would be courts need to be compelling the parents into an order, not into an agreement.
I agree with your sentiments. Regarding the need for structure and consequence, I have already outlined we will be bringing amendments to legislation to appoint authorised persons under the act to address truancy issues, and to strengthen the role of those officers to deal with truancy and non-enrolment. It is not only attendance champions, Leader of the Opposition; it is broadening the authorised officer role into different categories, and expanding their powers. It will also require DET to use the legislative capacity it already has, under the Youth Justice Act, to get these parents into agreements at the front of the process, and when parents breach those agreements, get them to a court to seek a court order, which does have meaningful consequences, if those parents fail to comply.
Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe your amendments would work to achieve the outcomes you seek. I believe there would be very strong legal challenges to remove any defence for a parent not being able to send their children to school. There is the principle of natural justice which runs through our legal system. My invitation is to sit down with you, and the member for Nelson, to look at how DET will use the legal powers it already has to get parents into a parental agreement, prior to a court process, not after a court process.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, first, Chief Minister, you are giving reference to the strengthening which is going to occur and changes which will be made, can you give some assurance of when this will take place? Second, the concern you express which stops you from supporting this, the question of natural justice, but what is being removed is the defence of: ‘I have done everything I can. There is nothing I can do’. Then what happens is - although it has never happened, to my knowledge – things have gone to a point where they are taken to court and the parents could say, ‘I have tried everything and I am still responsible’, well, they could be then technically charged and fined $200. The NT News would have a field day.
If the defence provision of: ‘I have tried everything and nothing seems to work’, is removed, there is the direction to another place. It is not like you could walk out scot-free and say - and this is what I find objectionable, that if it were to occur, because we are talking about a fiction, it does not actually happen – if they come to court, are found guilty of neglect and are fined $200 – which is one scenario that has never happened. They have a child running amok, but it is determined they have tried everything and are not really in the position where they should be fined $200, because it can be found they did try X, Y and Z, yet the child is still running amok.
They are then directed to a Family Responsibility Agreement agency, which may enter into an agreement. You do not just say: ‘That is it. You have had your day in court and you can go scot-free’. It is then there is the direction, so there is the consequence, if it were to happen in the first place - and I have to state again, it does not happen.
What you describe as a response to a problem - and you say you share similar views - how is it nothing happens? How is it no parent is brought to account? How is it there are these other things which are happening behind the scenes, these 40 or so agreements or whatever they are? It is quite vague, it is a smokescreen. We heard during estimates there were only six Family Responsibility Agreements – not orders, agreements – and now there are 40.
I believe the reality would be, as I referred to before, this is crisis management, where you have a few other bods around the school who are well-intentioned, trying to help; there are some tremendous people working in the schools, trying to help behind the scenes and having meetings with people. That can still happen, I would assume. However, I believe, if you brought some definition around this and had a stand that was defended, where more parents are brought to account, and it is determined they have tried but it is not bringing about any success, then they should be directed to a place where they will be given help, so it is not left open-ended.
I still maintain the position. I still believe this should be supported because what we have as a counter is stuff which is going to happen, and recognition more could be done. I believe the argument natural justice is being denied - we could have a deeper argument and say natural justice is being denied in the issue of defence of a notion of parental responsibility and help delivered where help is required, through an agreement. You are exempting parents from responsibility. You are removing the opportunity for help at that point. I believe that is a removal of natural justice; the provision of that support and help in a time of need.
I still maintain my position. I guess we will not argue until the cows come home - or the camels or whatever - but we will hold it. I am going to hold this position. I look forward to having these discussions because these are matters which are serious.
Mr HENDERSON: In conclusion - we have much business today - I will be brief. I offer goodwill to the Leader of the Opposition to continue these discussions, because it is really important to have a wide community debate.
I assume we will move on to the next amendment, the Opposition Leader is to put - I do not believe we are too far apart. The Leader of the Opposition wants, essentially, if a kid is not going to school on a regular basis take them to court, fine them $200, and the court requires the parents to enter into an agreement. That is what you are saying. If a kid is not going to school, charges should be laid, the parents go to court, which fines them $200, and puts them into a Family Responsibility Agreement.
We are saying the school and DET should, on the failure of a kid to attend school, use the powers under the Youth Justice Act, as an authorised agency, to require those parents to sit down and enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement, because their kid is not going to school, and understand the reasons why, and put the support structures around them.
The agreement is entered into, it works, and the kid starts going to school - happy days, tick, they do not have to go to court. The agreement is entered into and the parents do not comply. The kid is not going to school, so it then goes to court for breach of an agreement. The court can then issue an order compelling the parents to send their kids to school and compel the parents to undertake - not through an agreement, but through an order - drug and alcohol counselling, positive parenting programs, anger management programs - whatever it is - as an order. If there is a breach of that order, then it goes back to the courts and the courts have penalties under the Youth Justice Act to penalise the parents.
In regard to what we are arguing about, I will not say it is semantics, but it is a point of disagreement. We believe we should have agreements before going to court, and the courts have the big stick to compel orders, not a stick to compel an agreement, which is voluntary. In that, we have to agree to disagree; we cannot support that. Leader of the Opposition, I am happy to sit down with our CE and the member for Nelson, to work through how we should get DET to use its powers to get people into an agreement in a structured and systemic way, which is not happening at the moment; I acknowledge that.
In regard to the other changes, I believe it needs to be broader than looking at authorised persons in regards to truancy from school. As a result of the changes we are going to make, in regard to kids up to the age of 17 having to be in school or in training, we need to expand those powers of authorised officers and what they are empowered to do, not only to deal with truancy, but to deal with participation in training. This legislation will apply to the age of 17. We need to have a broad community debate about how this will occur. Regarding when this will occur, Leader of the Opposition, given the first sittings of parliament will be February next year, we need to draft legislation and have debate, so we would be looking to bring those amendments, and the policy structure in, within the next six months. That is the time frame I am committing to. I am happy to continue to debate with the Leader of the Opposition, and to move on debating the other amendments and other issues he has.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Year 8 students from ANZAC Hill High School, accompanied by their teachers Ms Narelle Cameron, Ms Anita Togolo and Mr Michael Kanaan. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: A clarification, Madam Chair, my understanding is I have moved amendment 29.1. Shortly, we will put that to the vote, and then we will go to amendment 29.2 …
Madam CHAIR: Correct.
Mr MILLS: … similar issue, but applied in this specific bill the government has brought before the House. Is that correct?
Madam CHAIR: Correct.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, my concluding remarks are I have listened to your sequence of events and how this could occur. In fact, I believe both could occur because, at the moment, we have this final letterbox you deposit the issue in, that being, okay, we are really concerned – this is section 22 - where a child is not attending school, and the parents clearly have responsibility, do they not? Therefore, they are brought to court and a penalty is a distinct possibility, but in the whole discussion there is a defence of: ‘We have tried’. At that point, there is either the penalty to strengthen and support a standard, or the penalty and referral - it is not an order, it is a referral, it is a direction – it could be penalty and referral to a Family Responsibility Agreement, or it could just be a referral. It is at that point there is both, or the other.
I agree with you, many of these things should occur earlier on, and I hope they do from now on. If they get to the other point and they are referred, as they should be in the act - because if you have laws which are not used they are practically meaningless, as we have seen. If section 22 provides for the imposition of a penalty on a family who do not do the right thing, in fact, we are supporting child neglect, we are providing another provision that something must happen if they successfully defend and say: ‘We tried everything, nothing we can do. It is real hard these days, you know’, then there is the next place which flows on as a consequence. I do not see any conflict between the two. I believe the only argument being run is we did not give this to you in time.
With that, Madam Chair, I believe we should put this to the vote.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed new clause 5A be inserted in the bill.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 read.
Mr MILLS: Does section 22A(2), apply to custodians of children if they are not the parent of the child?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it applies to the parent who has the custody of the child. If there has been a breakdown in the relationship, this applies to whoever has custody of the child, through the Family Court.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 29.2 standing in my name. This amendment, and I will not labour the point, is very much the same argument, in fact, it is the identical argument we have been hammering out here for the last hour-and-a-half, which centres on the need for reinforcing of the question of who is responsible if a child fails to attend school. In this case, it is specific to the Youth Amendment Bill (Serial 59), because it applies to those who are 15 to 17 years of age. Whereas before it was the Education Act, section 22. You could have an eight-year-old - what happens to them? If you have to effect cultural change, you have to start sending a strong message.
This one refers specifically to what the government has brought before the House, because it applies within this change - 15 to 17 years of age, in that zone. Sure, the same issue applies. If it is found a person, a child, a student, a youth has become unwilling, unmanageable, decided to snub their nose at the requirement through law to attend school, we ask a question: ‘What must we do?’ There is provision - section 22. The answer is to bring the family in, because the family is responsible. Then the family is brought before the court by the provision of section 22 because they are responsible.
There is the possibility of them being fined for neglect of managing their child and discharging their responsibility. They defend by saying: ‘I have tried everything; nothing seems to work’. We remove that defence and say: ‘Even though the child is 16 - I know how hard it is these days, but the law is the law. Responsibility sits with the family in the first instance. You have many explanations. We do have some sympathy, as we know how hard it is in this modern day and age. But, we will not impose a penalty of $200, necessarily, but you need to be directed to the agency to put in place a Family Responsibility Agreement’.
However, there is the removal of that defence; there is the direction that something else must occur. You cannot go in there and say: ‘I know how hard it is’, and walk out scot-free saying: ‘Everyone agrees it is really hard to bring up kids but it is not our responsibility’. Whose is it? Not the state. It is a very ineffective and inappropriate body to be given the responsibility of raising children.
We see evidence all around us: no respect for standards and the expectation anything I decide is okay. There is a community centred on the parent, and the authority and responsibility of parents must be reinforced. The removal of this defence, which provides the capacity for a penalty, a penalty and a referral to the Family Responsibility Agreement, or just the Family Responsibility Agreement - there has to be a consequence which protects the notion of parental responsibility.
Mr HENDERSON: In deference to time - and we have had the same argument for one hour-and-a-half – the argument I put in the previous amendment stands for this amendment. The parliament has heard those arguments, so we will not be supporting that amendment.
The committee suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you had moved an amendment to clause 6.
Mr MILLS: Correct, amendment 29.2. In conclusion, the debate - for anyone who is wondering what this is about –is on a particular amendment which would bring about a reinforcing of the notion of parental responsibility when it comes to the issue of non-attendance at school, and providing the means for a referral to an agency to bring about a Family Responsibility Agreement. I acknowledge the debate has occurred before on two counts.
The position maintained by the Country Liberals is: we believe we need to reinforce and strengthen community standards, strengthen the notion of parental responsibility, and provide capacity for the assistance to a family, which has a child they are having difficulty with, by removing the defence clause.
Mr HENDERSON: I believe we reached a point, before we broke for lunch, where the Leader of the Opposition was going to put this amendment. I have articulated previously, on a very similar set of circumstances, why we will not be supporting it. In trying to move things along, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion.
Mr MILLS: I move that the motion be put.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Clause 6, as printed, agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! They are supporting this clause; it was the member for Karama who was not in her seat. My understanding is a vote or a comment cannot be recorded unless the person is in her seat.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, given that we do not have microphones throughout, I heard more than one voice, and I have called the ayes.
Clause 7, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 8, and, by its defeat, it would then be replaced with a clause which has been circulated. This clause relates to the eligible option of the need for the maintenance of a register, the information on that register be provided to the Chief Executive Officer, and there is the provision of an audit to check those who have taken the path of the eligible option are, in fact, doing so. If they were at the school, they would be on a register, such as the school roll, and it could be checked on. If they failed to attend repeatedly, there could be a consequence and an intervention.
If they take the other path, by choosing not to stay at school, but go into employment as an eligible option, into training, or a mixture of the two and, then, for some reason or another change direction, it is very possible they could fall through the cracks. This is something which is aspirational; it will be wishful thinking if we do not have the capacity to check, and, once again, reinforce where responsibility lies. In a school, there is responsibility to have a register or a roll. In this, the eligible option, there should still be a register.
As provided for, the register has a troubling verb for me, the word ‘may’. The word ‘may’, in the government’s position, is you are disposed, willing, expected or required to do something; it ‘may’ be expected, or you are supposed to do it. The language around this will demonstrate there is a philosophical difference, which is the clause we want to see. The ideas reflected would be a verb ‘will’; you are bound to do something, you are compelled, in order to fulfil some need or to achieve an aim. The aim is to recognise there are responsibilities and mutual obligation. You provide a good system, and you have to provide the capacity to check that system and ensure people are doing what they are required to do; it cuts both ways - carrot and stick.
You cannot have a system which favours the one approach. You have to reinforce the central idea of personal responsibility. You have to maintain a register. So, for those who go down the other path, who are not at school every day, you will be able to check how they are going. You will have the auditor who can go along and ensure that which you desire, and are aspiring to through this bill, is being achieved.
I am inviting the defeat of this clause so it can be replaced with the vehicle I described. It is not a vehicle which has the intent couched in the verb ‘may’ do something - the chief executive ‘may’ do this. We are saying there is a compulsion attached to this in the maintenance of a register and the requirement of a parent, even though the child has taken a path, the eligible option, which is not necessarily in school, they still have an obligation to maintain that information flow to the Chief Executive Officer. That way we have some tension in it and some capacity to check what we are doing.
There is no point in putting something in place which looks okay, but does not achieve the objective. Knowing human nature, you need to have this element in the bill. That is why the amendment is provided, but that amendment cannot be inserted unless this clause is defeated, so I invite defeat.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, in effect, we are not only debating this clause, but subsequent clauses, so we might move this along.
The opposition is proposing a complex registration process and I appreciate the sentiment. We all want, from the policy outcomes, kids staying at school and completing their education, or a mix of education and VET training, which could be provided in the workplace and at university, as opposed to being at school. The opposition is proposing a very complex and prescriptive system. Let me explain why we do not support this.
The legislation has been agreed as part of a national process, which is an aspirational aim to keep children at school longer. It allows children and students in work or training to not be in school, but punishes those who do not fit any of these categories, by not allowing them to get youth allowance or social security. In regard to the Leader of the Opposition’s carrots and sticks, there is a big stick at the end of this process if these kids are not at school, in training, or at work, which is: you do not get your dole. I attest that the stick is already in this system.
From 1 January, if new applicants for youth allowance are not in training for 25 hours a week, not in employment for that period, or have no job, not only is there no youth allowance, but, if that student is still at home with family, then the family will not be able to apply for Family Tax Benefit Part A if their child is not in training, not at school, or not in work.
I attest for the complexity, the costs in the bureaucracy and the registration process you put in place to achieve a stick, the stick is already there. There will be very few young people who will have the financial capacity to not be at school or have work, and not be in receipt of any income.
In regard to the carrot and stick argument, I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want to be cute about it – our stick is bigger than your stick in terms of …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: That is right. It has been an interesting couple of days; I will throw a bit of brevity on the table. In terms of who has the biggest stick, I believe in the stick of there being no dole, no payments, and no Family Tax Benefit payments if your kids are not going to school, as opposed to not complying with a register.
Each state and territory has signed up to this aspiration. We are now doing what we can to implement it quickly. What has not yet been determined, or agreed, is how we are going to monitor compliance. For students in the 15- to 17-year-old cohort, they may be in a mix of school, training or work. They may be in training on or off the school campus. They may be engaged in work ready programs which would be off the school campus. That cohort of kids is going to be in a mix of scenarios, not just sitting in the classroom.
First, there is the punishment of telling a young person they will not get social security. As I have said, the stick will certainly have significant impact. However, we recognise this alone may not be enough to keep young people in work or at school, although I believe it will keep the vast majority of them at work or in school.
We are now working with the other states to see how this compliance system will work. We have looked at the experience in other jurisdictions which have a compliance system, and they are all having significant problems; that is on advice I have received. There is a national body of work, through the education senior officers group under way at the moment, which should, ultimately, go to the MCEETYA, the Ministerial Council, to have a national approach to this. Some states which have a register are experiencing significant difficulties. Nationally, all states and territories are working to achieve a system which works seamlessly between states, because you also have the issue of young people moving between schools and states, and we need to look at consistency and a national approach.
In terms of the work of the department, and the effort the department is putting in to a restructure to support this change …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I note the member for Greatorex has been entering the parliamentary floor without showing obeisance to the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. During committee stages, when the mace is down, there is no obligation to give obeisance.
Dr BURNS: It is a courtesy. Obviously you have none.
Mr Conlan: You do not have to; that is the point.
Madam CHAIR: It is a courtesy, nevertheless. Chief Minister you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: The department is doing significant work in restructuring areas of the department to support participation in the ‘earning or learning’ policy. We believe the effort should be going into supporting and working with the 90 to 95% of young people who will do this, as opposed to focusing administrative effort, and much of the budget of the department, on chasing the 5 to 10% who will not comply.
There are three areas of reform in monitoring compliance. All schools monitor attendance, which is the first limb of the compliance monitoring. The second limb of the compliance monitoring is if a student is engaged with a registered training organisation, and the organisation is being funded to provide training for the student, we regulate the RTOs and require them to report any student who is disengaged, and is not taking part in the funded program. We regulate the RTOs, and we will require them to report to the school, and to DET. If those students drop out, then we can take action. The third limb of compliance monitoring is working with Centrelink, which is a key in this. If children in employment have dropped out, they are not working 25 hours a week and are going to Centrelink, we will be working with Centrelink, requiring them to notify our remote pathways brokers and participation coordinators, to enable us to pick these kids up and do everything we can to get them back into training.
There is a profile to support compliance with this however, ultimately, the big stick is through the social security system. Remember, if these kids want to avoid any compliance system they can move interstate, which is why we need a national approach and a national system.
I attest we do not need a register in the legislation for kids to be complying with training. The way the opposition’s amendment is structured requires parents to confirm the child is undergoing training. We do not live in a perfect world, and the reality is many parents will not bother to comply. Setting up a system which requires parents to comply - the kid might be in training, the parents do not comply with putting in their notification, we will have departmental officers chasing those parents, there is no penalty regime in the amendments to require those parents - will be, with all due respect, Leader of the Opposition, a whole bureaucracy and industry created to chase parents and kids.
I believe it would come at significant cost, and the cost is better utilised by: employing people through the department to work with schools, industry, and students to get them into training; to require registered training organisations to notify the department if kids have dropped out; and to work with Centrelink, so it notifies the department if kids have dropped out. Ultimately, the sanction is those kids do not get their youth allowance, and those parents do not get the tax benefits of having their kids in training or at work.
The monitoring and compliance procedures proposed will, in fact, require a massive bureaucracy to implement. To do what is proposed it is estimated would take 10 staff, perhaps more, it would require additional technical resources, and it would still be ineffective.
When you are spending dollars on education you are not inclined to put that much into staffing for compliance officers. The government is proposing a clause in this legislation which gives the chief executive of the agency the power to make inquiries. We are now working through, with all our national colleagues, the compliance system. Hopefully, it will be nationally, and it will be seamless nationally.
I understand where the opposition is coming from but, with respect, it is too prescriptive and too detailed for legislation. It needs to be worked out nationally. It can be regulated at a later date, and I am happy to keep the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson in the loop on those discussions.
In regard to the auditing clause in the Opposition Leader’s amendments, I point out, in the government’s amendment bill section 31A(1) gives the power to the Chief Executive Officer to make inquiries if he considers it appropriate. The Leader of the Opposition is saying the CE ‘must’ make inquiries, which would lead to a massive bureaucratic effort, through the Chief Executive Officer, to chase down every kid who is not participating, or dropping out for whatever reason.
For those reasons, I believe the big stick is through the social security and tax system, and that will see many more students staying at school, rather than strict adherence and compliance with a very costly, bureaucratic, and difficult register to maintain.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, at the end of this, I move that this clause be defeated. I note the use of the word ‘aspirational’; it is a noble aspiration, which is described and the vehicles by which we would arrive at that aspiration. I acknowledge the argument it would be costly to implement a system such as the one described. However, I have confidence if you put in place an expectation, put in the mechanisms to reinforce that expectation, and set an example for those who fail to do what they are required to do, it would become a very efficient system. I know if you run a system such as that, it would become far more efficient if people knew you meant what you said.
If you say things as a good intention, never back it up, never provide a consequence, of course it becomes immensely expensive to run a system that is, in a sense, trying to create the impression certain things are valued, but you do not ever back them up, and there is never really a consequence and you are always chasing your tail. That is an expensive system.
In the first instance, set the standard, put in the mechanism to check the standard is being met, provide consequences for those who do not meet it, and then it will become an efficient system because you are not serving the system, you are providing a greater likelihood you are going to reach your objective.
For that reason, I invite the defeat of this clause, so it can be replaced with one which provides the mechanism to allow the aspiration to be met, by putting in the appropriate structures to check, test, and defend the standards.
I also acknowledge there has been discussion in the briefings, and alluded to in your comment, Chief Minister, that a similar model is being considered and worked on nationally. I gratefully accept the offer to be involved in that discussion. I will not vacate the position I hold in terms of wanting to reinforce certain standards and obligations being backed up. I hope through those discussions we will have a system, which I can play my part in, ensuring families understand we expect them to do something, and we will back them up if they have some difficulties, but there are standards we have to defend, and we do not have the feeding of the sense of options, that schooling is optional, there is really no consequence and the standards do not really have any value.
I will take the opposite position, which is why I invite the defeat of this clause, so it can pave the way for a clause which will help us put in a mechanism to defend certain standards, reinforce parental responsibility, and help us to arrive at our objective.
I invite the defeat of clause 8, Madam Chair.
Motion negatived.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Mr MILLS: As a consequence of that crushing defeat, amendment 29.4, standing in my name, should be withdrawn. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 29.4.
Leave granted.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2009.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the 2009-10 Treasure’s Mid-Year Report, which provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
I am pleased to report that, after a difficult 12 months, the mid-year report shows an improvement in the Territory’s fiscal and economic outlook. The key fiscal highlights in the report include:
an improved operating surplus over the forward estimates, providing additional capacity to invest in infrastructure;
the cash deficit has increased to $249m in 2009-10, due to the timing of Commonwealth funded expenditure. When these timing issues are removed, the underlying financial position is an improvement of $100m 2009-10;
The mid-year report also includes an improved economic outlook. After contracting sharply in late 2008 and early 2009, the global economy is growing again. The recovery is being led by a rebound in Asian economies, particularly China, where there has been a strengthening in demand, supported by fiscal and monetary stimulus measures. The Territory economy is expected to be a major beneficiary of the growth in Asia, through increased demand for mineral and energy commodities, supporting increased mining production and exports.
Treasury’s economic growth forecast for 2009-10 has been revised upwards, from 2% at the time of the budget to 2.6%, reflecting the higher forecast growth in mining and energy exports. State Final Demand in the Territory is cyclic and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. In the budget, State Final Demand was forecast to decline in line with the completion of the establishment phase of a number of major projects.
The mid-year report has revised that forecast to 3.9% in 2009-10, as a result of higher investment expenditure than expected. Partly offsetting declining business investment will be record levels of public sector investment associated with the Commonwealth’s infrastructure related stimulus spending, defence infrastructure projects, and the Henderson governments record capital works program.
Large-scale land releases, coupled with a strong rebound in housing construction, both in the public and private sectors, will also be supportive of investment levels and employment growth in 2009-10. Employment is forecast to increase by 2.8% in 2009-10, 1.3 percentage points higher than forecast at the time of the budget.
The Territory continues to experience robust population growth as a result of our strong economy. People want to move here because of the employment opportunities and the great Territory lifestyle. Stronger growth in nett overseas and interstate migration figures result in population forecast being revised upwards from 1.8% to 2% for 2009.
Forecast growth in the Darwin inflation rate in 2009 has been revised upwards from 2.6% to 2.8%, based on stronger growth in housing and rental prices in the year than was forecast at the time of the budget.
The improved economic conditions have resulted in an increase in GST revenue of $42m, and additional Territory own source revenue including $41m in mineral royalties, resulting in additional revenue of $98m in 2009-10. This partly offsets the $150m carryover of expenditure from 2008 - 09 which is associated with Commonwealth funding received late in 2008-09, and results in a revised deficit of $249m or $53m worse than forecast at budget time.
However, when taking into account the improved 2008-09 outcome of $153m, the underlying improvement across both years is $100m. There has also been a further increase of $130m in Commonwealth funding and associated expenditure as a result of agreements being finalised since the May budget, which will provide additional service delivery capacity particularly in education, policing and health.
The cash outcomes over the forward estimate period remains unchanged. On an accrual basis, the nett operating balance remains in surplus in all years, while the fiscal balance is expected to remain in deficit, but continues trending towards a balanced position.
These outcomes demonstrate the Territory is on track to achieve its aim of having sufficient cash surpluses to fund capital spending and provide capacity to retire debt to pre-global financial crisis levels. Nett debit has improved since that projected at budget time, from $1.2bn to $1bn, due to the flow-on effect of the 2008-09 cash surplus, together with an increase in the Territory’s financial asset base, partly offset by the increased deficit in 2009-10. When measured as a ratio-to-revenue nett debt, it is estimated to be 28% by 2012-13, less than half the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I was being shouted at by the member for Port Darwin, so I might go over that.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: When measured as a ratio-to-revenue, nett debt is estimated to be 28% by 2012-13, less than half the 61% recorded in 2001-02. Nett financial liabilities have also improved since budget time, and are expected to reduce to $4.6bn by 2012-13, with the nett financial liabilities ratio significantly lower than projected at budget time, dropping to 103% by 2012-13.
In conclusion, the 2009-10 mid-year report provides further evidence of this government’s adherence to fiscal responsibility. It underpins our commitment to maintaining strong fiscal strategy principles, whilst promoting economic activity and growth for the Territory.
By continuing to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly through this period of economic uncertainty, the Henderson government has maintained the trend towards improvement of all fiscal targets over the budgetary cycle, while continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians. This is in addition to an economy which is expected to continue out-performing national levels.
Madam Speaker, I commend the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report to the House, and move that the Assembly take note of the paper..
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): As much as I am tempted to, I will not engage the Treasurer yet, because I will read this document. However, I am so tempted because smoke and mirrors is not strong enough. I move this debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to this and say, at the outset, members on this side of the House will be supporting this bill because it makes sense. However, as I deal with this issue, there are some things I would like to observe as I go forward.
The issues I would like to point out are the government, as I understand it, will be introducing an amendment during the committee stage in relation to this because there is an effect on oncourse bookmakers, which was unintended in the original bill.
The government has responded to circumstances beyond its control. Hopefully, I thought the Labor machine was more solid than it is, but apparently it cannot control what its Labor mates do in other states, so it has moved to protect an industry which has existed in the Northern Territory for almost as long as the Internet has existed. For that reason I acknowledge the effort the government is making in relation to this legislation.
I also state we will be supporting the amendment, because I understand the amendment. I thank the Treasurer and her staff for being kind enough to take a few moments out the other day to explain it to me and, once it was explained fairly carefully to me, I understood the thrust of it.
I hope the government will demonstrate levels of governance, in relation to looking after this bill, much more than they show in other areas. I will continue to watch the operation of this legislation carefully to ensure the industry is protected in the Northern Territory. The industry can take great comfort that, if there is a change of government, and if I have anything to do with a new government - should I be so fortunate to win my seat - they will have someone who they can talk to and communicate with as often as they need to.
I will take this opportunity, in terms of issues of governance, to raise something I have raised repeatedly in this House. I will point out to the Chief Minister he is now in breach of the law. Section 28 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act requires annual reports to be delivered within a certain time frame. I urge the Chief Minister to take note of that, because the annual report for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is now in excess of that time frame. I ask the minister to make the annual report available in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory, something which has not occurred, because the law of the Northern Territory requires reports by Chief Executive Officers be tabled within three months after the end of the financial year. It is now mid-November and we find we have still not received the annual report.
The only exception to that rule would be if the Treasurer had determined, under Section 10 or 11 of the Financial Management Act, a longer period for the preparation of financial statements in respect of an agency within that longer period. I have seen nothing tabled or indicated by the Treasurer, in any way, where she has given permission for that to occur. I can only assume the Chief Minister continues to sit on this annual report, because there is something in it he does not want Territorians to see. He is way overdue; he is in breach of the legislation of which he is supposed to have carriage and governance. I ask the Chief Minister - in fact, demand that the Chief Minister - obey the law of the Northern Territory. Either that or the Treasurer obey the law of the Northern Territory, and make available the direction she has given under the auspices of section 10 and 11 of the Financial Management Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their indulgence of my small digression during this debate. We support the legislation, and we look forward to its passage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the shadow Treasurer for the indication of support for this bill by the Country Liberal Party. It is not a circumstance the Territory liked to enter into, but it is a circumstance we had to, to save an industry in the Territory.
Yes, the Tasmanian Treasurer, whilst he may be Labor – no, I do not control him from the Northern Territory, and it is absurd to think any Liberal scenarios around state jurisdictions would control each other either. Take a look at what is going on in national parliament today. We have had, at last count, two senior shadows dropping off the frontbench. There is news Abbot is gone and Minchin is gone. If you want to talk about not being able to get your mates in order, you want to have a good look at what the Liberal nationals are doing to themselves in the federal parliament as we speak.
But, Madam Speaker, I digress.
The Tasmanian government recently passed legislation authorising the sale of the government owned totaliser, TOTE Tasmania, and also deregulated the Tasmanian bookmaking industry. They tried to steal the corporate bookmaking industry from the Northern Territory. They put in place a competitive corporate bookmakers tax regulatory regime and brought down the price of Tasmania’s wagering tax on bookmakers to $250 000 fixed licensed fees, subject to CPI indexation. Basically, Tasmania tried to undercut the Territory’s taxation regime to steal the corporate bookmaker industry.
As Treasurer with responsibility in this area, we consulted with industry. We did not want to lose 250 jobs in the Territory, nor did we want to lose the revenue we receive from this industry. Thanks to the undercutting by Tasmania, yes, we are losing revenue with this legislation before us. We had been getting around $10.5m in annual revenue from the corporate bookmaker industry. Thanks to Tasmania undercutting us and trying to steal the industry, we have had to bring our regime down. As a result, we are expecting to receive about $2.4m in revenue in 2009-10. But, as I am fond of saying, $2.4m is better than zero.
We needed to be competitive in response to the Tasmanian situation. The amendments we have before us will introduce a new corporate bookmakers tax which will commence on 1 January 2010. It will be payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of a bookmaker’s gross monthly profits, with the maximum amount of tax payable in a financial year being $250 000, indexed to Darwin CPI. In other words, we are not going to be costing them more than if they had gone to Tasmania.
We believe our system is better than Tasmania; it is more competitive because it is a more equitable treatment to our smaller corporate bookmakers who may not be able to afford a $250 000 licence fee. We have moved to a profit-based regime. They are used in Victoria’s racing product fee and are a preferred regime by the corporate bookmaking industry to what had previously been the turnover-based regime. Previously, the corporate bookies paid 0.33% of turnover, but that is the total bets laid with the bookmaker. The legislation had expressed those as weekly payments. Administratively, they were making monthly payments, so we have is moved over to a gross monthly profit scheme, monthly payments, capping it at $250 000, and introducing it as of 1 January 2010.
However, we do have committee stage amendments to introduce because, unintentionally, the on-course bookies were picked up in the amendments, which was entirely unintentional. These amendments were only about the corporate bookmakers, described in the legislation as ‘sports bookmakers’. We need to go into committee stage to remove the unintentional pick up of the on-course bookmakers. Any profit-based tax would generally result in a greater tax burden on on-course bookmakers. That was not the intention of the amendments, which are based on retaining corporate bookmakers in the Territory. Our on-course bookies are a very different kettle of fish to our large corporate bookmakers. On-course bookmakers operate at a lower turnover model than the corporate bookies, and they are limited to operating at racecourses during race days, and primarily take bets from persons at the course. It is interesting to note, we do not actually have any country registered on-course bookies.
In relation to taking care of the racing industry, I am unashamedly a racing industry fan. I have followed the racing industry in the Northern Territory from when I was a kid. We had horses stabled at Fannie Bay and Adelaide River. My mother was an owner. I grew up at the track. I spent many years living and working in Victoria, very closely involved with people in the racing industry. The racing industry is under no illusion it has an ally in the Territory Treasurer, understanding its unique needs.
If you look at what we are doing in terms of the racing industry, not only did we give them a $10m injection in the Territory to ensure they could increase jockeys’ payments and increase the stakes money through the cup carnivals, which attracted much better fields this year as a result, we have also undertaken a significant review by KordaMentha, on behalf of Treasury, into the racing industry to ensure its future sustainability. If you are looking for support, the racing industry knows it looks no further than the close working relationship I have created with it and also our Racing minister, Vatskalis.
Madam Speaker, we have sensible legislation before the House, to save the corporate bookmaking industry for the Territory, to save 250 jobs in the Territory, and to save some revenue coming into the Territory from this industry. As an aside, if we had lost this industry to Tasmania, the Darwin Turf Club would be in all sorts of financial strife. They have constructed a building at the Fannie Bay Turf Club to house the industry, the corporate bookies, they would have an empty building, and they would not be recouping the cost of that building through lease payments.
This is a sensible action to take, and I thank the opposition for its support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2009, Serial 65, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 28 circulated by the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I propose the following amendments to the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 65). The changes proposed are to section 4 of the act, which provides definitions to section 106 of the act, which imposes bookmaker’s tax, and to section 158, which sets out the transitional provisions for the new bookmaker’s tax.
The bill introduces a new profits based bookmaker’s tax to commence on 1 January 2010. The tax is payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of bookmakers gross monthly profits, with a maximum amount of tax payable in the financial year being $250 000, expressed in revenue units.
These amendments are necessary to retain a competitive tax regime for corporate bookies as a result of changes to Tasmania’s bookmaking regulatory and taxation scheme.
As drafted, the bill also imposes a new profit based tax on on-course bookmakers, referred to in the act as registered bookmakers. The Henderson government has consulted with on-course bookmakers, who have indicated that due to significant differences in their business model as compared to corporate bookmakers, the profit based tax would unreasonably increase their tax load. On-course bookmakers operate a different business model to the Internet based 24/7, high-turnover, low-margin business model of the corporate bookmakers. Instead, they operate at race courses, only during race days, and primarily take bets from persons at the course, which is a much lower turnover business.
As such, the profit based tax would genuinely result in a greater tax burden on those on-course bookmakers. This outcome is outside the intention of the amendments of retaining corporate bookmakers in the Territory. Accordingly, the committee stage amendments ensure the new profit based tax applies only to corporate bookmakers, by inserting a provision maintaining the current 0.33% turnover tax for on-course bookmakers. Other minor consequential amendments give effect to these changes.
Madam Chair, I commend these committee amendments to honourable members.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, regarding clause 6, proposed section 106(1), omit: ‘a bookmaker’, substitute: ‘a sports bookmaker (other than a country bookmaker)’.
To make it easier, I propose at this stage we move all these amendments, because they are all consequential amendments as described. If it is okay with the shadow Treasurer, to move them all in a block and we can get on with business.
Mr ELFERINK: That suggestion is forcing me to say more than I was intending to say. Yes.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 13 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell you how surprised I am to be debating this bill before the House now.
One of the things the Leader of Government Business has been encouraging us to do in our relationship is communicate effectively with what the plans for the day are, so this House can run smoothly. I now find myself on my feet, having listened to the Leader of Government Business telling me earlier today we would not be proceeding to this item on the Notice Paper, the following item, or the item after that.
Whilst I have made myself cognisant of what is in this bill, I do not have my notes in front of me; they are sitting in my hotel room, because I listened to the Leader of Government Business. If the government wants this House to run smoothly, it has to do us the courtesy of giving us more warning a particular bill is coming before the House, than slipping a paper to one of our staffers in the staffer’s box, a few minutes before the bill proceeds, particularly when I am currently engaged in the passage of another piece of very important legislation.
Madam Speaker, I like to pride myself on taking at least some care of how I go about my business. However, I find myself in a position where I have to determine the law of the Northern Territory without my notes. If the Leader of Government Business wants to develop a relationship of cooperation behind the scenes, so this House proceeds well with its jobs and duties, then he is going to have to do much better than that. Fortunately for the government, I hope I am well enough briefed to navigate my way through this bill without having my notes and that piece of paperwork in front of me.
The Revenue Units Bill is a vehicle by which the government sets the prices of the services it provides to people in the Northern Territory. This vehicle is not entirely unlike the Penalty Units Bill. We have seen in recent times what goes wrong when people are not careful about how these legislative instruments pass. It was the debacle surrounding the Penalty Units Bill, which led to the passage in this House, of which the minister should have been more than cognisant, of a fine for a beggar of $6400. The government has yet to come into this House and give this House a vehicle by which that may be fixed.
I hope the government is going to be much more careful with this particular legislative instrument when it comes to applying the fees and charges to Territorians for the services it applies. The reason the concept of revenue units exists is, on certain occasions, as inflation catches up with the prices government puts on its services, for argument’s sake, a driver’s licence being issued, those driver’s licences, in the real world, become cheaper, so the government tries to keep its fees up.
The Revenue Units Bill provides a formula by which CPI can be applied to those fees and charges without having to change a whole raft of legislation. Rather than having appendices attached to the back of different legislation saying the fee for a one year licence is X number of dollars, and the legislative draftsman has to trawl through a whole bunch of appendices to fix them all up; they just refer to a revenue unit. When they refer to that revenue unit, no large amount of redrafting has to occur, you can conveniently refer only to the Revenue Units Bill and the formula contained therein.
That is a reasonable idea, as penalty units are a reasonable idea, but we have seen the consequences and the entrapments these sorts of units tend to develop over time, and with the passage of careless legislation. I confess I am nervous about proceeding with this matter without having my notes in front of me, for the reasons I have explained. Whilst I try to do my job as effectively as I …
Dr Burns: You should have been prepared.
Mr ELFERINK: If you had listened to what I just said, you would realise you were the idiot responsible for not telling me this bill was coming on now. You have no right to walk into this House, and say, for one second, you did not tell me this bill was not coming up today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! At no point in my discussions with the member for Port Darwin did I say it would not be coming up today. I said we may hold it over to the next sittings. We were talking about the priorities of our business within this House. Whatever the situation is with the priorities, the opposition should come into this House and be prepared to debate what is on the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: I was, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I can place on the table the Notice Paper on which I wrote, in front of the minister - and I seek leave to table that Notice Paper, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In a minute. Leader of the – sorry, it has been a long day. Member for Port Darwin, would you mind withdrawing the unparliamentarily comments you made earlier regarding the Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, which ones were they?
Madam SPEAKER: You were yelling at the time and you referred to him in an unparliamentarily fashion. I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw, for the sake of the business of this House.
Madam SPEAKER: Seek leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave to table this Notice Paper.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, on this Notice Paper is a very simple handwritten note, which, by the way, was not an accurate representation of the discussion we had. We sat down carefully and he asked that item No 11 of Notices on the Notice Paper be moved to be debated after items No 1 and 2. I drew an arrow and wrote ‘debate’ underneath that, in front of him, and I said: ‘Is that correct?’ He said: ‘Yes’.
None of that has happened, and I table that document. In any instance, I am prepared and reliant on the conversation I had with the Leader of Government Business. If the Leader of Government Business does not have the decency, courtesy, honesty, and integrity, for that matter, to be honest with how he conducts himself in this House, whilst I am not allowed to call him a liar, I have to say he has come perilously close to fulfilling that epitaph on this occasion. It was a clear understanding between the two of us. I also know that because he …
Dr Burns: You did not have a clear understanding of the volatile substance abuse bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … knew that. I tell you why he knew; because he delivered a note to our staff and, on that note, was a clear description he wanted to go through Nos 3, 4, and 5. He knew where I was expecting to go, and where this side of the House was expecting to go.
To attempt to entrap legislators in this House, in this fashion, is despicable. As far as I am concerned, it is demonstrative of how these guys on the other side of the House do business. They are a disgrace to the way they conduct themselves, and to the people of the Northern Territory; they are divided and shambolic.
They do not even obey the law of the Northern Territory when it comes to the issue of annual reports. They are all over the place on a raft of issues, not least of which is compulsory acquisition, when we had the same Chief Minister say compulsory acquisition was good and bad in one Question Time. They are shambolic! They are all over the place, and this is indicative of how this business proceeds even further.
Madam Speaker, I have made notes. I have made myself entirely cognisant of what is in the Revenue Units Bill, which is why I am able to proceed with it, despite the fact I have been misled by the Leader of Government Business.
This government really needs to clean up its act. Territorians deserve so much better than this. If I can find the handwritten note - and I hope someone could go and get James - to demonstrate this Leader of Government Business knew exactly where we expected to go on the Notice Paper; it will be a damning piece of evidence of his mindset as to what he was doing. He knew what he was doing, Madam Speaker, he knew where I expected to go.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I understand the concern of the member for Port Darwin, in terms of the debate on the legislation for revenue units, I urge that, for the order of this to continue, we get back to the debate on the revenue units. It is a simple piece of legislation, which I flagged in the May budget, it has been on the public record. I have introduced the second reading speech at sittings.
This is not surprise legislation. It is simply CPI indexation to the revenue units, which is an amount of $1. Whilst I understand the concerns of the member for Port Darwin, it is time we get on with the legislation before the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, if you could come to the bill before us?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have discussed the bill before this House, and because I am not a man of churlish disposition, whilst easily irritated from time to time by small-mindedness and pettiness, the fact of the matter is, I would have every reason at the moment to try to make the government’s life difficult in the passage of this bill. However, I am at least capable of being able to separate out the importance of legislative passage, and silly, stupid and banal political games. As a consequence of that cognisance, I am supportive, as we are all supportive on this side of the House, of the passage of this law.
However, make no mistake, if this government expects to see its legislation passed through a cooperative environment involving both sides of this House, as well as the Leader of Government Business and the Leader of Opposition Business, then it is going to have to do much better than this. The reason is simple: if we cannot trust the say so of each other in simple and straightforward matters, then we cannot trust the items of legislation the government brings before this House. If it wants to turn this House into a place where every bill, no matter how small or large, is taken through a torturous process of examination because we do not trust this government to do the simple things, then that is what the government is inviting to occur.
However, on this occasion, I am cognisant of what is in the bill, it is not a difficult bill and it deserves to pass. But, my goodness gracious me, what an awful display of mismanagement and ineptitude.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the support of the opposition to the passage of the Revenue Units Bill, and I thank the member for Port Darwin for the support. I understand his concern, in terms of the time, and, as Treasurer, I express my apologies; at no stage did I intend not to deal with this bill today. Miscommunication has occurred and my apologies are expressed.
This revenue bill is simple and it is also sensible. The existing Revenue Units Act, which it replaces, goes to one and one-third pages in length, with less than one page in regulations. Instead of amending this, it was very sensible to introduce a new bill, because the amendments would have been longer than the bill. We have introduced a new bill, which I announced as part of the 2009-10 Budget, so we have not been hiding what we are doing, it was in the budget speech. We are saying that, as the member for Port Darwin expressed, many of the penalties across government are expressed as revenue units, not all of them; we are doing a tightening up exercise of taking monetary values into penalty unit values.
The revenue unit was set in July 2006 at $1 and it has not been reviewed since. We have a whole series of penalties across government which are not moving with CPI and are being eroded in real terms. It is a budget measure, but it is a sensible budget measure, and it will hold all future governments of the Territory, as well as the current government, in good stead going forward.
The Revenue Units Bill replaces the current Revenue Units Act 2000, and it will provide for an automated process for changing the monetary value of the revenue unit to take into account the effects of inflation.
We are ensuring, where the monetary amount of a fee or charge expressed in revenue units is not a multiple of one, the amount will be rounded down to the nearest one dollar. A similar indexation mechanism was recently included in the penalty units legislation. Similar legislative fee indexation mechanisms also exist in Victoria and Tasmania. The bill provides for the value of a revenue unit to remain at one dollar until 30 June 2011.
I thank the opposition for its support, this is simply an indexation piece of legislation; it makes sense and it is practical. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, my contribution to the debate this afternoon will be quite brief. I indicate the opposition will not be opposing this amendment because, like the previous bill, there are elements of it which seem to make sense.
I note Mr Bob Beadman, who is the chair of the Local Government Grants Commission has, according to the second reading speech from the minister, asked that this amendment be included in the act. Therefore, I give the amendment credence based on that.
However, I do have some concerns. Unless my colleagues indicate otherwise, there will be no need to take this to committee stage. My concerns are, the further delaying of reporting of the Local Government Grants Commission - the conspiracy theorist in me says - is pushing the scrutiny of reporting of local governments grants further away from the end of the financial year. It pushes it into the realms of the calendar year following the financial year it would report on.
I hope this is not an attempt to push scrutiny back further, into a temporal oblivion. With delays in time, there are issues which tend to get lost, and I would like some assurances from the minister, in his response, that this is not the case.
However, I want to quickly touch on what I find the ironic part of this, which is making the Local Government Grants Commission Report timed to coincide with the reporting dates of the local shires and councils in the Northern Territory. I will not belabour the point but, as of this date, we are past the shire councils reporting date for 2009, and none of the shires have been able to give those reports because the computer systems, the ShiresBiz or Technology One system, which are in place, have prevented them from doing that. However, I will not belabour the point.
The opposition will support this bill, however I ask the minister whether he is able to give me the assurance I mentioned earlier.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill. I thought it was an opportunity to comment on the idea that the financial reports and the reports from the Local Government Grants Commission align.
As we know, and as the member for Katherine said, the issues relating to ShiresBiz must be making it hard for some of the local governments. It is an issue which will not go away and we hope something is done very quickly, because it might be hard to align them if the financial system put in place for most councils does not work properly. I hope something is done quickly.
This bill is in relation to the Grants Commission, and I am a little concerned some of our councils are destined for quite severe cuts through the Grants Commission. I notice a letter went from the minister to the Tiwi Islands Shire Council, some time ago, and the Coomalie Council, basically telling them over the next four years their funding would be cut by half. I believe the Tiwi Shire Council has funding of $1.6m, which was to be cut down to $800 000 in four years; and for Coomalie, I do not have the exact figures, but I believe it was about $500 000 to be cut down to $250 000. I might not be that surprised about Coomalie, because of its population and, you might say, its isolation, because they are some of the figures which would be used to reduced its funding. It is still a successful council, even though it is small. It is looking at amalgamating with areas around it, and I do not know whether that was done to force amalgamation, or if it was done on a formula, as I said, based on isolation and, to some extent, Aboriginality.
When it comes to the Tiwi Shire it seems peculiar that its funding should be cut by half. About 96% of people in the Tiwi Islands are Aboriginal. It is isolated, in the sense it has no road connection with the mainland. I am interested to know why its funding will be cut by half, considering it is one of the growth towns in Working Future. It seems a statement which has come from the minister is a bit confusing, in light of the statements the government has made about A Working Future.
I know councils outside the shires are not happy with Local Government Grants funding because of the change in the formula, those councils feel they are going to lose out. I was talking to Damien Ryan during the week and he is unhappy about things like the amount of road funding now required and, considering the growth of Alice Springs, he is not particularly happy with the loss of that particular grant funding.
We have an issue when it comes to distributing the small amount of funds we have from the Commonwealth, through the Grants Commission, to help fund these super shires. Litchfield Council raises 64% of its money through rates to run the shire, then you hear there are other councils which have very little rate money being developed, and they are receiving a larger slice of that money per head of population. I know there is a thing called horizontal equalisation, but it is a little concerning to those councils, which raise quite a bit of revenue; it can be seen they are penalised for having the ability to raise rate money and have their roads and FAGs money reduced.
I raise that as an issue in relation to this debate because we do not often get an opportunity to talk about the Grants Commission. I do not have a problem with the intent of the amendment, but it is a little ironic that we are trying to line up two reports, and one of those reports is difficult to get at the present time because of the failure of ShiresBiz. I am interested to hear the minister’s response, especially in relation to where ShiresBiz is at the present time. It is of concern to councils, and it is costing them much money; money we need to be spending on roads and other facilities in councils, rather than on an IT system which has gone sideways.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine and Nelson for their contributions. The amendments in this bill were not really covered, so I will go through some of the points made.
Bob Beadman does a great job with the Grants Commission. He works collaboratively with the department staff who assist on the Grants Commission, and the Commonwealth Grants Commission. He is a man held in a great deal of respect.
The member for Katherine highlighted a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy theory; it was put forward by the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission has been able, consistently, to sign off on the annual report within the required time frame. However, there have been delays in getting the report finalised and printed. That was the reason the Chairman of the Grants Commission wrote, to seek the change to the tabling date. The sign off was done in time, but getting the printing done took a little time. There is no conspiracy theory. It is well within a time to debate it. It is now 26 November and, in future years, the report will be available before the last sittings of the year, so they can be debated, if necessary.
In relation to the members for Katherine and Nelson highlighting ShiresBiz, annual reports have already been delivered to me, as the minister; we have several of those. Some are outstanding and some have sought extensions of time; different councils have different degrees of functionality. There have been some reports. Obviously, there has been some functionality with the system that has been in the shires.
Through the remedial program, Des Kennedy has been sitting down with each of the shire councils, as a group, to determine the priority of work; that has happened. The first priority was the MacDonnell Shire, and that work has commenced, and they are well on track. The CTC met with them when it was here.
They are getting all their financial reporting and processes under way. It has been a mammoth task, switching over from a whole range of accounting systems and small councils into large councils and one software system, trying to get that done, so it is a good idea. TechOne is a good software program, it is used in the local government sector and outside the local government sector, so it is good accounting software but, as these things are, it is human beings who can cause problems with it. It was the installation and configuration of that software system into the local computer system which made it difficult. The shire councils are very confident in the abilities of Des Kennedy, and his team, to correct that configuration problem.
When speaking to the Central Desert Shire’s CFO the other day, he said there is a light at the end of the tunnel. They are moving through it. The advice I have is in the first few months of next year they will have all the shires complete, and they will be able to report on everything they do financially.
The member for Nelson also highlighted the changes in the grant funding. With grant funding, through the Grants Commission, it has to be fair, reasonable, and one methodology which applies to all. The Northern Territory Grants Commission has to be consistent with the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s methodology, which is what has happened. The Northern Territory Grants Commission has aligned the factors the Commonwealth Grants Commission take into account with its own methodology and, when the shires were formed, we had a fundamental change of the land mass covered by local government, going from 5% to effectively 95%, and taking in new people and new locations of service delivery. The factors taken into account in the methodology are around the number of people you have, Aboriginality, the dispersion of service delivery centres, and remoteness.
When you apply that to the new structure, where you have a shire council which could have maybe up to a dozen different service centres, across quite a large land mass, they obviously have greater disadvantage in the cost delivery of services. The Grants Commission, in the spirit of horizontal fiscal equalisation, has tried to assist those councils. It is also true for their ability to raise rates. The shires that have the ability to raise rates can do so, but obviously there is limited capacity within those more remote areas, especially Aboriginal communities. That will change with the house leases. Territory Housing will be liable for rates in those new housing lots, which will give some ability for the shire councils to rate those properties.
LGANT and some of the shires are quite concerned about the issue of pastoral and mining tenements being rated. In a short time, they will be able to rate those, as they rate them everywhere else in Australia, which will give them an added boost. Mining and pastoral rates cannot be used by the Darwin City Council or the Alice Springs Town Council, so it is a source of revenue that some of the municipals do not have, which the shire councils will have.
With respect to the point about Aboriginality, which the member for Nelson raised, and why the Tiwi Islands council had funding projected to be reduced, I guess those factors again. There are similar Aboriginality demographics between East Arnhem, West Arnhem and the Tiwi Islands, but the population is fundamentally different. Currently, the Tiwi Islands local government council is less than half the population of the East Arnhem Shire Council, but they receive the same grant commission funds. It is something which has grown over time. I understand the concerns of Tiwi Islands councillors and residents, but there is money members of East Arnhem, West Arnhem and other shires are not getting, which should legitimately go to them.
At some point in time you have to come up with a fair and reasonable methodology for the distribution of grant funds. I believe the NT and Commonwealth are the appropriate bodies to do that; they set it and they will come back into line. When I looked at the adjusted figures, there was quite a significant move in revenues for some of those shires, which is why we decided to phase it in. The councils which will have their funding reduced will be able to adjust either their revenue source or their expenditure budgets over time.
With that methodology, Coomalie only has two service centres, Adelaide River and Batchelor. They are not extremely remote, and they have a smaller population, which has affected them. With the shires taking greater land mass and having service deliveries spread out, they have attracted, through that methodology, greater funds. Coomalie is a very good council. Sadly, it has lost its long-serving CEO. However, it has been very proactive in moving towards expanding its boundaries. It is a very efficient council, and I have a great deal of confidence in its ability to look into either amalgamation or expansion of boundaries to be sustainable. There was not a change in methodology to force Coomalie to do this. The methodology was based on Commonwealth formulas, which Bob Beadman, as an independent person on the Chair of the Northern Territory Grants Commission, looked at following suit with.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. There are minor changes with this bill; changes in definitions and some omissions within the Local Government Grants Commission Amendment Bill, and the change of reporting dates.
I thank the members for Katherine and Nelson for their interest in this area. I know the member for Nelson is conducting a thorough investigation of many things, and there may be an opportunity for Bob Beadman to talk to him. There will be huge challenges for local government. We have to attract greater levels of funding from the Commonwealth government. We are conducting a road audit at the moment, in cooperation with LGANT, to attract more money from the Commonwealth for roads, which we have missed out on for over 30 years.
The South Australian government did a road audit and were able to lobby the Commonwealth government, and attracted an extra $30m into its funding pool. If we had received that sort of money over the last 30 years, our road system, especially in the bush, would be in a great state.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
Continued from 19 October 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this will not take as long as the education bill. It was important and so is this. We thank the Chief Minister for the opportunity to speak on this, and also to take the opportunity to acknowledge the important work of the fire service in its broader application to protect our community.
We will be supporting this bill, and we appreciate the amendments are borne out of a number of unintended consequences, resulting from changes to legislation made in 2004 which we supported at the time.
We will go through this and make these important corrections - and I will go through those in a minute. I recall waking up this morning and seeing on SkyTV there had been a fire and it affected many people, and those few simple words people were saying: ‘I have lost everything’, brings into sharp focus how important the fire service is. Anything we can do to assist them in providing that level of protection to the community receives our full support, and the support of every officer in their important work.
It is important that the Fire and Rescue Service is able to enforce a notice issued to an owner or occupier of land if the relevant fire safety laws are not being adhered to. If the parliament, in making legislative changes, is impeding the capacity of the service to act in this way, we must make every effort to make the necessary changes, which is why we support this.
As we understand it, this bill does that in relation to splitting the hazard reduction powers, so it is clear which apply in emergency response areas and those which apply to the whole Territory. This bill also includes other consequential amendments, relating to the inspection of buildings and other places, to ensure those buildings and places comply with fire and safety requirements. It is important, and a responsibility of owners and occupiers, to ensure they comply with the law; when it comes to fire safety laws, the risk to personal safety and property damage cannot be ignored.
This bill expands Fire and Rescue Service inspection to any public building or place, rather than the existing provision for buildings and other places used for public entertainment or public gatherings. We agree this seems to be an anomaly.
However, this bill gives the service wide powers and we ask the government ensure appropriate training and guidance is given to those who are charged with the discharge of these powers. It also gives power to officers to issue notices to rectify any breaches of fire safety laws; this power also needs to be used fairly and with sufficient justification - which I would expect in any event.
Finally, we support any requirement which provides for the mandatory and regular inspection of hospitals, childcare centres, and shopping centres as described in the act. The community deserves confidence their safety is assured and every effort is being made, and their use and enjoyment of these spaces will not be compromised by non-compliance with fire and safety laws. We saw the tragedy of a fire in a backpacker hotel in Childers and, as I said this morning, we know of the devastating effects this can bear upon citizens.
With those thoughts in mind, acknowledging the corrections of some unintended consequences, the purpose and the intent of this is to provide greater protection and security for our community; it receives full support from the Territory opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the general thrust of the amendment. As we know, especially in the rural area, fires can be a major hazard. There have been a number of cases, even this year, where, luckily, no lives were lost, but buildings and equipment were destroyed by fire.
In the rural area of Darwin, where you have a higher population and still have a fair amount of native bush, or you have cleared areas for pastures or agriculture, in the form of mango production or other types of fruit trees, there is always a risk fires will get out of hand, no matter how well you have fire reduction strategies in place.
It is unfortunate we have some people in our community who seem to love to light fires. If there was a way of having portable CCTV cameras hanging off a balloon and floating over Howard Springs every day of the week, many people would be happy if we could catch some of these people. When you see fires as late as October, burning vast areas up towards Shoal Bay, you know they were not started by lightning; there was hardly any rain or storms around this year. This is an issue which is probably like catching people who drop litter: you have to see them and, in some cases, you need to have two people see them so there is proof, when the person says they did not do it.
My concern - and this is not against the bill – is I hope there is enough flexibility. I am talking from the rural area, where there are some people who would like to keep bush blocks. To keep a native bush block on five acres, with an appropriate firebreak around it, is not a bad thing. You do not want to be mowing lawns, that is adding to the carbon footprint and also making work. If you allow your block to have no fires, over a period of time, you, generally, reduce the annual grasses and develop perennial species.
If you ever drive along Howard Springs Road and look on the right, at what was Kowandi North, the Defence area, now called the Howard Springs Defence Complex, where INPEX is going, which is strategically burnt every year, you will notice a vast difference in the thickness and density of the growth between those two blocks of land.
When people decide they would like to keep their block of land as a native bush block, I believe it should be encouraged. I also realise the danger of keeping a block of land without any burning or reduction in hazard; if it does burn, it will usually be a very severe, hot fire.
I can give you another classic example. On Kowandi South - which is another large Defence area on the opposite side of Howard Springs, most of which is bush which has hardly ever been burnt, as it has very large firebreaks around it - about 15 years ago, on one hot, windy day, a fire started near Power Road. That fire was so severe, not only did the police block off the road, but it formed a crown fire and went straight through the Defence area like a rocket. One reason was because it did not have any fire reduction program; it had firebreaks but, on a very windy day, it did not help.
When I have mentioned the possibility of burning a five-acre block at the right time, in the right conditions, so people can keep their native vegetation, the response I have heard at times is: ‘No’. Then you ask: ‘How are you going to keep the fire reduction hazard low?’ ‘Put a slasher through’. The problem is that takes out all the benefits you have had over those years of trying to retain that vegetation. It also usually introduces weeds, and the two weeds we have in the rural area, which are a bigger fire hazard than the lot, are Gamba grass and Mission grass.
I believe there needs to be, for those people who require it, some flexibility in fire reduction, which allows people, if they wish, to do some strategic burning, maybe only patch burning, on their block, and it might mean someone from the fire brigade will come around and have a look at it. The usual requirements for a permit are you have to tell your neighbours. Normally a fire permit in, say the Howard Springs area, is given for a pile of rubbish or dead trees; it is not normally given for the whole block.
I am only raising this because the use of slashers to reduce the fire hazard can sometimes have deleterious effects. Whilst the bush might look nice, neat and tidy, generally speaking, weeds are introduced, you remove the undergrowth and you tend to remove new plants which will replace older trees. It would be good to have some flexibility in the way people can manage their blocks. Even if they are on five-acre blocks, as long as they have water and a good fire break, I believe there is room for, as is written in the act, a strategic burn-off, which is normally permitted by the fire brigade, although sometimes those strategic burn-offs are a little too often. The occasional strategic burn-off on people’s blocks is a legitimate form of fire or reduction hazard.
The other thing I noticed, which is important because if I asked the fire brigade, ‘Can I burn-off a block?’, and it said ‘no’, or if it said, ‘you have to do some fire reduction strategies, and you will get a slasher and you will slash it’. I might say, ‘I do not want to do it’ for the reasons I was talking about before. I noticed the appeal, which says in section 26, Review of the requirements:
I might have the clause the wrong way around, but three days seems very short to get a response back from out bush. I might be a person without a fax machine or an e-mail. I might have a block out the back of Marrakai, Adelaide River, or Dundee, and I might not agree with what the Chief Executive Officer has said in relation to my block. I might not want to burn my block, for the reasons I put forth before, but I only have three days to respond. I believe it may be a little difficult, in certain circumstances, when you consider the size of the Northern Territory.
It is not that I do not support the amendments. I am trying to raise that - and I know it is from personal experience - I have heard, when asking about one of the national parks - it might have been Darwin Charles Darwin National Park - and I asked about why that area is not occasionally burned. I remember a member of the fire brigade saying, ‘our fire reduction strategy is to put a slasher in’. I do not believe that is always appropriate. The use of a slasher might be good on a block of land, like pasture land, land which has been developed for horticulture, or land is covered in weeds, fairly crappy land - pardon the expression - because it has been overgrazed or whatever. But where you have native vegetation, you do not want to be introducing slashers, because they introduce weeds. I believe the use of fire, as a fire management tool, which is done wisely, at the right time, under supervision from the fire brigade, is an appropriate tool for fire reduction. Not just for fire brigades, because it uses it quite legitimately, annually, but it should also be for private landowners.
On the issue of fire reduction by our fire services, I receive the odd complaint that sometimes they feel the fire brigades – I am talking in general, whether it is Bushfires NT or the NT Fire Service – burn the land too often. There will be one parcel of land which is burnt out every year, for good reason. I suppose they are saying, it is going to get burnt, we might as well burn it now to save a late fire. I know much of the work is done by volunteers, which makes it difficult.
Having read much of the work done about the Kapalga area in Kakadu National Park, there was a belief fire was a good tool to use for fire reduction, when used in a way which does not mean that over time the native vegetation will be worn out. If you have a fire year in, year out, you end up with a tall storey of plants, very little undergrowth, and eventually the area will be very poor in the number of species.
The Kapalga experiments also spoke about mosaic burning, which is not only about reducing the fire hazard in certain areas; it is about leaving habitat for certain animals and plants. One of the things which came out of the Kapalga experiments was – and I have forgotten how many species of ants there were – the discovery of a bunch of ants, some of which only live in burnt areas, some in non-burnt areas and some of them live in between the two. The relevance of this is there is sense in doing things in an intelligent manner.
We are talking today about traditional burning methods. The background is fires occurred at a certain time, and it was done progressively throughout the bush. One reason was for hunting and, the second, that the nature of burning after the Wet Season, is it is mosaic burning. Unfortunately, with so many vehicles, people can drive through the bush and throw matches and it is not really traditional burning anymore; it is widespread burning. It is good to hear some of these Aboriginal communities are working on bringing back those traditional ways of burning-off the land.
I should raise the point that strategic burning is sometimes used late in the season. Whilst that might sound good - and I have seen a number of strategic burns along the Arnhem Highway, which have been done around December - the idea is there is enough moisture in the ground, the grass is starting to be a little green, and you can wipe out last year’s vegetation without doing too much damage to the environment. The Kapalga experiment suggested the jury is out on burning late, because many of our species of plants may be producing seeds and flowers at a time when they would not normally get burnt. Then we come along, for technically good reasons, and we decide we can reduce the fuel load in December. Naturally, most bush is not burnt in December, most bush is burnt early, and we have developed species which can adapt to the early fires, but we have plants which are not ready to be burnt at that time of the year, yet we come along with an unnatural process of burning very late, which is an area which should be studied.
The point I am getting at is with strategic burning, there are two principles. One is the fire services are trying to protect property and lives, which is a fine principle. On the other hand, we have native vegetation, and the rural area prides itself on still having some native vegetation; it is not all suburban. We like living in the bush and we enjoy the plants and animals around us; we do not always enjoy things totally black. We want protection, but sometimes we need to do things a little more scientifically. I would say the problem is the fire service does not have enough funds to do that kind of work. It has its work cut out just going to car accidents, attending normal fires - if I can put it that way - doing a little strategic burning around the place; that is its role.
There needs to be - and the government might say this already happens, but I do not know whether it does - people who can do some background work into mosaic burning; keeping track of the dates on which these pieces of land are burned. We are trying to combine two things: reduce the fire hazard and check properties but at the same time, seeing if we can be clever enough to retain the bush in the best quality we can. It might be just bush, but for many of us, to some extent, it is cultural; we enjoy the bush and the plants in the bush.
The Chief Minister would understand there are some fairly passionate people, who do not particularly want 2500 people living on a fine piece of bush, even though it might not be good as the bush across the road; that passion is fair dinkum. It is not against INPEX or against development; they love the bush. I hope what I am saying is reflecting what many people in the rural area think: yes, we love the bush, we do not want to see it burned year in, year out, and we can probably do things a little better.
The fire services are stretched enough without doing the scientific stuff but, perhaps, with the help of NRETA, the fire burning program can be managed a little better. I am not knocking the fire brigade; it has an important job to do. It must get so frustrated at the fires that occur. There was a fire at the end of September on Gunn Point Road in the forestry land. Someone had gone past on a motor bike and thrown some matches out on a really hot, stinking day, with the wind blowing, high temperatures, dry weather and you had to have the entire Palmerston Fire Brigade out and every volunteer fire brigade was out that day. The back of the Lutheran School was also burned. I believe nearly everyone who had a fire brigade was there. Those volunteers, you might say are the regulars, that is part of their job and they get paid, but there are many volunteers who would like to be sitting down watching the footy. You see people go through that country burning-off, and they could not care less. It is a delicate balance between protecting property; you know if you do not burn-off some land it is going to get burned off by these idiots, who see it as a place where they can drop a match.
At the same time, we can do a little more work and do things cleverly. I give you another example of where things have changed a little. Howard Springs Nature Reserve had - and I do not know how well they are maintained these days - but it used to have two fire breaks. It had one on the fence line and another one about 50 m in from the bush. Obviously, the department of Parks wanted to maintain the bush inside the park in pristine condition, to some extent. It more or less had this sacrificial strip, which could be burnt each year. You knew the bush would not be great, but you could use it as a protection buffer for the rest of the bush, which is a good commonsense approach. Maybe that is an approach for some of the Crown land areas. We have two fire breaks or buffers, a certain distance apart, and we sacrifice one each year. We manage the other one on a mosaic process, so we retain the benefits of most of the bush. We know some idiot is going to come along so let us put some protection in by having a sacrificial area, and let us maintain the rest in a more scientific manner.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know it is a small bill, but it is an important bill. Some of those issues about looking after the bush are close to my heart, and I know many people in the rural area have similar views. If INPEX finally builds a village, there will be many of us saying: ‘If that is the site it has to go’ … - I would still prefer it to go north –… ‘then we will be asking INPEX to do as much it can to protect the bushland so, even though there is a construction village there, we can still enjoy the benefits of having our native plants and animals in our local area.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support for these amendments.
The Leader of the Opposition was very concise in his understanding regarding the impacts of the amendments we are putting forward. All of those have been articulated in my second reading speech, and I do not need to go through them again.
In regard to the very extensive and interesting comments from the member for Nelson- he obviously knows more about fire and burning-off in the bush than I do - I defer, member for Nelson, to your expertise in this area. I know he is passionate about these particular issues.
One of the first things this government did was build the new Police and Fire Stations at Humpty Doo. I know the work our fire service, along with the Volunteer Fire Brigades, has done over the years, putting firebreaks through the rural area, working with landowners in maintaining compliance with those issues, education programs - touch wood - we have not had the number of fires through those areas we had previously, as a result of the fire station being there.
The debate the member for Nelson was talking about is about whether more expansive burning practices could be allowable via permits. I urge the member for Nelson to continue that conversation with the firies and the Volunteer Fire Brigades, and I am sure they will be open to that.
The member for Nelson was talking about an appeal time period of only three days being allowable. My advice is from when the notice is issued from the fire brigade, people have 28 days to appeal that notice. If there needs to be some slight changes to the wording in the legislation, we can look at that, if it is not clear.
The other issue he picked up on was regarding traditional burning practices. That is a body of work in regard to what we have talked about over the last few days regarding climate change; allowing offsets to be made through traditional burning practices, like with the Darwin LNG and the West Arnhem fire program. That was a world first, I believe; one of the first accredited offset programs under the accreditation office in Australia. I want to see more of those opportunities available to Indigenous people in developing an offsets industry on their land, which provides employment for people, as well as getting better environmental outcomes. I believe there is a real opportunity for the Territory to continue to lead the way in regard to those types of programs, which provide jobs for people and give better environmental outcomes.
Member for Nelson, I encourage you to continue to have those conversations with our firies. It is an interesting and passionate debate for people. Whether INPEX goes on the site we are looking at or another site, I am sure it will be a good corporate citizen. If it goes where it intends to, it will maintain as many of those trees and vegetation as it possibly can.
In conclusion, on behalf of all honourable members, and as the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson said, I also pay tribute to our fire service. They are a fantastic bunch of people who do an amazing job on behalf of all Territorians. They put their lives at risk and are always there when we need them. On behalf of all honourable members, I thank our fire service for the great work it does. I also thank all our volunteers who spend so much of their time either training, or out in the field fighting fires on behalf of the broader community.
I thank honourable members for the support for the legislation, and commend these amendments to the House.
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That -
Continued from 24 and 25 November 2009.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, all members of the Assembly would be aware of the reference to a motion moved by the member for Port Darwin, on 18 August, in a number of broad categories, and I quote:
Questions:
Time limits on asking and answering questions.
Either a set number of questions from the opposition and other non-government members, or a percentage of questions from non-government members.
The automatic right to a supplementary question from non-government questioners.
Question Time to be moved to an earlier hour.
Implementing a stronger ‘relevance’ clause in the standing orders in respect to answers provided by ministers to questions without notice.
Questioning of participants to parliamentary agreements.
The adjournment debate speech time limit be lifted to 10 minutes.
Processes:
Removal of the ability to move the ‘put’ motion mid-speech.
Estimates
Estimates process to be reviewed and reformed so as to significantly extend the hours provided for questioning, including investigation of questioning to exhaustion.
There was an undertaking that this committee should report back to the November sittings of parliament, and there have been number of meetings in the intervening period on all these issues.
Another element, I must also mention, is the member for Nelson became part of the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that was a crucially important aspect, seeing it was important to have an Independent as part of that process …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … it is very important in the process of this parliament, that the Independents are involved, particularly in relation …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … do you want to say it a couple of other times, get it off your chest and I will continue, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Are we right now? I heard you the first time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I heard you the first time. All right.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: There have been a number of very productive conversations within the Standing Orders Committee, on the motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin. The recommendations have been published in the report which is being distributed to all members.
Whilst all the issues or requests put forward by the member for Port Darwin in his motion have not been agreed to in the majority report - and there is a minority report, which the CLP members or a representative, or both of those members will speak to - I believe, in the main, there has been a very reasonable position reached in the majority position, and it will change, in many ways, the business of this parliament.
First, I will address the recommendations about changes to Question Time. When implemented, the recommendations in this report will prohibit lengthy questions during question time, limiting the asking of each question to one minute, and the answering of each question to three minutes. The opposition has been asking, for some time, to have a limit on the answers to questions, and there is also a limit on answers and also a limit on questions.
Additionally, the report recommends the Leader of the Opposition be allowed one supplementary question each Question Time. Supplementary questions are commonly allowed in upper Houses around Australia, however, they are rare in unicameral or lower houses, but, this is one House that is adopting it. The House of Representatives and the Lower House in Tasmania both allow supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker, whilst in the ACT, which is a unicameral parliament, supplementary questions, which are relevant to the original question, are allowed. The New South Wales Assembly allows one supplementary question per question time and this is the model recommended in this report.
Relevance clauses for questions, as well as answers, are also recommended in the report, with standing orders to be modified so questions and answers shall be direct, succinct, and concise. The opposition put forward a very strong position that it believed ministers, in answers to questions, were not direct, succinct, or concise. There are existing standing orders, in terms of answers by ministers to questions, but there was agreement the standing order should be beefed up to include those words.
There was also an argument from the government’s side that questions asked by the opposition, and the Independents, need to be direct, succinct, and concise. There was quite a debate about ministers taking a question and answering one element of the question or the prelude to the question, rather than what was considered to be the yes/no element of the question. We will still agree to disagree on that, but from the government’s side we feel that, in a preamble to a question, if assertions are made within that question, the minister should be given the opportunity to address the issues raised in the preamble to the question. For my part, I believe that is a very reasonable position. No doubt we will agree to disagree, and it will be your call, or whoever succeeds you in coming years and coming Assemblies, to make that deliberation. As always, the Speaker has discretion in determining what is direct, succinct, and concise.
As you pointed out Madam Speaker, I need to be careful about deliberative stages and privilege, let me widen it out. Speakers, in any parliament, have a problem in that when a minister might be giving an answer, the Speaker does not necessarily know what the answer to that question is, yet, they are called upon to adjudicate whether the answer is relevant to the question. There will always be differences of opinion on this issue of relevance, on being direct, succinct and concise. We have taken a step, I believe, in the wording of our standing order; it is probably one of the strongest within Australian parliaments.
I believe these changes will streamline Question Time, and they are ample in allowing opposition and Independent members to question ministers.
The opposition has argued these changes do not go far enough and, no doubt, it will argue that on the floor of parliament today. It will argue it should be allocated 10 questions or something like that, plus supplementaries. We believe, under normal circumstances, non-government members often have more than 10 questions per Question Time and, furthermore, we believe by setting limits to questions and answers, as I have alluded to, this will further streamline Question Time and ensure an adequate number of questions are asked. In other words, by putting boundaries around the time for questions and for answers, we believe – and that is the outer limits of the times allowed – it will facilitate question time.
I have been very interested to watch the APAC channel, I know there are probably a number of members in this House …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A very fine channel, member for Port Darwin. It is a little disconcerting to see the minister halfway through a sentence and completely guillotined by the time, but that is the negative side, in a way, when they are reaching a conclusion, and trying to answer the question, they are cut off. I believe it will come down to both questioners and answerers being aware of the clock and fitting their questions and answers around the clock. I am sure the member for Greatorex is expert at fitting things in to certain time frames, but there are others, particularly in the time frame around questions and answers, who will need a clock. I hope the Assembly has a clock to give us an idea, when we are on our feet, of how we are going in asking and answering questions; it will be an important physical support to what we are endeavouring to do.
The government is happy to agree to the changes to the standing orders, but we believe members on both sides of the House need to take responsibility for managing ourselves in an effective way, particularly in relation to the structure and relevance of questions and answers; it is a two-way street. Furthermore, at the end of Question Time, the opposition and the Independents have the opportunity to place unasked questions on the Written Question Paper and, outside of parliamentary sittings, to ask questions in written form to ministers. Standing orders will be amended to provide a 30-day time limit on answering these questions, or providing an explanation to the member asking them. There are time limits around that as well.
The opposition has advocated very strongly, and this was one of the major differences in the dissenting report, to shift Question Time to 11 am, suggesting the 2 pm Question Time somehow avoids media scrutiny. I do not see much justification for that position; I do not believe it is the case, but it will be interesting to hear the opposition arguing that today, as I am sure they will. The media reports on the happenings of Question Time every sitting day. The current arrangement for Question Time, we believe, allows sufficient time for the media to meet its deadlines, and I do not believe it is correct for the opposition to assert somehow this equates to the avoidance of media scrutiny.
General Business Day provides an opportunity for the opposition to manage an entire day of business, as the government does. Unfortunately, we saw yesterday, there was a large amount of business on the Notice Paper for General Business Day. The government believes we could have finished all that business if there had been discipline shown. But, by my calculations, three of the items were dispensed with and we had begun on another item.
I believe this opens up a very important issue, in terms of the resources of Parliamentary Counsel and people in this Assembly, to have such a loading up of the Notice Paper. I am not trying to limit the ability of the opposition to raise questions, legislation, and motions as part of the democratic process, but we all have to show some economy and realism in what we do, and have achievable aims. If you only want to deal with three items on the Notice Paper, it is a little ridiculous to load it up. I liken it to someone at a smorgasbord, who loads up their plate with so much food and then just have a couple of olives on top; it is a waste of food and resources, a your-eyes-are-bigger-than-your-belly scenario.
As we move into a system where we have a weekly allocation of time for General Business, I adjure and exhort the opposition to look at the way it does business. I thought it was quite unfortunate, yesterday, the Independent member for Nelson had a number of items on the Notice Paper and we did not get to within a whiff of them. In other jurisdictions, principally in the Australian Capital Territory, there is an allocation within the weekly time frame for business by the opposition, and for a certain set time for the Greens to have its business on General Business Day.
I am flagging this as something the Standing Orders Committee needs to look at. Within the next 12 months or so, the committee needs to sit down - there might be discussion in parliament also - and look at how this is going and whether it is achieving its aims, particularly in relation to General Business Day, of giving everyone a turn. It will be better for the opposition, which has complained that by the time General Business Day comes around every 12 sitting days, many of the issues it has raised as part of its motions or legislation, are no longer contemporary, and there is no doubt that is correct.
However, as it has an opportunity to be more contemporary about its general business, I hope the opposition slims down the amount on the Notice Paper and is a little more realistic about what can be achieved, or about how it is going to do business on the General Business Day. How many speakers will it have, and how is it going to progress through General Business Day? This is what the government has to do; it has to look at the business, the legislative program, and its other programs. We strive to achieve what we set out to do, in getting legislation through or before this House, along with other business.
To emphasise what I said before, there were 19 General Business notices and five orders on the paper yesterday for debate, yet we only got through three motions and partially through a fourth. I do not believe that is a desirable situation. People within the Parliamentary Counsel would be questioning, ‘We work to produce these motions or this legislation and it seems to sit there; we never get to it’. It is similar with members or staff within the Legislative Assembly. To be fair to everyone - not trying to impose any strictures on the opposition in the democratic process – but I am asking them to have a good look at General Business Day.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We need to have some economy about what we do. I believe it is all about working efficiently, and in a way which is going to gain results …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to get into it. I am going to stick to my script. When time is managed, when the opposition is disciplined, the current arrangements for government and general business days, I believe, will have the capacity to work well.
We are now moving to a system with general business given precedence on each Wednesday of sitting weeks, from 5 30 pm until 9 pm, commencing from the first sitting next year, subject to the passing of these motions. Under the new standing orders, we will have three-and-a-half hours, each sitting week, for the opposition and the Independents to manage their business. I know the opposition was asking for many more hours for general business, I believe it asked for over 60 - I may stand corrected - but it is 36, it was 24, which represents an increase, in real terms, of 50% in the number of hours devoted to general business within this parliament.
Basically, that is the way we have decided to go. In some ways it is a shame, because having a whole day for general business, while it has its disadvantages in terms of the contemporary nature or lack of issues raised by the opposition, it did give the opposition an opportunity, within a whole day of sitting, to order and move through its business, like an alternative government. I believe yesterday would have been a disappointment for everyone: the Independents, who did not get their issues and bills up, and for some members of the opposition, who did not get their issues up and debate them.
I honestly believe we could have debated them yesterday, if we had have shown discipline. The government was prepared to have one speaker on each bill, and if the opposition had shown the same discipline, we could have dispensed with many of those items on the Notice Paper.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is not. It is all about giving everyone a go.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You do not believe in giving everyone a go? That is terrible.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I hope the opposition will be able to organise its business better under the new arrangements, and Independents will be afforded adequate opportunities, by the opposition, to progress their business.
Another major recommendation, which is an important change, is the Estimates process and the Estimates Committee will be reviewed. The Standing Orders Committee will do that next year, and I welcome that review.
Changes are also being made to the adjournment process, by agreement of both sides and some have already been implemented. Adjournments have now been increased from five minutes to 10 minutes, and I believe that has been welcomed by everyone. The member for Sanderson observed I was galloping along, in my electorate adjournment speeches, to get through the material. I welcome the change. I believe 10 minutes is an adequate amount of time, and if you show discipline within that 10 minutes, you can get through an amount of material. That increases the amount of time to adjourn, and increases the time of this parliament on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and on Wednesdays, the global time available for adjournments is unlimited, which means all 25 members can adjourn. Within any sitting week, there is more than enough opportunity for a member of this Assembly to adjourn, not once, but a couple of times.
The Standing Orders Committee considered the proposal the opposition put forward about when you can move a motion be put - the ‘put’ motion. There was a fair amount of discussion about this, I know, in our Caucus, and we struggled - some of us have been around eight years in the parliament - to think of instances when this had occurred. I believe there has been one occurrence in recent times, but people struggled to remember when this has occurred. The majority report recommended that the ability to say: ‘the motion be put’ …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can call it that, but I believe the member for Nelson might have something to say about it. He has been on other committees before he entered parliament; I believe all of us have. Most rules around debate, in various organisations I have been in, have a ‘put’ motion. It is all about, in some cases, expediting the business of a particular group and parliament …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: As I said, member for Greatorex, maybe you need to stand up now and talk about the numerous times you believe this has occurred …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … because it is a standard part of most standing orders and most meeting procedures. I agree it should only be used in exceptional or extreme circumstances.
We also considered the opposition’s proposal for a formal standing order, that parliament can be recalled at any time, whenever a simple majority of members petitions the Speaker. As every member will recall, parliament was recalled by a simple majority of members only months ago, to debate the most serious motion which can be debated in this Chamber: a motion of no confidence or want of confidence in the government; the system works. A majority of members signed a letter and, on that trigger, the Speaker pulled the parliament together and we all recall the debate and the week. I believe that system is working.
In closing, this report has a number of reforms which will change the way this parliament works, generally, I believe, for the better. However, I believe, as members of parliament, we need to be continually monitoring what we do, how we are working, and what improvements we can make. The standing orders are not fixed in stone; they are a living, breathing, changing type of entity, which is what makes life in parliament interesting. I have always enjoyed the Standing Orders Committee; I believe it is a great committee, which has much important work to do.
I support the majority report. I thank the Assembly staff who have worked on it, Ian McNeill and all staff, and I commend this report to the Assembly.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston and my colleague on the committee for the work, and in some areas, the cooperation the government showed. There are a number of issues I will address today, and put on the record the opposition’s concerns in relation to a number of proposals it put before the committee for consideration.
First, I will deal with Question Time, and what the member for Johnston raised in relation to media scrutiny. Our side firmly believes Question Time should be moved to 11 am, and will continue to seek to have it moved to this time. This allows for early dealings with the matters which result from Question Time, and the remainder of the day is then available for the government and general business.
The member for Johnston said there appeared to be sufficient time for media to scrutinise various issues which come from Question Time. My understanding is when Question Time finishes at 3 pm, the media have about one hour-and-a-half in some instances, to scrutinise, make inquiries, put stories together, and meet deadlines; the media people I have spoken to say it is a very short amount of time. Our side proposes it moves to 11 am in order to have decent scrutiny.
While some changes were made to the limitation on times for both asking and answering questions, considering the relatively small number of sitting days, the opposition holds the view there needs to be both the ability for supplementary questions on all non-government questions, and a set number of questions for both the government and non-government numbers. It is noted the installation of time limits will give a greater ability, in conjunction with a stronger relevance clause, to gain answers. However, without the extension to provide a set number of questions - we propose 10 for each side, with only one supplementary question - it severely limits the extent to which greater scrutiny can be achieved. We will also continue to advocate for a greater number of questions.
I will go to the document, section 109, in relation to one hour - the House of Representatives has 10 questions each and it runs to 90 minutes, or up to 90 minutes, in its Question Time. Given we are in a unicameral system, and we do not sit for as many days as others, there needs to be scrutiny by the opposition, so we can ensure the government performs, or starts to perform, in so many different areas.
The argument I have put forward previously in this House, was when you do the mathematics of when the government changed the sitting days and the time we sit in this House, I averaged it out and it took about six days from the sitting time in this House, when you counted up the numbers of hours. The government gave us back three extra days, which were to be incorporated in sitting weeks on Mondays. I note the government has agreed that has impracticalities, and we have now shifted to an extra week of sitting. We still have a problem: we have given away three sitting days, even after we have done all that. We will advocate for more sitting days throughout the year, to both allow time for the government to get through its business, and for the opposition to get through its business of holding the government to account.
I move on to the issue of additional sitting days. I put on the record that, while an additional sitting week has been put in place, in effect, it gives no additional sitting days because, as a result, sitting days on Mondays will be stopped. The opposition firmly believes that the intent of this reference has been purposefully avoided by the government in not providing the additional second sitting week, and we are dissatisfied with only one additional sitting week. The opposition will continue to advocate for more sitting weeks.
I remind government members of the mathematics; count up the hours – I am happy for them to do the same - average it out and it ends up we lose three days. We now have an extra sitting week, but we need an extra week to make up for the three days we have lost, given it has changed the times the House can sit and has restrained the sitting times in the evenings.
I go back to proposed Standing Order 109, in relation to questions seeking information. I point out that under Standing Order 109(3)(c), and I quote:
We believe each of the opposition’s questions should allow a supplementary question to be asked.
If you go to the sections in relation to time limits on questions, where questions have been restrained to one minute and answers to three minutes, which allows us to be more succinct, the proposed Standing Order 109(3) states that:
(a) Questions shall be succinct, concise and direct and shall not exceed one minute
We now have the ability to be succinct, and ask for the answers to be succinct and relevant.
That brings us to the point of relevance. In the past, when there have been no sincere or relevance clauses, ministers have often wandered off the subject. It is disappointing, when you are in opposition and are trying to hold the government accountable for its actions that, in our view, ministers quite often do not answer the questions. We spend much time trying to craft questions to get something resembling an answer. Interjections flow freely, from both sides of the House in some instances, in relation to answering the question. It will be interesting to see what these amendments to the standing orders achieve, in encouraging ministers to be more succinct and direct.
I agree with the comments made by the member for Johnston; we should have an ongoing assessment on how these amendments are going.
I now discuss the process. I point out that:
Our view remains, if speaking at the third reading is undertaken, it is done as a result of the importance of the matter and, as such, it should be allowed to occur until such time as the fullness of the debate is heard. We will continue to seek these changes.
The issue of a change to the standing orders, in respect to the requirement for the Speaker to recall parliament following a petition of a majority of its members did not occur.
While general business has been moved to three-and-a-half hours each Wednesday, the opposition is of the view this is insufficient time for this debate. The opposition wishes to see this extended to occur from Question Time, or following a censure motion, it occurs on a Wednesday. We will continue to seek changes to this, and will closely monitor the effectiveness of the new changes.
I now move to the subject of estimates. Estimates has been set for review in 2010, and we will fully participate in the review process. The supporting materials, which we provided on this issue, show we trail other jurisdictions with respect to the effectiveness, the set-up, and the timings provided. We will also be seeking a change to ensure the direct questioning of public servants, as set out in our original submission and, with this, there is appropriate time provided for portfolio areas, along with the ability for supplementary questions.
We operate a unicameral system in the Northern Territory and, as such, we need to ensure the scrutiny of money bills is done in a studious manner which provides the necessary questioning and access to an understanding of this area of government.
Having been through that process for the first time during the last estimates, I was appalled at the lack of time given to question ministers on my shadow portfolio responsibilities. I found it quite appalling the amount of preparation which went into these questions. I also acknowledge the public servants who spent an enormous amount of time diligently working away to prepare possible answers and, yet, on occasion, some of these public servants were not even asked one question because we did not get to a particular portfolio. I find that quite amazing, and also, perhaps, a waste of resources.
I believe it would be in the interests of democracy to question ministers for a longer period of time, and utilise the hard work these public servants put in, over a considerable amount of time - weeks and months - to prepare information for estimates so the public can have the confidence the government is doing the best possible job, albeit, many people may dispute it, that is, in fact, the case.
I move on to the adjournment and adjournment debates. Members in this House would be aware of the passion I have had, over the last fifteen months, for the adjournment debates, especially after the government reduced the time limits on adjournment debates from 15 minutes to five minutes. I acknowledge the comments by the member for Johnston, who acknowledged that I, on many occasions, have acknowledged the speed at which he has had to read through his adjournment debates. The usually articulate member for Johnston has had to rush through in five minutes. I welcome the move to 10 minutes. We wanted the 15 minute time limit reinstated, however, I believe we need to monitor and ensure all members have the opportunity to raise important issues, not only to us, but to our electorates and the good constituents who make up our electorates.
The Speaker being able to vet speeches needs to be removed and, in its place, a gentleman’s agreement be instilled for the incorporation of speeches by each Whip, as set out in our original submission. We remain of the view a formal process, which gives the Speaker this authority, is an unacceptable reach, by the Speaker, into the freedom of speech afforded to parliamentarians.
There are a couple of other issues. In relation to Standing Order 113, regarding answers, we believe this will be quite challenging for some, but we will watch with interest. We might suggest some of those succinct questions can perhaps be answered with a succinct yes or no, and we hope the days of continuous waffle might disappear.
In relation to proposed Standing Order 118(2), which deals with replies to written questions, and I quote:
We note other jurisdictions keep the questions in the Chamber, so we will watch with interest the functionality of this. I believe we need to monitor this to see whether it is sufficient. However, going along with the member for Johnston, we also agree many of these changes need to be monitored on an ongoing basis.
In summary, the government has made some changes, but in each instance it has done enough to offer the pretence it is opening itself up for greater levels of scrutiny, but in practice it has not done that much. People expect the government to be scrutinised, and the current changes do not go far enough to affect that expectation.
The role of the opposition is to keep the government accountable for the public purse, its policies and the outcomes of those policies. It is the role of the opposition to monitor that, and ensure the good people of the Northern Territory are aware of what the government is doing and how it is performing.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not speak for long, I know my colleague, the member for Sanderson, has covered most of the points raised by the opposition.
It is disappointing the statement tonight, the Importance of Central Australia, has dropped off the government’s agenda, and I believe this goes to the heart - I beg your pardon?
Dr Burns: We could have reached it on Tuesday.
Mr CONLAN: Unfortunately, there was the serious matter of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill on Tuesday; this is what parliament is about. We can debate bills, and if the committee stage happens to drag out, so be it. However, because of the government’s time frames in parliament recently - I am not sure how long, it has been 12 months or so since the 9 pm knock off - we are unable to get through much of the business and an important bill, such as the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill, takes up much time and, as a result, we lose other items on the agenda, like the ministerial statement about the Importance of Central Australia.
Those listening to this debate on the radio or the Internet, across the world, will not be able to hear the government, and, in fact, the whole Chamber, debate the statement tonight on the Importance of Central Australia, which, pretty much, sums up the government’s attitude towards Central Australia. We have been prosecuting that case all week and, I believe, the government has actually kicked an own goal by dropping off the statement today: the Importance of Central Australia; not important at all in the eyes of the Henderson Labor government. Shame on them!
I want to raise the issue about the ‘put’ motion. I am not sure, there may be a little confusion surrounding the ‘put’ motion or the closure of debate, which is Standing Order 78. Our proposal is not to have this removed entirely. I believe there is a need to have the motion be put, if a debate is dragging on, there could be a need to have the debate closed off and the motion put; our argument is this should not happen mid-speech.
Standing Order 78 states that:
In order words, under the current standing orders, anyone who is in the Chamber could stand up and say - mid-speech, right now, with 16 minutes of time left - that the motion be now put. We believe this is discourteous, to a degree. We have a clock and time limits. What is the point in having a clock? Should we dismiss the clock altogether? Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, Ninth Edition, says:
Our point, and our proposal, was to include that in the standing orders, essentially to amend the Standing Order 78, to say: ‘A motion may be made by a member rising in his place, but not so as to interrupt a member speaking, that the question be now put’. That is the point. I am not sure whether that argument was prosecuted well enough in the Standing Orders Committee meetings we had. I am not sure whether the government understood exactly what we wanted.
We do not want Standing Order 78 removed entirely; we want it amended, so a member who is on his or her feet, can finish their argument, and then Standing Order 78 can apply and that motion may be put. We have time limits in this place, it is only 20 minutes, perhaps it might be another 10 minutes, to wait before that motion be put. Surely it is not going to impinge on any further debate throughout the course of the day. That is what it was all about; the put motion, that a member who is on his or her feet is allowed to finish their argument and then, if so desired by the Assembly, and there is a majority of votes, Standing Order 78 can still proceed.
It was interesting listening to the member for Johnston. He referred to the Australian Capital Territory and its standing orders with regards to General Business Day. Business precedence in the ACT Standing Orders is as follows, I quote:
In other words, the example the member for Johnston was alluding to was our standing orders should reflect a similar circumstance to the Australian Capital Territory. He used the Australian Capital Territory as an example. Member for Johnston, Standing Order 77, in the Australian Capital Territory, states that:
If we were to continue, as we have been for so long, to debate well into the evening, not until 9 pm, then we would be able to get through some of that business. If we were to have a full business day each Wednesday of the sitting days, we could get through much of the opposition and Independent business. In fact, we could draw a pretty good argument that the opposition and the Independents have much more business than the government. We have seen it time and time again. We have seen the government knock off early. In my first 12 months, when we were a small opposition, of four versus 19, we were quite often home in daylight hours. Recently, I believe it was the October sittings, perhaps the August sittings, on several days we were finished by 5.30 pm.
There is much business to get through. The opposition has much business, demonstrated by the Notice Paper today, and I know the Independents also have much business. The member for Nelson has an agenda he would like to prosecute here. To say the opposition is essentially blocking the Independent because of bad time management practice, or whatever it might be, is nonsense. We do have much business. The extended hours which have been granted, and we are saying: ‘Hallelujah! We have finally got somewhere’, but it still does not reflect the increase in numbers on the opposition side.
The government has demonstrated time and time again it is not willing to stay back and debate into the late hours of the evening. No one is suggesting until 2 am but, then again, if it does go that late, why not? One way to avoid that is to provide the opposition with a decent amount of time to debate the bills and motions on General Business Day.
The member for Johnston, and the chairman of the committee, suggested it was a shame we only finished three of 19 items yesterday. Apart from the censure motion which took us past 9 pm, there was no reason why we could not have debated further motions.
We have brought this parliament to Alice Springs at great expense. I am not sure of the exact cost, but into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While we are here, why are we not making the most of the investment and staying back and debating until we clear as much of the agenda as possible before the year is out? Even not being on the road, as such, as this sitting is, even when we are in Darwin, parliament comes at a great expense; it is not a cheap exercise. Yet, we finish at 8 pm, 8.30 pm, 9 pm on regular occasions. In fact, we have had the ludicrous situation, where we have had four day sittings, with the Mondays, and we have debated over an eight-day sitting period - from the Monday to Thursday, over two weeks – and debated three bills. The rest were those propaganda puff pieces the government likes to put out in the form of ministerial statements.
I do not believe the government members are hard workers. If they were, we would see that reflected in the standing orders and the amendments to the standing orders. They would take up the recommendations of the member for Nelson and the opposition. We have much business to get through; if the government does not have much business to get through then, surely, the opposition and the Independents should be allowed to get through their business. Three-and-a-half hours a week is an improvement to once every 12 days which, on occasions, could only be twice a year; sometimes it was only once a year, I believe. Particularly after an election, it can work out to maybe once or twice a year; no wonder the Notice Paper is getting clogged.
Three-and-a-half hours is not too bad, but it could be extended to a full day. You would see the opposition and, I am sure, the Independents, making use of that full day, and getting down and dirty, and debating some serious legislation - something this government does not appear to be too interested in, and fails to do on a regular basis. There was an eight-day sitting during October and we debated three bills. We had the excuse today, from the member for Johnston and the chairman of the committee, that because we debated a very serious bill in this House - the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill - and it went into a rather detailed committee stage, somehow that had blown the agenda and, therefore, we were unable to get to other matters of importance and interest to the people of the Northern Territory. I refer again to the ministerial statement.
I reiterate that the argument we have been prosecuting all week is this government’s failure to address issues in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister was subject to a censure motion last night, as was the Labor government and its failure to address issues facing Alice Springs; serious issues facing Central Australia. We have a ministerial statement, which is not much, but it would have given the government, the opposition members and the Independents an opportunity to speak about issues facing Central Australia. We have seen that drop off the Notice Paper.
It is not all great news. If you look at the Police Annual Report which has been tabled today, I believe there were 35 000 drunks taken into protective custody, 5000 more than the year before. It is not a great news story, for the …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: 35 000 drunks taken into protective custody.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. I believe its shows the alcohol management plan is not working, and that would have been another opportunity for this parliament to debate those issues, but due to the poor time management skills or, in fact, the inherent laziness of the Henderson Labor government, we do not get the opportunity, and the real losers are the people of Central Australia and the Northern Territory.
As for the two points I raised, I believe Standing Order 78 should be amended. We will continue to pursue that. It should say: ‘a motion may be made by a member rising in his place, and without notice, but not so as to interrupt a member speaking’. I believe that is the decent thing to do. We have clocks; that is the virtue of having a clock and having time limits, you do not have to wait a long time to stand up and put the motion if that is the will of the parliament.
As for standing orders, and the example raised by the chairman of this committee, the member for Johnston, Standing Order 77 in the ACT says that:
We will continue to pursue that with the government. We welcome some of the changes. It is great to see the government has finally come to the party on this, with the help, I have to say, of the member for Nelson, who was able to pull some of his strings and broker a deal with the government and, in many instances, it has left us in a better shape. We are in much better shape than we were, but we would like to see the time limits lifted. We would like to see the issue with Standing Order 78 addressed, and we would like to see an extension of General Business Day.
Madam Speaker, it is clear, if history is anything to go by, particularly in the last twelve months, the opposition has much more to debate than the government.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a very long year, I believe we have worked for 36 days this year, which is much work out of 365 days in a year. A very hard-working parliament – it is probably the laziest parliament in the country, I would be right to say, possibly the laziest parliament in the world. The Territory has been called a failed state and recognised by many. It is hard to look at where the success stories are in the Northern Territory.
I was reflecting on the portfolios of Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Children and Families, homelessness, Roads, Transport, and I cannot see where this government is performing. I know it has a large bureaucracy to help with the government’s under-performance. We know the government is very tired, and is reluctant to work, which is why I support the comments made by the members for Sanderson and Greatorex.
If we are going to make improvements in the Northern Territory, surely the parliament must work harder than what it does now. This is the last day of a 36-day parliamentary year, and here we are, with the members, in government, looking tired, sitting here, waiting for the drinks straight after this session. Staff were in the hallway a couple of hours ago, running around with their red Santa hats saying: ‘The ministers are going to look good in these hats tonight when we have a few drinks’. We cannot all be present in the parliament on the last day. The government is out there partying, on the last day of a 36-day calendar parliamentary year, while Rome burns.
We know the situation in many of the portfolios. We know we have the member for Daly, who is looking forward to his drink after parliament tonight and to put his little red hat on. We know after two years, and $672m, he has not built a house under SIHIP.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is Christmas and I feel generous and warm-hearted towards the member for Braitling, however I call relevance. This is a debate about the Standing Orders Committee report. I ask he stick to the recommendations and the ambit of the report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you could tie your comments to the Standing Orders Committee report which has been tabled. That is the subject of debate at the moment: the standing orders committee and its recommendations.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the length of time this parliament sits is part of the standing order recommendations, the work it does and the legislation it brings forward. We heard the member for Johnston talking about how it was not fair of the opposition to only get through four pieces of general business yesterday, so we did not get to the member for Nelson’s business. That is not the point. This is a House of debate, and if we have one piece of legislation which takes two days to debate, so be it. That is what we are here to do. Maybe the reason nothing is working in the Northern Territory is nothing gets debated because we do not have people to put policy rigour around the discussions we are meant to have. That is why we did not get to number 17, 22 or 25 on the Notice Paper yesterday. Maybe we should sit 100 days in the year, so we can get things done and get things right.
We are all elected to work. We are not all out there with little red hats on, like the government ministers, having a drink at the party for the last day. That is why it is relevant. If the member for Daly was working maybe he would have a house built. I had a stunt prepared. This parliamentary term I was going to come with a bunch of flowers to congratulate the member for Daly for building a house. I thought he would have built a house before, or by, the last day of the parliamentary calendar. I thought he would have completed one house built, but, no.
The member for Johnston wants to call me for relevance about building houses; we are in parliament. He is the minister for building houses; it is relevant to raise the fact he has not built a house, with $672m, in two years. I should be able to debate that on more than 36 days in the year. I should not have to be told: ‘Hurry up, Adam. We need to go home. Debate early! We want to knock off early because of the party’. We should be working all night to try to fix some of our problems. We should be debating why the minister for community services spent only 33% of the assessed budget in the 2007-08 financial year; that is what we should be doing. That is why the length of debate needs to continue. That is why we should be working harder.
This parliament, with all its failures, is the most embarrassing parliament for the Prime Minister and the federal Labor party; it must be an embarrassment. He has brought about welfare reform changes - which are sure to be politically unpalatable - in the Northern Territory, because he must know Solomon is in trouble. Why else would you bring them in? He is in politics and he is the master of managing the media and playing the political game; for him it is about seats - Solomon must be gone; we will try it in the Northern Territory.
I commend the members for Greatorex and Sanderson for trying to make this parliament work, instead of being lazy, for trying to extend the hours we work, and for trying to extend the operation of General Business Day. It is only when we have true access to proper parliamentary procedure and to the available times to debate issues and hold the government to account, will things change, other than that, a general election.
I cannot see anything improving at the moment. We do not have the smartest people in the government. What are the member for Daly’s plans or visions for the Northern Territory and his portfolios? For power and water, it might be to keep the lights on, for housing - what is that - to build a house? For local government - he has even admitted he got that wrong, surprisingly. He only has three responsibilities and all three of them are not working. We should be able to debate that.
Member for Johnston, the former Minister for Health; we should be able to debate health. It is the same with all the other portfolios: Education - the NAPLAN results, we have not even hit the NAPLAN results. I do not know a school in the Northern Territory - and I have not spoken to all of them - that passed the national benchmarks. You shake your head, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would be happy for you to tell me of one school that passed the national benchmark, if you believe you can do that. I would be happy for you to find me 10, but I do not know one school that passed. I do not know one school in Alice Springs that passed the national benchmarks. But the government members will go home - stupid as they are - take their pay packets, work 36 days, hop outside this tent, put their red hats on and have a drink for a party.
I have been elected to be in parliament, to debate legislation, to make policy for the good governance of the people of the Northern Territory; not to work 36 days a year in a House of parliament. This creates a norm of complacency and lack of work ethic, so we turn into a committee debate and we have to rush through things, we do not get the time to properly scrutinise things; it is the norm now. It is how people do it, because we do not have time in our schedule to do work. The Notice Paper might be loaded up, but so it should be. We are here to work; we are not going to rush through different pieces of legislation. It is the same as me talking now; this is part of the debate. I am sure it is boring you to tears, and I am happy about that.
I want to see the clock continue to wind down, the 5.57 pm clock continue to grow. I want to keep you here all night. I would love you to have to stay all night or work until 2 am or 3 am; that would be fantastic. It would be fantastic to see Labor members working. We would even keep the spin doctors up working. One hundred and nine spin doctors in the Northern Territory government - I do not know what they do - but there are 109 spin doctors in the Northern Territory government. Based on the number of enrolled voters, that is one spin doctor for every 1000 enrolled constituents. One spin doctor for every 1000 voters in the Northern Territory! Correlate that with New South Wales; we would have 4500 spin doctors on the same equation in New South Wales. That is not a regiment; that is a battalion.
We could start invading New Zealand with spin doctors. Imagine the publicity we would get: ‘Look out; here come the spin doctors’. ‘Do not worry, it is all right’. That is this government. That is what we should be debating. I can see the New Zealanders now, watching the spin doctors come over the hill, armed with their notepads and pens: ‘I am here from the Northern Territory’. How can any government have one spin doctor for every 1000 people? I have 4500 people who vote in the electorate of Braitling, do you reckon I could have four-and-a-half spin doctors? I might go and invade a little outstation somewhere, give them some good publicity.
I support the member for Greatorex fighting for greater access to the parliament in the Northern Territory by opening the numbers of days we sit, the hours we sit, the opportunity we get to debate general business, and the opportunity we get to debate the key issues in the Northern Territory. Nothing is working; it is a failed state, and there are only a few ways we can fix a failed state in the Northern Territory. We could have a general election, someone holding the balance of power who might do the right thing, or we could have a government which was ethical and decided to act in the best interests of all Territorians.
The honourable thing to do would be for some of those politicians, or elected members who have been here for a while, to step aside. There are newer members. I might not agree with the member for Barkly, but I know he has a vision and an idea of where he wants to take things. The member for Johnston is staying here until the end of his term - see things out, wait until it comes around. I know there are other members on the other side who are doing the same thing.
The member for Casuarina - it is interesting. The Chief Minister likes to talk about the Country Liberal Party Senator for the Northern Territory and federal issues all the time to divert attention. I wonder why. There is a rumour going around the member for Casuarina is thinking about running for Labor in the Senate. Maybe he is trying to promote some sort of argument; I am not sure. Who knows what is going on? It is not really relevant to us. He could be debating child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory, but he wants to talk about the Country Liberal Party Senator. I do not know why he would want to do that.
I hope when we come back next year, long after the government retires tonight - after putting its red Santa hats on, having a drink and not doing anything for the Northern Territory - I hope it comes back next year with new vigour and a new lease of energy, and decide it wants to start dealing with things in the Northern Territory. I hope they look to further extending the standing orders, so they allow us to sit more often, to sit later, and debate properly; that would be good and I look forward to it.
I understand the member for Port Darwin is going to have a chat too. That is good. I hope he talks for as long as he can and holds the government to account. I reiterate, this government is the laziest government in Australia - possibly the laziest government in the world. Nothing is working. You would think they would want to work to try to fix it but, no, they want to go out there and have their Christmas drinks.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise to be brief because, whilst I believe it is important for debates to continue and be fulsomely debated, I also believe debates should be limited to the points being made.
Being lectured about discipline by the Leader of Government Business is a little like being lectured by Fatty Arbuckle about your weight problem. By its definition, this is a House of discussion and debate. It comes from the old French because, when parliaments started after 1215, the nobility still spoke French. The ‘parley’ part of parliament refers to the French word meaning ‘speaking’: this is a House in which you speak.
Whilst I appreciate what the Leader of Government Business is trying to impress upon us, about economy and discipline, the fact is, if he only wants to sit 36 days a year, then do not put a time limit on it; it is that simple, and it has been mentioned several times. However, this government has come into this House and changed the rules so there is a time limit on when the day ends, so we can all go home to bed on time and get a reasonable night’s sleep - all that sort of thing. If the business of the House is not being done - we are not a big House; we are not like the federal parliament - there is enough time for us all to express ourselves and to speak our minds in this place.
This government has assiduously, since forming government, tried to find ways to shorten the time this parliament operates. Of course, they find this House offensive; it challenges them, it asks, demands and expects of them, all those things which the public would express towards the government and the …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House asks, demands, and pleads with the government to provide information to the people of the Northern Territory; that is what this House is about. It is that beautiful expression of our democratic system. Ever since this government took hold of this House, it has used the gag motion more often then you could possibly imagine, because it did not want to hear the debates. It has truncated the evenings in this House because they wanted to be in bed on time. We hear now, from the Leader of Government Business, the most ludicrous arguments yet, as to why we should show, in his words, ‘economy in this place’. If you go back to what he said, the reason is the parliamentary draftsmen, who provide the legislation in this House, do not get to see their bills appear, because they sit on the Notice Paper and remain undebated.
Staff of this House also becomes concerned if you like, for a lack of better words, that the business of this House is moving too slowly. While I appreciate that may even be true, the fact is, and with all due respect to both the parliamentary draftspeople and the people who work here, the House should not define its business and its attitudes based on what the staff or the parliamentary draftsmen think. They will not be paid any less for their services to the people of the Northern Territory in this House.
It is not unlike a policeman, who arrests someone and the person they arrested is found not guilty in the court of law and the policeman is upset. Tragically, unfortunately the policeman does not always get his way. I am certain we would not argue the court should change its opinion because the arresting officer was upset, in some way, as the result of the decision of the court.
Equally so, it goes to the logic of this government, that we should subordinate ourselves to the whims of others. Take this example to its most absurd extreme: if a parliamentary draftsman - this is the person who drafts our legislation or bills and brings it into this House - is someone who we should take into consideration at the time of the bills being debated, then surely, to avoid upsetting him, we should not vote down those bills. We should pass those bills and allow them all to go into law, so the parliamentary draftsman is satisfied that his work has been worthwhile.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an absurd proposition, and I am sure all members would agree that is so. Consequently, and equally, whilst I appreciate it might be irritating for a parliamentary draftsman to draft a bill, which then sits on the Notice Paper for a longer period of time, and even if it reaches the next election and falls off the Notice Paper, does that parliamentary draftsman get paid any less or more for his day’s work? Not at all! It is not like they are on some sort of success contract, where they get paid more, or they get a bonus for every bill which passes through the House. This is an absurd proposition.
This government is simply tired; it does not want to work any more. It talks about economy of conduct. Well, boo hoo, frankly - tough. This House is a working parliament and, since the last election, it is a parliament which has taken it to the government and forced the government to sit up and take notice of this House, like it has never occurred before in the history of the Northern Territory. Never has a parliament been so finely balanced, and never has a government had the peril hanging over its head which this government has currently. Small wonder it does not like this House, because this government knows this House can bring it down, if it chooses to, and there are very good arguments, I might add, to bring down this government.
If it was not for the bloody-mindedness of certain members –and I mean members, plural - who despise this government, yet still support it, in spite of themselves, this government would fall and collapse in a heap. This parliament is a glorious example of what can be achieved through the democratic system and, for the sake of not upsetting the government, it is no reason to truncate the business we do in this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing forward the Standing Orders Committee Report. If it was in a larger font I would not need these glasses but, so be it.
In general, I believe the recommendations which have been put forward are reasonable and are an improvement on what has been put forward previously. Looking through the document, there is now an agreement to have one minute questions and three minute answers, which is something new for this parliament, but it is not new for the Senate in Canberra, and I believe it is worth trying.
A good way to find out whether questions are going through quickly is to see how many questions the Independents asked, which was two on the first sitting day in Alice Springs. The reason they got two was because the answers were long. The problem with setting time limits, will you get answers which are deliberately set out to be three minutes? Will you get questions which are deliberately spaced out to one minute, when they do not need to be? It is worth trying. It will cut out some of those long-winded answers, which sometimes go off at a tangent before we come back to the point of the question.
The automatic right to a supplementary question from non-government questioners, it has been agreed by the committee to have one supplementary question which will not exceed 30 seconds. I am not particularly worried about this, but a supplementary question is a question, if people have more questions on the subject - and I have been here long enough to know a normal tactic of the opposition is to get on a particular subject and keep hammering the government on that subject - you do not really need supplementary questions, they are all supplementary questions, because they are on the same subject. That is the process the opposition use to highlight what they think is wrong with the government and which, sometimes, leads to censure motions.
In relation to questions, the motion said to have:
At the present time, it is basically a system of ‘first in’. There is no change to how many questions the opposition can ask. I believe the system works fairly well at present. Obviously, an Independent wants more questions to go through, so they have more chance of asking questions in parliament.
Regarding the motion that:
The main news bulletins in the evening are at 6 pm and 7 pm, and the drive-time shows are around 4 pm. Question Time finishes at 3 pm. You can argue the toss, but there is no doubt when it comes to news, especially television news, it is not going to matter if it is 2 pm, they will be there with their cameras. It may miss some radio news at 12 noon, but it is half a dozen of one, six of the other; I am happy for it to stay as it is.
A good attempt at one of the major issues raised in parliament, especially when, as I have said, questions asked and answers are so far off the mark, but because the word ‘relevance’ is such a broad word, even when you look it up in the dictionary, it is very difficult for anyone to give proper meaning to the word, when it comes to the answerer being brought back into line and come more closely to what the common person would think would be the answer. I use the idea that if someone asked a question to the minister for Primary Industry on cheese, he could start talking about the man on the moon, but it would not make for a good answer. It is good to at least have an attempt to tighten that by saying it has to be ‘direct, succinct and concise’. I suppose we will end up with an argument about what is direct, succinct and concise, but I will leave it up to the Speaker to work it out when the time comes.
Regarding ‘questioning of participants to parliamentary agreements’, I regard that as a move by the Country Liberals to find out directly from me about the parliamentary agreement, which I do not believe was appropriate; questions about the agreement can be put to the Chief Minister.
Regarding time limits:
I believe everyone has agreed to that, and I believe it is good. It is a good compromise between the 15 minutes we used to have, and the changes brought in last year to five minutes. It has reduced the speed some members of parliament had to deliver their adjournment debates, at well over 130 words per kilometre; some members had to try to get their school reports in, so the 10 minutes is welcome.
The ‘removal of the sitting time limitations’ talks about the automatic adjournment, and I do not have much of a problem with that. I believe the ‘establishment of time limits for responses to questions “on notice” or written questions to ministers’, is good. There is now a 30 day time limit for responses by ministers, which has been needed for a long time. I pick up the questions ‘on notice’; that gets left on our desk, and I find some questions go back about 12 months. That change is needed.
I go back to the ‘removal of sitting time limitations’, which I support - I can live with what is here for the time being - I am a supporter. I said in my letter we should at least go until 10 pm and then have adjournment afterwards; I still feel the same. We could spend more time in this parliament debating issues but, I find it a little difficult, when the opposition is arguing that, and I know we debated a bill yesterday for about six hours which everyone said they supported. I would not mind if there were concerns about certain matters when they said that, but I have been here long enough and I know the tactics: you can drag out things if you want to. If the opposition wants to make the government look like it is not getting through its business, it drags things out.
The member for Braitling spoke before – we were talking about standing orders – and used that 20 minutes as an excuse to get stuck into the government, which is fine at the right time, but this was about standing orders. I feel that is a little hypocritical, and I do not believe I should be blamed. I note the government does the same thing, if it wants to drag things out. I remember statements that were pretty boring because they had been before parliament about three or four times, and when it wants to fill in time, it puts up as many speakers as possible. I
I would like someone to have a time management person look at what we do and say: ‘Are you sure you cannot get all this work done in the amount of time you spend?’ I believe we could get most of the work done. I am the first one to say I waffle from time to time, maybe if I made my comments …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am glad the opposition support the concept that I do not waffle. The problem is we do waffle from time to time; we fill in time with superfluous comments. If we got stuck into it and were well prepared, we would get our work done.
I find it difficult to take the comments that because we only work a certain number of days in this parliament, therefore we are not working. There is plenty of work in my electorate, on committees, and on research. If people are doing their jobs, they will be doing that. I was down here early, having a look at the roundabout. How many other members had a look at the proposed roundabout site at Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive? How many other people went at peak hour to see …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, thank you very much. That is right, but there are few. The point is that is what it is about. You do not just spend your working time in here. When you come here, you should be well prepared and knowledgeable about what you are going to say. I do not want to see a parliament which sits here, as a charade, to say to people: ‘Look at the number of hours we work, are we not fantastic?’ What, when we sit here and waffle on?
We do not want a house of parliament which is going to pass legislation for legislations sake - that would be pointless. We do not want more laws if we do not need more laws. We need to look at existing legislation and see if it needs to be upgraded or reviewed. A classic example, which has come out recently, is the Traffic Act. It is an act which needs review, because it has gone past its use-by date. People keep adding bits and pieces to it, and it needs updating. We need to be doing that. We only need to be bringing in new legislation if it is necessary. One thing people hate is overregulation. I remind people of the Humpty Doo car park, where they had to look for 11 acts before they started putting the job out for tender. I believe that is a case of overregulation.
I find it difficult you are only considered to be working if you are here for 60 days a year, because that is what happens in Canberra. Canberra is a different kettle of fish. Canberra is dealing with large issues which require much legislation in some cases. Take the carbon tax emissions debate going on, that is huge work. We probably do not see legislation like that at all. I believe the biggest legislation we have seen is the reform of the lawyers act, and there were about 330 pages; that is the biggest act I have ever seen. We get many small acts, many of which are very good. We should spend our time making sure when we bring something to parliament, we know what they are about.
I believe we should have longer time. We do not have to go to 10 pm, but we should have room to move. We should not stand up and say: ‘There is not enough time’, and then spend six hours on a bill. I saw it. I knew what was going on - I do not know how many third readings, but we have a few third readings - I understand the tactics on both sides. When you want to drag it out, you drag it out. When you want to make one side look bad, you can make them look bad. You do not have to convince me time is wasted from time to time.
Regardless of that, I do not believe there is anything wrong with knocking off at 10 pm. Generally, we sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which is three nights at 10 pm and if you want to adjourn, then do so. I do not believe you should have a limit on the adjournment; 10 minutes, let people go, and we only do that at certain times of the year. It is about using our time more efficiently, and we will have no problem. The problem is politics gets in the way of efficiency sometimes.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, politics, not parliament.
Regarding the ‘removal of the ability to move the put motion mid-speech’. I accept what the member for Greatorex said. I believe it is worth looking at again. I am normally a supporter of the put motion. Go to the Rotary Club or the cricket club and if someone takes over a debate in the Rotary Club and everyone wants to go home, they will move a put motion. I have seen it done, and it nearly caused a fight. The put motion has a use, and I would not want to see that use go. Whether it should apply here, I am happy to look at that again. It may be something we can discuss as we are reviewing what happens.
We have put some things into process, which I believe are good. Not everyone is going to be happy with it, which is fair enough; that is the way parliament works. The motion that ‘the Standing Orders be amended to reflect the requirement for the Speaker to recall parliament’, I believe is the best way. ‘General business be allocated time in each sitting week’; I asked for six hours per sitting, we have seven hours - we have 3.5 – so it is somewhere in between what I wanted, which I believe is reasonable. It means general business is going through on a regular basis. I also believe yesterday we could have completed most of the stuff. It was dragged out a fair amount. I believe we needed to be tighter in the way we worked and we could have finished most of it. After all, these sittings have an extra hour added to them. I believe if we work hard and become a little more efficient – less waffle, and I put my hand up as being one of those - then we can do it better. We would probably not put so many people who are listening to sleep - if they happen to be silly enough to be listening - it would probably stop them falling off to sleep.
The change to estimates, I believe is a good thing. I believe it is time the estimates review looked at the weightings of each department. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is much bigger – I am not saying it is not as important – than the department of Transport, simply because it takes on a huge role. Whether the discussion is around which minister should have more time according to the amount of portfolios or the importance of those portfolios, it is something which should be reviewed.
Regarding whether you should question public servants. I believe you should question public servants but, generally speaking, when you start to talk about what happens in practice, the public servants speak directly. The only thing is if the minister has given permission for a public servant to speak then, instead of going from the minister to the public servant, back to the minister, to the Chairman or the questioner, and back again, the Estimates Committee people can speak directly to the public servant. I believe that change should happen. Do not fill it up with niceties. If the minister is going to have all these people behind him, the reason they are there is to answer the questions, unless the minister knows the answer himself, then it should be nearly automatic, and do not refer it back to the minister every time, unless the minister wants to interrupt for some reason.
Overall, I support what is there. I believe we could review the put motion at another time. I still believe it would be good to extend the time of this parliament until at least 10 pm. You do not have to go to 10 pm, but it is there, and then have the adjournment debate afterwards.
I advise that, unfortunately, attachment A in the report only has half my letter. Luckily I have the other half, because it tells me all the things I would have forgotten if I did not have the back part of the page. There is also a slight error in the documents. Members who are on the committee might note - it is not a great error - but if you are looking for what the matter is referring to, No 3 says:
which has part (a) and (b), and (b) says:
However, there is no (e), so I believe it refers to 41A(a); I thought you might note that. It also has to be changed within the summary of what is going on.
It is good to have a review of our standing orders, which, more or less, are the rules which govern debate in this parliament and, without them, it might be wilder than it sometimes is. They are required. If we can open up this place for good, intelligent debate and if we all do our work, we can make this a place where people see both sides working for the benefit of the Territory, regardless of the argy-bargy. I believe we have a role to play in trying to do something good for the Northern Territory.
There was something else I was going to say, and it has slipped my mind.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not need an extension of time. I want to thank the people who helped the committee to get all this together; I appreciate that very much, and also the other members of the Standing Orders Committee for participating.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. The member for Fong Lim has an MPI, and there is a maximum of two hours for that; we are already at 6.30 pm and I believe the cut-off time is 8.30 pm. I am being considerate to you, member for Fong Lim. There might have been a few other speakers who could have shown the same consideration, but could not restrain themselves from getting up, which is the sort of discipline I am talking about, in getting through the business of parliament. But, I digress.
The member for Sanderson addressed a number of the issues I commented on in my speech, about the differences in approach between the government and the majority report, and the CLP. I believe I covered them quite well, and the member for Sanderson also expressed himself quite well, in defining those differences and pointing the way the CLP would travel with those issues.
One thing I have to address is we have put three extra sitting days on the parliamentary agenda, which did include Mondays but I believe we have all agreed we are going to dispense with Mondays and consolidate those three extra sitting days into an extra sitting week and, I believe, everyone is grateful for that.
The government has given up reports in the morning, which constituted around 35 minutes a day, so there is extra time in the parliamentary day through the government not delivering those reports. These are very important issues.
The member for Greatorex mentioned the motion on Central Australia. I do not want to go there. Obviously, government had an intention on Tuesday of delivering a statement by the Chief Minister on Central Australia. We spent quite a deal of time in the committee stage of substance abuse, which was not really flagged by the opposition. It seemed to be saying, a week or two weeks ago, there was no contention, but that is the wont of the opposition. I thought we could have dealt with the volatile substance abuse committee stage in a more expeditious way, and had time for the ministerial statement by the Chief Minister on Central Australia that day but, I suppose, we will have conjecture about why that did not occur. But, it did not occur. That was the reason.
The member for Greatorex pointed to something I said in my initial speech, which was off-the-cuff, and also said I might stand corrected on it, in terms of the ACT Assembly and the way in which it allocates time within the GBD for the Greens and the Independents. He was quite right in what he read out. I have been advised it is a convention for a division of time within the ACT Assembly. I am advised within the Tasmanian Assembly, there are set times within the standing orders for the Independents and the Greens. As I said in my speech, we could investigate whether there is a need in the future to allocate a set time for the opposition and a set time for the Independents, to give the Independents a go. Yesterday, there were 19 matters on the Notice Paper, on the opposition’s day and, theoretically, the Independent’s day, to debate and bring forward items to this parliament, but we only got through three of the opposition matters, in a whole day of debate, and a short way into the fourth.
The member for Greatorex said we should extend the time of General Business Day, but basically, it would almost need to be ad infinitum because, on my calculations - even charitably - if we got through four items in approximately seven-and-a-half hours of debate, to get through it all we would need 30 hours - a day-and-a-half - to get through business. If they had been disciplined on the other side, the government was prepared to have one speaker per matter, in two matters we were going to have two speakers, the Minister for Central Australia, appropriately, to speak briefly, I believe we could have come close to getting through that business, but we did not. The opposition chose to have a number of speakers on those matters, which is their wont.
I do not believe you can come back and say it is somehow the government’s fault. If we turn to the memo, the member for Greatorex said: ‘It is not our fault. We know how to organise our side. It is the government side which does not know how to organise itself’. That is a complete contradiction to the leaked e-mail by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has been invisible during the whole sitting. She is uninspiring, lacklustre, and one wonders why she is in that position. But she leaked this e-mail, or unintentionally leaked it, which says during the estimate process last year - where the opposition had approximately four-and-a-half days, from early in the morning to late at night, to prosecute its business and its case – there was ‘an inability to manage time constraints’. That still exists now, within its General Business Day.
It has acknowledged the problem within its own ranks. I suggest it starts to fix it in a real way, instead of blaming government for all its problems. It is there in black and white, in an e-mail from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Heaven knows why she is there. She is the invisible woman and, basically, in a political sense, has played hardly any role in the sittings this week; one wonders why she is in that position. But I digress, Madam Speaker.
I have already mentioned, and so has the member for Nelson, the offering by the member for Braitling. His was a very political offering; he is free to do it. He has done it, but he has set us back a little and eaten into his colleague’s time, the member for Fong Lim, in this Matter of Public Importance, which is coming on as soon as we dispense with this business.
The member for Port Darwin, I suppose reflected, as he often does, about the nature of parliament. He is a very learned gentleman in that regard. He uses the word ‘fulsome’ quite a lot. There are two edges to the word ‘fulsome’, according to the dictionary definition, and I meant to pick him up about it before. He gave literary allusions last night about George Orwell and 1984. I have a few myself, member for Port Darwin, I have been saving them up for a while, but maybe another time. But, ‘fulsome’ means ‘abundant’ or ‘plentiful’, so, in that context, yes, let us have an abundant and plentiful debate. But there is another side to being ‘fulsome’, which is ‘excess or want of measure’. I believe that is what we experienced in the General Business Day yesterday. I draw that to the attention of the learned member for Port Darwin.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know. It was not meant to be hurtful, member for Port Darwin; I was trying to be constructive.
The member for Nelson says we have brought in a number of changes, and he hopes we will get the results we want. I believe every member joins with him in that and, as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, it is also my desire.
With Question Time at 2 pm, he is probably in agreement with the government - we do not believe it particularly matters. When we came to the government there was a long history about Question Time being much earlier in the day. I will not digress into that topic. I am sure there were very solid reasons. Some other states may have a reason why it was earlier in the day. He believes 10 minutes for adjournment is good, and it is probably about the right amount of time. He agrees with time limits for responses. He still holds the view we could go later in the night with the shut-off time. Normally its 9 pm; he says it could go until 10 pm. However, I believe he was giving a message to the opposition that he wants to see a more efficient and effective use of the time we already have. In the GBD, whilst the opposition asked for 66 hours, or a number like that, the member for Nelson said a 50% increase in the GBD times is close to what he wants.
I will not say any more except, once again, to thank every member of the committee who has worked so hard. We have had some robust debates within the committee, but I believe they have all been constructive debates. None of us have received exactly what we wanted, whether it is from the government, the opposition, or the Independents, but, in the majority of instances, we have hopefully come to some equitable agreement. The opposition has flagged it still has issues, it wants further changes and it will push for those changes. I thank the opposition for its participation in the process.
Madam Speaker, you are on the Standing Orders Committee, as is the member for Fannie Bay. To all members, thank you. To all staff who work so hard in this regard, thank you.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there are two motions before the House. The first is noting the report, and the second is adopting the recommendations. I put the first one. The question is the Assembly note the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee of the Eleventh Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Madam SPEAKER: The second is the Assembly adopt recommendation No 1, and note recommendation Nos 2, 3 and 4 of the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call the member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am glad to see there are so many people in this Chamber who support calling on this Matter of Public Importance.
Having listened to the last debate, in relation to the standing orders, it does not surprise me why there is so little done by this government in its investment in necessary infrastructure, planning, essential services, and housing. We come into this House, essentially, as legislators; our role is to legislate. We should be discussing things like bills and motions. The government should be accountable for how Question Time is set down, and Matters of Public Importance should be able to be raised by all members.
The trouble I have with this parliament, and this government, is it feels it has a need to constantly throw out ministerial statements which need to be debated to the end. It is quite easy for the Leader of Government Business to say, on the last day of the sitting year, we need to expedite our proceedings, and we need to cut short our debate, because there are some bills which are completely necessary to pass through this parliament. A little foresight with the government might have told it that, rather than throwing out ministerial statements, which are, in effect, puff pieces designed to make the government look good and, more often than not, to belittle the opposition, Independents and anyone else who opposes its position in the community, if the government members had concentrated on their jobs, as legislators, it may be we would get through the business of the parliament in a much easier fashion.
It is not just the business of the parliament which is affected by this. This sort of behaviour carries on into the community to the point we are now living in the Northern Territory where we seem to have crime out of control, the budget seems to have been blown, we have a housing crisis, houses and businesses are constantly going without power and electricity, and it seems the whole place is crumbling around our ears, but the government seems to constantly make idle promises.
I have a short list of some of those areas where it has promised big and delivered little. The future water supply of Darwin, or the top End, and in Alice Springs, for instance. Many promises have been made in relation to ensuring and making certain our water supply. We have had discussions, studies and all sorts of stuff, yet the government has failed to commit funds anywhere, either in the Top End or Central Australia, to secure our water supplies.
Tiger Brennan Drive was a very early promise made by this government, where it would do extensions and upgrades. I remember, in the federal parliament, we first put up money in 2003, yet, here we are in 2009, a full six years later, and the budget for that has almost tripled. It has cost Territorians in excess of $80m on what it would have cost in 2003 to get the job done.
We hear about the famous Larrakeyah outfall closure. For those not aware of it, it is commonly referred to in the media, and sometimes in this House, as the ‘poo shooter’. It is not a term I particularly like, but the government promised time and time again it would close and remove it. Nothing has happened. There seems to be no work progressing on that. It says it costs a great deal of money; I am sure it does, but the government has stagnated there.
The Alice Springs courts and police station upgrades. These things have been promised for years now, yet nothing has happened.
Darwin and Palmerston closed circuit television network was a promise made by this government, I believe, quite some time ago. I note the federal government chimed in. It was also a commitment of the Rudd Labor government that we would have CCTV networks throughout Darwin and Palmerston. Again, nothing has happened, irrespective of the fact the federal government is chipping in a substantial amount of money towards that program.
Red light camera network. We get a red light camera, but they cannot process the fines. We are catching people running through red lights, but there is no system in place to process fines. While I am on that, I note the one red light and speed camera which we had in the Darwin area raised some millions of dollars in revenue and, all of a sudden, we are going to be getting another eight of them. I do not believe that has anything to do with road safety, but a little more to do with government revenue.
The construction of the Rosebery School, which has been on the books since 1999, was a commitment Labor made, only started twelve months ago.
Then there is the famous Bellamack and Johnston land releases. These things have been talked about for almost a decade now. Finally, we seem to be getting a move on there. It was interesting in this parliament, not so long ago, this government, in a very clandestine way, passed legislation in relation to the Land Development Corporation, but did not say at the time its proposals were about developing 150m blocks of land, which, at Bellamack, the government refused to say - point blank refused to say it.
Only three days after that legislation was passed, all of a sudden we were hearing about these 150m blocks. I note at the time the Independent - at the time - Independent member for Nelson, non-Labor member for Nelson, at the time, was absolutely and utterly outraged. This is a man who does not want to see five acre blocks or two acre blocks in his electorate subdivided to anything smaller. I cannot imagine how he must have felt about people living in 150m houses in Bellamack. Once you had built the house, you literally could not swing a cat in the place.
We see the Darwin gaol has been talked about for years now. We still seem to be years away from locating where that will go and starting construction. It is obvious this side of the Chamber is opposed to moving it, at the time, so was the Independent member for Nelson. Although now he seems to have joined the government, he is quite happy to see it moved somewhere else. In any case, there seems to be no start date on the horizon for that one.
We know about the Darwin Waterfront and the time overruns. What we do not know is what it has cost.
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the interjection from the Leader of Government Business. I do get down to the wave pool with my kids. We love it. It is a great spot, but, the fact is, it has cost Territorians an absolute bomb and those costs are still coming in. It is a 25 year liability for this government. Looking at the cost of those things, it is no wonder you can have a good time, but it is a pretty expensive good time. How long have we been hearing about the Darwin region cyclone shelters? These things were promised, I believe, two, three, four years ago, that there would be an upgrade to cyclone shelters. Every time it is about to happen, it is just before the wet and, here we are again, just before the cyclone season, and work has not started on the cyclone shelters.
Where are the boat ramps at Palmerston and Channel Island? They have been promised for years and years. The Blacktip processing plant is still not completed. The gas being delivered is wet gas. How does this impact on the operation of the pipeline? Perhaps it does, as we have seen this week, with a suggested pumping station failure. How long did it take to get the ConocoPhillips crosslink pipeline proposal to completion? Far too long!
We have heard this week about the Mereenie Loop, and sealing the Mereenie Loop, and we have had the Chief Minister answering questions on that, saying everything except answering the question. He could not give a date for when the sealing of the Mereenie Loop would happen. It seems to me it is on the ‘never never’.
I believe we are still many years away from seeing the Katherine heavy vehicle bypass happen, although it is another thing which has been promised time and time again.
I do not know if anyone even remembers the promises for the regional airstrips upgrades. I do. We heard much about the government upgrading the regional airstrips, but nothing has happened. Berrimah Road rail overpass and access to the port. If a train breaks down on that intersection, on that railway crossing, it could take hours for people to get through. That is a vital piece of our logistical and transport infrastructure with road, rail and sea access, and the overpass is a vital and strategic piece of infrastructure, but it has not happened. Nothing has happened in those areas.
Darwin Port loading facility upgrade. How long ago was it we were told the crane is not up to doing the job properly and had to be replaced? Where is it? The Darwin Port wharf facilities at East Arm, I do not know whether they are subsiding, sinking or what the story is there, but the thing is not going anywhere.
The classic one is the Darwin Airport upgrade. Here was the government - all bells and whistles - talking about the Jetstar hub and expanding the airport and the facilities. Nothing has happened. The government has not explained why it has not happened; it is has just disappeared off the map.
Only a couple of weeks ago we saw problems with passenger ships coming into the harbour and berthing. Again, it was another promise of the government, made years ago, with the Waterfront Development, that it would be able to fix those issues. Passenger travel. What happened? We had two ships in the harbour, and one of them had to park out at East Arm and only found out a couple of hours before they arrived in Darwin. This is embarrassing - absolutely embarrassing. It is a comedy of errors.
The Defence Support Hub - the white elephant, as I like to call it - I do not think it is going anywhere. I never knew it was going anywhere, but I believe this idea came up three, four, five years ago. The government, in a big, glitzy announcement, spoke about the Defence Support Hub. Where is it? Who are the people going there? Have we had a single interested company going out there? Maybe the minister might name them when he gets up, and he can say how far off that is from getting up and running.
The Oncology Unit - one of the great classics, which we will not go into, that was first promised in 2001. Goodness me, it has seen the back of every Health Minister this government has put up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Finally, I got to go out there the other day and do a tour. Maybe, some time next year it will be operating. It is a great thing, but goodness me, it has taken almost a decade to get that vital piece of infrastructure built in the Top End.
The Alice Springs emergency department was first committed to six years ago and they are just starting work on it now. SIHIP has to be the all-time clanger. Two years ago, almost $700m was handed over to this government. Two years later, not one single house. We have heard about the failure of this government so often. The Hidden Valley facility upgrade is another one first promised two years ago. The Rudd Labor government committed some $3m to the upgrade. Nothing has happened. The Palmerston water park - where is it? Nothing has happened. No Palmerston water park.
What is happening with the Northern Territory Archives Service? The Commonwealth is pulling out so the Territory government has to do something. Where are these archives being stored at the moment? Probably in a demountable somewhere - I am talking about the Territory Archives - we are coming into the Wet Season, and they are not in an air-conditioned or a climate-controlled facility. This is our history this government is ignoring. Nothing is happening.
The Palmerston Middle School debacle. The government committed $10m. There was a six-month time overrun in the final construction, and the finish was delayed. The old Waratah Oval retirement village in Fannie Bay was a commitment made some time ago - nothing on the horizon regarding the delay in constructing the retirement village.
Mt Johns Valley land release - here we go - we are up to the famous Infrastructure Australia commitments. We were going to get all of this money from Infrastructure Australia. We had Kevin Rudd, and we were ‘entering a new era of cooperative federalism’. They called it the end of the blame game, and we got rid of that miserly, rotten Howard man who used to run the country, who was all about saving money, not spending it, accumulating it. I remember the Treasurer saying how disgusting it was the federal government had a surplus – it was disgusting. Kevin Rudd has got in there and, true to his word, has been throwing money around like a drunken sailor - I take that back - a drunken sailor throws his own money around; Kevin Rudd is quite prepared to throw someone else’s money around.
We are some $300bn in debt already. We have seen a little over two years of this government. We are over $300bn in debt, and we have a budget deficit of some $60bn. Yet, this government has been able to secure five-eighths of nothing. Infrastructure Australia said it would get the Katherine Hospital and the ambulance flooding relocation done. It said it would fix up the Katherine region roads, and do the Katherine regional cultural precinct. Where are they? All of those applications failed …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, all of these things failed. They went there, I believe, with a $200m-odd request for our port. What did they come back with? $50m for a study, but not one cracker for the port from this great fund Kevin Rudd had set up to build roads, ports, and other infrastructure.
They said they would go to Infrastructure Australia and get money for the Outback Highway. Where is it? It is not there.
The list goes on. I note I am running out of time very fast. I said I only had a short list, and it is only a short list; there is a mile of other things I could be talking about, but I am running out of time.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, this government is a failure - a complete and utter failure. It is very good at making promises, but it is not very good at delivering on those commitments.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the matter of public importance which has been raised by the member for Fong Lim because, as the Chief Minister said today, business drives our economy in the Northern Territory, and business is front and centre in this matter of public importance.
I felt the member for Fong Lim, in his short list which, on my piece of paper, is a long list, had much latitude. In some cases, I am not completely sure of the relevance directly to business in the list he raised. No doubt, he has raised that list. It is a comprehensive list, member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have had your time, member for Fong Lim, please show me the courtesy - although I did interject a little in your speech, there you go; you can have a little latitude - sparingly.
The main point to make in relation to what the member for Fong Lim said is everything he says contravenes the evidence about business in the Northern Territory. If it was all so much doom and gloom, as the member for Fong Lim paints, business would be a debacle; business would be in very dire straights, which is exactly how we found it when we came to government in 2001. There was zero growth – zero - a big fat zero growth in business. Business was flat on its back. There were a myriad of stories about people out of work, particularly in the construction industries, unable to pay their mortgages, really struggling, much unemployment, a complete lack and demoralisation in the business sector.
Let us look at some of the evidence. The Sensis Business Index is not compiled by the government; it is compiled by an entity separate from the government. The report released on 17 September 2009, shows Northern Territory businesses are experiencing the strongest trading conditions in Australia. Business confidence improved for the third successive quarter, with Northern Territory business confidence recording equal highest in Australia. The Territory recorded the highest performance in the past quarter for sales, employment, wages, prices, and profitability - that is a list, member for Fong Lim. Stronger business confidence and profitability has resulted in growth in employment and capital expenditure on the part of business. We have the strongest employment growth in Australia for the quarter, and Territory businesses expect the workforce to grow further this quarter. I quote from the Sensis survey:
The key reasons identified for supporting government policies is that we offer incentives and support for small business. Support for the government in this category is particularly strong in the regions.
I believe what the member for Fong Lim had to say flies in the face of solid evidence which has been gathered by an independent body, outside the government and party politics, which has an acknowledged track record in its methodology and the way it gathers and analyse the information.
I mentioned the infrastructure spend by private enterprise, but I do not believe we should lose sight of the fact the Territory government is also a very important driver of our economy, particularly by our infrastructure spend. Our infrastructure spend in Budget 2009-10 is $1.3bn across the Territory, across the regions - strong. It is the highest infrastructure spend within the Northern Territory budget since self-government, since anything, and since we have come to power, we have invested increasing amounts into our infrastructure spend. I remember when we came to government, the previous CLP government did not even have enough money to fund its carryover of projects from one year to the next; it was a very dire situation.
I will be the first to acknowledge this government has been the beneficiary of the GST; there is no doubt about that, I put that on the table and acknowledge that straight up. I also argue, very strongly, the government has invested that money very wisely in infrastructure, in our infrastructure spend in schools, health clinics, roads, in the port - in a whole range of things.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned buying another container crane for the port. When I was the minister, there was a conscious decision made for the port to have its direction more in the bulk materials area than in the container area. It is still important to us and we still want to grow it, member for Fong Lim but, given the transport of bulk materials on the railway, it was common sense we should have been investing in bulk loading. I forget the exact figures we have invested in the bulk loader; I believe initially it was around $20m to $30m. We have also invested in the hardware, and continue to invest in the hardware, to bring bulk material from where it lands on the railway, to the port and into the bulk loader.
We can never compete against southern ports in terms of containers. They have such a large number of containers going through their ports. The per-unit cost of those containers, which they can do in the larger ports of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, we cannot really compete with. One day we will, and we need to keep on growing our container traffic but, given the world’s demand for bulk commodities like manganese, phosphate, and other commodities, that is where we need to be investing, and where we have invested in our infrastructure. That is why deposits up and down the track are developing and there is foreign investment, along with local partnerships, in developing those mineral deposits.
I suppose the member for Fong Lim, is - I don’t know - it is like mentioning the war all the time; he cannot stay away from Tiger Brennan Drive or the radiation oncology unit. We have spent much time on these issues on the floor of this parliament. I have all the literature. The member for Fong Lim knows about the radiation oncology unit and Tiger Brennan Drive and his promises, which never came to any fruition or any material result. He said he has been out to the hospital and he has seen the radiation oncology unit being built.
Everyone can see Tiger Brennan Drive being constructed and there was a well-attended open day, which was hosted by my colleague a month or two ago, with locals really enjoying what is happening at Tiger Brennan Drive; it is coming to fruition. I will also lay on the record, as I did publicly when I was Health Minister, member for Fong Lim, yes, the radiation oncology unit has taken too long; I acknowledge that. But as Health Minister, I worked very hard to bring this to reality. It is a complex project and I am not going into the nitty gritty of it; we have had this debate before.
I was a little concerned about your comments on the Waterfront, member for Fong Lim, calling it a liability. I believe you need to go through it. It is a public-private partnership and this government has leveraged over $1bn of investment, over the time frame you have talked about, with a minimal amount of public and government funds. What do we have so far? As you said, this development has a long time frame.
You have mentioned the wave pool, which everyone enjoys. I have a terrible confession to make, member for Fong Lim, I have not taken my surfboard there yet, but I will. I will make sure you are not around with a camera at the time. I saw the pictures you produced yesterday. Funny fellow, as my physics teacher used to say. I have been to the Convention Centre a number of times, and I do not have the figures in front of me, but I know there have been many conventions, some with over 1500 people, from all over the world. There was the SEAAOC conference, there have been medical and tourism conferences, one of which you attended member for Fong Lim. The feedback I receive from those in the tourism industry, and those who drive private hire cars and cabs, is this has provided a real opportunity, particularly during the shoulder season, when things traditionally are pretty tough in the tourism industry.
The economy is turning over, people are saying they are doing very well and they attribute much of that success to the convention centre. I believe it has been a wonderful investment, and there is more to come. I know with the new area, Jimmy Shu and others will be opening up restaurants - an Italian restaurant. There will be outdoor areas. I believe the people of Darwin really enjoy the area at present but there will be even more amenities and attractions, and the area is going to be a great signature for Darwin. We should all be proud of it and not be criticising it, member for Fong Lim.
You mentioned a number of things which are within the purview of my colleague, the member for Daly, who is the Minister for Essential Services, and I will let him speak to those issues.
Getting back to our economy, the Territory has benefited from strong economic growth since 2001. I have not mentioned the global financial crisis in my speech. All the figures, growth and business confidence, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, have occurred during a period of economic uncertainty, when many jurisdictions and regions in the rest of Australia have been going backwards, or at least been static. The Territory has moved forward and that is a real credit to Territory businesses.
I believe the government has provided a framework and support for businesses to do well. I believe the member for Fong Lim has implicitly, not explicitly, criticised the Building the Education Revolution. I know most schools in my electorate have received between $2m and $3m for those works. If you go to a school council, they are not complaining about the government, they are talking about the floor covering for the new …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: You want to quibble …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You want to quibble, member for …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: One would hope you are going to school council meetings…
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you are going to school council meetings and see what I am talking about. Schools are excited about the expenditure and the works they can carry on to support student education, to bring more amenity to their school. One school in my electorate, Millner School, has an environmentally progressive project, where they are going to be saving …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. We are talking about the Northern Territory government, not the federal government, the minister can address something. We are talking about infrastructure, fair enough, but not the federal government building infrastructure. This is not even going through the Northern Territory government; it is going directly to schools …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, there is no point of order, resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: … it has nothing to do with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat!
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I distinctly remember, as I believe all the people who have been listening would, you were very critical of the Rudd government going into deficit. The reason why it has gone into deficit is the package they have rolled out, not only the Building the Education Revolution, but a whole range of infrastructure projects, which I know my colleague, the member for Karama, has talked about, at length, within this parliament, and I know the CLP find it hard to accept. I commend the Rudd government for what it has done to lessen the impact of the global financial crisis on Australia and the Northern Territory in particular.
Access Economics recently forecast the Territory will achieve 4.9% growth in state domestic product in 2008-09, the highest of all jurisdictions, and an outstanding result in challenging times. This growth forecast does not factor in the massive INPEX project. Recently, the ANZ commented the Territory economy is leading the nation. The ANZ Regional and Rural Quarterly Report stated the following:
Madam Speaker, recent data highlights four consecutive quarters of positive nett interstate migration, a result seen for the first time in more than 20 years, highlighting our employment growth and strong business confidence are attracting workers, and that we need to continue our economy. As the Chief Minister pointed out in Question Time today, the problems we have in the Territory are problems of growth; they are not the problems of decay or contraction. They are the problems of growth and a strong economy.
We have acknowledged we have problems around land release, housing construction, housing affordability, rental, and public housing. We have announced, in this parliament, our strategies, and we have put them on the table, regarding land release and all those issues I have mentioned.
Yes, there are issues. There are wider issues in the Territory in the regions, in Indigenous disadvantage and in Indigenous employment. That is at the core of what is happening within the housing program, which the member for Fong Lim is being so critical about. It has been the desire of this government and the federal government that SIHIP will provide training, job opportunities, and opportunities for ongoing employment for Indigenous people in the regions. That is an important part of this very large project, which has been subject to criticism, but, I believe, in calendar year 2010, the results will be evident, particularly in the employment area I alluded to before.
Basically, I also have charge of the Land Development Corporation. We are going ahead with Bellamack Gardens, which is a pilot project. The government took on board the criticisms which were made publicly, and has amended the plan. It has gained praise and a tick in a way to go - it is one way to go. Of course, the government has wider strategies in land release and housing construction for social housing, which my colleagues, the member for Daly and Karama, have alluded to at length within this House.
You mentioned the Defence Support Hub. As you know, member for Fong Lim, the Defence White Paper has been released. There is movement in the Defence areas in a number of prime contracts. In my discussions with a number of the prime contractors, of course, they are waiting to see which way Defence is going to go in those contracts. I am very confident, given the way the Defence White Paper has highlighted Darwin, and infrastructure and personnel in Darwin, many of those contracts will come to Darwin. That fits in neatly with the Defence Support Hub. That is very important. Instead of being a white elephant, I believe it is quite a visionary project. I believe the proof will be in the pudding, and time will tell.
In summary, I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak on the matter of public importance brought forward by the member for Fong Lim. I believe I have highlighted the fact business in the Territory is doing well. I have also highlighted the government acknowledges there is much more to do: there is further investment in our infrastructure and services; and further support we can give to business. However, I will finish on this note: the problems we face are largely the problems of growth, which are good problems to have. The government is addressing that in a strategic and well-thought-out fashion, which has funding attached to the measures we are taking.
In short, this government is tuned into business, which has done very well under this government, in contrast to the previous CLP government. Businesses know what this government has done, both for it and for the people they employ. We are about jobs, development, and the economy.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this matter of public importance to the House.
To the member for Johnston, I really wish you would invest in the lives of Indigenous people and promote and put extra money into health and education, roads, homelessness, and the disadvantage and poverty of Indigenous people throughout the Northern Territory.
I pick up on one of the things discussed by the members for Fong Lim and Johnston, the 25-year liability for the waterfront. I hope the 25-year liability to the Northern Territory is not off the back of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory because, as Territory Indigenous people, we have suffered.
There have been more than the government on the gravy train of the poverty and disadvantage of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I believe the gravy train, somehow, has to stop, and this government has to seriously think about housing Indigenous people, making sure there are clinics in Indigenous communities - and Santa Teresa.
I will go to Santa Teresa. In 2001, the former Health minister, Dr Peter Toyne, promised Santa Teresa money to do repairs and maintenance to the clinic at Santa Teresa. We are now in 2009, and Santa Teresa still does not have that money – a promise made in 2001 by Dr Peter Toyne - and the people of Santa Teresa are still waiting.
In 2001, the Mereenie Loop Road was promised by Clare Martin. In 2009, Indigenous people, and the tourism industry of Central Australia, are still waiting for the Mereenie Loop to be sealed. This is a government full of spin and propaganda, not only to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory, but to all Territorians.
Not one house built under SIHIP. I heard the minister say SIHIP is about training. All you need is common sense to know you cannot train anybody in three months to get Certificate I, II or III. Territory Alliance presented to the committee on Monday and said it would only be in Ali Curung, a community where it is doing major rebuilds, for three months. How can you train anyone in the building industry in three months to get Certificate I, II or III? The whole package of SIHIP was about training; it was about building houses. However, in two years, not one house. It was about alleviating the overcrowding.
People are living in the rivers in Alice Springs; people who have had their limbs cuts off, are living in the Todd River under the bridge; people who are renal patients are living in the rivers. I hope you guys, from that side of the House, feel happy when you go out drinking tonight. I hope when you mob all go back to Darwin, that you drive past the Todd River and see all those people down the creek, and feel happy and confident in yourself, that you are going back to do more spin and more propaganda.
In saying this, I want to talk about a community called Arlparra, which is in the Utopia region and part of my electorate of Macdonnell.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the minutes of a meeting held at Urapuntja Council Aboriginal Corporation, part of the Barkly Shire Local Board.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: The minutes of that meeting reveal some very disturbing matters: children, as young as 14, have been supplied alcohol at the home of the people who have been contracted to run the Arlparra Store, and children have also been supplied marijuana at the home of the store managers.
The next two points are allegations made by senior members of the Arlparra community. In addition to the allegations at the meeting, claims have also been made to me that the daughter of the store manager has been engaged in sexual activity with young men, some of them as young as 14. There are also allegations children as young as 11 have been corrupted with alcohol and marijuana. These are very grave matters.
During the meeting, which was held in May this year, the store manager admitted that he does drink alcohol in his residence. Two police officers were present at this meeting, and witnessed that admission, but nothing was done about it. The man’s home was not searched, even though police had an admission that he had grog on his premises. There it goes again: one law for blacks, one law for whites. You can bet if he had been an Aboriginal man, his home would have been searched thoroughly, and he would have been charged and prosecuted.
Since this community tried to get rid of these people, the former licensee of the store has been convicted for drink-driving; he was on Aboriginal land at the time. He was clearly illegally consuming alcohol. But, it does not stop there. Since the meeting, his wife and daughter were also caught by police. They were stopped bringing a quantity of alcohol into the community. I am advised both the mother and daughter were charged by the police. The charges against the mother were later dropped, because she was able to successfully claim she was unaware of the alcohol in the vehicle. However, the daughter was successfully prosecuted. Both these incidents, the drink-driving and the grog running, happened after the community tried to force these people out.
It is six months since the community tried to solve this problem, yet these people are still running the Arlparra Store. These people have spoken to the Northern Territory and federal governments. I have been one of the biggest supporters of the intervention, but the intervention in that place has failed.
People like Rosie Kunoth-Monks, and the leaders of the Arlparra community, deserve the support of this parliament in making their community safer for their children. So far, that support has not been there. The Northern Territory intervention was supposed to prevent precisely those sorts of events occurring, but it has done nothing to protect the people of Arlparra from this sort of behaviour.
I table the minutes of the meeting of the Urapuntja Council Aboriginal Corporation, in the hope the Henderson government will finally take seriously the pleas for assistance from the people of the Utopia region. These people live in very vast country. They are so dispersed you might have seven people living in one little outstation, 14 in another, 25 in another and two elderly couples, as the member for Stuart would know, in one outstation.
They need the help of this government to sort this problem out. They have been talking about this problem for months, to the people who were supposed to have helped them. Nothing has happened.
Do we feel good when we sit here and listen to this kind of argument being put to this House? Can we truly say we have done enough for these people? Can we truly say we have done enough, not just for Central Australia, black and white, but, for our Indigenous people in the whole of the Northern Territory, who are suffering, while the people are still on the gravy train with their consultancies through your government? The poverty and disadvantage of Indigenous people determines how many of you people live, who your friends are, what you eat, and what kind of car you drive. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves that you have the first people of this country living in absolute poverty in your back yard.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this important matter of public importance about the constraints placed on businesses by the Henderson government’s lack of investment in necessary infrastructure, planning, essential services, and housing.
The first thing I raise is the investment in roads by the Northern Territory government. I understand, and I believe the member for Johnston spoke earlier about the investment the Northern Territory government is putting into roads, or through the infrastructure budget which includes roads. The minister might like to reflect the Northern Territory government had a big announcement with the budget for infrastructure but, the fact is, the works which end up being undertaken under the infrastructure budget, do not happen in this year.
You can call it a $1.3bn infrastructure budget, but most of the work has been carried over for the last few years, and will not be done in this financial year, it will be done in a few years time. I raised earlier in these sittings the Mereenie Loop Road. There have been 22 rollovers on the Mereenie Loop Road in the last 12 months. That road has been an election commitment by this government for a number of years but, despite that fact, it is not in this year’s election commitment, so it has planned not to do the remainder of the Mereenie Loop Road. There is nothing about the Ernest Giles Track. There is nothing in the budget about sealing the Sandover Highway, the road which was written about in the Sunday Telegraph two weeks ago, where it said it looks like a war zone, it looks like the road has been bombed. There is nothing about sealing the whole Tanami Road.
Despite the fact the member for Daly announced, in his 2005 budget election commitments, that he would build a bridge over the Daly River, nothing has happened. Four years later the bridge has not been built. The road between Daly River and Wadeye has not been sealed.
I know this was not done in the 27 years of the CLP government, and the member for Daly would like to say that, but this is the fifth biggest town in the Northern Territory, a town cut off for five months of the year, without those people having access to goods and services. That relates directly to the constraints placed on business by the lack of performance by this government. How on earth is business expected to get that community to trade? How on earth is that community supported to get its business to trade, for the purpose of goods and services? It is a real restraint on business and economic development in the Northern Territory, and these are the areas which need to be focused on, so we can help grow our economy.
The economy in the Northern Territory is currently running on a few things. In particular, it is running on the intervention, the billions of dollars the intervention is bringing to the Northern Territory, which is bringing both positive and negative effects – positive, in terms of infrastructure and negative in terms of some of the social outcomes.
How many more people does this government want to kill by not investing in roads infrastructure in the Northern Territory? The road toll in the Northern Territory last year was 75, the second worst on record apart from the 1980s. Clearly, if we have road tolls which are far exceeding the per capita basis across the country for our jurisdiction in the Northern Territory, something needs to be done. I recognise 50% of those fatalities are alcohol related, and 50% of those are seat belt related, but we still have to invest in the infrastructure in these communities. We have to invest in infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory, so we can assist people.
I note, and I will go back to, the Commonwealth Grants Commission statistics which I have quoted several times this week, which no one in the Labor government seems to be keen to talk about, least of all the member for Arnhem, who, quite atrociously, underspent in Children’s Services, to the tune of 66% of the budget.
In the area of road’s spending, in the 2007-08 budget, the Commonwealth Grants Commission estimated there needed to be $267m spent on roads in the Northern Territory. It assessed the Northern Territory government would have only about $79m of its own money, because the Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction, so the Commonwealth government, through its GST revenue, gave an estimated $188m extra to support the Northern Territory government with its roads.
What did the Northern Territory government spend in the 2007-08 year? It spent $98m, 37% of the assessed budget by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. How on earth do we expect roads like the Mereenie Loop Road to get sealed, the Tanami Road, the road to Wadeye, the Central Arnhem Highway, the Arnhem Highway, or getting the Barkly fixed? The Barkly was washed out earlier this year. It is still not fixed, nearly 12 months later, and coming on to the Wet Season. It sat on $169m, or should I say, diverted an assessed amount of $169m away from road’s spending. It diverted an estimated $144m, nearly $145m, away from Family and Community Services; it diverted an estimated $114m away from services to Indigenous communities; $58m away from Correctional Services. Where did the money go? It went to pay back excessive debt of $90m. It went to pay back $358m of superannuation in one year.
What sort of a government can stand by - recognising we have a vast network of very poor quality roads since this Labor government came to power - what sort of government can spend $358m on superannuation for its 17 000 public servants, but only spend $98m on roads? What sort of government can spend $358m – let me say that again, because they are big numbers - $358m on superannuation and $1m on transporting rural children to school. How can the government do that? How can the government spend $358m on superannuation, in the last financial year reported, and only spend $71m - nearly $72m - on looking after children. In the same year the Little Children are Sacred report came out, and the same year Mal Brough had to come to the Territory to try to rescue these children. How can it do that? It goes on year after year.
Albeit, the 2007-08 financial year was slightly better than the $45m it spent the year before. There was $45m on trying to help, rescue and protect kids, but it managed to spend $79m on culture and recreation, pork-barrelling electorates in the Northern Territory to keep them elected, but not looking after the children. The member for Macdonnell was right when she was talking about the services to Indigenous communities, but more importantly, the children. How can you invest in superannuation and not look after the kids? That is utterly disgraceful. I will move on, because I know I only have 15 minutes to speak.
There is something which I am very keen on talking about. Something which is 103 m long, has a beam of 14.25 m, a draft of 3.82 m, is 4000 gross tonnes, has an engine that is 3265 HP, runs at a speed of 12.5 knots, was built in Germany in 2003, and is registered in the Bahamas; it is, of course, a boat. It is a boat registered in the Bahamas and is built to carry hundreds of people. It is a cruise boat which comes to the Northern Territory and tries to promote our economy. It fits in very well with this MPI about the constraints placed on business by the Henderson Labor government’s lack of investment in necessary infrastructure, planning and others. This boat is called the Orion.
Let me sidestep for a minute and talk about the Darwin Port Authority. There has been much criticism about the Darwin Port Authority for a long period of time. I recall the member for Johnston saying we will never be competitive with containers in the Northern Territory. His words were: ‘We cannot compete on containers’. The Darwin Port Authority is a public body which is over-bureaucratic, top heavy, has high expenses on management, and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, at any one time. It is a reflection of how this government operates – top heavy, over-bureaucratic, too much money spent on consultants, and little work getting done; little customer service, and little delivery on the ground. One of the problems we have at the Darwin Port Authority, is while it spent squillions of dollars in the management sector, it is not ensuring the required safety standards are put in place throughout the Darwin Port Authority and around the harbour. There is over 13 500 km of coastline in the Northern Territory, and the Darwin Port Authority has responsibility in that regard.
When boats come into ports managed by the Darwin Port Authority, it must take responsibility to ensure the safe arrival and the safe management of those ships. I recognise the Port of Darwin is getting busier all the time. It is at capacity now in some regards, but there are massive opportunities for growth. However, because of this over-reliance on management and focus on management, the safety standards are not being adhered to and Port Authority staff are not going out and checking the markers appropriately, they are not checking the guide lights for the ships which are out, or checking the charts are right to guide boats.
I will go back to the Orion. I have Captain Taylor’s report for 1 May 2009; he was in charge of a boat which carries hundreds of people - I have described the boat. On 1 May 2009, he made this report as he pulled into Port Melville to dock. Recognising the Port Authority has not been carrying out its safety standards to check its equipment, guide lights and so forth, he pulled into Port Melville, and I quote from the report:
I have checked and this is quite correct, and no one has been to check this.
It continues:
We have the Orion, with hundreds of people on board, coming to dock at Port Melville, with no pilot lights or guidance, so the captain is trying to rely on the charts of the ship, which were out compared to the ocean floor. We have tourists coming into the Territory, on a tourist boat, to spend money in the Territory and help our economy, but because the government has neglected its management of the Port Authority, those 200 people’s lives have been put at risk. In Australia, we do not have boat accidents, fortunately; I cannot remember the last time there was a significant boat accident, which is a good thing.
We have neglect by the Northern Territory government, which put hundreds of people’s lives at risk, when trying to pull into Port Melville because this government has taken its eye off the ball; it is not listening to its staff at the lower level in the Port Authority, who have told it where the mistakes are. How many people does this government want to kill by its neglect? We have heard about its concerns with child abuse. We know it is not investing in the roads, not building any houses, and we have another area of deceit and neglect by this government. Hundreds of people could have been killed because this government is not undertaking the appropriate safety checks, which are the responsibility of the Darwin Port Authority.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, members. This is another glowing example of incompetence by the Henderson Labor government, which is placing restraints, or constraints, on businesses and putting people’s lives at risk. Hundreds of people could have been killed because of this government’s neglect, and the Henderson government should be ashamed.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on this matter of public importance. It is very appropriate, here in Alice Springs, I focus my contribution in this debate to Alice Springs businesses.
I know many of the other speakers have not; they have strayed far and wide. I had the distinct impression tonight - a night of tumultuous change at the political level - that the member for Fong Lim might be trying to emulate his former colleague in Canberra, Tony Abbott, in some sort of leadership changeover – it was very strange behaviour with a prepared speech at this late hour. Very strange tactics on behalf of the member for Fong Lim.
I have moved around in my travels to Alice Springs, and talked to business people about how they are going. What I get back from them, in different sectors of the Alice Springs community, is they are doing well, they are achieving strong sales and strong turnover in their businesses. Things are happening here. To a degree, I believe they have been surprised in the current environment of the global financial crisis, that they have had a bumper turnover.
The MPI is about business, and there seems to be very good business strength in Alice Springs. As has been highlighted earlier in debate this week, tourism numbers have been up and tourism providers I have spoken to are saying they have had a good response from caravan travellers. Maybe people are staying home and touring within Australia. The Northern Territory and Alice Springs are attracting interstate and international tourists. That is all good news.
What makes all this happen? What keeps business going? It is investment by the government. It is this government which has invested a record $1.3bn in a whole range of areas across the Northern Territory to stimulate the business community, the private sector, and also the social sector. It has been an unprecedented step to go into temporary deficit to support business in uncertain economic times, but it has been a very wise move, which has paid results.
That money is going into a whole range of areas. It is going into roads, both in the bush and in the urban areas, on major highways, enabling both residents of the Northern Territory and visitors to the Northern Territory, to get around more easily. It is also going into Essential Services, power, water and sewerage, and I will talk about those later, but it is a record investment in that area. It is going into schools, the port, recreational areas, and housing. There is a spread of investment across the Northern Territory and across different sectors of our economy.
We have a record spend in the housing area and, with our repairs and maintenance, using local contractors, we have increased spending in that area and are trying to get that money to those sub-contractors across the Northern Territory. I know the local contractors have done well through the Nation Building stimulus package. We had the first amount of $4.1m, a quick fix to inject money into the economy, which went, primarily, into getting sub-contractors working, keeping that work flowing into their businesses and keeping those tradespeople on board, so they did not lose any staff. That enabled us to upgrade many of our public housing dwellings.
The second part, I guess it was the first stage as they call it, was $7.1m, which was to build new public housing. In Alice Springs we have two four-bedroom homes nearly completed at Carruthers and Spicer Street. I inspected them this week, and they will be handed over to families. It is a good result getting that money out the door.
In the second stage we were able to attract $45m, and this money was based on per capita. Much of our other money comes to the Northern Territory through different formulas, where we get extra dollars above and beyond our per capita. I believe they thought it was the simplest way to do it. Of that $45m, $14m came to Alice Springs and has gone into local businesses and local projects. It will deliver a complete refurbishment of The Lodge, which was closed down, and those 35-units will be provided to renal dialysis patients. There is the Salvation Army facility, where there will be an extra eight one-bedroom units for mainly men, and there will also be, in town, four two-bedroom units and 24-units of managed accommodation.
It must be remembered a large proportion of our clientele, within public housing and short-term accommodation, is Indigenous. The Indigenous people of Alice Springs will benefit from this stimulus money coming to Alice Springs, especially those people who are in most need, with medical, physical and social issues to deal with.
Of those projects, many are under way and we hope to have them completed soon. Also within the homelessness area, we have $1m coming from the Street to Home Project, which has enabled us to get more homeless accommodation available. Within the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness there is $54m, over four years, which will see much short-term crisis accommodation provided.
It was announced recently $250 000 would provide an additional six beds for homeless people. That funding has been provided to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, which does great work, and it is good to see a proportion of that money coming down. I thank the member for Barkly.
I touch on some comments made by the member for Braitling, about the investment in housing and homelessness. Those comments are wrong and he is trying to form a point of attack, from old data, which fails to reflect our true expenditure on housing. He has heard many times in this House about our expenditure and he has seen the budget, so he is being mischievous.
He quoted the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, in which the assessed expenditure described the commission’s estimate of what all states and territories would need to spend in order to provide national average levels of services, taking into account a range of factors, which include socio-demographic characteristics and remoteness. It is an estimate based on national targets not in our budget. The types of services considered are those which are predominantly dominated by the larger states, and often do not correspond easily with services needed in the Northern Territory.
This is the case with the homeless category, where the needs in the Northern Territory differ greatly from those in New South Wales and Victoria. Our focus is on Indigenous housing, and improving Indigenous housing affordability. In the Northern Territory, the response to homelessness is to increase the stock and standard of Indigenous housing. Due to the Commonwealth Grants Commission reporting cycle, the data used is two years out of date. Under this reporting method used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, while the Territory’s actual expenditure is less than its assessed amount, it is sometimes misinterpreted as underspending on the category of service delivery. That is incorrect. The member for Braitling would know, that in this budget, we have spent a record $390m on social housing, which is six times the figure the member for Braitling was talking about; that is in our own budget.
The Northern Territory government is delivering more in its housing than ever before. This year’s budget, 2009-10, boosts housing funding by 92% from previous years. Importantly, these figures do not include the SIHIP project, which is $672m over five years; it does not include the National Partnership Agreements we have around homelessness, which is $54m over five years; or the $60m which is coming to the Northern Territory through the Operation Stimulus for Social Housing.
Taking all those figures into account, we have spent much more than the figure the member for Braitling has been touting around, quite incorrectly, but what does the truth matter to the member for Braitling?
I will move on to Power and Water. The member for Fong Lim talked about essential services to support business. The member for Johnston talked about a growing economy, and you have to grow your essential services. As members will be aware, there is $1.4bn going into capital works and repairs and maintenance in Power and Water. This is a record amount, which is rectifying the underspending of previous decades in those areas.
In Alice Springs, people would be aware of the new Owen Springs Power Station, which is a $130m investment in Alice Springs. A state-of-the-art generation and high voltage distribution network to Alice Springs. I was out at Owen Springs Power Station the other day, and it is coming along really well. Sadly, it was the early part of last week, which had about 40 C temperatures, so the workers were under great duress, but the work is on track. I hope, towards this time next year, we will be seeing the completion of that power station.
Members would also be aware of the proposed route of the power lines. It has tried to accommodate, as much as possible, the views of local residents. Usually, in these situations, those easements, the routes for those high voltage power lines, are already in place; they are in Darwin. However, with the move of the power station out of Alice Springs, it required a different route to come into the new Lovegrove Substation. Obviously, it was creating a little anxiety, but we have accommodated most of the interests of the tourism industry and local residents. The Scott Range and Heavitree Range will not be obscured by these high voltage power lines.
It is very relevant to have upgrades of water supplies, and we are investing in that area in Alice Springs. It is important to keep ahead of demand, to provide businesses with the confidence to invest, both here and elsewhere in the Territory.
In the Alice Springs region, the following planning and/or works are under way: new production bores at Roe Creek, to provide increased security of supply; three new bores to be equipped by later this year; planning on various upgrades …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the minister tell us why he can build a donga at Howard Springs and he cannot build a house for SIHIP?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr KNIGHT: … to the central zone water system is under way; and two new production bores at Kings Canyon will provide increased security of supply, one of these bores is to be equipped by early 2010.
Madam Speaker, there is much going on. I am confining my statement to the MPI; I was one of the only members who did. We are investing in infrastructure, essential services, and housing to support businesses, including businesses in Alice Springs. I thank the member for bringing this on.
Discussion concluded.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I adjourn the Assembly, I take the opportunity to thank staff of the Legislative Assembly for the extraordinary amount of work required in setting up the parliament in Alice Springs.
In particular, I thank the Clerk, Mr McNeill, the Deputy Clerk, Captain Horton, the Building Services staff, the Clerk-Assistant, Mr Graham Gadd, the IT Manager, Greg Connors, who saved the mental health of a number of us; Annette Brown and Steve Stokes in the Table Office, as well as Helen Allmich and the people who are in Parliament House doing Hansard. It has been terrific they have actually been able to have this here every day - a very big job from Alice Springs.
I also thank the staff at the convention centre for all their effort in putting together this special parliament, the Alice Springs police, and everyone else who has been involved with this.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a great deal of congratulations.
Before we go, honourable members, I wish you all a very happy and safe Christmas, and I look forward to seeing you in the February sittings.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
As is traditional for the last sittings of parliament for the year, as member for Karama I acknowledge and thank the many people who have worked tirelessly in my electorate to support me both as local member and a minister.
First, I would like to acknowledge my Electorate Officer, Kerry Wetherall, who does an enormous job out there in Karama. Obviously, my ministerial requirements mean I am out of the electorate more often than I would like, apart from going home and shopping and living in the community there, but in day-to-day work life, she is running the Karama Electorate Office very capably, very efficiently, and very friendly.
When an advertisement appeared recently in a newspaper for a personal assistant for me, even though it was a ministerial position, many people called into my Karama office upset at the thought Kerry might be leaving. She had to calm them down and let them know it was not her job that was advertised; which goes to show how popular she is in the electorate, and how very much people appreciate the support she gives them in working with me to ensure their issues are followed up and taken care of.
Kerry is a great, local, Indigenous woman with enormous strength, enormous respect and networks throughout the community. She is a mother of four children and, despite a heavy workload and four children and activities at local schools, finds the time to be a foster carer. She is a woman I hold in enormous regard, and she is a hell of a lot of fun.
I also want to thank Dee Hona, who helps out from time to time in the electorate office as well. Dee is another local mother who is very interested in community issues, has a great, caring nature and is very supportive of people who come in seeking assistance.
I want to thank my ministerial staff without whom I could not achieve all the hard work we get through in the year. I sincerely thank the leader of my team, Bags. He and I have had a very good, close, solid working relationship over the years. I had to cope without him for some months this year, and I was certainly very pleased when he returned, and was delighted to have the team back together. Sonia, Carly, Tracey, Joanna, Campbel, Wolf, Marita, Fleur and Gracie - they all put in an enormous effort in my office. We work as a team and I know we are a very supportive and friendly team in the office. They are each, in their own right, highly professional, very dynamic, innovative thinkers, self-motivators, entertaining, and very embracing, kind, gentle people as well. I feel very privileged to work with such fine Territorians.
I also want to thank the support network I have around me. Doing the hours I do and having young children, I do rely on my support network. I sincerely thank Lisa, Giovanna, Graham, Freddy, and Greg - they are great - they provide the nurturing community in which I am raising my children.
Also, I want to thank the agencies I have had the privilege of working with this year.
Treasury do an enormous amount of work; they are a very small agency in numbers, but they punch above their weight. They work across government and, without Treasury, many things would not happen efficiently, effectively and reasonably. Jennifer Prince is a very fine Under-Treasurer, and she has a very professional, effective team working for her in Treasury, and I hold them all in very high regard.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure - I call them the engine room of government - through them the bulk of the heavy lifting work is done by Richard Hancock and his management team: Rod Applegate, Mike Chiodo, and Marj Morrissey and the others, who do a fantastic job and right down the chain; I know they all put in an enormous effort in DPI to get those projects out the door, to get the planning done and to get the engine room humming. So I thank them, and I acknowledge the work they do.
The Department of Justice; as Attorney-General, I have embraced that work this year and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the Justice team of Greg Shanahan and Elizabeth Morris. They are very fine people and they are good thinkers. I also acknowledge the fine advice the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant, gives the Northern Territory government when he is called upon. He is quick, and his advice is very timely and very thorough. He is a great legal mind.
I acknowledge the great work the courts do across in the Territory. They do the heavy, hard work at the pointy end of the Justice system, and I have a very high regard for the Chief Justice and all our Judges; the Chief Magistrate and all our Magistrates, and all the Court support staff who assist them in their daily work. They see the ugly side of Territory life, but they deal with the system in a very professional manner, and I have enormous regard for all of them in the work they do; equally, the policy team working in Justice and their legal advice.
I also recognise the fine work done at the electorate level by our schools. Karama was the winner of the Northern Territory Award this year for the innovative work they did in community engagement. The school is into the finals to take out, hopefully, a national award. The school has topped the Territory, and I am incredibly proud of the work Marg Fenbury and the team do at Karama working with the Smith Family.
At Malak Primary School, we have sadly lost Paul Nyhuis as Principal. He was a great leader at the school, and I welcome the strength the school is showing and look forward to working with the new principal. The school benefited enormously from $1m facelift of the assembly area, which the Northern Territory government funded; it is probably one of the better facilities in the Territory, and I have seen many schools.
I acknowledge Bill Armstrong and his team at Manunda Terrace Primary School. They work with a very diverse student cohort; they take on challenging issues every day; it is a great small school in my electorate, and I have a very high regard for them.
Holy Family is a very nurturing Catholic school in my electorate. I see the work they do in nurturing the kids through the system firsthand, as a parent, and the outcomes. I have enormous regard for Marty Ogle and his team there. I also acknowledge Rainbows, the Early Learning Centre attached to the school, which my son attends. Michelle and her team do a fantastic job working with the young children there, and I thank them for the work they do.
At Sanderson Middle School, we have had a changing of the guard this year with the Principal, and we are waiting for confirmation. We have a very fine Principal acting in the position at the moment, and we are hoping she gets the gig. The staff at Sanderson Middle School deal with a cohort of students who come from what we call socioeconomic disadvantage, and they do an extremely fine job in teaching and learning practices. The Clontarf Program has been fantastic there; and Kerry, who runs the girls program, is proving if you put the effort into children from a disadvantaged background, you achieve real results - you get school attendance, you see changes in behaviour, and you achieve learning outcomes. Congratulations to Sanderston Middle School.
O’Loughlin Catholic College is a fantastic college, and Lester Lemke and his team do a fine job taking students from middle school through to senior school.
Marrara Christian College is a school I am learning more and more about. They are doing incredible things there, particularly with VET and, of course, they have a large cohort of students who come from remote communities and live in group homes in Darwin. Congratulations to the staff there.
Malak and Karama Childcare Centres, community-based childcare centres, are doing a great job with the young kids there.
I want to thank my colleagues for their great support; I love working with the team. Also the Legislative Assembly staff, the ministerial staff, who all do an enormous job.
To my good mates who keep me going and keep me laughing: Adele, Vanda, Sally and Nick, thank you. We all need some joy in our lives and they bring a lot of joy to my life. However, fundamentally, you cannot go past your family and Christmas greetings to them because they have to put up with me mostly being at work. So, to Dawn, Dianne and Terry, thank you for keeping things going and running for me all the time, and being there as my backstop. It does not matter what is going down. they are there for me; they nurture me, love me, and that is enormous.
Most of all, to my children: Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. No one would choose to be the child of a politician, and they are doing well. They are very loving and they tell me they are proud of me - not that my five-year-old really knows what I do, but he does like Parliament House on his sick days, and he knows how to work the video in my office.
Merry Christmas to everyone; it is the festive season - keep safe, love your families, take the opportunity to have a breather and come back and let us get on with the good business of government, democracy and parliament in 2010.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure all members of parliament will want to hear this news. I want to announce to the parliament that pop singer, Jessica Mauboy, has won her first ARIA award. The seven-time nominated singer won the highest selling single for Burn. We all know she was a former Australian Idol finalist, and she is attending tonight’s ceremony in Sydney with her mum and dad, who travelled from Darwin for the Australian Music Industry’s night of nights. Jessica Mauboy thanked God, her family, and friends as she accepted the award.
Congratulations, Jessica! She has worked very hard and she makes us proud in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I also extend my congratulations to Jessica; she is a fine role model for people like me who try to sing in the shower, but will never achieve anything beyond that; and thank God for that, I suspect.
Tonight I wish to address an issue, and as much as I would like to do my Christmas thing the fact is, I cannot avoid this. I have often been critical of this government for its inconsistent approach to native title and the issues of compulsory acquisition. Again, today, this side of the House was berated for a policy position which was incorrectly described and, more importantly, it is a policy position which we have always adhered to in this House because of its necessity, not because of any joy. I am talking about the issue of the compulsory acquisition of native title.
I listened with interest today to the Chief Minister congratulating himself and the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, on their success in the Federal Court over the acquisition of town camps in Alice Springs. It is then incredible and defies imagination when in that same Question Time the Chief Minister berates members of the opposition for having a philosophy which includes, potentially, the compulsory acquisition of native title.
How can you possibly come into this House and congratulate yourself for compulsory acquisition, and then berate someone else for compulsorily acquiring something. This inconsistency is repeated again and again. Case in point: the native title claim over Darwin was fought to the highest degree by this government. They took the native title claim over Darwin to the High Court of Australia.
You have to understand what a native title claim is. When you pay a lawyer to argue against a native title claim, what you are actually saying to that lawyer is: ‘Go into court and argue on our behalf that native title has been extinguished’. When you pay a lawyer to do that, you make a Cabinet decision to do so. All the ministers sit around in Cabinet and say: ‘What are we going to do with this particular deal?’ And the decision is taken: ‘We are going to fight these people all the way to the High Court of Australia’.
I find it extremely incongruous to then hear government ministers consistently stand up, the very same people who made this decision, and then recognise the native title rights of the Larrakia people over Darwin when they make a speech. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Blue Mud Bay is another case which intertwined native title and land rights issues. This government has a policy of negotiation rather than litigation - that is what they tell us. What did they do with Blue Mud Bay? Did they fight it all the way to the High Court of Australia? My word, they did. Moreover, they took out full page advertisements in the Northern Territory News to say they were going to do it.
For the Chief Minister to then stand at this dispatch box and articulate he is a negotiator and not a litigator, defies reason. Those words should lodge in his throat like a gorge. But, no, without batting an eyelid, he and this government will engage in an hypocrisy which can only be described as monumental.
Let us explore what the extinguishment of native title actually means. You have to remember there was land pressure on this town back in about 2001-02. The native title claimants over Alice Springs asserted successfully those native title rights survived in certain places. As a consequence, the government had a choice - they could either negotiate, or they could compulsorily acquire. Let us put something else to bed, which I heard articulated twice today: if you acquire native title, you will end up in the courts and nothing will get done. Wrong! The reason it is wrong is if you acquire a native title right, a government may do so, and the High Court has said a government may do so for any reason whatsoever
The fight you will have in the courts will have nothing to do with the land release or the land you are trying to acquire. The fight you will have in the courts, should it get that far, is how much compensation you will pay. It will not prevent land release from going ahead. That, again, is a misnomer.
Now let us look at what happened with Larapinta Stage 4. It was negotiated over a period of about three or four years - it took forever - as land prices and pressure on land in this town continued to increase and increase. What the government wanted the native titleholders to do was extinguish their title rights in return for some other value when the land was released. The reason for that is you cannot turn off a freehold block whilst native title still exists; it just becomes a nightmare for the transfer of title. So, you have to extinguish, which is what the government sought and Lhere Artepe, quite wisely, agreed. What they got out of that was the equivalent of about half the value of the freehold land, because they got half the blocks to turn off. That was a great result, but took too long.
Now let us look at what would have happened had native title been acquired. This would have been the result: native title would have been acquired; there would have been an argument over compensation, and compensation would have been set at probably about half freehold title. As a consequence, rather than three years of negotiation during which the Lhere Artepe organisation got nothing, they would have had the equivalent of half the value of freehold sitting in the bank account three years earlier. The result would have been exactly the same as the negotiated outcome: half the freehold value of the land, and the extinguishment of native title. Precisely the same outcome would have been achieved.
But, no, we get these lectures from government ministers who do not understand any of this stuff and, moreover, hide themselves behind a shroud of ignorance which is hard to imagine. They have taken on a role of such extraordinary hypocrisy when it comes to this important issue, that for them to stand in this place in the same Question Time and simply say they are happy to be successful in the courts over acquiring the town camps of Alice Springs, knowing the compulsory acquisition of native title is wrong, is simply absurd. It goes to the heart of how this government operates - so long as it looks good - so long as they can get the full page advertisement into the newspaper, so long as they can get the spin doctors to make it look good for them, they will take out the full page advertisements in the northern suburbs and dog-whistle their way through this particular claim which might upset the amateur fishermen. Then, in the next breath, they will congratulate themselves for fighting native title claims over Darwin; and in the next breath they will acknowledge the native title claimants over Darwin every time they make a speech; and in the next breath they will say they are negotiators.
This is why this government should no longer govern the Northern Territory - simply because they are incapable of any form of reasoned thought and consistent approach.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the ones I made before in my role as the Speaker.
It was remiss of me to forget to mention the Parliamentary Education staff, particularly Jan Sporn, Caroline Cavanagh, Phyllis and Karen for the hard work they put into bringing the school groups here this week. There were around 800 children from Central Australia, and it certainly made the parliament a more interesting place with so many young people here; so I would like to pass on my thanks to them.
Also, the security staff at Parliament House have done a terrific job looking after us; and also the extra security staff from the Convention Centre.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my own personal staff, Karen and Vishal who, throughout the year, have been hard-working, loyal and have shown a sense of humour throughout everything. It has been a very hard year for all members, and I believe our staff, family and friends have felt that as well, and I thank them very much for their good humour and hard work.
I turn now to my electorate, and I want to thank the people of my electorate and wish them a very happy and safe Christmas. In particular, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer, Janet Webb who, I am convinced, is the best electorate officer in the Northern Territory, and no one is going to change my mind on that. She does terrific work, works well beyond what is required. For example, I have been away for most of the last five weeks, to Alice Springs four times, and to East Timor, and she has held the fort here. Many ministers rely on having excellent electorate officers who contact us by mobile phone, or by e-mail, and Janet certainly maintains her sense of humour and pleasantness all the time.
I have the great fortune of being the patron of a large number of groups, and I would like to wish a very happy and safe Christmas to members of the Nightcliff Sports Club, the Nightcliff Orchid Society, and I am hoping my New Year resolution to actually grow an orchid will be successful. The Orchid Society gives me orchids every year, and I am afraid they have not lasted - the dog ate the last one they gave me - but I will happily continue to attempt to grow them.
I am also the Patron of the Nightcliff Lawn Bowls, and I am looking forward to attending their awards function this Saturday night.
The Nightcliff Evergreen Seniors Club is a wonderful group of people who make being senior citizens look a good thing to be
I also have the great honour of being the Patron of the Darwin Legacy War Widows and, once again, what a wonderful group of women they are. They suffered the loss of their husbands, who gave their lives as a result of wars, and it is a great honour to be the patron of that group. I wish them all a very happy and safe Christmas with their families.
I recently became the patron of Dragons Abreast NT, and what an inspirational group of women they are. As a survivor of breast cancer myself, it is a great honour to be asked to do this, and I look forward to working with them next year.
I am also the Vice Patron of the United Nations Association of the Northern Territory, which is a very interesting job, working with the United Nations and looking at the things they do right across the world, and being their link with the Northern Territory. I congratulate the people who are involved with that group.
I am also the Vice Patron for NT Surf Lifesaving, and I would like to wish happiness to Tony and Julie, and to the President, Bob Creek. This is a very inspirational group. There are about 1500 people in the Surf Lifesaving NT group across the Territory. There is a new group which has just been set up in Nhulunbuy, as I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy would know - the first Indigenous Surf Lifesaving group in Australia. They are a wonderful group of people, and it is wonderful to see young people involved in such a productive and special activity.
Honourable members, once again, I wish you all a very happy and safe season, and I look forward to seeing you next year.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I send festive regards to my family as well; I have two in the audience tonight, Eric and Imran, and my sister, Maureen, and little Mahlia and, of course, my children, Scotty, Kathy, and Nicholas.
I refer now to one of the strangest professional connections we politicians have in our public lives. It is one which has loomed large for me in recent months. I speak of the tie we have with local media. I passed the year in review. It has been an interesting year in which I have gone from the safety and numbers of the Labor regime, which exerts a strong influence on the media, to the lone road of independence.
I want to pay tribute to those brave, even-handed members of the media in both Darwin and Alice Springs who have given me a fair hearing. Everyone in this House knows I have been subjected to fierce and sustained attacks from some quarters of the press; and those matters have been dealt with elsewhere and I will not go into them.
I want to express one point in the strongest terms I can. I know members on the government benches have sat in silence and watched as I have been bullied by the media outlets they have close ties with. I know they have little smiles of satisfaction on their faces because they see me as one who has become their political adversary.
They see attacks on me and my reputation as a gain for them. They congratulate themselves on the brilliance of their spin machine, which has such control over certain media allies whose journalists will go into the attack at the 5th floor’s command. This is a short sighted attitude - the media can run unfair campaigns against any politician. Those who turn against me one day can turn on another person another day, Madam Deputy Speaker, against you or against any other member here.
I feel the media corps in Darwin is burdened with a number of biased reporters pushing their own political alliance. It is another vital NT institution in danger of failing and leaving us trapped in a dark, bleak night. There has been a terrible absence of serious political discussion in this parliament about the role of the local media: about the connections between government media advisors and certain sections of the media corps; and inadequate coverage of public affairs which results. In the wake of what has happened in recent months, the time for that discussion has come. We have reached a point where the great hope for the future of the Territory as a free society with open, clean debate now rests on radio broadcasters - they are the media heroes of the past year.
I want to pay tribute to the ABC’s Leon Compton, who combines style and intellect; whose programs compare with the best the ABC can offer on the national stage. He is a great asset for the Territory, and his voice lights up the air waves.
I also want to pay tribute to Pete Davies, whose boldness and candour warm my heart and give strength to the many Territorians who listen to him. All we, in the public eye, want is a fair go, and we get it from Peter and his able news reporter, Paris Lord. They have given me a voice when others have maligned me. I thank them both and look forward to speaking with them next year.
To Daryl Manzie: from the bottom of my heart I thank you for understanding what the battles of politics mean, how important they are and how much the truth matters, and how much clear thinking and plain speaking matter. Without you, we would live in a much more confused society where ideas would scarcely circulate, and we would have no real debate at all.
I say to Adrian Renzi of 8HA, thank you, my fellow Centralian, for the time you have provided for us to discuss the issues which lie at the core of our thoughts. We in Alice Springs can go forward together, hand in hand. We are not divided by race; we are united by place.
I thank the journalists of the Centralian Advocate, especially Dan Moss, for fair reporting in Central Australia. He is a very hard-working young man, and I thank you, Dan.
I thank, of course, those great heroes of the Centre, Erwin Chlanda and Keiran Finnane. Their paper, the Alice Springs News, is one of the chief professional and commercial success stories of the inland, even though the Northern Territory government refuses to give them a fair share of the public sector advertising dollar, and hates them for their fearless coverage. God bless you, Keiran and Erwin, you make me proud to be a Central Australian.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to end with a story about the media and its power to do harm.
I have many good, professional relationships with ABC journalists and with the ABC here in the NT. It plays a crucial part; it is a great national institution, but its real significance is local; in the region. Local ABC is where the gold is, but there is a mindset in some parts of the ABC, a mindset linked with the old, progressive, establishment in Indigenous affairs; reporters who do not want any annoying Aboriginal politicians getting in their way. When they hear traditional leaders speaking up for a new broom in Indigenous affairs, they want to cut them down; and they will use any method.
There is an old, dissipated television reporter at the ABC. I am not going to name him today, even though I could under parliamentary privilege. I could use his name and expose him before you all for what he is; but I am just going to tell you about the most remarkable event in a long campaign this reporter and his associates have waged against me. He has been trying to interfere in the course of NT politics and pull down traditional leaders and advance the course of the old, failed urban Aboriginal representatives we know so well; the spokesmen without traditional ties; the helpers we do not need.
In the early months of this year when I was the minister for Arts and I was cleaning out the mess and disorder in the old Arts system I inherited, this reporter was given a false leak about me, and he pursued it with a will in order to entrap me on camera. He rang my press secretary and told her the ABC had already filmed the CLP opposition discussing this matter. I established, as soon as I had done my television interview with the ABC, this was a lie.
I cannot tolerate liars in private or in public life; and in the media, which trades on truth, lies are utterly unacceptable. I will never speak to that reporter again. It would be best for the ABC to pay serious attention to the type of people it sends to report on Aboriginal politics. It would be best for the ABC to pay close attention to their biases, their dishonesties, their political connections, and their intrigues.
We politicians have to live up to high standards. We must use plain speech and keep open minds. There must be no lies from us, no deceptions, no spin and no slander. But I have heard little in the way of true speech in this House this year from the government side, or from the government’s allies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you will seek to enforce the principles of truth and honesty with more rigour in this House in the year to come.
I conclude by stressing how deeply I believe in a free media, but the media must also strive to live up to the high standard it demands of politicians.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to acknowledge the passing of Mrs Winifred McFarland, the matriarch of a proud Northern Territory family comprising a number of long-serving members of the Northern Territory Police.
Recounting the story of Winifred’s life in the Territory and the contribution she and her husband made to the Northern Territory Police, and to bush communities, bring home just how difficult and often dangerous life could be throughout that period.
Winifred, or Win, as she was affectionately known, was born in Derby in 1914. Her mother and father were Frank and Henrietta Sack and they lived in Western Australia in the early 1900s. Sadly, Win’s father died when she was still quite young. Win attended boarding school until she was 14 and, upon leaving school, she trained at a secretarial college in Perth.
Win and her sister, Dorothy, moved to Darwin in 1934 and Win’s mother, Henrietta, later visited Darwin for a short visit but, like many of us who came from elsewhere, she stayed for many years. She found employment at the Parap Hotel and, for a time, managed the tea rooms at the Adelaide River Railway Station. Win’s sister, Dorothy, secured employment with barrister, Tiger Lyons. Win worked for Dr Cecil Cook, who was the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Protector of Aborigines.
In 1938, Win married Lionel McFarland. Lionel served with the garrison in Darwin and then pursued a career with the Northern Territory Police. He was transferred by police to Alice Springs, at that time a town of just a few hundred people, and with few amenities to make life comfortable. Win recalled that, to escape the heat of their house, the family often slept outdoors.
Lionel and Winifred’s daughter, Gloria, was born in 1939, shortly after they moved to Alice. The family then moved to Tennant Creek which, you would know, would have been a further challenge. Tennant Creek at that time had no water reticulation, and even more primitive amenities than Alice.
In 1941, Lionel transferred back to Darwin. Lionel and Winifred’s second daughter, Lesley, was born in November 1941. Darwin at this time was under threat of invasion and Winifred, Gloria, and Lesley, just three weeks old at the time, were evacuated to Perth by sea. Lionel stayed on in Darwin, and did not see his family for over two years. I am told Lionel was known for being the only police officer to remain in Darwin during every single bombing raid.
In 1943, Win and the girls rejoined Lionel, and they then transferred to Arltunga in Central Australia. Now, this was isolation! Travelling the roads in that area in those times took about an hour per mile because of the poor quality of the roads. The Arltunga Police Station closed in 1944, and Lionel moved to Harts Range to set up a police station there.
One can only imagine what living conditions were like at bush stations at that time: - corrugated roofs creaking with temperature changes; no air-conditioning; often earth floors with no covering; walls made from bush timber; bathing in metal tubs in front of a fire in winter, and cooking on primitive stoves.
In 1945, Win was evacuated by the Flying Doctor to the Alice Springs Hospital, and their third daughter, Cheryl, was born. In 1946, the family moved to Maranboy and, in 1947, they moved to Pine Creek. Win is said to have always recalled with fondness the friendships she nurtured with Aboriginal women and their families during the time she lived at bush police stations. Life for a young mother who was not a born and bred bush girl would have been very challenging, especially during long, lonely periods when Lionel was out on patrol.
Lionel and Winifred’s fourth daughter, Terri, was born in 1948 at the Katherine Hospital. The family moved back to Darwin in 1950, residing for a few years at the old Parap Police Station. In 1951, Lionel and Winifred’s fifth daughter, Gay, was born; and their son, Gregory, was born in 1954.
Lionel retired in 1973 when he was Staff Sergeant for Commissioner McLaren, and he was awarded the British Empire Medal for distinguished service.
Like many others, the McFarland family suffered significant loss during Cyclone Tracy. Most of the family’s homes were lost and, after the cyclone, the family experienced a long period of separation with the women and children evacuated to Adelaide.
Win enjoyed her sports. She was an A-grade tennis player, a champion bowler and, I understand, she played bowls into her 80s.
Sadly, Lionel passed away in 1980. Son, Greg, followed in his father’s footsteps and served in the Northern Territory Police Force for 15 years. Grandson, Lance Goodwin, has been a member of the NT Police Force for 23 years, and is currently serving as a Superintendent in Alice Springs. It is good to see Lance and his family here for this adjournment. Lance’s father, Tony, was also a long-serving member of the Northern Territory Police Force.
Win often commented in later years that modern police had it too easy with four-wheel drives, air-conditioning and telephones, but she remained steadfastly proud of her family’s policing history.
Win moved to the Sunshine Coast in 1995 where she lived until her recent death at the grand old age of 95. Win lived alone, and she had a very active mind although, as you would expect, she was slowing down physically. Her three daughters Gloria, Lesley and Cheryl, lived in the same unit complex as Win, and they provided ongoing care throughout her later years.
Winifred McFarland was the proud matriarch of a family spanning six children, 19 grandchildren, 43 great-grandchildren, and two great-great-grandchildren. Her family made significant contributions to policing the Northern Territory, and I am sure members will join me in sending our condolences to her family.
Vale, Winifred McFarland.
I would like to publicly thank tonight a number of important people who have supported me and provided a great service to Territorians during 2009. To my Cabinet, Caucus, and parliament colleagues, I wish you a safe and happy festive season. In particular my team; I thank you for all your support and dedication this year, and look forward to the challenges we share in 2010. It is a great team, and I am excited to be working with them in the coming years. We have an exciting time ahead of us.
To my CEOs, Mike Burgess, Gary Barnes, Acting Commissioner Bruce Wernham, and Mr Graham Symons, CEO of my shared portfolio of Business and Employment, thanks for all your support and hard work; it is most appreciated and I wish them all a restful and happy Christmas with their families.
To our hard-working public servants across the whole of the Territory, your work does not go unnoticed, and I look forward to working with you all in the year ahead.
A particular thank you to all our Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, whether they be out on the beat, in our shopfronts, or in our police and fire stations. Christmas is, sadly, not a time of rest for so many of them, but we know they are doing a great job and will continue to serve and protect our community over the Christmas and New Year period. To all the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, my thanks; you are great tribute to the Northern Territory.
To all the other staff in Parliament House: the cleaners, security men and women, our drivers, the wonderful people in Speaker’s Corner who keep us fed, thank you, and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas.
To all the Assembly staff, Ian McNeill and his wonderful staff; you do a great job keeping us all in line, in and out of the Chamber, and we certainly appreciate your dedication and service.
Thanks to all my parliamentary staff for their hard work this year. It has been a challenging year for all of us, but one with much to be proud of. I look forward to working together over the next couple of years to ensure the Territory continues to be the great place we all love.
To some of my constituents: Coral Crombie-Brown, a lovely lady, I know you are not well, but I thank you for supporting me all these years, and I will get to see you soon.
I have to thank the team at the Lyons development, Geoff Smith, Sharon Fyson and John. Another year, more land releases - it has been great to see the suburb take shape over the last couple of years, and now it is nearing the end. I thank you all for your assistance, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a super New Year.
To the Tracy Village team, headed up by John Quinlan and the committee; Merry Christmas, I will see you down there shortly for our Christmas party.
Thanks to the Casuarina Branch of the Labor Party. I, and the other two MLAs in the branch, the member for Casuarina and the member for Johnston, appreciate the support all the members give us.
Thank you to my team of Hendo supporters, of which there are too many to name individually, but thanks to George, Tanya, Roberta, Joanna, Kosta, Tammy, Kent, Rebecca - Merry Christmas to you and all your families.
A big thank you to my Electorate Officer, Morgan who, sadly, is leaving me at the start of next year to move to Townsville. I wish you well, and thank you for your support over the last few years in my electorate of Wanguri. I know your family are looking forward to having you back with them.
Last, but no means least, I extend a big thank you to my family: my patient, loving and supportive wife, Stacey; my increasingly independent and thoughtful boys, Alasdair and Liam; and my beautiful daughter, Isobel. Thank you for being there for me at all times, unconditionally and without question. I am looking forward to spending Christmas together.
Finally, a Merry Christmas to all Territorians. Have a safe and happy New Year.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to report on a parliamentary study tour undertaken in Brisbane recently.
I met with the Chairman of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Robert Needham, and also with the Director of Research and Prevention, Dr Margot Legosz. The purpose of the meeting was to gauge whether the Northern Territory could benefit from having a Crime and Misconduct Commission, a CMC. Although the Territory is a small jurisdiction, I believe there is an increasing interest and, under this government in particular, a need to establish, or to consider establishing, a CMC or similar body.
For those who do not know, the aim of the CMC is to prevent and combat crime; it also strives to prevent and address misconduct in the public sector. An additional function is to provide an effective witness protection service, and it also engages in public policy.
I do not have enough time to summarise my trip in 10 minutes, so I will be brief. I will not be doing justice to the very interesting meeting I had with the Chairman of CMC and Dr Legosz, but I will endeavour to outline some of it. And for your benefit, member for Barkly, I will be quoting from certain documents and websites.
In relation to public policy, the CMC, sometimes by self-referral or by parliament, comments on various issues and legislation passed by the Queensland parliament. A recent example is its comment on the Nuisance Legislation, which culminated in recommending to parliament various amendments, and is in the process of looking at the so-called move-on powers laws passed by government. Arguably, a body such as this is needed, or may be needed, in the Territory at some stage in the future.
The CMC investigates complaints about possible misconduct from a number of sources, including the general public and public sector agencies. It also addresses wider systems issues such as agency-wide policy or procedural deficiencies, or inappropriate workplace culture, or failure of standards. I cannot help but think of the Minister for Children and Families and her department. One wonders, in the absence of government addressing some of the shortcomings, whether an institution or body similar to a CMC is required.
It performs research into crime and the criminal justice system, misconduct and other policy, and legislative issues. It also, from time to time, undertakes research into police methods of operation, police powers and their use, and the continuous improvement of the police service. I acknowledge members of the local police force in the parliament today, and thank you for your efforts over the last week.
The CMC provides significant services relating to preventing crime and misconduct and building the capacity of agencies to prevent and deal with misconduct; it operates in addition to the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman.
I spoke with the Chairman about whether a CMC or similar body could exist in the Northern Territory, and he reminded me the Tasmanian government is looking at establishing a similar body. The Territory is a small jurisdiction, but I believe all of us, on both sides of politics, should open our minds and thoughtfully consider whether a CMC is necessary.
In order to address the government’s spin machine, and I do not assert there is widespread misconduct in the public sector in particular, but it makes for a better public sector if you have strong organisations such as the CMC to capture any, in the event it does exist, to ensure a good culture in our public service.
The Chairman of the CMC did say over the years the existence of the CMC has improved practices within the public service and, as a result of the efforts of the CMC, the public service has developed a more ethical culture. Time prevents me from going into anymore detail, but I advise members this is something I am extremely interested in, and I will continue to do research in this area.
On a different matter, not so much related to my role as Shadow Attorney-General but, in an electorate sense, as local member, I met with the Brisbane City Council which is on the cutting edge of CCTV cameras in the country. Also, there is a conference in Brisbane in March - a graffiti conference. People are coming from far and wide, and I urge government to send someone from the Northern Territory to the conference; it may well be police officers or others. I have spoken to the Mayor about this and I have encouraged him to give consideration to possibly sending someone from council.
Time prevents me from going into great detail, but CCTV cameras are working very well around Brisbane. Interestingly, I was advised the perception of safety in Brisbane is at 80%, and I am sure that is significantly higher than the perception of safety as measured in the Territory; as the member for Johnston knows.
I also learnt a great deal about the task force addressing graffiti, which was an initiative the Lord Mayor commenced a couple of years ago, which is achieving fantastic results. I also attended the Roma Street Police Station and was shown how the task force addresses graffiti. It has been operational since October 2008, and the results have been extraordinary. It is focused around a rapid response and joint cooperation program which has achieved positive outcomes; and is a collaboration between council and police physically co-located at the Roma Street Police Station.
I also met with Bravehearts - well-known, I hope, to many members of parliament - an organisation which deals with childhood sexual abuse. Interestingly, while I was there, the person I had arranged an appointment to see said they had just received a telephone call from the NT News. I asked the person what they had said in relation to the questions asked, and I was very pleased with the comments made by the representative from Bravehearts.
Bravehearts does fabulous stuff for kids and families. I learnt an enormous amount, and was given many resources such as DVDs, brochures and so on, which I am happy to share with other members. Given the Minister for Children and Families is obviously so lacking in this area, I would be very happy to loan the material to her so she can learn more about child abuse.
Bravehearts did indicate, at some point, they may consider establishing an office in the Northern Territory, and I believe that would be of great benefit.
I had also planned to meet with Senator George Brandis at the eleventh hour, as it were, but, unfortunately, that appointment was cancelled. I also met with someone whose identity I do not propose to reveal - regarding child protection - a former Territory public servant, and I will not go into any further details.
Can I make this point in light of the comments made by the member for Macdonnell in relation to media? Some of my colleagues have been subjected to a great deal from some sections of the media, and the Labor Party, in relation to travel. Travelling interstate every year is an entitlement of politicians. Politicians should travel; no politician should be afraid of travel - it broadens the mind, quite literally, and there is much to learn. The Northern Territory is a very young and very small jurisdiction, and the interests of Territorians are best served by their members of parliament getting out and learning positive things and making a contribution so the Territory continues to improve. I do not shy away from parliamentary travel.
I do make this point: I note with great interest ever since I have been a member of parliament there has not been a requirement, under the RTD, for members of parliament to report on interstate trips, as I am. However, there is a requirement to do so in relation to overseas trips. My own view is - and I do not speak for my colleagues and I have not discussed this matter with them - in the interests of transparency, politicians should account for their publicly-funded study tours. I have no problem with that at all. I have done this tonight to alert members to the many things I have learnt, and I look forward to further discussions with them.
I also make this contribution on a point of principle. Politicians should not be afraid of pathetic media articles when they are undertaking their work in a serious and earnest manner and are pursuing an entitlement under the RTD, which is an independent tribunal. If members, in future, wish to discuss accounting for their interstate trips, I would be happy to engage in that discussion.
Finally, I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on Monday 16 November I travelled to the community of GanGan, approximately a two-and-a-half-hour drive from Nhulunbuy, at the invitation of traditional owner, Dr Gawarrin Gumana AO for the official opening of the Wayuwu Crossing, a $500 000 project. Until now, this crossing over the Durabudboi River has been impassable each Wet Season cutting off the homelands of GanGan and Dhuruputjpi, which fall under the umbrella of Laynhapuy Homelands. The construction of a causeway about 50 m in length and with culverts 1.9 m in height, will now provide year round safe access for the 150 or so people who reside in those two homelands. This opening did not make front page news, but it is a significant story for the homelands people to see this kind of infrastructure in place; the kind of infrastructure so many people take for granted.
On the subject of Laynhapuy Homelands, I received advice yesterday from Laynhapuy Homelands CEO, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, of the newly-elected board members, and I wish to offer my congratulations, and place on the Parliamentary Record, the names of the new board members; a very hard-working, dedicated and strong group of people who work tirelessly to advocate for their homelands: Chairman, Mr Barayuwa Mununggurr; Vice-Chair, Graham Maymuru; Secretary, Ronyiwuy Maymuru; Treasurer, Brian Garawirrtja; Djambawa Marawili; Lulpangi Mununggurr; Bandibandi Wunungmurra; Mayalambarr Wunungmurra Dorothy; Dhukal Wirrpanda; Waturr Gumana; Mangay Guyula; Banul Munyarryun; Lirrpiya Mununggurr; and Laklak Burarrwanga
I wish to offer my congratulations to the employees from the East Arnhem Shire who were presented with their Certificate III for Community Night Patrol on Friday 6 November, at the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, which houses the sobering-up shelter and rehabilitation service.
The enormous sense of pride for the 21 people who completed their course was shared by all of us present, including the elected shire president, Mr Banambi Wunungmurra and CEO, Mr Ian Bodill, Charles Darwin University staff and, especially, family members. The graduates came from Angurugu, Umbakumba, Milyakburra, Yirrkala, Gunyangara, Gapuwiyak, Galiwinku and Nhulunbuy.
Night patrol is not easy work; the hours are not family friendly and there is certainly nothing glamorous about it. I have taken the opportunity to go out with the East Arnhem Shire Night Patrol to see how they work and the challenges they face. In an ideal world, we would like to believe there is no need for such a service; but it is such important work in making sure people are safe from harm. I especially acknowledge the work of Jocelyn Cairns, the Night Patrol Coordinator for the East Arnhem Shire, who is absolutely passionate and driven about her work.
A team from Nhulunbuy High School recently participated in the 62nd Singapore Cricket Club Rugby 7s Competition. As one of the dads put it to me: they did not win, they absolutely blitzed it - an achievement all the more incredible given they had just two training sessions prior to the competition. They cleaned up their opposition, Tanglin Trust School, with a score of 47 to nil. Nhulunbuy High School was invited to compete, along with the East Arnhem Rugby Union Open Team, and was the first international team to be invited into the competition in 10 years.
The players from Nhulunbuy High School were: Sam Putland, captain, Richard Ofa, Rhys Mulholland, Nelson Browne, Tom Pearce and Lachlan Mallard, joined by Kritsada Phalaphon, David Munroe and Jack Tourish who have all lived in Nhulunbuy, and have now either left or are currently at boarding school. Outstanding sportsmanship and behaviour has ensured this team have left their mark on the schools’ and colleges’ competition. As a result, they have been invited back to compete in next year’s competition. I extend my congratulations to all the people involved.
The Gove Sprint was hosted by the Nhulunbuy Amateur Swimming Club on 14 and 15 November - and what a fantastic weekend it was! The timing was a little late in the season, which prevented competitors coming from other clubs around the Territory, other than two young people who travelled from Darwin with their parents. My two boys are members of the club and, along with their fellow club members, enjoyed a terrific competition; and I enjoyed my time standing at the end of the lane with 28 other parents time-keeping.
Winners of the Gove Sprint, an open relay race of 4 x 50 m freestyle were: Alyssa Petrofes, Holly Sims, Wilson Lui and Gabby Parsons. In the individual open events of 50 m freestyle for the title of Prince and Princess of Gove, the winners were Gabby Parsons and Wilson Lui. I was very proud to be the sponsor of the prizes for the Gove Sprint event.
I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the enormous amount of work my fellow committee members for the Amateur Swim Club do: Shane Guiney, Diane Sims, Jackie McGrath, Nicola Briggs, Dave Hoskins, Lesley Tankard, Tracie Donovan and Catherine Scott-Jones.
The Gove Junior Football Club held the official opening of its newly renovated clubrooms at Hindle Oval in Nhulunbuy on 14 November, and I was honoured to be invited to unveil the official sign. Many people volunteered their time and labour to contribute to this project but, without a doubt, Alan Fullard, Club President, has been the driving force behind it. Also playing a key role was Nhulunbuy Corporation, the owner of the asset. With Town Administrator, Paul Hockings, they have worked collaboratively to see a facility which is second to none. As I said, while there were many who contributed to this project, it is appropriate to single out Andrew Pidgeon for his hours and hours of labour, as well as Peter McCue from KP Carpentry.
I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have provided me with support through what has been an amazing and roller-coaster year. First of all, my Caucus colleagues who have provided me with advice, guidance and support - morally, professionally and politically. I single out one of them - Madam Speaker - who has been a real pillar of support in my duties as Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees.
I also extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk for their ongoing service and advice; and I also acknowledge our wonderful staff in the Table Office who, along with the rest of the staff in the Legislative Assembly, always work hard in the background to ensure everything runs smoothly.
I must particularly thank Vishal and Karen. Having my parliamentary office near Vishal and Karen I see much of them when I am in that office, and they are always incredibly supportive.
Our Legislative Assembly staff making sure everything runs smoothly is especially true this week. What an incredible logistical exercise in setting up parliament here in the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Thank you to all staff involved in this exercise. Thank you to the staff of the Convention Centre. Thank you to the people of Alice Springs for making us feel so welcome. It was especially good to see how many schoolchildren passed through this Chamber - approximately 800, I believe - and how well behaved they were. Hats off to the Legislative Assembly staff involved with the Education Unit, led by Caroline, who conducted the education program. What a fantastic opportunity for those children.
Back in Nhulunbuy, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer. Karen Cislowski, who started with me in February. Karen is everything you could want in an EO - she is a competent office manager and administrator, she is a good decision maker and, when she needs to be, she is a good gatekeeper as well. She is a fantastic person with an incredible capacity for empathy with constituents, but she can also be firm when she needs to be; and we all know all kinds of people step through the doors of our offices. In a similar vein, I would also to thank Lyn Mitchell, my casual EO, who covers during Karen’s absences, and also does a fantastic job.
I would like to thank my branch members, and especially John, Wendy, Trevor, Dave, Laurie, Jenny, Denise, Sue, Jack, Stacey and Lawrence who give me their wholehearted support and encouragement.
Last, but by no means least, is my family. Thanks and eternal gratitude to my husband, Lawrence, who is a wonderful source of support and always a great listener, whether I am bouncing ideas off him or just needing to vent a bit. As he has been on leave this semester, it has been fantastic for him to travel with me on overnight visits to communities, not only to share the driving, but because that sense of family is so important for my constituents in homelands, and it is important to me that they know I have a role with a family as well; and I believe they understand that.
My kids, Zoe, Harry and Patrick, you are not always angels, but you are so good in understanding my absences; and some of them have been lengthier than others. I have a conversation with my nine-year-old son, Patrick, before coming to Alice Springs to explain why parliament was being held in Alice Springs, and his eyes lit up when he said: ‘Mum, do you think we could have parliament in Nhulunbuy, because I really miss you when you go away’. It stuck a bit of a dagger in my heart, and I am really looking forward to getting home on Sunday.
It has been a busy and very challenging year for all of us, and I wish my colleagues, on both sides of the House; everyone in my electorate; and everyone in the Legislative Assembly a very happy Christmas with your families and loved ones, and a peaceful New Year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to cover a couple of things. The first is regarding information I have received from a property owner in Central Australia, and it clearly demonstrates a government out of touch with the real world; a government with a care factor of absolutely zero when it comes to protecting our heritage
The following information received from a property owner clearly demonstrates an internal focus on bureaucracy at a level which is quite disturbing, and provides a serious insight into how some internal processes work within that department. I will read out the information I received through a Senator’s office from the CEO of Shoujaa Pty Ltd, Mr Peter Beattie:
This is a heritage property, a piece of Territory history which could be lost forever if not adequately protected now. How hard can it be to find a resolution and to stop being so damn stubborn dealing with people and seemingly caring more about designing obstacles for people instead of being what you are paid to be - part of the public service? Where the hell is the service here?
The more I see this government operate, the more I am warming to the notion the government’s job should be to just get out of the way and focus on assisting people; focus on improving and simplifying the processes for people, rather than being absolutely obstructionist in almost every service you are supposed to provide.
I call on the minister to get involved with this and sort it out. For goodness sake, you have a property owner willing to put in their own money to protect our heritage, and perhaps pay for something government should be wearing the entire cost of to ensure our children and our children’s children have a piece of history, a real conduit to our past.
If this abysmal oversight has been addressed - fantastic - thank you, minister. If it has not - please fix it.
The last thing I would like to do is thank everyone from Alice Springs for making us feel so welcome. To all the staff at the Legislative Assembly – wow! What an amazing job you have done. With the help of the Convention Centre, you have pulled off an amazing event, and your work has not gone unnoticed.
As this is the last sitting of the year I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone from my electorate a safe and prosperous Christmas. To my parliamentary colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition’s staff, thank you. We certainly have had an amazing year, and an amazing team sincerely worthy of governing the Northern Territory.
My thanks also go to Amy, who has now left the office, but provided so much support since the election; and to Alison and Robyn - Merry Christmas.
To all the staff and students at Bakewell Primary School - I am sorry, member for Karama, Bakewell Primary School is the best primary school in the Northern Territory – Merry Christmas.
I wish the members of government, the Chief Minister, his Cabinet, other members, and our independents, a very Merry Christmas. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for applying a fair and even handicap to my jumping for adjournment debates against my more sprightly colleagues.
It is now time to hang up the black suit and get my red suit from the dry cleaners - there is more work to be done.
Finally, to my beautiful family: thank you so much for all your support; without it, of course, none of this would be possible. Thank you for sharing my dream to make the Territory a better place. To my beautiful wife, Robyn, to Brandon, Jackson, Gabrielle and little Harrison, you provide all the fuel I need to do what I need to do. Thank you. I love you.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a woman who has made an enormous contribution to the Northern Territory public sector and who, unfortunately, was here earlier, but has had to leave.
This week, Rita Henry celebrated 30 years in the Northern Territory public service, a very significant milestone. Rita and her husband, Bill, first came to the Northern Territory in 1979, taking up a teaching post in Numbulwar. She spent three years there as a remote community teacher; an experience she says she treasures. Since then, Rita has worked in secondary schools and senior colleges educating two generations of young Territorians.
It is not unusual to be out in the public or in a meeting with Rita and have people come up to greet, with obvious respect and affection, Mrs Henry. Rita’s contribution to Territory education is not confined to the school room. As a talented administrator and manager, she has held some very important advisory, management and leadership positions in Education, covering curriculum, professional development, policy and strategy development and review and change management. Rita played a significant role in the Secondary Education Review, which resulted in major reforms across the Northern Territory’s education sector.
In late 2004, Rita re-located from the Top End to Alice Springs to lead and manage the Department of Education in Central Australia. It was a role, I am told, she thoroughly enjoyed and one in which she made a huge impact. Staff have very fond memories of Rita, and she was very well respected as a boss.
She was asked to return to Darwin in May 2008, where she took up the role of Executive Director of the Innovation and Change Group with responsibility for the Transforming Indigenous Education Task Group, Distance Learning Services and the Teaching, Learning and Standards Division. She was also the Northern Territory Member of the National Curriculum Board.
In mid-2009, Rita was given the opportunity to join the Department of Chief Minister and return to Alice Springs to take on the role of the Northern Territory government’s Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, working in partnership with the Australian government to transform town camps and improve life outcomes for Aboriginal residents and visitors.
Despite her extremely busy professional life, Rita has also found time to devote to sport and community organisations. She is a keen supporter and former secretary of the Nightcliff Tigers Baseball Club.
I thank Rita for the frank and fearless advice she provides to me on a weekly basis and, sometimes on a daily basis, as Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan where, working so closely together, I have come to know Rita very well; and it is thanks in large part to Rita’s dedication and professionalism we have already achieved significant outcomes under the Transformation Plan.
Rita, congratulations on your 30 years in the Northern Territory Public Service, and I hope the Territory will continue to benefit from your expertise and experience.
I now turn to the traditional Christmas thanks and, along with other members who have congratulated and thanked the staff of the Legislative Assembly, I join in the thanks to them - to Madam Speaker, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, to all the Legislative Assembly staff, to Hansard – and, as already acknowledged, to the Parliamentary Education staff for their work not only throughout the year but, as Minister for Central Australia and the only government member in Alice Springs, for the great work undertaken to organise these sittings.
I am sure the other members who are based in Alice Springs also thank them for the success we have had this week. To the Convention Centre staff; to the General Manager, Mr Scott Boocook, a big thank you to you and your staff for your hospitality. To the security people, both the parliamentary security people who have come down, and the private security people, thank you for your professional service this week.
To the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia, and particularly to the hundreds of kids who have come and listened to their parliamentarians in action this week - I am sure you have gone away with a totally different experience to what you expected - a big thank you for your support, not only in the parliament this week, but supporting me as the Minister for Central Australia during the year. It has been a great experience.
Moving to my portfolios: to the Chief Executives of my department, Jim Grant and Richard Galton; to all the Regional Development staff who have moved to Central Australia and Alice Springs this year - a big thank you for your commitment and dedication - there have been some big achievements. Having the Indigenous Economic Development Forum here in Alice Springs was certainly a highlight for me as the new Minister for Parks and Wildlife; and I look forward to next year and the joint management approaches of this government, and working with traditional owners and Parks and Wildlife staff in the regions.
To all my ministerial staff in Alice Springs and in Darwin, I know the fifth floor cops a bit of criticism from the other side; that is probably because they do a great job. To Kieran, and all the others in my office, thank you for your dedication and hard work over the year. I certainly appreciate it very much.
To my Electorate Officers, Vicki, and Jo in Katherine; I know Jo feels isolated at times, but she does a great job for me in getting my message out to my constituents in that part of the electorate. It is a big electorate - the size of Germany - one of the biggest in Australia, and it provides its challenges for me, but I would not be able to do it without Vicky and Jo. So a big thank you to you, and all the best to you and your families over Christmas.
To my constituents, it is a great challenge to get around such a big electorate, and I have been to a host of great events throughout the year. A highlight for me was the opening of the new clinic at Kalkarindji with my colleague, the Minister for Health, during Freedom Day; the 40th anniversary of the Ti Tree School was another highlight for me, meeting some of the original principals and original students; also the official opening of the Wugularr School in the top end of my electorate. My colleague, the member for Barkly, I thank you for opening the school on my behalf; and also to the people of Barunga who, once again, did a fantastic job in organising another great Barunga Festival.
The year, for me, does close with a tinge of sadness, having lost some really close friends and people who helped me during campaigns in Stuart. Those people I have acknowledged in previous adjournments.
My family - with the portfolios I have and my electorate, as we all know, we all go through it - sacrifice a lot. To my wife Rebecca, to my three sons, Josh, Curtly and Jamie, thank you very much for your support; you are my foundation, and I would not be able to do the job I do without your support.
To Josh, hopefully, next year, you will get your licence, but we will keep banging away, even if it is the front gate. I am extremely proud of my son, Curtly, who has been in Adelaide at boarding school this year. He will be playing TAC Cup football next year with the new club, the greater Western Sydney Club under Kevin Sheedy. I am extremely proud of your achievements; your AIS scholarship and another trip to South Africa. I am extremely proud of you. To Jamie, your love and passion of Manchester United never goes astray. It is on my laptop as a screensaver every day.
In closing, congratulations to Jessica Mauboy on her ARIA Award. I also acknowledge some other successful young Territorians - the young AFL footballers who were drafted in today’s AFL draft - congratulations. To Troy Taylor who has gone to Richmond; Anthony Long who has gone to Essendon, and Shane Thorn, who has gone to the Hawks.
I have had some discussions with Troy Taylor’s management company; they were extremely worried about his record of coming across the wrong end of the law. It is great to see this young bloke be given another chance. There has been much national media attention on him, and I am sure he is not going to disappoint any of the AFL fans, particularly those at Richmond.
Anthony Long, nephew of the great Michael Long, is following the footsteps of a legend; and I wish you all the best in making your own path of success in AFL footy
I have watched Shane Thorn play quite a few games with the NT Thunder this year, and he has talent. He loves the evasive side step, and he will dazzle many AFL footballers in Melbourne, and in the other teams.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thanks for your support in bedding me down in my responsibilities as a minister; to the Chief Minister, thanks for your support. To everyone in the Assembly, both sides of the parliament, I wish you and your families a Merry Christmas; and see you in 2010.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House for some 14 or 15 months, and I continue to hear the member for Casuarina accuse people of not having much idea about very much at all.
I refer to a question I put to the member for Casuarina this afternoon in his capacity as the minister for Licensing, relating to smoking indoors and in enclosed areas. The minister gave this answer, which I will quote:
It is a very interesting quote, because there are three points. One, the minister has hidden it so well on the Internet no one can find it. Second, he is hopelessly misinformed, and I refer to some searches we have done. There is a whole page of searches here. Finally, we did that grand old search that gets everything – Google - we googled all sorts of things, and we cannot find it. We are not the only ones who cannot find this; the media cannot find it; the minister’s own office cannot find it. At the request of industry, his office directed them to two websites indicating the Tobacco Control Act and the Tobacco Control Regulations. Third, the minister has misled the House in relation to where this document is.
My inquiry shows this matter, and the guidelines the member for Casuarina dropped on the desk of the member for Nelson, say, and I quote from the document entitled the Tobacco Control Act, Enclosed Area Guidelines Attachment A, second paragraph:
Well, that is not, in fact, correct. No one can find it, so I actually contacted the Australian Hotels Association in relation to this matter and faxed them a copy of this, and they said, and I quote:
This is the document the minister has just dropped in our lap and said it is available to the public. Yet, we cannot find it anywhere. The industry has said - and this is from the people on the Tobacco Action Task Force - this document has not been released yet, and they know nothing about it. I am stunned the minister would just drop this on people: you cannot find it anywhere, there has been no communication at all with the industry licence holders, and there has been no advertising campaign - there has been nothing.
I have made further enquiries, and I will quote from the notes I have made in relation to the answers I have received. This is from the Executive Officer of the Australian Hotels Association, and I quote:
I refer to the outcomes of the report which was apparently submitted to Cabinet on 17 November for consideration. So, here is the industry representative body, and two of the people on that body are also on the Tobacco Action Task Force, and they have not been advised either.
I further note the Executive Officer informed me:
I go on to quote the Executive Officer further:
I made further enquiries, and from some direct questions I put to the Executive Director of the AHA NT, this is the answer I received, and I quote:
I quote from the sixth paragraph of this particular document where it says:
Well, we went through the Tobacco Control Act, and, in fact, there is no section 7(a); so this attached document is factually incorrect.
We go further down the list, and I quote from the answer the minister gave to my question in Question Time today. It says:
I reiterate, as far as the people in the Australian Hotels Association and the Tobacco Action Task Force are concerned, these are still commercial-in-confidence documents.
Dr Burns: It sounds like you do not support banning smoking.
Mr STYLES: No, no. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston. Member for Johnston, I would like to make it very, very clear the Country Liberals, myself, and the member for Nelson, absolutely support banning indoor smoking. What we are concerned about is the woeful job the government has done in relation to getting these guidelines out. With only 34 days to go, industry still does not have a complete set of guidelines so they can go and spend, in some cases, considerable amounts of money.
We have a guideline which has not been released to the public, and it is still a commercial-in-confidence document - so it is not out there. There are people, who are not members of the Australian Hotels Association, who still do not know; they have had no communication; there has been no public communication, and no public awareness campaign.
Interstate, they fed this in over three years; governments interstate have had public awareness campaigns so the public actually knows what is going on. This government has made no attempt to educate the Northern Territory public that these changes are to come in on 2 January 2010. I will stand corrected if the member for Johnston, or anyone else in the government, can actually inform me when this public awareness campaign is going to happen, and when this document will be available, so the rest of us in the Northern Territory, apart from the minister, can find it on the Internet. I would be very pleased to be corrected. If the member for Johnston would like to correct me, I would be very happy to be corrected.
In the meantime, here we have another complete and utter shambles trying to manage even just a small thing like getting guidelines out to the industry so these people can get on with doing things with confidence.
I refer the member for Johnston to the disclaimer at the bottom of this document, where it says:
So, here is a document which says you should not really take this as gospel. People are waiting for some guidelines from the government. It is a disgrace the government has not done this, with only 34 days to comply with all the requirements.
Merry Christmas to you all.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a long year. I would like to acknowledge all my constituents on the Tiwi Islands, Minjilang, Warruwi, Maningrida, Gunbalanya and Jabiru. And, in acknowledging my constituents, through all the trials and tribulations I have gone through over these last 12 months, their support has been unwavering.
I am looking forward, when I leave Alice Springs tomorrow, to getting back to my electorate and seeing everyone before we wind down for Christmas. To all those people, and the many people who supported me right across the electorate, I am looking forward to getting out there, particularly to Gunbalanya where, with the Minister for Local Government, I will be meeting with constituents to go through issues dealing with the Local Government reforms.
I want to acknowledge all the staff of the Legislative Assembly: the Clerk; the Deputy Clerk, Graham Gadd; Steven Stokes, Annette, and everyone in the Table Office; all the 5th floor staff, and I want to particularly thank these people who have helped me right throughout the year with any little request: Deirdra Fitzgerald, Corinna Kozak, Karen Turner, and Alice Tsang in the finance area, who have provided me with support and assistance. To Helen Allmich and all the Hansard staff, I send my gratitude; we appreciate the Hansard records which come through to us.
To all my colleagues, I wish you a happy Christmas with your families, particularly my ministerial colleagues. I was listening to the member for Nhulunbuy who had the opportunity for her husband to go with her on trips. Unfortunately, my husband being a police prosecutor, his job goes in another direction, and I am always out on the road; but I would look forward to having him come with me on some of those trips. To all my ministerial colleagues, I know the time spent away from your families, and the work you guys put in; the dedication, the commitment, and your staff - it has been fantastic to be part of this team.
I believe next year will be a good year. There is plenty to do, not just in our urban areas, but our remote areas. The work we have to do in our remote communities, I honestly believe, can only be achieved under a Labor government. Whilst there has been much criticism that we have not delivered in remote Aboriginal communities, I am getting tired of listening to CLP members in this House perpetuating the myth that not one single SIHIP house has been built. I have often asked members to come out to my electorate and have a look what is happening there.
If you look at the Tiwi Islands, and Gunbalanya, there have been many refurbishments, all under SIHIP; and over the Wet Season there will be construction of many new houses. For those CLP members who continually say not one SIHIP house has been built or no work has been done, they should get out beyond the Berrimah line, out of their urban-based seats to some of the communities and have a look, rather than being the armchair critics they always are.
I believe the way they carry on in their childish, churlish and immature way, saying nothing has happened, has been led by the member for Fong Lim. Watching him since he came into this parliament, I believe he has been a disappointment. The member for Fong Lim should act his age - rather than his shoe size - in targeting the Deputy Chief Minister.
The other disappointment for me is the member for Katherine. I actually liked the member for Katherine; I thought he was above some of the CLP members in this parliament, and that has been a disappointment. Boys will be boys, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I both have boys, and we know what boys will be like; and I am glad the member for Fong Lim has a good old laugh. But it has been a disappointment.
I feel for the Deputy Chief Minister; I know what attack is like. It seems the boys are attacking the girls all the time; it seems they have to exercise their masculinity as though it is something which has to happen.
Having said that, there are a couple of people I want to thank. One of them is my surgeon. I told him I would mention him in parliament because of his support, guidance and assistance – he was more than just a surgeon - throughout the year, and getting me to the point where I feel fantastic. I am actually doing yoga and I am trying to walk and get fit and healthy. So, I thank my surgeon; he has been fantastic.
Most of all, I want to thank my family and my husband, David, through all the trials and tribulations of the last 12 months. David was in court in Katherine when a police officer told him I had gone back to the Labor Party, and he had to ask the magistrate if he could have a five-minute break so he could ring me to find out what was going on. He has certainly been most supportive, and I look forward to spending some time over Christmas with him, because we have not had any time.
To my children: my son, Richard, who has finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and has a fantastic job in Western Australia. He will be coming home for Christmas, which we are looking forward to, and will go back to Western Australia for work.
And my two girls and my grandchildren - I am looking forward to spending quality time with them over Christmas. I have six beautiful grandchildren, three girls and three boys, and being a nanna and having that special time at Christmas and New Year with those little ones is wonderful.
To everyone, all my parliamentary colleagues - sometimes we throw insults across the Chamber - I do hope you have a safe and happy Christmas and you use this time to be with your families, because it is an important time. I will see everyone in 2010.
I should mention, most of all, my Electorate Officer, Helen, who has been through all of this and has kept the electorate informed, particularly when I was off sick for six months. She has been invaluable in her support.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will thank you and wish you Merry Christmas first. I hope you have a safe and healthy festive season.
I say thank you to members of the government; I hope you all have a safe and happy Christmas and festive season as well.
Politics can be a brutal game; it is meant to be a brutal game and we all play it as hard as we possibly can. That is the way it should be, but there is nothing personal in it, I am sure, from either side. Member for Johnston, you can be certain we will come back and box on next year.
I particularly thank my Country Liberal Party colleagues - a great bunch of people, and I am honoured to be in their ranks. I also particularly thank Lumpy, or Ian McNeill, and all the staff in the Legislative Assembly for your wonderful support.
I thank the Country Liberals themselves for their support, particularly my branch, the Darwin Branch.
In relation to the electorate, I should mention the schools: Ludmilla, Nemarluk and Kormilda, and the various principals and staff for their great support. I also thank Gretchen Ennis and the Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections, along with the tireless worker in my electorate, Mick Purcell. I thank the hundreds of business people who have supported me through the year, and the thousands of constituents in my electorate.
I particularly make special mention of my Electorate Officer, Helen Bateman. She is a tower of strength for me; she is forever professional; there is nothing she will not do in the line of duty. I hope Helen has a fantastic and a very safe Christmas; and also her husband, John Bateman, who assists me in a whole range of ways without reward at all.
To everyone in this place, thank you very much. I thank my family for their support. I hope everyone has a happy and festive New Year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I was at the magnificent Araluen Arts Centre here in Alice Springs looking at the latest fossils unearthed from the Alcoota dig. I spoke to Dr Peter Murray and heard these ancient megafauna died out at this unique site because some experts believe they failed to cope with the changing climate. I was shown the bones of a 2500 kg marsupial rhino, the largest marsupial to have ever lived; a taipir, a wombat-like creature the size of a bull with razor sharp front claws and a trunk and, interestingly, a giant, flightless goose which stood around 3 m tall.
It got me thinking these proud and arrogant beings which once ruled the Territory died out because they could not adapt to climate change; they did not believe in it - they denied it. They remind me of the dinosaurs, some of whom are in this very place, creatures that once ruled the roost but are now destined to be fossilised unbelievers.
I was particularly struck by the bones of the giant, flightless goose. The creature reminded me of the member for Fong Lim - tall, loud, with a huge beak, yet this goose was the master of a shrinking empire millions of years ago - steadfastly denying anything that was going on. He stuck to his guns until the bitter end, but his denial cost him, and his breed, their lives.
The bones of the rhino made me think, too: this guy was a leader of the pack; he was a big man in his breed, but he could not convince his mates to sniff the breeze and sense climate change. He could not get them to agree – and his bones also lie in the dust.
As a former chalkie, I say to the Country Liberal Party, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the member for Fong Lim: learn from history, do not be a goose and, even more importantly, do not be a fossil! You guys have to get on with the program and drag yourselves out of the dinosaur age. Territorians expect action on climate change. They expect a plan which will help protect future generations. They want action, not denial. They want action, not scepticism. So my Christmas message is one of hope to the opposition: get on board, take a leaf out of the history book and admit climate change is happening, and something needs to be done on a global scale.
On the subject of Christmas, I would like to wish Madam Speaker, and all the staff of the Legislative Assembly a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year. I thank all staff for your professionalism during the year, your hard work in parliament; and a special thank you for bringing parliament to Central Australia and Alice Springs.
Merry Christmas to all my colleagues here in government, in particular to the Chief Minister; and a special Merry Christmas to the Treasurer, one of the smartest, toughest people I have met, and an inspiration to me. To my ministerial colleagues, to my Caucus colleagues, it is wonderful to know I can travel the great Northern Territory and I have new friends in interesting places who will support me and inspire me.
I wish a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to my new electorate officer, Nancy Cowan. Three months into the journey, Nancy - yes, it looks pretty wild and woolly, and it is - but hang in there, it will get better and better.
To the people of the Barkly, I apologise, you are now sharing me with the whole of the Territory, but things will work out. We will work together, and we will not only make the Barkly a better place, but we will also work for the Northern Territory.
To my family: to Robert, Abby, and Reece, in far away Cobar, thank you for your support. To Thomas and Maria, now in Melbourne, thank you. Thomas, I cannot say enough that you have really matured this year, you have really changed things but, sonny boy, do not be in a hurry to mature too quickly, I still think there are days left for us to get back to Wollogorang, round up Edmonds and go bull catching. To Joseph McCarthy, Chrispy Strip, there is only one piece of advice for you – I hope you divert your energy into cartoons, because if you could put what you say to me into cartoon form, I think Wicking will give you a job.
To Dawn, my wife, one of the great followers of parliament, thank you very much. It is amazing how you can juggle work, and your community work with your following of the parliament. Thank you, Dawn. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, and we will have lots to do in the New Year.
It is my family who keep me grounded, and the people I work with. I would like to thank all the people on the fifth floor of Parliament House for their intelligence, their inspiration; they are a sassy mob; they are great to work with, and I like people who inspire me.
To my office staff, and there have been a few changes but at the moment the line-up is: Karlee Dalton, Carol Angeles, Stuart Knowles, Bethany Maley and Fiona Stuchbery. Then we go down the corridor to the famous Tim Pigot. Thank you, guys, for a wonderful time, and I hope I have been of service. That is what it comes down to; I refuse to take on the rubbish thrown at me from across the House about this holier-than-thou attitude of a minister. The McCarthy clan believe a minister means you are here to serve, and that is what I plan to do.
I would like to conclude by saying a big thank you to all the people from the departments I work with for your inspiration - people with degrees, people with experience which goes back decades in the Northern Territory, people who turn up to work every day for the Northern Territory. Thank you very much for taking me on board; and I am really looking forward to working with you as part of a massive government team as it comes forward.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to remember a very special Territorian. We say goodbye to a mother, a lady, a pioneer of the Territory, Peg MacFarlane. Peg will be missed immensely by her family, and by many in the Territory who have been helped by her, and who have received strength and courage to continue their lives in the Territory wilderness.
Peg, who was plucked from a very different society to land in the untamed Territory, always maintained her standards, despite the hardest and most trying conditions. Peg MacFarlane lived most of her years in the Territory on a cattle station in the beautiful tropical garden she established on Moroak, about 8 m above the Roper River, and 124 km south-east of Katherine.
Born on 18 March 1921, Patricia Crozier, Peg that is, was brought up on Cuthro Station on the Western Darling Downs of New South Wales. Peg started her schooling in Melbourne at the Ormond State School and lived with her grandparents, Arthur and Annie Crozier. She then began school at Cuthro with governesses, and later at a school on the station.
When Peg was nearing the end of her schooling, she decided she wanted to be either a hairdresser or a nurse, as she thought this would be a good way to travel; and decided to study midwifery at the Queen Victoria Maternity Hospital in Adelaide. However, this was not needed as her next position was Sister-in-Charge of post-operative cases at the sanatorium for tuberculosis sufferers in Melbourne. In those days, when Peg did her nursing training , the rates of pay were 10 shillings per week for the first and second year of nursing; 12 shillings and sixpence per week for third year; 15 shillings per week for fourth year; of course, much has changed since that time.
In 1950, at 29-years of age, Peg decided to go overseas, visiting Paris, Scotland and England and taking many private nursing jobs. On returning from England, Peg decided to venture further afield. A good friend, who was a doctor, suggested going to the Northern Territory; so she thought she would give it a try for six months. She tried to get into Alice Springs and Darwin Hospitals, but ending up at Katherine. After a few months, the matron at Katherine Hospital left, and Peg was appointed matron. Six months turned into 36 years.
While living and working in Katherine, Peg lost her heart to Les MacFarlane, called Mac, who, at the time, owned Mataranka Station, 60 miles south of Katherine. A brief courtship followed, and they were married at King’s School Chapel in Parramatta in February 1952, where Mac had gone to school. Immediately following their return to Mataranka, Mac went away on a droving trip for three months, whereupon Peg set up a garden and vegetable garden, and took over the day-to-day organisation of the station’s Aboriginals.
There was no house on Mataranka Station, but the army had set up areas for a workshop, kitchen and living, and they were able to utilise the material left behind by the army to make it into a reasonable living area. Mac had bought a half share in another station called Moroak, which was 60 miles east of Mataranka on the Roper River.
Peg’s first son, Tim, was born at St Andres Private Hospital in Melbourne; and four other sons - Tony, Jamie, Lindsay and Hamish - were later born at the same hospital.
Life on Moroak, then three-and-a-half hour’s drive from Mataranka, was hard. Home was a bit of an understatement, as there was no house, only a shelter with some corrugated iron on the roof, about six feet by eight feet, on one side. They had to make do with the few materials they had. There was no floor, and Peg used to joke about making her own Persian carpets by sewing together chaff bags, wheat bags and any other bags she could get hold of; she would peg them to the ground and these became the floor coverings.
With no power plant or refrigeration, meat needed to be dry salted, and vegetables picked daily from Peg’s huge vegetable garden and numerous fruit trees. This was quite a challenge for Peg and Les, raising a young family of five boys, supplying an Aboriginal camp, and running a cattle station, but they took it in their stride.
Peg lived without power for almost 20 years before 32 volt power was connected at Moroak in the late 1960s, for the first time giving powered lights. Finally, the 240 volt power was connected in the 1970s. So, although Peg was very busy, she must have longed for the companionship of other women and other people, especially during a two-year period when she did not leave the station because Mac was often away for long periods on droving trips. School for her sons was with the Aboriginal children at Moroak, where they learnt many bush skills from the Aborigines.
This was also the time Peg’s husband, Mac, entered parliament, becoming the long-time member for the electorate of Elsey - the entire Katherine region - from 1968 to 1984. Although there was little thanks for a politician in the Territory in those days before self-government, Peg supported his decision to enter politics, as Les believed in a better deal for those who lived and worked in the Katherine district, particularly in the cattle industry. Les served as Speaker of the House, this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for more than half his time in the Assembly; but never hesitated to stand aside from the Chair and put the problems of his electorate to the House in a typical blunt and direct fashion.
Not long after Mac died, Peg MacFarlane left the Territory in 1987, after some 36 years, to live at Box Hill in Melbourne where she once again was able to see some of the performing arts, exhibitions and beautiful gardens. However, her heart was still in the Territory, and she returned in 1999 to live in Katherine and be near her sons and grandchildren. In 2003, Peg once again left the Territory for Toowoomba, where she spent her remaining years.
For one final time, Peg has returned to the Territory to be buried where she came so many years ago, alongside the enchanting Roper River on Moroak Station, beside her beloved husband, Les, and cherished son, Jamie. Peg MacFarlane passed away on 11 November 2009.
I would also like to use this time to thank the many people who, over the past 12 months, have been instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. First, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer, Pat Witte. I often describe Pat as the glue which keeps me together, and how right I am. She does an absolutely marvellous job as my Electorate Officer in Katherine, and I could not be without her; and I am grateful for the service she provides me. Thank you, Pat.
To my colleagues in the Country Liberal Party, and to the Leader of the Opposition’s staff; we have formed a strong bond, and we are a great team. We have been working together well this year, and I am looking forward to continue working with you in 2010. I wish you all the very best for the season.
To my colleagues on the other side of the House, I also pass my thanks. Every time we come to this House, I make no apologies for saying I learn something new. I believe that is absolutely imperative in fact and attitude, to continue to learn in life. Believe me; I learn much from the government’s politicians, the Labor members across the Chamber.
I also thank - as many people have done tonight - the staff in Parliament House. I will not go into names, but let me say they do perform tasks at an extremely high standard; their work is exemplary; and I really appreciate the fact I can pick up the phone and have problems solved in no time flat. Thank you for your work during the past 12 months.
I thank the people of Katherine for their ongoing support over the last 12 months. I say this very sincerely: I love living in Katherine, it is a wonderful little town and I know the people of Katherine feel the same. I am looking forward to representing them for many years to come, I hope. Rest assured, people of Katherine, I will be working extremely hard in this House for you.
I also thank the Convention Centre staff here today; they were thanked several times tonight, but their contribution is often understated. They move around without much thanks; they slip in and do their job very fastidiously; they are good at what they do; and their hard work over the last few days has certainly been appreciated.
I also thank the police officers who have worked here today, and in the last few days. I have certainly felt safe working with all these guys around me, because I know how good they are. I thank my former colleagues in Alice Springs - I have seen a few of them through the course of the sittings - and all my former colleagues in the police force.
Last, but not least, I thank my wife and my children. They have put up with a heck of a lot over the past 12 months. My wife has said to me she feels she is a wife only in name at the moment, because I spent so much time away. I thank her very much for her indulgence over the last 12 months. I thank my kids, also, for managing to get through the last 12 months without putting anything on Facebook which has embarrassed me.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Central Australian Arts Competition 2009 – People’s Choice Award
Central Australian Arts Competition 2009 – People’s Choice Award
Madam SPEAKER: I have great pleasure in announcing the Central Australian Arts Competition 2009 People’s Choice Award goes to the Living Waters Lutheran School, which will receive a cheque for $500. The artwork was completed by Year 6 student, Chad Lennon. Congratulations to the Living Waters Lutheran School. I thank the member for Braitling who has agreed to present this award to the school tomorrow.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge Year 3/4B students from Braitling Primary School, together with Miss Amanda Bond and Mrs Tracey-Lee Forester. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (Serial 78)
Bill presented and read a first time.Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I welcome the students, it is great to see them here.
I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act to enhance the existing legislation to better enable the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory to meet the objectives of the act.
The Teacher Registration (Northern Territory) Act was passed in 2004, with the objective of ensuring only persons who are fit and proper and who are appropriately qualified, are employed as teachers in the Northern Territory. It is the role of the Teacher Registration Board to administer the scheme of teacher registration which has existed in the Territory for five years, and also to facilitate the continuing competence of our teachers.
In the five years since the act was passed, there have been a number of developments nationally. The bill seeks to implement critical reforms identified in the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs National Framework, 2003, and the Council of Australian Governments National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality, signed in 2008. The bill also proposes a number of amendments to assist the board in its administration of the act. The changes proposed will strengthen the act, which will have a long-term benefit for students and teachers in our schools.
The bill provides for the introduction in the Northern Territory of new teacher registration categories and requirements which will support, enhance, and improve quality teaching. These new practices are fundamental to longer-term reforms, aimed at developing national consistency in teacher registration across jurisdictions, and a national accreditation system for pre-service teacher education courses. This bill also proposes important changes to the way in which the board conducts complaints and inquiries. This bill aligns the Northern Territory with other jurisdictional authorities.
First, the Teacher Registration Board will accredit initial teacher education courses for delivery in the Territory. Currently, the act does not explicitly empower the TRB of the Northern Territory to accredit pre-service teacher education programs. The act needs to be amended to ensure programs delivered by tertiary institutions in the Territory can be recognised for teacher registration purposes. This bill contains provisions to achieve the amendments necessary to support the national agenda, and to accredit home-grown initial teacher education programs. This is particularly important at a time when the education revolution aims to attract the best and brightest into teaching, and the Northern Territory must be part of this.
The second key change is this act proposes to introduce two categories of registration: provisional registration and full registration. The current legislation only allows one category of Registered Teacher. Under the provisions of this bill, new graduates will be granted provisional registration, and only experienced teachers will be granted full registration. This is an important initiative because it recognises teachers new to the profession need a period of supported induction into the profession. The category of provisional registration will also include teachers returning from extended periods of leave; teachers from overseas who have no teaching experience in Australian schools; applicants from other jurisdictions whose registration has lapsed; and teachers from New South Wales who come to us with a provisional accreditation from that state.
The introduction of this new category of registration sends a clear message that the Northern Territory places great importance on the currency of practice and ongoing professional competence of our teachers through our registration processes.
The Teacher Registration Board has developed professional standards of practice for graduate teachers and for competent teachers. These standards align with the Ministerial Council and the national framework, and they establish clear and rigorous expectations against which provisional and full registration may be granted.
The third key change to the registration procedures this bill introduces is once teachers are granted full registration, they will be required to demonstrate they have maintained their competence and professional experience as teachers as part of the registration renewal process. Under the existing provisions of the act, the board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the continuing competence of teachers. However, the board has no power to refuse to renew a teacher’s registration if the teacher pays the fee and completes the renewal application form.
The bill before members requires teachers registered in the Territory to demonstrate ongoing professional competence every five years. These new initiatives are important in ensuring not only that Northern Territory teachers are competent practitioners, but also because the bill will bring registration practices in the Territory into line with registration practices in other Australian jurisdictions and with the New Zealand Teachers Council. All other jurisdictions with regulatory authorities impose registration renewal requirements by which registered teachers are required to demonstrate ongoing competence and good character, meaning teachers maintain their professional competence and meet current standards of professional practice; it is time Territory teachers did the same.
A substantial part of this bill is made up of Part 6 of the act, which concerns the Teacher Registration Board’s inquiry and complaints function. These functions provide for the board to investigate matters which call into question whether a teacher is a fit and proper person, or is competent to teach. The proposed amendments largely correct anomalies in the current act and refine the board’s capacity to better meet the objectives of the act. The amendments include clarification of when the board may undertake a preliminary investigation into a matter brought to its attention, and when it must take the more costly option of going to a full inquiry, which must be chaired by a member of the legal profession. The purpose of amending this part of the act is to ensure an investigation of matters does not unnecessarily escalate to an inquiry, which is the case currently, owing to the ambiguity in the current legislation.
In addition, this bill extends the scope of protection from liability for relevant persons providing information to the board. This ensures the board can undertake preliminary investigations in an efficient and effective way, and safeguard those relevant persons who provide information to the board.
The community must be confident the Teacher Registration Board has powers to rigorously investigate matters of concern properly, and the teaching profession needs to know individuals who bring the profession into disrepute will be dealt with appropriately; students in our Territory schools deserve nothing less.
Finally, the House should note in refining the board’s capacity to seek additional information about teachers applying for registration or registration renewal in the Northern Territory, proper attention has been paid to compliance with privacy and information legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) BILL (Serial 82)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
For a number of years there have been concerns that conveyancing practice in the Northern Territory can operate in a way which fails to ensure prospective buyers are, at the earliest possible opportunity for optimal decision-making, provided with sufficient accurate information about a property they are considering buying.
Generally, lawyers and conveyancers will advise a buyer, if they do not have all the information about a property, they should only sign a contract which gives them an option to rescind the contract should they become aware, as a result of their own searches, of undesirable facts concerning the land or the building which would affect their decision to buy. Unfortunately, if a buyer delays signing a contract whilst they go off and do their own searches, they run the risk of being gazumped; that is, by someone who makes a higher offer for the property and signs a binding contract.
This legislation seeks to address this situation by obliging the sellers of land to make available for inspection by prospective buyers, at the time land is offered for sale, a draft contract of sale, and to disclose other relevant information concerning the property. Failure to disclose will give the buyer a right to rescind a contract, and could constitute an offence on the part of the seller. These obligations will apply in respect of the sale of most land in the Northern Territory. Land excluded, either in the act or the proposed regulations, includes: sales of units off the plan, the land in this context does not yet exist and the relevant acts have their own disclosure requirements; sales of land in a proposed subdivision, because the land in this context does not yet exist; land subject to a Crown lease containing a purpose clause requiring the development of the land; land subject to a development lease from the Land Development Corporation; and where a buyer makes an unsolicited offer to purchase the land.
The bill provides the minimum information to be available by way of disclosure to prospective buyers is: all information which can be obtained from the Land Titles Office in respect of the property, including registered encumbrances affecting the land; and details of unregistered leases and tenancy agreements.
The regulations will provide for the disclosure of further information to prospective buyers, including a building status report. In general, this report will, at a minimum, identify any inconsistencies between a building on the land and the approved drawings and identify any unapproved works. The detail of what is to be contained in this report is still being developed, but that is the general idea. The regulations will also deal with circumstances where the relevant provisions of the Building Act do not apply, as is the case in many areas of the Territory, and some other unique situations, where it may not be possible to determine whether existing buildings had to comply with the Building Act or where it is not possible to determine the status of the building.
The regulations will also provide for the qualifications of the persons who may provide a building status report. In addition to building practitioners qualified under the Building Act, the regulations will be drafted to permit other persons who have appropriate qualifications and experience, but are not formally qualified as a building certifier or building contractor, to provide a building status report. The intention is to reflect the current situation in the Territory where people with appropriate skills are able to prepare these reports.
As I mentioned, these regulations are still being finalised and officers from the Department of Justice will be working with stakeholders to ensure the wording in the regulations reflects this policy intent. The regulations will also provide an alternative to a building status report being provided. This alternative is a written warning to prospective buyers that the seller has not provided a building status report, with warnings to the buyer of the implications. This warning will be in a form approved by the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice.
This option has been included to allow a degree of flexibility, recognising there are situations where a status report may not be required by a prospective buyer, for example, where a building is to be demolished, or where the only building on land is a dilapidated old shed. There may be other situations where a building status report is not able to be obtained by a seller, for a variety of reasons. Examples include stringent time constraints or, perhaps, financial hardship. At the very least, in these situations the prospective buyer will be informed as to the possible consequences of not having the status report.
The regulations will also require that the seller provide copies of documents such as compliance certificates under the Swimming Pool Safety Act, rate notices, and information about key decisions made by a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act or the Unit Title Schemes Act. The regulations will also require sellers to disclose any personal knowledge they have regarding matters which may affect the land. This includes matters such as drug premises orders, flooding, storm tides, and seepage.
This bill also provides for a mandatory cooling-off period of four days for sales of residential land. In essence, buyers can change their mind in those four days and rescind the contract without suffering any penalty. However, the buyer can waive or reduce the cooling-off period if they obtain appropriate advice from a legal practitioner or a licensed conveyancing agent. However, there is no cooling-off period for purchase at an auction, or for purchases by unsuccessful bidders within two days of an unsuccessful auction.
The bill provides for a transitional period during which the new arrangements will not apply to properties listed for sale, or to contracts made prior to the commencement of the legislation.
This legislation is not intended to be for the purposes of the enforcement of the Building Act or other regulatory legislation. An owner of land has a right to sell land, even though a building may not comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Act or other legislation. Rather, the objective of this legislation is to improve the efficiency and the fairness of the conveyancing process for all concerned by ensuring, as far as practicable, the buyer has the same information as the seller at the earliest opportunity.
In a more perfect world, it would be useful for there to be authoritative records about buildings, including regulatory compliance, and this could be disclosed when land is being sold. However, this information does not currently exist and so, to a certain extent, this bill has to leave to the parties the decision about what other level of information is obtained regarding the building.
I note vendor disclosure legislation, in one form or another, has been in place in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales for many years. Similar legislation has been enacted in more recent years in the Australian Capital Territory. My understanding is, in those jurisdictions, it is accepted the legislation does work to achieve its objectives.
Before I conclude, I mention there has been some discussion about the practice of gazumping in the Territory. The mechanism set out in this bill is designed to give prospective buyers of property the opportunity to make a considered assessment of the property as soon as it is put on the market. This will mean buyers are not left having to make an interim arrangement, such as entering into a non-binding agreement to purchase, before they do all the prudent searches for information, which leaves them open to another prospective buyer coming forward with a higher offer. This scheme will minimise the opportunity for this sort of practice to occur by providing draft contracts of sale are prepared and available before a property can be made available for sale, and by giving buyers the minimum knowledge they might require to make a decision to enter into a binding contract of sale.
I pass my sincere thanks to the various stakeholders for their input into the development of this bill and the regulations. A number of legal practitioners, real estate agents, and other key stakeholders have spent many hours assisting the Department of Justice to refine the bill and the regulations to the stage where, we believe, we have a practical and workable solution to a problem which has been something of a thorn in the side for buyers of land in the Northern Territory for a number of years.
As a final note, I advise before this legislation commences, departmental officers will visit each major centre providing seminars on how the legislation will operate. The department will also work with stakeholders to prepare information material for the benefit of buyers and sellers.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 84)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the regulation of tenancies in caravan and mobile home parks. It will provide long-term residents of these parks with the same level of protection and certainty other tenants enjoy. The bill also deals with a number of issues which arose as a result of a decision made by the delegate of the Commissioner of Tenancies in the matter of Holdeth Investments Pty Ltd v Lorraine Ivinson and Raymond Halliday, (the Holdeth case).
Part 2 of the bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act so it applies to caravan parks. As mentioned earlier, the aim of this part is to provide both caravan park owners and long-term residents with an appropriate level of certainty around long-term tenancies. It will give similar rights to long-term residents of caravan parks as for existing tenants of residential premises. However, despite the aim of ensuring consistency with other types of rental arrangements, there will be specific provisions relating to caravan parks, where appropriate, to accommodate the different circumstances and needs of such tenancies.
In developing these amendments, it was noted all Australian jurisdictions, other than the Australian Capital Territory, regulate caravan parks to varying degrees. Additionally, the NT has had no clearly defined framework for the regulation of caravan parks since the Caravan Parks Act was repealed in 2002. This has caused uncertainty for both residents and industry as to their rights and obligations. It should also be noted there has been public consultation undertaken around these reforms. An Issues Paper was publicly released in 2008, and the responses have informed the drafting of this bill. Additionally, there has been further targeted consultation during the drafting.
The key amendment is the one made to section 6(h). Currently, section 6(h) provides the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to a caravan or a mobile home located in a caravan park. Clause 6 of the bill amends section 6(h), so the act will apply to caravans unless the period of continued occupation of the caravan is less than 90 days.
Other amendments contained in the bill comprise modifications to the current legislation to clarify how the act applies to caravans, and to address the specific kinds of caravan park situations which differ from those which apply for ordinary residential tenancies. For example, section 24 of the act currently prohibits payments other than rent or a security deposit for the grant of a tenancy. This bill amends section 24 so it is clear a caravan park owner can require the payment of a deposit for access keys, and other devices relating to entering a caravan park or using the facilities of the caravan park. Other amendments along the same lines include those relating to the use and enjoyment of common areas and communal facilities.
Most of the provisions of the bill which are specific to caravan parks are contained in new Part 13A. The key provisions are those relating to park rules, resident’s committees, the obligations of caravan park owners, relocations, and sales of caravans on-site.
The bill permits caravan park owners to make caravan park rules. The coverage of these rules is limited to that set out in the proposed section 122C(2). They must only relate to matters such as common areas, noise, activities in the park, speed limits of vehicles, parking, motor vehicles, rubbish, pets, and structures. There is a capacity which permits regulations to be made that add matters to the list.
Each resident must be provided with a copy of the rules, and must be given notice of any changes to the rules. The Commissioner of Tenancies may, on application of a resident, order a rule is unreasonable. The Commissioner may then amend the rule to make it more reasonable.
The bill also provides for the establishment of resident committees to represent the common interests of residents. Owners will be obliged to consult with the relevant park’s committee, if one exists, prior to adding, changing, or repealing park rules.
The bill also sets out some specific obligations applying to caravan park owners, such as supplying residents with park rules and providing instructions or manuals for appliances provided as part of the resident’s premises or common area facilities. New section 122J of the act also requires caravan owners to provide 24-hour vehicular access to residents and 24-hour access to bathroom facilities.
The bill regulates situations where a park owner wants to move a resident from one caravan to another. New section 122K sets out the grounds for imposing such a requirement. Reasonable notice must be given of any such requirement; what is reasonable notice will vary in the circumstances. Thus, if the reason for the move is that of an emergency, health or safety, or for compliance with a law, the period of notice may be very short. If the move is required for the park’s development, the period of notice should be much longer.
New section 122M of the bill also provides a park owner cannot hinder or attempt to prevent the sale of a caravan. However, the resident, when selling a caravan, must tell the park owner of a proposed sale prior to the erection of a ‘for sale’ sign.
An important new provision is new section 88B which allows for a caravan park owner to immediately terminate a caravan park agreement if there has been serious misconduct by a resident. If a caravan park owner chooses this approach, rather than the more formal termination provisions under the act, he or she must apply to the commissioner within three days to have the termination validated. If the commissioner declares a termination invalid, he or she may also order the park owner to pay costs incurred as a result of the termination – for example, accommodation costs.
This is to discourage vexatious termination applications from being made and is not intended to impact on the ability of owners to make reasonable emergency terminations. This new termination process is in recognition of the particular circumstances of caravan parks. The government agrees caravan park owners require a way to be able to evict serious problem tenants more quickly than under the existing provisions of the act, which generally requires some form of prior notice. This is due to the communal nature of caravan parks and the impact a resident’s behaviour can potentially have on other tenants, their privacy, and ability to use and enjoy the premises without reasonable interference.
There was also some concern the existing notice period of 14 days for terminating fixed term tenancies was not appropriate for caravan park tenancies. Residents of caravan parks should have a longer period of notice as the particular circumstances of many of their tenancies can make moving out of a caravan park site much more difficult. It is not always just a matter of packing up and leaving, as with a house or apartment. Some caravan park residents have semi-permanent annexes and concrete sites, while others have gardens and picket fences. Accordingly, for caravan park agreements, the notice period relating to the termination at the end of a fixed term tenancy has been extended to 28 days.
The overall benefits of the proposed bill are many. The main one, perhaps, is that it will provide a clear definition of the rights and obligations of both owners and residents which can be effectively enforceable. Second, it will provide structured, clearly defined and enforceable termination provisions. This includes the new emergency termination process to allow for the immediate removal of tenants who cause serious damage or disruption in a park.
Third, both caravan park owners and long-term residents will have access to the existing complaint and dispute resolution processes under the act through the Office of the Commissioner of Tenancies. This process is free of charge. Currently, there is no formal mechanism for either the tenants or the owners to enforce their rights. For example, at the moment, if a resident damages common property, the owner must take legal action in the civil courts. Under the proposed changes, the owner will be able to access the free process where the commissioner has jurisdiction to make orders for compensation up to $10 000. On the other hand, tenants will be able to access the process if they believe their agreement has been unfairly terminated.
The Office of the Commissioner of Tenancies will be involved in a long implementation process. This will involve an education process and development of forms to assist owners and residents to understand their new rights and obligations. It is not anticipated that the act will be enacted until mid-2010. Regulations will need to be developed and drafted to underpin the new regulatory scheme, including a default caravan park agreement and the necessary forms. Further consultation on these will be undertaken prior to the commencement of the scheme.
These reforms are particularly important with the current economic climate and housing shortage. It will put long-term residents of caravan parks on the same footing as other types of tenants. The regulatory framework has been developed to try to reduce costs as much as possible, while ensuring a maximum benefit to both caravan park owners and long-term tenants.
I will now turn to the second aspect of the amendment contained in this bill: the operational amendments. The delegate’s decision in the Holdeth case was that the property agent was acting in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act, when the agent increased the tenant’s rent under a tenancy agreement using a memorandum of variation in circumstances, where the method to be used for increasing the rent was not agreed by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. This was despite the agreement of both parties to an increase of rent under the memorandum of variation. The use of memoranda of variation in this way has been a common practice of real estate agents in the NT over a number of years. A consequence of the delegate’s decision was that increased rents, paid under invalid memoranda of variation, may have been able to be claimed back by tenants from agents and landlords, even where a tenant and a landlord had knowingly agreed to the increase rent.
The delegate’s decision was the subject of an appeal to the local court. A decision in the appeal was handed down by Magistrate John Lowndes on 5 May 2009. Magistrate Lowndes overturned the decision of the delegate, finding the use of the memorandum of variation in the case in question was, in fact, valid. The case raised issues concerning equity, with the landlords having to pay compensation for breaches of the act in situations where the breach may have been agreed to by the tenant, and where the breach was in the long-term interest of the tenant. The outcome of the case is such that there is no need to amend the legislation to deal with the potential breach considered in the case.
However, the case raised a range of general issues around continued tenancies and the power of the commissioner or delegate to make certain orders. Accordingly, it is appropriate to clarify and amend the powers of the Commissioner of Tenancies, so the commissioner will be required to take into consideration the fact a tenant may have agreed to agree to a breach of the act when determining the extent of any compensation payable to the tenant. This is a modest amendment to the act, having regard to the fact section 122(3)(b) already provides that a tenant’s consent to the breach of a clause of a tenancy agreement can be taken into account.
An additional power will also be provided to the commissioner to pay the reasonable costs of obtaining a valuation, in order that a tenant may pursue a claim of excessive rent in a case which has sufficient merit. The commissioner must determine whether it is appropriate to make such a payment, and may take into account all relevant factors, including whether the tenant is financially able to cover the cost of the valuation or whether the application is vexatious.
Further amendments clarify that an initial condition report, conducted at the commencement of a tenancy, will continue to be valid for the entire length of time a tenant, or one of the tenants to the original lease, remains in occupation of the premises, even if a new lease is entered into or the original lease is extended, unless a new condition report is made. However, the amendments will ensure a landlord cannot require a tenant, whose tenancy has been, or is to be, extended, to vacate the premises for the purpose of undertaking a new ingoing inspection and preparing a new ingoing condition report.
Finally, the schedule to the bill contains miscellaneous statute law amendments as identified by Parliamentary Counsel. These only address minor technical matters.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT (MEDIATION) BILL (Serial 63)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
__________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the students in the gallery. We have Years 5 and 6 from Sadadeen Primary School, together with their Assistant Principal, Ms Wendy Haynes, and teachers, Mrs Heather Lysaght, Ms Lonia Mitchell, Ms Lauren Barrett, and ISAs, Mr Stephane Theriault and Ms Lynne Bielefeld.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms LAWRIE: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Supreme Court Act in order to formalise a practice which has developed within the Supreme Court whereby the master, a registrar, or judges have acted as mediators in civil proceedings, usually at the request of both parties.
The Supreme Court Act currently does not specifically provide for the master, a registrar, or judges to act as mediators in Supreme Court proceedings. However, a practice has developed whereby judges have mediated matters, often resulting in a settlement.
The use of mediation benefits both the parties to a civil proceeding and the court. Most mediations run for less than a day, which results in considerable savings of time and costs for parties and the courts. Furthermore, even if mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator is often able to mediate elements of a case, resulting in shorter, more efficient trials, and savings of time and costs for both the parties and the court.
The bill also amends the Supreme Court Act, to ensure judges, a registrar and the master, and those persons participating in mediation, are provided with the same privileges, protection, and immunities under the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act when they are acting as mediators or are involved in a mediation, as is provided to them during civil proceedings in the Supreme Court.
The Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act provides that a member of the court, being a person who, either alone or together with others, decides cases brought before the court, incurs no criminal or civil liability for: exercising judicial powers; or, exercising administrative powers assigned to them in their judicial capacity; or, as the holder of a judicial office.
The Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act also provides that a person who participates in proceedings before a court or an administrative tribunal as a witness or representative incurs no civil or criminal liability for an honest and temperate statement, or an act in the course of that participation. However, the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act does not specifically provide such protection in circumstances where proceedings are mediated.
The bill, therefore, amends the Supreme Court Act to provide that judges, a registrar or the master, and those persons participating in mediation, are appropriately protected when mediating matters.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TRADE MEASUREMENT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL
(Serial 81)
(Serial 81)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the trade measurement legislation and establish transitional provisions for the transfer of trade measurement functions to the Commonwealth and consequential amendments.
On 13 April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed to the establishment of a national system of trade measurement funded and administered by the Commonwealth. This decision was part of a national reform agenda to establish a seamless national economy to boost productivity and deliver better services to the community. The Northern Territory government welcomes the substantial progress made on the COAG reform agenda across business regulation and competition, and this bill delivers on one of those reforms.
Administration of trade measurement by the Commonwealth will commence on 1 July 2010, and transitional provisions have been developed in consultation with states and territories. The Commonwealth regulator will be the National Measurement Institute in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
The Commonwealth will be making offers of employment to officers currently employed by the states and territories in the regulation of trade measurement. Commonwealth, state and territory officials are working together on the transitional arrangements, including facilitating the transfer of staff and resources for the operation of the new national system.
The states and territories also agree to transfer to the Commonwealth specialist equipment and information used in administering trade measurement regulation. The legislation will repeal the Trade Measurement Act and the Trade Measurement Administration Act and make transitional provisions and consequential amendments.
The related Trade Measurement Regulations will expire once the acts are repealed. From 1 July 2010, the Trade Measurement Provisions in Commonwealth legislation will prevail over current state and territory trade measurement laws. To avoid legislative confusion and unwarranted duplication, the Northern Territory legislation should be repealed.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PAYROLL TAX AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 72)
(Serial 72)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
You may recall, as part of a national project to reduce payroll tax compliance costs for businesses, the government introduced a new Payroll Tax Act 2009, which commenced on 1 July 2009. This new act is almost identical to the payroll tax legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and is consistent with Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
In keeping with the principle of harmonisation, all states and territories have announced they will be introducing new nexus rules for imposing payroll tax on wages paid to employees performing services in more than one state or territory in a calendar month. The Payroll Tax Amendment Bill 2009 gives effect to this, and follows a media release which I issued on 1 July 2009. As agreed between all states and territories, these amendments will be taken to operate from 1 July 2009. This ensures all jurisdictions have the same taxing nexus, so employers do not become liable for tax on the same wages in more than one state or territory.
However, until the Administrator’s assent is declared, employers are not required to submit returns based on the new rules. To alleviate any possible issues in the transition to the new nexus rules, taxpayers will be permitted to make any necessary changes as part of the annual adjustment process at the end of the 2009-10 financial year.
Under the new payroll tax nexus rules provided by the bill, where an employee provides services in more than one state or territory in a calendar month, payroll tax is to be paid to the state or territory in which the employee’s principal place of residence is located, this is instead of where the wages are paid, which is the nexus currently.
The place where wages are paid is usually determined by reference to where the employee’s bank account is located. Imposing payroll tax under the current nexus rule is problematic, outdated, and inequitable. Electronic commerce and centralised bank processing have resulted in accounts being located in jurisdictions which have no link to where an employee works or where an employer is based. This is inequitable, and causes problems for employers in complying with payroll tax legislation. Employers are often unaware of the location of the account where the wages of each employee is deposited.
The possible situation where an employee instructs an employer to deposit his or her wages into two different accounts is also problematic. Technically, this may result in the employer being liable to payroll tax in more than one state or territory and, yet, the employer may not be trading there. Moreover, if the Payroll Tax Act 2009 were administered in this way, ensuring payroll tax is paid to the correct states or territories, would place a significant red tape burden and compliance cost on both employers and the government.
Where the employee does not reside in Australia, under the new nexus rules, payroll tax is to be paid to the jurisdiction where the employer is located. The new nexus rules also provide for the unlikely event both the employee and the employer are not based in a state or territory.
Further details of the nexus rules are set out in the accompanying explanatory statement. Importantly, there is no change to the nexus applying where an employee provides a service wholly in one state or territory in a calendar month. This would be the case for the majority of employees. This nexus works well, and payroll tax will continue to be payable to the Territory for employees working in the Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 60)
(Serial 60)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill makes minor consequential amendments to the Mining Act. These amendments are a result of the Commonwealth introducing legislation relating to mining royalties for uranium and other prescribed substances in the Northern Territory. The bill proposes to amend the Mining Act to ensure existing provisions in the act, dealing with prescribed substances, support the Commonwealth’s new uranium royalty scheme. Unlike the other states, uranium in the Northern Territory is owned by the Commonwealth. Accordingly, royalties on this uranium are derived by the Commonwealth. It is important for there to be consistency between the Commonwealth and Territory legislation relating to royalties in respect of uranium mined in the Territory. This is because any inconsistency between the new Commonwealth legislation and the Territory legislation could render the Territory legislation inoperative to the extent of any inconsistency.
The Mining Act makes provision for any Commonwealth agreement which relates to the payment of royalties on uranium. One aspect of the new Commonwealth scheme is that it is not to apply to the Ranger Mine and for the Commonwealth’s royalty agreement with Ranger to be grandfathered. Accordingly, the amendments reflect this position in the Territory’s legislation as well as acknowledge the royalty arrangement for any new mines will be set by the Commonwealth’s Uranium Royalty (Northern Territory) Act 2009.
Although the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources has general responsibility for the Mining Act, these amendments form part of the royalty arrangements which apply in the Northern Territory, which fall within my responsibilities as Treasurer. Nonetheless, these amendments have been prepared in consultation with the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to apply the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the national law) as a law of the Northern Territory to implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, (the national scheme) in the Northern Territory to: declare the responsible tribunal for the Northern Territory for the purposes of the national law; and to make consequential amendments to the Health Practitioners Act.
The principal objective of the national law is to protect the public by establishing a national scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and students. Arrangements under the national scheme will: help health professionals move around the country more easily; reduce red tape; provide greater safeguards for the public; and promote a more flexible, responsive, and sustainable health workforce.
The national scheme was a recommendation of the Productivity Commission, which undertook, at the request of the Australian government, a research study to examine issues impacting on the health workforce including the supply of, and demand for, health workforce professionals and propose solutions to ensure the continued delivery of quality healthcare over the next 10 years. The commission’s report recommended a national scheme to deal with workforce shortages and pressures faced by the Australian health workforce, and to increase their flexibility, responsiveness, sustainability, mobility, and reduce red tape.
The national scheme is to be fully implemented by 1 July 2010, as set out in the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, signed by the Council of Australian Governments on 26 March 2008.
The implementation of the national scheme is relying on the national law, which is given effect by an act of the host jurisdiction, in this case, Queensland, which is then adopted and applied as a law of, and by, participating jurisdictions. The national law has been designed to facilitate the full implementation of the national scheme, consistent with the COAG agreement and the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council; a decision made following the significant consultation on implementation of the national scheme.
The national law is being implemented in three stages, with the first stage being achieved through the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008 (Qld), known as Bill A, which established the structural elements and entities, and enabled development of the national scheme. Bill A commenced from 25 November 2008.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009, (Qld), known as Bill B, represents the second stage. The national law, as set out in the schedule to Bill B, includes the full functions of the national scheme and will become the national law when it is passed into an act.
Bill B was tabled in the Queensland parliament on 6 October 2009, and it was passed unchanged into law by the Queensland parliament on 29 October 2009. Royal Assent was given on 3 November 2009.
The National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy commits jurisdictions to achieve key milestones in relation to the COAG agreement for the national scheme. To be eligible to receive its share of reward payments under the NPA, the Northern Territory must enact referencing legislation by the end of 2009.
Subject to introduction, debate, and passage of Bill B by the Queensland parliament, participating states and territories have been introducing, for debate in their parliaments, adopting or corresponding legislation known as Bills C. Bills C are to apply the national law as the law of that jurisdiction or, in the case of Western Australia, introduce corresponding laws to achieve the same effect. This represents the third stage of the legislation and is consistent with the NPA and COAG agreement to enable the national scheme to be fully implemented on 1 July 2010.
Subject to the passage of Bill B, some jurisdictions are progressing the consequential amendments needed to fully implement the national scheme, and to repeal existing, and relevant, health practitioner registration legislation through a staged approach to their own Bills C. The Australian government may also progress amendments to its legislation, in a Bill C, to support implementation of the national scheme. However, the Australian government will not need to adopt or apply the national law.
This bill is the adopting legislation for the Northern Territory, and will enable the Northern Territory to meet its obligation under the NPA. It is intended to introduce an amendment to this bill, in early 2010, to progress the consequential amendments and transitional provisions needed to fully implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory. This second stage will allow extra time to conduct consultations, on the consequential amendments and transitional matters, to ensure proposals for the Northern Territory are supported by local stakeholders.
The national scheme will initially apply to 10 health professions, as follows:
the nine health professions registered in each state and territory - medical, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dental (including dentists, dental prosthetists, dental therapists, dental hygienists), psychology, optometry, osteopathy, chiropractic; and
In addition, Health ministers, through the ministerial council, have included four more health professions within the national scheme. The four partially-regulated professions to be included from 1 July 2012 are: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice; Chinese medicine; medical radiation practice; and occupational therapy.
Nine Northern Territory professions will be covered by the national scheme from 1 July 2010. Aboriginal health work, occupational therapy, and radiography will join the national scheme on 1 July 2012. As of this date, the Northern Territory will not be responsible for the regulation of any health professions, and any professions seeking regulation in the future will be subject to the national scheme.
Extensive consultations, at a national and local level, have been conducted over the past 12 to 18 months. Significant changes have been made to Bill B to address stakeholder feedback and concerns including:
initial assignment of the accreditation function will be done by the ministerial council on commencement for a particular profession, after which the assignment of accreditation functions will be a matter for national boards;
The Northern Territory’s interests have also been represented throughout the process of drafting Bill B, through the Senior Director, People and Services, within the Department of Health and Families, who performed the role of Chair of the National Legislative Drafting Group.
Madam Speaker, to ensure my honoured colleagues are informed of all provisions, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), the Schedule of which is now the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, is tabled for information along with the explanatory notes for the act.
The Northern Territory is committed to upholding standards for health professions and protecting the safety and wellbeing of the community in the delivery of health services. The national scheme is a major step towards improving Australia’s health system.
This bill references the national law and is the adopting legislation to implement the national scheme in the Northern Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement and accompanying documents to the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the senior class from Wallace Rockhole School, together with Ms Maryse Turenne, Ms Angela Abbott, and Ms Melissa Powell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection Authority Act to provide the Environment Protection Authority, or EPA, as it is known, with new functions and strengthened powers.
The passage of the Environment Protection Authority Act in 2007 marked a very important moment, where the Territory’s environment protection framework came of age and we joined the rest of Australia in having a strong, independent environment watchdog.
The Environment Protection Authority Act established a new body specifically concerned with getting ahead of the curve. The new EPA was created to look at the big picture environment protection issues confronting the Territory. As set out in section 5 of the act, the EPA is tasked to:
- ... give advice and make recommendations to the Territory, businesses, and the community about ecologically sustainable development …
(a) achieving best practice environmental policy and management;
Section 5 of the Environment Protection Authority Act is particularly instructive. The EPA is not a regulatory arm of government; it advises the government, industry, and the community, and is to apply the triple bottom line to its work: environment, economic and social perspectives.
Section 7 of the Environment Protection Authority Act goes further, in requiring that the EPA consult with agencies, businesses, and the community in going about its work and its advice must have regard to some very important principles and objectives including: ecologically sustainable development; sound science; best practice; consideration of regional variation; the desirability of a strong growing and diversified economy and a well informed and engaged private sector; the need to adopt cost-effective and flexible policy instruments, the need to be transparent in information availability and decision-making; and, importantly, government economic policy priorities for the Territory.
Of course, the quality of the advice and recommendations delivered by an EPA are not only determined by the matters I have already outlined, but also the manner in which the EPA can go about its business, and in this respect, the Environment Protection Authority Act is clear.
The EPA is independent from government in terms of the advice and recommendations it provides. I will, for the record, quote directly from the EPA act because there are some who would seek to portray the EPA as otherwise.
Section 8(1) of the act says:
- The Authority is not subject to the minister’s direction.
Section 8(2) goes on to provide that:
- In particular, the Authority is not subject to the minister’s direction in relation to the preparation and content of any advice or recommendation of the Authority.
These are the defining features of the EPA, which was created by this government. The EPA is independent in the advice and recommendations it provides. It is focused on strategic or system-wide issues, where it can make a difference, and is accountable to a set of strong principles grounded in ecologically sustainable development.
Upon the passage of the EPA act in 2007, the Environmental Protection Authority was created, and it is well and truly up and running, with a board of four very eminent people: Chair, Dr Andrew Tupper and board members, Professor Gordon Duff, Professor Donna Craig and Mrs Judith King.
The EPA has a budget in 2009-10 of $760 000. The EPA is currently undertaking three investigations: ESD principles for the Territory; a review of the Environmental Assessment Act; and a review of the regulatory framework to support sustainable development of the Darwin Harbour. All are very important bodies of work which are nearing completion, and I look forward to seeing the EPA’s advice and recommendations, as they come to hand.
Today, I introduce amendments to the EPA functions, which substantially strengthen its role. These amendments do not fundamentally change the nature of the EPA as originally created. The EPA will remain focused on the system-wide environmental issues facing the Northern Territory. However, these amendments will bring the EPA functions into a sharper focus, as the watchdog of the Northern Territory’s environment protection framework.
This incremental but important shift is made with two objectives. The first is to bring the EPA’s work into closer contact with the needs of Territorians and, second, to provide necessary oversight for the overall environment protection framework, at a time when the Northern Territory is on the cusp of major industrial expansion.
Consistent with these objectives, the amendments provide for the EPA to have three important capacities, namely: review of the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made in respect of projects which have undergone environmental assessment; evaluation of the effectiveness of the agency’s response to environmental incidents; and, third, the monitoring and public reporting of the cumulative environmental impacts from development.
These new capacities are ongoing by nature, and will be able to be exercised by the EPA without specific reference from the government or the community. In other words, these are issues the EPA is tasked to continuously keep an eye on. In addition to these capacities, the EPA will retain its current capacity to provide advice in respect of one-off investigations referred to it by the government or the community, or determined necessary as a result of the EPA’s own initiatives.
Importantly, the independence of the EPA has been further strengthened by removing the existing requirement for such investigations to conform to criteria and arrangements agreed between the minister and the EPA. Under these amendments the EPA will, for example, be able to provide advice on environmental impact statements for a major development, unfettered by the criteria and arrangements established under the existing EPA. To be clear, this may relate to some aspects of the EIS which the EPA sees fit to investigate, but it does not extend to administering the environmental assessment process; that responsibility will remain with the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
The bill also makes it clear that such advice, in respect to an active environmental assessment, can only come forward where the assessment has been directed after the commencement of these amendments. For major developments, already subject to an EIS, for example, the government is very clear business certainty demands rules are not changed during the course of an environmental assessment.
I turn now to the new ongoing capacities of the EPA established under these amendments. First, the bill provides for the EPA to be tasked with reviewing the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made after formal environmental assessment of a project has been completed. This function fills a critical gap in the current environment protection framework.
For environmental assessments of major development proposals, a proponent is required to investigate the full range of environmental risks; identify feasible alternatives to the proposal; and put forward safeguards for mitigating foreseeable environment impacts.
The government reviews the Public Environment Report or the Environmental Impact Statement, there is public comment and, on the advice of my department, I will make recommendations to the minister responsible for approving the development. These recommendations will potentially deal with matters to be addressed in approval and licences. Appropriate monitoring arrangements and further environmental work will be undertaken. These approvals and licences are many and varied and administered under a variety of portfolios. Ultimately, the success of the environment assessment depends on how well the recommendations flow through the various approving statutes. Critically, evaluating the link between the environmental assessment and the final approvals and ongoing regulation of a project can slip through the cracks.
Without regular review of the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of the recommendations made through the environmental assessment, there is potential for the assessment process to become disconnected from regulatory needs, for the community’s trust in the environmental assessment to be eroded, and for the system to deliver poorer environmental outcomes. By tasking the EPA with this function we are creating a stronger environment protection framework for the future.
Second, the EPA will be able to investigate and review the adequacy of agency responses to environmental incidents and report on improvements. This does not create a frontline pollution response function for the EPA, which will continue to reside with the respective agencies. However, if there is evidence of regulatory failure or community complaint, the EPA will be able to investigate whether the relevant processes, procedures, and laws exist in relation to the incident and, if they do, whether they have been appropriately applied. If such laws do not exist, the EPA will be able to make appropriate recommendations for the reform. This is the EPA acting as a watchdog on the environment protection system.
Of course, in some cases, there are existing processes for the review of an incidents’ response, such as what occurs after major spills in the marine environment through the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil and other noxious and hazardous substances. In such circumstances, the EPA, as a matter of course, would make itself aware of those arrangements and seek sensible arrangements to ensure any duplication is avoided, and the outcomes of established processes are taken into account in the exercise of the EPAs functions.
Third, under the bill, the EPA will be able to monitor and evaluate the cumulative impacts of development. While we have a good process for dealing with the impacts of individual development projects, it is easy to forget developments do not exist in isolation and it all adds up. At the end of the day, it is the overall condition of our environment which counts and, as the watchdog of the system, the EPA will be tasked to strategically monitor overall environmental conditions and how we are tracking.
The bill makes it clear this does not extend to monitoring undertaken for regulatory purposes. To undertake these new functions, the EPA will be given stronger powers to obtain relevant information. The bill creates new offences for failing to supply information when requested by the EPA, or supplying false or misleading information to the EPA. These offences are appropriate and commensurate with the importance of the role of the EPA.
Finally, the bill provides for the EPA to carry out its functions under improved arrangements of public transparency and accountability. Under the current arrangements, the EPA findings are to be reported publicly. The bill enhances this by requiring agencies to respond to EPA findings and for both the response and the findings to be tabled in the legislative assembly. The requirements are similar to those of the Auditor-General.
In conclusion, this bill represents the next step in the evolution of a strong EPA, which will provide leadership on environmental sustainability as we enter into a new age of industrial development across the Northern Territory. It does so, not by disturbing the existing regulatory framework delivered by various agencies, but by ensuring there is a strong watchdog on the whole system. This bill will create an EPA which is stronger, more independent, relevant and accountable to community needs. This bill creates an EPA for the 21st century.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ANZAC Hill High School Year 7 students, together with teacher, Mrs Michele Marshall and Year 7 Coordinator, Ms Mandy Hargreaves. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
RAIL SAFETY BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will give effect to the government’s commitment to adopt national model legislation for the effective management and control of risks to improve rail safety in the Northern Territory. This bill is based on the Model National Rail Safety Bill 2006 which was developed by the National Transport Commission following extensive consultations with rail organisations and rail safety regulators across Australia in 2005.
The aim of the national legislation has been to standardise and have a uniform approach to the regulation of rail safety in Australia. This approach to rail safety regulation has resulted in a model bill, which more clearly delineates the role and responsibilities of operator and regulator, which now specifically targets risk areas in rail operations, providing clarity in the chain of responsibility and, by doing so, improves the management and control of the risks associated with rail operations.
This bill also includes some provisions from South Australia’s Rail Safety Act 2007, which do not appear in the Model National Rail Safety Bill 2006. The inclusion of these provisions will help ensure the legislation operates seamlessly along the length of the Adelaide to Darwin railway.
High-profile fatal rail crashes in other states, such as at Waterfall in New South Wales, have demonstrated an ongoing need to improve upon the current rail safety legislative framework in order to achieve better safety outcomes. In addition to improvements in safety, the adoption of uniform legislation across Australia will assist both rail operators and rail infrastructure managers who carry on business across state and territory borders, as well as government agencies responsible for the regulation of railway operations. This will help reduce the amount of red tape which rail transport operators are faced with when seeking accreditation, both in the Territory and nationally.
In addition to a safety management system, rail transport operators will also be required to have specific plans for the management of security risks such as theft, assault, terrorism, and other criminal acts, emergencies, the health and fitness of their rail safety workers, rail safety worker fatigue, and alcohol and drug use by rail safety workers.
Australia has adopted a co-regulatory approach to rail safety which involves: the sharing of responsibilities for regulatory development; implementation and enforcement between industry and government; government setting performance-based obligations and specific duties necessary to achieve acceptable levels of safety; government oversight through the assessment of the capacity and competence of rail organisations to be safe; ensuring safety management systems are in place; monitoring the activities of, and safety outcomes achieved by, individual rail organisations; educating rail organisations on the way to improve safety, performance; and making rail industry participants accountable for achieving required safety outcomes, in return for allowing them the flexibility to identify and implement the most effective and efficient means of addressing risks of safety.
This co-regulatory approach will be enhanced by the provisions of this bill. In setting out the respective roles and duties of the responsible parties, the bill provides greater clarity to the function and responsibilities of the position of the Director of Rail Safety than is currently the case under our existing legislation. The safety obligations created by this bill are consistent with those contained in the Workplace Health and Safety Act which requires employers to ensure health and safety in the workplace, so far as it is reasonably practicable.
The bill allows for approval of compliance codes which will address matters such as: medical fitness assessments for rail safety workers; the management of fatigue for rail safety workers; and drug and alcohol testing programs for rail safety workers. Rail operators will be able to determine the most cost-effective means of meeting the requirements of an approved code, and their compliance with the code will satisfy certain regulatory obligations imposed on them under the legislation.
For the sake of consistency, the Northern Territory bill adopts some of the variations to the national model bill South Australia has included in its legislation. The variations are as follows: retaining the ability to appoint independent investigators to investigate and report on rail accidents or incidents; creating the power to issue a prohibition notice to someone carrying out works on land in the vicinity of a railway which threatened the operational integrity or safety of the railway; creating a power to grant exemptions; and allowing the regulator to release part of, or all, a report prepared by an operator into a notifiable incident, if the release is justified in the public interest or on some other reasonable grounds.
The bill introduces a new offence for a rail safety worker who has a prohibited drug, consistent with the Traffic Act, present in their body while carrying out rail safety work.
This bill will improve the existing co-regulatory scheme for the regulation of rail safety, and will improve the safety of rail operations and increase public confidence in rail transport safety through the imposition of a range of safety duties, by making a greater range of enforcement powers available to the Director of Rail Safety, and by strengthening the range of sanctions available to both regulators and the courts.
This bill will also provide rail transport operators with a national regulatory framework consistent with the rules they will be operating under in other jurisdictions and, in particular, in South Australia. These outcomes will benefit rail organisations and the community alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and attach a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee –
Third Report to Eleventh Assembly –
Adopt Recommendations
Standing Orders Committee –
Third Report to Eleventh Assembly –
Adopt Recommendations
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly -
1. Adopt Recommendation No 1 of the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the 11th Assembly and the recommended changes to Standing Orders in Chapters IX and XII, as circulated to members; and
2. Note Recommendations 2, 3, and 4.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (YOUTH PARTICIPATION) BILL
(Serial 59)
(Serial 59)
Continued from 24 November 2009.
In committee:
Proposed new clause 5A:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 29.1, standing in my name. This relates to the need to amend section 22 of the Education Act, which concerns action taken in the issue of truancy and, specifically, the issue of compulsion surrounding the question of responsibility of the parents.
Given this matter will bring in significant change, if properly implemented, not only in the expectations but in the requirements of parents, and it is not just to apply at the age of 15, cultural change must occur prior to that. If a child is repeatedly absent from school - declared a truant - and that could be five, six, seven, eight years old. At this stage I note, though there is a provision for a penalty to be imposed upon a parent who does not accept responsibility, to my knowledge there has not been a penalty applied.
This question has been asked time and time again at estimates, though the provision is there to require a penalty to be imposed upon a family or a parent who does not accept their responsibility to send a child to school, there is also the provision for a defence, which is, ‘well I tried and there is nothing I can do’. This is unacceptable because, if that defence is offered, obviously, and if it is successfully applied in 100% of the cases, where does the responsibility lodge? You lose the opportunity to bring about cultural and behavioural change at the point where it can be best applied, which is with families who are responsible for their children.
This amendment removes that defence. If a child does not attend, and if the issue is raised to the point of concern where a charge could be made and, you would assume, a penalty applied, and the defence, which is in the current section 22(5), states:
- It is a defence to a charge under this section that the failure of the child to attend school did not result from any failure of the parent to exercise proper care and control of the child
Obviously, the first place of refuge for any parents is to say, ‘well, it is very difficult and I do not know what to do and I have tried, therefore that is my defence’. That defence stands to provide protection against the imposition of a penalty on the grounds someone is responsible, you would assume the family.
If the child is not attending school repeatedly, and the issue is raised to such a level action needs to be taken, a penalty needs to be imposed and yet, there is a defence provision, nothing happens. Therefore, amendment 29.1, rather than just cut and dry with their defence or the imposition of a penalty of $200, that matter should then be referred to another agency, so that defence is removed; clearly, there is a problem which requires a response.
The agency which administers the Family Responsibility Agreements would be the agency which would determine a response. It removes the defence and ensures the central issue being parental responsibility - clearly there is a problem and, therefore, there is the opportunity, through the referral to the agency managing Family Responsibility Agreements, for an agreement to be entered into which would bring about a strengthening of the notion of responsibility, some remediation in parenting, and some requirement for behavioural change around parenting and the attendance at school.
If we do not bring measures such as this to apply, this will live in the domain of being aspirational. We will give it our shot and we will spend much money but there will not be the change we need at the required point, which is at the point of parents being assisted, if they need that assistance, a penalty being imposed if they are negligent, but some action being employed, which can occur if there is the removal of the defence like, ‘I tried and there is nothing I can do’. If that is the case, the question of responsibility moves from the ledger of the family to some netherworld and, in fact, it then sits with the state.
It is my firm conviction the state is an inefficient and ineffective body to carry that responsibility; in fact, it is improper for the state to assume responsibility in the first instance, and too quickly. We have seen through history, through time, the implementation of social policy, where the requirement is that the state, the government, and the different agencies of the government take over the role of parenting too quickly, and we end up in a place we do not want to be; we see the evidence all around us.
I urge honourable members to accept this removal of the defence is not - as in the view of some who may be sensitive to these matters who think, ‘that is a bit harsh, these poor parents tried’. What will occur then, if these poor parents tried, they will be given help at the point it is needed, because you need to get behavioural change. I believe, in the hands of families, with the proper support of agencies, there is a greater likelihood for attitudinal and behavioural change at the point you need it. Not quickly moving the parents off the scene, and saying: ‘You have tried, now the state is, in fact, the premier body’; no, the family is.
Therefore, I urge support for this amendment, the removal of the defence, and the referral of the matter of repeat non-attendance to the agency to administer a Family Responsibility Agreement.
____________________
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, before you respond, I draw your attention, honourable members, to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 and 8 students, from Araluen Christian College, who I am very pleased to see are attending school today, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs Jenny McAllan and Mr Mandla Khumalo. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, in responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments, I preface my comments, by saying to the Leader of the Opposition, given the state of the parliament, and in a spirit of all wanting the same thing, we all want to improve attendance in our schools and better education outcomes from our system.
In regard to these amendments, I support the sentiment of what you are trying to do - we are talking about amending legislation, and there is significant consideration which needs to occur with the agency regarding the implication of the amendments. Are they going to effect the change you want? Are they going to introduce excessive bureaucratic and administrative arrangements on the agency?
We received these amendments late on Friday, and, I believe, had you brought them to us earlier, I would give you the professional commitment to have worked through these. We might have been able to reach an outcome which suits both of us, rather than amendments which I am going to say we cannot accept today. I will give good reasons why we cannot accept. However, I accept the intent of what you are trying to do and, I believe, we can get there another way consistent with the act, and some work we can do through regulations and cooperation.
I suppose we are, for the next two-and-a-half years, in a different position in regard to government legislation amendments coming from the opposition. My commitment to you, Leader of the Opposition, is if we get sufficient notice of amendments we will attempt a compromise, rather than trying to rush them through the parliament. At the end of the day, if amendments get up, they become law, and there are consequences we all need to be aware of as a result of that.
I am offering a spirit of cooperation. I am offering, before I make the specifics of my comments, an opportunity to sit down with the member for Nelson and the Chief Executive of the department, to see how, through other means, we can achieve the outcomes we want without specifically accepting these amendments, which are very prescriptive, and seek a way forward.
I go to the specific reasons why I cannot support the amendments put forward. If we start with compulsory attendance, at the outset, you are proposing several things. You are proposing Family Responsibility Agreements be part of the Education Act. The opposition is proposing to change the Education Act so, when a person is convicted of not sending their children to school, the matter is automatically referred by the court, through the youth justice provisions, to a Family Responsibility Agreement, which means two things. The first is a parent cannot raise the possible defence of every reasonable effort made, as is possible under the current act, and once convicted the court must refer the family to an FRA process.
Let me, in the first instance, deal with the defences. Most of us in this parliament are parents and, we believe, if a parent makes every effort to get their kid to school, by dropping them off at school, working with the school, the teachers, the principals, even marching them into the classroom and, for whatever reason within the circumstance of that family, or whatever reasons in regard to the behaviour of that child, if the child is so out of control as to refuse to stay in the school and the parent is doing everything they possibly can - you were talking of kids at the younger age, but this is to apply to all kids. If you are talking about 14, 15, 16-year-old kids, you are talking about young adults, - we all know these are difficult years for some teenagers and, despite the best efforts of the parents, some kids are going to run their own course.
We believe removing this defence of the parents making every best effort, to compel them into a court process, is fundamentally impractical, and seeking to punish parents who have done everything possible. We all know, within our families, whether it is our immediate families, extended families, or amongst our friends, there are great parents, who are doing everything they can, and the kid is off the rails. Everyone is trying to do everything they can, the kid is off the rails, and these provisions would see those parents being taken to court. We do not believe that is appropriate.
However, I share the same view in the intent of what you are trying to do. Where parents are not doing the right thing, we need to have better provisions in place to compel them to do so. We believe every parent should get their kids to school. We have undertaken significant effort to ensure parents do bring their kids to school and, once there, schools provide mechanisms to engage kids which keeps them there and improves literacy and numeracy.
We believe we need to apply the principle of natural justice through our legislation. In regard to natural justice, I believe a defence of every reasonable effort is natural justice. This is such a complex area; we do not believe you can apply black and white law. We also have to remember this legislation is extending the responsibility of a parent to a child until the age of 17. The reality of trying to compel a 16-and-a-half-year-old kid to attend school, when that young adult is refusing the direction of their parents, they may not be living at home with mum and dad - they might be couch surfing with mates or living with extended family, where the parents do not have any control over those kids - to compel those parents to attend court and explain those issues in court, we do not see it adds anything to what we are trying to do, which is to engage and keep kids in school. We believe there is a natural justice principle, where there does need to be a defence for parents who have done everything they can.
Prosecuting a parent for a child they have not had control of legally is not responsible and, at the age of 16, those young adults have certain rights. The effect of the opposition’s proposals would be to prosecute parents who had no control and are legally not responsible. On advice I have, it is also inconsistent with the principles in the Youth Justice Act.
The second issue is the Family Responsibility Agreements. I understand what the opposition is trying to do, but there is a failure to understand the process we currently engage in. At the moment, what you are saying is, the kid is not going to school, a prosecution takes place, and the judge is required to compel the parents to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement. Through our processes, we need to get to a Family Responsibility Agreement before we go to court, not after we go to court and, long before a case reaches prosecution, the government, through the appropriate agency, which is DET, the Department of Health and Families, or whoever, will have entered, or sought to enter, into a Family Responsibility Agreement with the family.
I acknowledge we need to do better in pursuing those Family Responsibility Agreements through DET, as opposed to the justice system, as a result of a kid getting caught up under the Summary Offences Act or whatever. I will talk about how we are going to do that, but DET is already an authorised agency, under the Youth Justice Act, to initiate proceedings for a Family Responsibility Agreement. We need to strengthen those processes within DET, and through our school systems, to be more proactive and to utilise the provisions which are already in place in the Youth Justice Act. I accept, and I have had discussions with the CE, schools and DET have to be much more proactive in this regard, but we need to do it before we get to court, not as a result of the court process, and, long before it reaches prosecution, we should have been through this process.
If it goes on to prosecution, it means the process has failed; the agreement would have been breached, we would have been in a court process over a Family Responsibility Order and, failing that, we would have been in court over an outright prosecution for failure to get a child to school. We have provisions under the Youth Justice Act, where DET, as an authorised agency, can seek to require a family to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement for failing to send their kids to school.
In the event there is a breach of the agreement, it can go back to the court and the court can compel an order on those parents to send their kids to school. At the end of the day, if the kids fail to go to school as a result of a Family Responsibility Order, the court can prosecute for failure to get their child to school. The provisions we already have are at the front of the process you are prescribing in your amendments. To date, the government is involved in around 40 Family Responsibility Agreements, arrangements, or in negotiations.
We have to remember Family Responsibility Agreements are voluntary, not compulsory, and are not legally binding because they are, in essence, an agreement. For the family entering into the agreement, support is provided by other government organisations. It could be the families need parenting support skills, which the Department of Health and Families would provide through positive parenting programs.
There could be issues in the family where the parent, the carers, or one of the family members in the home is suffering from drug and alcohol abuse and needs support, which is also provided as part of entering into the agreement. These agreements are facilitated arrangements, where agencies work with families with an agreed set of outcomes, which will include getting their children to school and encouraging parents to take account of the services available. If they are breached and not complied with, the agency can go back to court and seek an order.
Your amendments would see us do that work prior to getting to court, then the court would refer this back to a Family Responsibility Agreement, which we have already been through. The reality of the amendments, which the opposition has put up, would see us in an ever-revolving cycle of Family Responsibility Agreements. This is not the desired outcome, and we do not see the point of going back to a Family Responsibility Agreement which would have preceded any referral to court.
In the broader issue of attendance, the Opposition Leader made some comments. It is a number one priority in education for this government, and I agree there needs to be a real sense of urgency about attendance; it is not good enough. Serious targets have been set in the DET Strategic Plan released a couple of months ago: 80% attendance for remote schools within three years, and 90% or over for other schools. Our current attendance rates are not good enough, with approximately 65% average attendance in our remote community schools.
We need serious, strategic and high-level action to get this on track. We are going to expand the trial of the SEAM communities where non-attendance is chronically bad; this is the welfare quarantining. I have entered into agreements, and I will be making announcements, with Julia Gillard, in the not too distance future, to expand those SEAM trials to other communities across the Territory where attendance is chronically bad. We are doing some legislative work to appoint, through DET, authorised persons under section 30 of the existing act, to address truancy issues.
Currently, under the Education Act, the only authorised person who can issue a fine on a parent who is not sending their child to school is a uniformed police officer. Frankly, our uniformed police officers have better things to do than chase children and issue fines. We are going to bring back a broader definition and category of authorised persons who can issue fines, and address those truancy issues.
We will expand the number of DET staff available to pursue Family Responsibility Agreements with identified families under the Youth Justice Act. I am acknowledging, Leader of the Opposition, DET has to be more proactive in using its authority, under the Youth Justice Act, to pursue Family Responsibility Agreements, not just to be a part of those agreements as a consequence of juvenile offender behaviour relevant to the criminal justice system, which is where we are at the moment.
We will seek to amend section 30, to strengthen the role of these authorised officers to deal with truancy and non-enrolment and we will legislate to strengthen their roles and powers. We will lead the development, with the Australian government and other states, of a diagnostic process to determine the cause for non-attendance in our schools. The chronic under-attendance in Indigenous communities is a complex set of issues. We need carrots and sticks, and we need a better understanding of those issues, because it is not only in the Northern Territory, it is across Australia. We need to meet with Indigenous leaders and others to explore ways of limiting the impact of Sorry Business, ceremony, sporting and cultural events, and royalty payments. In remote communities there are a complex set of cultural behaviours which also detract from getting kids to school. Quite frankly, they should not be detracting getting those kids to school and we need to sit down and get agreement within Indigenous leaders around those issues. We will trial, as part of the low SES national partnership, in conjunction with communities, expanding the school years and Wet Season schooling options, so we can achieve the ambitious targets we have set.
At the moment, our years of schooling are the same, with the same term and semester times, and virtually the same hours of schooling. It does not matter whether you are at an urban Darwin school, a school in Arnhem Land, or a school in the Central Australian region, with different seasons, different climates and different requirements by those communities. We have stock-standard school semester and term times, and we need to be more flexible in regard to those issues. We need to appoint attendance champions and run targeted local and Territory-wide campaigns.
In regard to improving attendance rates, I am offering the opposition, and the Opposition Leader - who I know is passionate about this - if he, and the opposition, want to have a round table discussion and debate about increasing penalties for not sending kids to school, it is a debate I am happy to have. I have also said this to the member for Nelson. I have pretty hard line views on this. I am happy to have that discussion. I do not believe your amendments get us there for the reasons I have stated. I am happy to have a discussion in the three-way conversation we are committed to.
The penalties for not sending kids to school need to be reviewed. We are in the process of doing that already, as I have articulated. I am happy to have the discussion with the community about what those penalties should be. We need to have a broad community debate about this. We need to have under-attendance at school as a very serious community debate. We have a raft of measures we are pursuing, but the practical implications of the amendments we are debating today would mean the Family Responsibility Agreement process would become a never-ending, almost circular process. We need to get to Family Responsibility Agreements proactively, before the court process, not reactively, after a court process. As I have said, I believe there is some natural justice, not only principles but also practicalities, of having a defence under the act for parents who are doing everything they possibly can to get their kids to school, but, for whatever complex set of reasons, those kids are not attending school.
Dragging those parents to court and forcing them into a Family Responsibility Agreement, I do not believe, is going to effect the change the Leader of the Opposition is proposing. However, I support the sentiment of what you are trying to do. But the practicality and reality of embedding Family Responsibility Agreements into the Education Act at the end of the legal process, I do not believe is going to get the Opposition Leader where he wants to go.
Mr MILLS: It will be a very interesting and important debate. The Chief Minister says he believes kids should go to school, and I believe the member for Nelson has similar convictions; however belief is something you wrap with some policy muscle. What we have is wishful thinking. I have been given an argument why we will not go down this path and, I believe, there is a fundamental philosophical difference. The existing system which comes into play when a child is a repeat non-attender can activate section 22, which means the family is brought to account, with a penalty being imposed of $200, I understand.
I also understand, though the provision is there, you talk about carrots and sticks, I tell you, there are many carrots around, but the stick is not used; in my understanding, it is never used. It will be replaced by an attendance champion, and a whole raft of things which are going to come. That is unacceptable because, if you are serious about adding some muscle to the belief kids should go to school, we should take it a little further.
I believe there is some misunderstanding. First, if there is a provision which imposes a penalty – and you are saying natural justice and so on, they should be able to say: ‘I have tried everything; nothing I do seems to help’. Therefore, there should be another place you can go, because there is still a problem - the Family Responsibility Agreement. It is not an order; it is an agreement put in place so we can take it further. You cannot say: ‘We have given it a shot and we will get off the merry-go-round because there is nothing we can do. It is making us giddy trying to raise these kids, we will hand them somewhere else’. No. Take it to the next stage, where there is the capacity for some kind of agreement to be entered into which will strengthen the notion of responsibility, strengthen parenting, and bring some help where it is needed.
In my own electorate there are families who would respond if they were put into a place like that. They might grumble a bit, but they would respond, because they recognise, deep down, they need some help. They might suffer from substance abuse, they may have had a poor experience with schooling, they may be a little out of their depth, the kid is running rings around them, and there may be some assistance required. There are other agencies. There is some tremendous work which goes on in the community. The Family Responsibility Agreement process could bring all those threads together. However, we do not have anyone being penalised so there is no consequence; schooling is optional, really, and if it does get to that serious state, nothing happens; no next step is taken.
I admire Lee Kuan Yew, politically, for what he has done. I believe he made this statement: ‘There is no point in having a law you will not enforce’. What flows from having a law you do not enforce is contempt for all law and all regulation. If you are going to have something in place such as, ‘if you do that then this will happen’, any parent will tell you if you say: ‘If you do that again, I am going to do this’ and they do it again and nothing happens, you have a double problem next time around, because they think anything you say can be taken with a grain of salt; there is no strength to your word or your judgment. The next time you say: ‘Do not go near that line because if you go across the line something is going to happen’. If they go across the line nothing happens, so they can play near any line or play on the other side of the line permanently, because nothing will happen. No penalty is applied, no consequence flows on, and responsibility is exempted. The parents are told: ‘You gave it your best shot. You seem like nice people. You tried; kids are hard these days are they not?’ Wring your hands and off you go. That is unacceptable. And then to be put in the position where we are saying: ‘We understand what you are trying to do but, rest assured, there are all these things which are going to happen’.
I have been charged with not giving enough time to the government to have these things considered. The government has had these things on its watch for eight years. I listened to Labor in opposition, and it was concerned about these things. Labor has been in power for eight years and now we have this new arrangement. After eight years we have ‘gunna dos’ to fix this area. You are happy to talk to the three of us to see if we come to some place where we are all happy. I believe we have a contrast between wishful thinking and real belief, which would be implemented in policy with some real muscle and will effect real change.
I flavour what I am saying with experience. It has been referred to by me and others, who note I do talk to young people, particularly those who have fallen out of the system. It is not the 15-year-old who is a little confused about whether he will be a boilermaker or sit at the desk for another couple of years. It is kids from seven and eight, all the way through to 17, 18, and 19. It is most telling, kids sort of believe schooling is optional, parents are having a problem, there are wellbeing officers all over the place, and now there will be attendance champions singing songs, perhaps, about how nice it is to go to school. These kids are confused; they want someone to help them.
I have had young lads in the shopping centre - I have photographs, they posed, they wanted to take a photograph with me. These boys told me they want someone to give them some help about what they could do which is meaningful. I asked them what schools they went to, their ages, and what they wanted to do? It is enough to make a tough man soften considerably when these young lads – there would have been a kid in grade five, to a kid who should have been in Year 10, and one in Year 11, there were seven or eight of them - said they now want to do something and wonder if there is something they could do, which would give them a more hopeful future. They acknowledged they had trouble at school, they could not read very well. This was a frank admission in the shopping centre.
We have the typical sort of profile of kids who are unwilling, wild, and unruly, but there is another cohort now because there have been no parameters. They are not resisting anything or any standard, because there is no standard. Everyone is trying to help them, yet that help is weak, they have no structure and there are no consequences. As a result, they find things have little meaning and they want someone to give them a hand. I have mentioned this in parliament before. These boys really shocked me in what they had to say; they were very candid. I believe they represent others. You talk to young people and say: ‘What would you like to do? Level with me’. They will tell you what their aspirations are, but there is no standard which has been defended, no consequence for action, but there is good stuff occurring which seems to satisfy the interests of the system.
I remain concerned; I will remain in this space. I believe this amendment should be supported because we need to bring some definition to this, bring some strength to the propositions which are on the table, that schooling is, in fact, compulsory, that parents are responsible for their children, and if they have difficulty, if they have a problem because their kid is running amok or treating school with contempt, then there is something else which must occur; there must be some serious engagement. To say these things are already happening, to some degree, perhaps, they are. I would like a report on exactly what is happening, because it is crisis management which is happening in the department at the moment in this regard.
I would like the education system to be focused on education, and these sorts of matters could be dealt with by agencies which are specifically tasked for this purpose. Get on with the business of delivering quality education, defending quality standards, and making sure parents understand their responsibility. If help is required, it is delivered, and if they do not avail themselves of that, then there is a consequence. At the moment, there is nothing like that. There are all the pleasantries, and there is confusion and disconnect.
I believe this amendment, notwithstanding the explanation which has been provided, should be supported.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments, and again, I suppose, I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is the amendment will not work. It will not get to the outcome the Leader of the Opposition is seeking, because the Family Responsibility Agreement he is requiring the parents enter into would be after a successful prosecution and court process.
We are saying DET already has the capacity, and it needs to use that capability, and it will, to require parents to enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement as a result of their kids’ non-attendance, prior to going into the court process, not after the court process. We get to where the Leader of the Opposition wants to be, at an earlier point in time. Failure to comply with the agreement would then go to court. However, the court is not to seek to order the family to enter into an agreement - and I do not know how that works because an agreement is consensual, so the court should be intervening at a point where the consensual agreement has broken down, and compel those parents into an order, not to an agreement. Leader of the Opposition, I agree with the intent of your amendment, but I believe the horse has already bolted by the time you get into the court process.
I am acknowledging DET has not been using its capacity, under the existing act, to request and require parents to enter into an agreement, with the consequences of not entering into an agreement being prosecution, the court process, and an order, as opposed to trying to achieve a successful prosecution.
I believe there would be legal challenges to removing any defence provisions in place, because there is a principle of natural justice which applies through the Westminster system. People are entitled to a defence argument for any charge which is put forward. I am not pretending to be a lawyer, but I have had enough briefings to know people are entitled to argue a defence. I believe there would be very real problems and legal challenges if the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion was to get up, because people are entitled to natural justice and not just black letter law - you have not done this, this is the ultimate penalty - when the parents have done everything they can.
I believe what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting will make it harder to achieve what he wants, through complex legal cases in court, when what we have to do is ensure – and I give a commitment, and I am happy to report back to the Leader of the Opposition - and an implementation plan for DET - we use the provisions which we already have, under the Youth Justice Act, to get parents into an agreement prior to going to court. I believe it is a ridiculous waste of everyone’s time to get to a court process and then the court requires a parent to go into an agreement.
The court should be adjudicating on cases where there has been an absolute failure. Where everything which should be done has been done and the parents are not living up to their responsibilities. Therefore, the court orders the parents to send their children to school, and if they do not go to school, there are penalties which apply, rather than have a court process in place where the parents have to sit down with the Department of Health and Families and DET, and enter into an agreement. If we are talking about ‘tough love’, my argument, Leader of the Opposition, would be courts need to be compelling the parents into an order, not into an agreement.
I agree with your sentiments. Regarding the need for structure and consequence, I have already outlined we will be bringing amendments to legislation to appoint authorised persons under the act to address truancy issues, and to strengthen the role of those officers to deal with truancy and non-enrolment. It is not only attendance champions, Leader of the Opposition; it is broadening the authorised officer role into different categories, and expanding their powers. It will also require DET to use the legislative capacity it already has, under the Youth Justice Act, to get these parents into agreements at the front of the process, and when parents breach those agreements, get them to a court to seek a court order, which does have meaningful consequences, if those parents fail to comply.
Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe your amendments would work to achieve the outcomes you seek. I believe there would be very strong legal challenges to remove any defence for a parent not being able to send their children to school. There is the principle of natural justice which runs through our legal system. My invitation is to sit down with you, and the member for Nelson, to look at how DET will use the legal powers it already has to get parents into a parental agreement, prior to a court process, not after a court process.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, first, Chief Minister, you are giving reference to the strengthening which is going to occur and changes which will be made, can you give some assurance of when this will take place? Second, the concern you express which stops you from supporting this, the question of natural justice, but what is being removed is the defence of: ‘I have done everything I can. There is nothing I can do’. Then what happens is - although it has never happened, to my knowledge – things have gone to a point where they are taken to court and the parents could say, ‘I have tried everything and I am still responsible’, well, they could be then technically charged and fined $200. The NT News would have a field day.
If the defence provision of: ‘I have tried everything and nothing seems to work’, is removed, there is the direction to another place. It is not like you could walk out scot-free and say - and this is what I find objectionable, that if it were to occur, because we are talking about a fiction, it does not actually happen – if they come to court, are found guilty of neglect and are fined $200 – which is one scenario that has never happened. They have a child running amok, but it is determined they have tried everything and are not really in the position where they should be fined $200, because it can be found they did try X, Y and Z, yet the child is still running amok.
They are then directed to a Family Responsibility Agreement agency, which may enter into an agreement. You do not just say: ‘That is it. You have had your day in court and you can go scot-free’. It is then there is the direction, so there is the consequence, if it were to happen in the first place - and I have to state again, it does not happen.
What you describe as a response to a problem - and you say you share similar views - how is it nothing happens? How is it no parent is brought to account? How is it there are these other things which are happening behind the scenes, these 40 or so agreements or whatever they are? It is quite vague, it is a smokescreen. We heard during estimates there were only six Family Responsibility Agreements – not orders, agreements – and now there are 40.
I believe the reality would be, as I referred to before, this is crisis management, where you have a few other bods around the school who are well-intentioned, trying to help; there are some tremendous people working in the schools, trying to help behind the scenes and having meetings with people. That can still happen, I would assume. However, I believe, if you brought some definition around this and had a stand that was defended, where more parents are brought to account, and it is determined they have tried but it is not bringing about any success, then they should be directed to a place where they will be given help, so it is not left open-ended.
I still maintain the position. I still believe this should be supported because what we have as a counter is stuff which is going to happen, and recognition more could be done. I believe the argument natural justice is being denied - we could have a deeper argument and say natural justice is being denied in the issue of defence of a notion of parental responsibility and help delivered where help is required, through an agreement. You are exempting parents from responsibility. You are removing the opportunity for help at that point. I believe that is a removal of natural justice; the provision of that support and help in a time of need.
I still maintain my position. I guess we will not argue until the cows come home - or the camels or whatever - but we will hold it. I am going to hold this position. I look forward to having these discussions because these are matters which are serious.
Mr HENDERSON: In conclusion - we have much business today - I will be brief. I offer goodwill to the Leader of the Opposition to continue these discussions, because it is really important to have a wide community debate.
I assume we will move on to the next amendment, the Opposition Leader is to put - I do not believe we are too far apart. The Leader of the Opposition wants, essentially, if a kid is not going to school on a regular basis take them to court, fine them $200, and the court requires the parents to enter into an agreement. That is what you are saying. If a kid is not going to school, charges should be laid, the parents go to court, which fines them $200, and puts them into a Family Responsibility Agreement.
We are saying the school and DET should, on the failure of a kid to attend school, use the powers under the Youth Justice Act, as an authorised agency, to require those parents to sit down and enter into a Family Responsibility Agreement, because their kid is not going to school, and understand the reasons why, and put the support structures around them.
The agreement is entered into, it works, and the kid starts going to school - happy days, tick, they do not have to go to court. The agreement is entered into and the parents do not comply. The kid is not going to school, so it then goes to court for breach of an agreement. The court can then issue an order compelling the parents to send their kids to school and compel the parents to undertake - not through an agreement, but through an order - drug and alcohol counselling, positive parenting programs, anger management programs - whatever it is - as an order. If there is a breach of that order, then it goes back to the courts and the courts have penalties under the Youth Justice Act to penalise the parents.
In regard to what we are arguing about, I will not say it is semantics, but it is a point of disagreement. We believe we should have agreements before going to court, and the courts have the big stick to compel orders, not a stick to compel an agreement, which is voluntary. In that, we have to agree to disagree; we cannot support that. Leader of the Opposition, I am happy to sit down with our CE and the member for Nelson, to work through how we should get DET to use its powers to get people into an agreement in a structured and systemic way, which is not happening at the moment; I acknowledge that.
In regard to the other changes, I believe it needs to be broader than looking at authorised persons in regards to truancy from school. As a result of the changes we are going to make, in regard to kids up to the age of 17 having to be in school or in training, we need to expand those powers of authorised officers and what they are empowered to do, not only to deal with truancy, but to deal with participation in training. This legislation will apply to the age of 17. We need to have a broad community debate about how this will occur. Regarding when this will occur, Leader of the Opposition, given the first sittings of parliament will be February next year, we need to draft legislation and have debate, so we would be looking to bring those amendments, and the policy structure in, within the next six months. That is the time frame I am committing to. I am happy to continue to debate with the Leader of the Opposition, and to move on debating the other amendments and other issues he has.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Year 8 students from ANZAC Hill High School, accompanied by their teachers Ms Narelle Cameron, Ms Anita Togolo and Mr Michael Kanaan. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Mr MILLS: A clarification, Madam Chair, my understanding is I have moved amendment 29.1. Shortly, we will put that to the vote, and then we will go to amendment 29.2 …
Madam CHAIR: Correct.
Mr MILLS: … similar issue, but applied in this specific bill the government has brought before the House. Is that correct?
Madam CHAIR: Correct.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, my concluding remarks are I have listened to your sequence of events and how this could occur. In fact, I believe both could occur because, at the moment, we have this final letterbox you deposit the issue in, that being, okay, we are really concerned – this is section 22 - where a child is not attending school, and the parents clearly have responsibility, do they not? Therefore, they are brought to court and a penalty is a distinct possibility, but in the whole discussion there is a defence of: ‘We have tried’. At that point, there is either the penalty to strengthen and support a standard, or the penalty and referral - it is not an order, it is a referral, it is a direction – it could be penalty and referral to a Family Responsibility Agreement, or it could just be a referral. It is at that point there is both, or the other.
I agree with you, many of these things should occur earlier on, and I hope they do from now on. If they get to the other point and they are referred, as they should be in the act - because if you have laws which are not used they are practically meaningless, as we have seen. If section 22 provides for the imposition of a penalty on a family who do not do the right thing, in fact, we are supporting child neglect, we are providing another provision that something must happen if they successfully defend and say: ‘We tried everything, nothing we can do. It is real hard these days, you know’, then there is the next place which flows on as a consequence. I do not see any conflict between the two. I believe the only argument being run is we did not give this to you in time.
With that, Madam Chair, I believe we should put this to the vote.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed new clause 5A be inserted in the bill.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 read.
Mr MILLS: Does section 22A(2), apply to custodians of children if they are not the parent of the child?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, it applies to the parent who has the custody of the child. If there has been a breakdown in the relationship, this applies to whoever has custody of the child, through the Family Court.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 29.2 standing in my name. This amendment, and I will not labour the point, is very much the same argument, in fact, it is the identical argument we have been hammering out here for the last hour-and-a-half, which centres on the need for reinforcing of the question of who is responsible if a child fails to attend school. In this case, it is specific to the Youth Amendment Bill (Serial 59), because it applies to those who are 15 to 17 years of age. Whereas before it was the Education Act, section 22. You could have an eight-year-old - what happens to them? If you have to effect cultural change, you have to start sending a strong message.
This one refers specifically to what the government has brought before the House, because it applies within this change - 15 to 17 years of age, in that zone. Sure, the same issue applies. If it is found a person, a child, a student, a youth has become unwilling, unmanageable, decided to snub their nose at the requirement through law to attend school, we ask a question: ‘What must we do?’ There is provision - section 22. The answer is to bring the family in, because the family is responsible. Then the family is brought before the court by the provision of section 22 because they are responsible.
There is the possibility of them being fined for neglect of managing their child and discharging their responsibility. They defend by saying: ‘I have tried everything; nothing seems to work’. We remove that defence and say: ‘Even though the child is 16 - I know how hard it is these days, but the law is the law. Responsibility sits with the family in the first instance. You have many explanations. We do have some sympathy, as we know how hard it is in this modern day and age. But, we will not impose a penalty of $200, necessarily, but you need to be directed to the agency to put in place a Family Responsibility Agreement’.
However, there is the removal of that defence; there is the direction that something else must occur. You cannot go in there and say: ‘I know how hard it is’, and walk out scot-free saying: ‘Everyone agrees it is really hard to bring up kids but it is not our responsibility’. Whose is it? Not the state. It is a very ineffective and inappropriate body to be given the responsibility of raising children.
We see evidence all around us: no respect for standards and the expectation anything I decide is okay. There is a community centred on the parent, and the authority and responsibility of parents must be reinforced. The removal of this defence, which provides the capacity for a penalty, a penalty and a referral to the Family Responsibility Agreement, or just the Family Responsibility Agreement - there has to be a consequence which protects the notion of parental responsibility.
Mr HENDERSON: In deference to time - and we have had the same argument for one hour-and-a-half – the argument I put in the previous amendment stands for this amendment. The parliament has heard those arguments, so we will not be supporting that amendment.
The committee suspended.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT
(YOUTH PARTICIPATION) BILL
(Serial 59)
(YOUTH PARTICIPATION) BILL
(Serial 59)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you had moved an amendment to clause 6.
Mr MILLS: Correct, amendment 29.2. In conclusion, the debate - for anyone who is wondering what this is about –is on a particular amendment which would bring about a reinforcing of the notion of parental responsibility when it comes to the issue of non-attendance at school, and providing the means for a referral to an agency to bring about a Family Responsibility Agreement. I acknowledge the debate has occurred before on two counts.
The position maintained by the Country Liberals is: we believe we need to reinforce and strengthen community standards, strengthen the notion of parental responsibility, and provide capacity for the assistance to a family, which has a child they are having difficulty with, by removing the defence clause.
Mr HENDERSON: I believe we reached a point, before we broke for lunch, where the Leader of the Opposition was going to put this amendment. I have articulated previously, on a very similar set of circumstances, why we will not be supporting it. In trying to move things along, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion.
Mr MILLS: I move that the motion be put.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Clause 6, as printed, agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! They are supporting this clause; it was the member for Karama who was not in her seat. My understanding is a vote or a comment cannot be recorded unless the person is in her seat.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, given that we do not have microphones throughout, I heard more than one voice, and I have called the ayes.
Clause 7, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 8, and, by its defeat, it would then be replaced with a clause which has been circulated. This clause relates to the eligible option of the need for the maintenance of a register, the information on that register be provided to the Chief Executive Officer, and there is the provision of an audit to check those who have taken the path of the eligible option are, in fact, doing so. If they were at the school, they would be on a register, such as the school roll, and it could be checked on. If they failed to attend repeatedly, there could be a consequence and an intervention.
If they take the other path, by choosing not to stay at school, but go into employment as an eligible option, into training, or a mixture of the two and, then, for some reason or another change direction, it is very possible they could fall through the cracks. This is something which is aspirational; it will be wishful thinking if we do not have the capacity to check, and, once again, reinforce where responsibility lies. In a school, there is responsibility to have a register or a roll. In this, the eligible option, there should still be a register.
As provided for, the register has a troubling verb for me, the word ‘may’. The word ‘may’, in the government’s position, is you are disposed, willing, expected or required to do something; it ‘may’ be expected, or you are supposed to do it. The language around this will demonstrate there is a philosophical difference, which is the clause we want to see. The ideas reflected would be a verb ‘will’; you are bound to do something, you are compelled, in order to fulfil some need or to achieve an aim. The aim is to recognise there are responsibilities and mutual obligation. You provide a good system, and you have to provide the capacity to check that system and ensure people are doing what they are required to do; it cuts both ways - carrot and stick.
You cannot have a system which favours the one approach. You have to reinforce the central idea of personal responsibility. You have to maintain a register. So, for those who go down the other path, who are not at school every day, you will be able to check how they are going. You will have the auditor who can go along and ensure that which you desire, and are aspiring to through this bill, is being achieved.
I am inviting the defeat of this clause so it can be replaced with the vehicle I described. It is not a vehicle which has the intent couched in the verb ‘may’ do something - the chief executive ‘may’ do this. We are saying there is a compulsion attached to this in the maintenance of a register and the requirement of a parent, even though the child has taken a path, the eligible option, which is not necessarily in school, they still have an obligation to maintain that information flow to the Chief Executive Officer. That way we have some tension in it and some capacity to check what we are doing.
There is no point in putting something in place which looks okay, but does not achieve the objective. Knowing human nature, you need to have this element in the bill. That is why the amendment is provided, but that amendment cannot be inserted unless this clause is defeated, so I invite defeat.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, in effect, we are not only debating this clause, but subsequent clauses, so we might move this along.
The opposition is proposing a complex registration process and I appreciate the sentiment. We all want, from the policy outcomes, kids staying at school and completing their education, or a mix of education and VET training, which could be provided in the workplace and at university, as opposed to being at school. The opposition is proposing a very complex and prescriptive system. Let me explain why we do not support this.
The legislation has been agreed as part of a national process, which is an aspirational aim to keep children at school longer. It allows children and students in work or training to not be in school, but punishes those who do not fit any of these categories, by not allowing them to get youth allowance or social security. In regard to the Leader of the Opposition’s carrots and sticks, there is a big stick at the end of this process if these kids are not at school, in training, or at work, which is: you do not get your dole. I attest that the stick is already in this system.
From 1 January, if new applicants for youth allowance are not in training for 25 hours a week, not in employment for that period, or have no job, not only is there no youth allowance, but, if that student is still at home with family, then the family will not be able to apply for Family Tax Benefit Part A if their child is not in training, not at school, or not in work.
I attest for the complexity, the costs in the bureaucracy and the registration process you put in place to achieve a stick, the stick is already there. There will be very few young people who will have the financial capacity to not be at school or have work, and not be in receipt of any income.
In regard to the carrot and stick argument, I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if you want to be cute about it – our stick is bigger than your stick in terms of …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: That is right. It has been an interesting couple of days; I will throw a bit of brevity on the table. In terms of who has the biggest stick, I believe in the stick of there being no dole, no payments, and no Family Tax Benefit payments if your kids are not going to school, as opposed to not complying with a register.
Each state and territory has signed up to this aspiration. We are now doing what we can to implement it quickly. What has not yet been determined, or agreed, is how we are going to monitor compliance. For students in the 15- to 17-year-old cohort, they may be in a mix of school, training or work. They may be in training on or off the school campus. They may be engaged in work ready programs which would be off the school campus. That cohort of kids is going to be in a mix of scenarios, not just sitting in the classroom.
First, there is the punishment of telling a young person they will not get social security. As I have said, the stick will certainly have significant impact. However, we recognise this alone may not be enough to keep young people in work or at school, although I believe it will keep the vast majority of them at work or in school.
We are now working with the other states to see how this compliance system will work. We have looked at the experience in other jurisdictions which have a compliance system, and they are all having significant problems; that is on advice I have received. There is a national body of work, through the education senior officers group under way at the moment, which should, ultimately, go to the MCEETYA, the Ministerial Council, to have a national approach to this. Some states which have a register are experiencing significant difficulties. Nationally, all states and territories are working to achieve a system which works seamlessly between states, because you also have the issue of young people moving between schools and states, and we need to look at consistency and a national approach.
In terms of the work of the department, and the effort the department is putting in to a restructure to support this change …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I note the member for Greatorex has been entering the parliamentary floor without showing obeisance to the Chair.
Mr CONLAN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. During committee stages, when the mace is down, there is no obligation to give obeisance.
Dr BURNS: It is a courtesy. Obviously you have none.
Mr Conlan: You do not have to; that is the point.
Madam CHAIR: It is a courtesy, nevertheless. Chief Minister you have the call.
Mr HENDERSON: The department is doing significant work in restructuring areas of the department to support participation in the ‘earning or learning’ policy. We believe the effort should be going into supporting and working with the 90 to 95% of young people who will do this, as opposed to focusing administrative effort, and much of the budget of the department, on chasing the 5 to 10% who will not comply.
There are three areas of reform in monitoring compliance. All schools monitor attendance, which is the first limb of the compliance monitoring. The second limb of the compliance monitoring is if a student is engaged with a registered training organisation, and the organisation is being funded to provide training for the student, we regulate the RTOs and require them to report any student who is disengaged, and is not taking part in the funded program. We regulate the RTOs, and we will require them to report to the school, and to DET. If those students drop out, then we can take action. The third limb of compliance monitoring is working with Centrelink, which is a key in this. If children in employment have dropped out, they are not working 25 hours a week and are going to Centrelink, we will be working with Centrelink, requiring them to notify our remote pathways brokers and participation coordinators, to enable us to pick these kids up and do everything we can to get them back into training.
There is a profile to support compliance with this however, ultimately, the big stick is through the social security system. Remember, if these kids want to avoid any compliance system they can move interstate, which is why we need a national approach and a national system.
I attest we do not need a register in the legislation for kids to be complying with training. The way the opposition’s amendment is structured requires parents to confirm the child is undergoing training. We do not live in a perfect world, and the reality is many parents will not bother to comply. Setting up a system which requires parents to comply - the kid might be in training, the parents do not comply with putting in their notification, we will have departmental officers chasing those parents, there is no penalty regime in the amendments to require those parents - will be, with all due respect, Leader of the Opposition, a whole bureaucracy and industry created to chase parents and kids.
I believe it would come at significant cost, and the cost is better utilised by: employing people through the department to work with schools, industry, and students to get them into training; to require registered training organisations to notify the department if kids have dropped out; and to work with Centrelink, so it notifies the department if kids have dropped out. Ultimately, the sanction is those kids do not get their youth allowance, and those parents do not get the tax benefits of having their kids in training or at work.
The monitoring and compliance procedures proposed will, in fact, require a massive bureaucracy to implement. To do what is proposed it is estimated would take 10 staff, perhaps more, it would require additional technical resources, and it would still be ineffective.
When you are spending dollars on education you are not inclined to put that much into staffing for compliance officers. The government is proposing a clause in this legislation which gives the chief executive of the agency the power to make inquiries. We are now working through, with all our national colleagues, the compliance system. Hopefully, it will be nationally, and it will be seamless nationally.
I understand where the opposition is coming from but, with respect, it is too prescriptive and too detailed for legislation. It needs to be worked out nationally. It can be regulated at a later date, and I am happy to keep the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson in the loop on those discussions.
In regard to the auditing clause in the Opposition Leader’s amendments, I point out, in the government’s amendment bill section 31A(1) gives the power to the Chief Executive Officer to make inquiries if he considers it appropriate. The Leader of the Opposition is saying the CE ‘must’ make inquiries, which would lead to a massive bureaucratic effort, through the Chief Executive Officer, to chase down every kid who is not participating, or dropping out for whatever reason.
For those reasons, I believe the big stick is through the social security and tax system, and that will see many more students staying at school, rather than strict adherence and compliance with a very costly, bureaucratic, and difficult register to maintain.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, at the end of this, I move that this clause be defeated. I note the use of the word ‘aspirational’; it is a noble aspiration, which is described and the vehicles by which we would arrive at that aspiration. I acknowledge the argument it would be costly to implement a system such as the one described. However, I have confidence if you put in place an expectation, put in the mechanisms to reinforce that expectation, and set an example for those who fail to do what they are required to do, it would become a very efficient system. I know if you run a system such as that, it would become far more efficient if people knew you meant what you said.
If you say things as a good intention, never back it up, never provide a consequence, of course it becomes immensely expensive to run a system that is, in a sense, trying to create the impression certain things are valued, but you do not ever back them up, and there is never really a consequence and you are always chasing your tail. That is an expensive system.
In the first instance, set the standard, put in the mechanism to check the standard is being met, provide consequences for those who do not meet it, and then it will become an efficient system because you are not serving the system, you are providing a greater likelihood you are going to reach your objective.
For that reason, I invite the defeat of this clause, so it can be replaced with one which provides the mechanism to allow the aspiration to be met, by putting in the appropriate structures to check, test, and defend the standards.
I also acknowledge there has been discussion in the briefings, and alluded to in your comment, Chief Minister, that a similar model is being considered and worked on nationally. I gratefully accept the offer to be involved in that discussion. I will not vacate the position I hold in terms of wanting to reinforce certain standards and obligations being backed up. I hope through those discussions we will have a system, which I can play my part in, ensuring families understand we expect them to do something, and we will back them up if they have some difficulties, but there are standards we have to defend, and we do not have the feeding of the sense of options, that schooling is optional, there is really no consequence and the standards do not really have any value.
I will take the opposite position, which is why I invite the defeat of this clause, so it can pave the way for a clause which will help us put in a mechanism to defend certain standards, reinforce parental responsibility, and help us to arrive at our objective.
I invite the defeat of clause 8, Madam Chair.
Motion negatived.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Mr MILLS: As a consequence of that crushing defeat, amendment 29.4, standing in my name, should be withdrawn. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 29.4.
Leave granted.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2009.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report – Entitlements of Assembly Members and
Determination No 1 of 2009
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2009-10
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2009-10
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the 2009-10 Treasure’s Mid-Year Report, which provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
I am pleased to report that, after a difficult 12 months, the mid-year report shows an improvement in the Territory’s fiscal and economic outlook. The key fiscal highlights in the report include:
an improved operating surplus over the forward estimates, providing additional capacity to invest in infrastructure;
the cash deficit has increased to $249m in 2009-10, due to the timing of Commonwealth funded expenditure. When these timing issues are removed, the underlying financial position is an improvement of $100m 2009-10;
The mid-year report also includes an improved economic outlook. After contracting sharply in late 2008 and early 2009, the global economy is growing again. The recovery is being led by a rebound in Asian economies, particularly China, where there has been a strengthening in demand, supported by fiscal and monetary stimulus measures. The Territory economy is expected to be a major beneficiary of the growth in Asia, through increased demand for mineral and energy commodities, supporting increased mining production and exports.
Treasury’s economic growth forecast for 2009-10 has been revised upwards, from 2% at the time of the budget to 2.6%, reflecting the higher forecast growth in mining and energy exports. State Final Demand in the Territory is cyclic and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. In the budget, State Final Demand was forecast to decline in line with the completion of the establishment phase of a number of major projects.
The mid-year report has revised that forecast to 3.9% in 2009-10, as a result of higher investment expenditure than expected. Partly offsetting declining business investment will be record levels of public sector investment associated with the Commonwealth’s infrastructure related stimulus spending, defence infrastructure projects, and the Henderson governments record capital works program.
Large-scale land releases, coupled with a strong rebound in housing construction, both in the public and private sectors, will also be supportive of investment levels and employment growth in 2009-10. Employment is forecast to increase by 2.8% in 2009-10, 1.3 percentage points higher than forecast at the time of the budget.
The Territory continues to experience robust population growth as a result of our strong economy. People want to move here because of the employment opportunities and the great Territory lifestyle. Stronger growth in nett overseas and interstate migration figures result in population forecast being revised upwards from 1.8% to 2% for 2009.
Forecast growth in the Darwin inflation rate in 2009 has been revised upwards from 2.6% to 2.8%, based on stronger growth in housing and rental prices in the year than was forecast at the time of the budget.
The improved economic conditions have resulted in an increase in GST revenue of $42m, and additional Territory own source revenue including $41m in mineral royalties, resulting in additional revenue of $98m in 2009-10. This partly offsets the $150m carryover of expenditure from 2008 - 09 which is associated with Commonwealth funding received late in 2008-09, and results in a revised deficit of $249m or $53m worse than forecast at budget time.
However, when taking into account the improved 2008-09 outcome of $153m, the underlying improvement across both years is $100m. There has also been a further increase of $130m in Commonwealth funding and associated expenditure as a result of agreements being finalised since the May budget, which will provide additional service delivery capacity particularly in education, policing and health.
The cash outcomes over the forward estimate period remains unchanged. On an accrual basis, the nett operating balance remains in surplus in all years, while the fiscal balance is expected to remain in deficit, but continues trending towards a balanced position.
These outcomes demonstrate the Territory is on track to achieve its aim of having sufficient cash surpluses to fund capital spending and provide capacity to retire debt to pre-global financial crisis levels. Nett debit has improved since that projected at budget time, from $1.2bn to $1bn, due to the flow-on effect of the 2008-09 cash surplus, together with an increase in the Territory’s financial asset base, partly offset by the increased deficit in 2009-10. When measured as a ratio-to-revenue nett debt, it is estimated to be 28% by 2012-13, less than half the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I was being shouted at by the member for Port Darwin, so I might go over that.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: When measured as a ratio-to-revenue, nett debt is estimated to be 28% by 2012-13, less than half the 61% recorded in 2001-02. Nett financial liabilities have also improved since budget time, and are expected to reduce to $4.6bn by 2012-13, with the nett financial liabilities ratio significantly lower than projected at budget time, dropping to 103% by 2012-13.
In conclusion, the 2009-10 mid-year report provides further evidence of this government’s adherence to fiscal responsibility. It underpins our commitment to maintaining strong fiscal strategy principles, whilst promoting economic activity and growth for the Territory.
By continuing to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly through this period of economic uncertainty, the Henderson government has maintained the trend towards improvement of all fiscal targets over the budgetary cycle, while continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians. This is in addition to an economy which is expected to continue out-performing national levels.
Madam Speaker, I commend the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report to the House, and move that the Assembly take note of the paper..
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): As much as I am tempted to, I will not engage the Treasurer yet, because I will read this document. However, I am so tempted because smoke and mirrors is not strong enough. I move this debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 65)
(Serial 65)
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to this and say, at the outset, members on this side of the House will be supporting this bill because it makes sense. However, as I deal with this issue, there are some things I would like to observe as I go forward.
The issues I would like to point out are the government, as I understand it, will be introducing an amendment during the committee stage in relation to this because there is an effect on oncourse bookmakers, which was unintended in the original bill.
The government has responded to circumstances beyond its control. Hopefully, I thought the Labor machine was more solid than it is, but apparently it cannot control what its Labor mates do in other states, so it has moved to protect an industry which has existed in the Northern Territory for almost as long as the Internet has existed. For that reason I acknowledge the effort the government is making in relation to this legislation.
I also state we will be supporting the amendment, because I understand the amendment. I thank the Treasurer and her staff for being kind enough to take a few moments out the other day to explain it to me and, once it was explained fairly carefully to me, I understood the thrust of it.
I hope the government will demonstrate levels of governance, in relation to looking after this bill, much more than they show in other areas. I will continue to watch the operation of this legislation carefully to ensure the industry is protected in the Northern Territory. The industry can take great comfort that, if there is a change of government, and if I have anything to do with a new government - should I be so fortunate to win my seat - they will have someone who they can talk to and communicate with as often as they need to.
I will take this opportunity, in terms of issues of governance, to raise something I have raised repeatedly in this House. I will point out to the Chief Minister he is now in breach of the law. Section 28 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act requires annual reports to be delivered within a certain time frame. I urge the Chief Minister to take note of that, because the annual report for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is now in excess of that time frame. I ask the minister to make the annual report available in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory, something which has not occurred, because the law of the Northern Territory requires reports by Chief Executive Officers be tabled within three months after the end of the financial year. It is now mid-November and we find we have still not received the annual report.
The only exception to that rule would be if the Treasurer had determined, under Section 10 or 11 of the Financial Management Act, a longer period for the preparation of financial statements in respect of an agency within that longer period. I have seen nothing tabled or indicated by the Treasurer, in any way, where she has given permission for that to occur. I can only assume the Chief Minister continues to sit on this annual report, because there is something in it he does not want Territorians to see. He is way overdue; he is in breach of the legislation of which he is supposed to have carriage and governance. I ask the Chief Minister - in fact, demand that the Chief Minister - obey the law of the Northern Territory. Either that or the Treasurer obey the law of the Northern Territory, and make available the direction she has given under the auspices of section 10 and 11 of the Financial Management Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their indulgence of my small digression during this debate. We support the legislation, and we look forward to its passage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the shadow Treasurer for the indication of support for this bill by the Country Liberal Party. It is not a circumstance the Territory liked to enter into, but it is a circumstance we had to, to save an industry in the Territory.
Yes, the Tasmanian Treasurer, whilst he may be Labor – no, I do not control him from the Northern Territory, and it is absurd to think any Liberal scenarios around state jurisdictions would control each other either. Take a look at what is going on in national parliament today. We have had, at last count, two senior shadows dropping off the frontbench. There is news Abbot is gone and Minchin is gone. If you want to talk about not being able to get your mates in order, you want to have a good look at what the Liberal nationals are doing to themselves in the federal parliament as we speak.
But, Madam Speaker, I digress.
The Tasmanian government recently passed legislation authorising the sale of the government owned totaliser, TOTE Tasmania, and also deregulated the Tasmanian bookmaking industry. They tried to steal the corporate bookmaking industry from the Northern Territory. They put in place a competitive corporate bookmakers tax regulatory regime and brought down the price of Tasmania’s wagering tax on bookmakers to $250 000 fixed licensed fees, subject to CPI indexation. Basically, Tasmania tried to undercut the Territory’s taxation regime to steal the corporate bookmaker industry.
As Treasurer with responsibility in this area, we consulted with industry. We did not want to lose 250 jobs in the Territory, nor did we want to lose the revenue we receive from this industry. Thanks to the undercutting by Tasmania, yes, we are losing revenue with this legislation before us. We had been getting around $10.5m in annual revenue from the corporate bookmaker industry. Thanks to Tasmania undercutting us and trying to steal the industry, we have had to bring our regime down. As a result, we are expecting to receive about $2.4m in revenue in 2009-10. But, as I am fond of saying, $2.4m is better than zero.
We needed to be competitive in response to the Tasmanian situation. The amendments we have before us will introduce a new corporate bookmakers tax which will commence on 1 January 2010. It will be payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of a bookmaker’s gross monthly profits, with the maximum amount of tax payable in a financial year being $250 000, indexed to Darwin CPI. In other words, we are not going to be costing them more than if they had gone to Tasmania.
We believe our system is better than Tasmania; it is more competitive because it is a more equitable treatment to our smaller corporate bookmakers who may not be able to afford a $250 000 licence fee. We have moved to a profit-based regime. They are used in Victoria’s racing product fee and are a preferred regime by the corporate bookmaking industry to what had previously been the turnover-based regime. Previously, the corporate bookies paid 0.33% of turnover, but that is the total bets laid with the bookmaker. The legislation had expressed those as weekly payments. Administratively, they were making monthly payments, so we have is moved over to a gross monthly profit scheme, monthly payments, capping it at $250 000, and introducing it as of 1 January 2010.
However, we do have committee stage amendments to introduce because, unintentionally, the on-course bookies were picked up in the amendments, which was entirely unintentional. These amendments were only about the corporate bookmakers, described in the legislation as ‘sports bookmakers’. We need to go into committee stage to remove the unintentional pick up of the on-course bookmakers. Any profit-based tax would generally result in a greater tax burden on on-course bookmakers. That was not the intention of the amendments, which are based on retaining corporate bookmakers in the Territory. Our on-course bookies are a very different kettle of fish to our large corporate bookmakers. On-course bookmakers operate at a lower turnover model than the corporate bookies, and they are limited to operating at racecourses during race days, and primarily take bets from persons at the course. It is interesting to note, we do not actually have any country registered on-course bookies.
In relation to taking care of the racing industry, I am unashamedly a racing industry fan. I have followed the racing industry in the Northern Territory from when I was a kid. We had horses stabled at Fannie Bay and Adelaide River. My mother was an owner. I grew up at the track. I spent many years living and working in Victoria, very closely involved with people in the racing industry. The racing industry is under no illusion it has an ally in the Territory Treasurer, understanding its unique needs.
If you look at what we are doing in terms of the racing industry, not only did we give them a $10m injection in the Territory to ensure they could increase jockeys’ payments and increase the stakes money through the cup carnivals, which attracted much better fields this year as a result, we have also undertaken a significant review by KordaMentha, on behalf of Treasury, into the racing industry to ensure its future sustainability. If you are looking for support, the racing industry knows it looks no further than the close working relationship I have created with it and also our Racing minister, Vatskalis.
Madam Speaker, we have sensible legislation before the House, to save the corporate bookmaking industry for the Territory, to save 250 jobs in the Territory, and to save some revenue coming into the Territory from this industry. As an aside, if we had lost this industry to Tasmania, the Darwin Turf Club would be in all sorts of financial strife. They have constructed a building at the Fannie Bay Turf Club to house the industry, the corporate bookies, they would have an empty building, and they would not be recouping the cost of that building through lease payments.
This is a sensible action to take, and I thank the opposition for its support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2009, Serial 65, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 28 circulated by the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I propose the following amendments to the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 65). The changes proposed are to section 4 of the act, which provides definitions to section 106 of the act, which imposes bookmaker’s tax, and to section 158, which sets out the transitional provisions for the new bookmaker’s tax.
The bill introduces a new profits based bookmaker’s tax to commence on 1 January 2010. The tax is payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of bookmakers gross monthly profits, with a maximum amount of tax payable in the financial year being $250 000, expressed in revenue units.
These amendments are necessary to retain a competitive tax regime for corporate bookies as a result of changes to Tasmania’s bookmaking regulatory and taxation scheme.
As drafted, the bill also imposes a new profit based tax on on-course bookmakers, referred to in the act as registered bookmakers. The Henderson government has consulted with on-course bookmakers, who have indicated that due to significant differences in their business model as compared to corporate bookmakers, the profit based tax would unreasonably increase their tax load. On-course bookmakers operate a different business model to the Internet based 24/7, high-turnover, low-margin business model of the corporate bookmakers. Instead, they operate at race courses, only during race days, and primarily take bets from persons at the course, which is a much lower turnover business.
As such, the profit based tax would genuinely result in a greater tax burden on those on-course bookmakers. This outcome is outside the intention of the amendments of retaining corporate bookmakers in the Territory. Accordingly, the committee stage amendments ensure the new profit based tax applies only to corporate bookmakers, by inserting a provision maintaining the current 0.33% turnover tax for on-course bookmakers. Other minor consequential amendments give effect to these changes.
Madam Chair, I commend these committee amendments to honourable members.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, regarding clause 6, proposed section 106(1), omit: ‘a bookmaker’, substitute: ‘a sports bookmaker (other than a country bookmaker)’.
To make it easier, I propose at this stage we move all these amendments, because they are all consequential amendments as described. If it is okay with the shadow Treasurer, to move them all in a block and we can get on with business.
Mr ELFERINK: That suggestion is forcing me to say more than I was intending to say. Yes.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REVENUE UNITS BILL
(Serial 64)
(Serial 64)
Continued from 13 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell you how surprised I am to be debating this bill before the House now.
One of the things the Leader of Government Business has been encouraging us to do in our relationship is communicate effectively with what the plans for the day are, so this House can run smoothly. I now find myself on my feet, having listened to the Leader of Government Business telling me earlier today we would not be proceeding to this item on the Notice Paper, the following item, or the item after that.
Whilst I have made myself cognisant of what is in this bill, I do not have my notes in front of me; they are sitting in my hotel room, because I listened to the Leader of Government Business. If the government wants this House to run smoothly, it has to do us the courtesy of giving us more warning a particular bill is coming before the House, than slipping a paper to one of our staffers in the staffer’s box, a few minutes before the bill proceeds, particularly when I am currently engaged in the passage of another piece of very important legislation.
Madam Speaker, I like to pride myself on taking at least some care of how I go about my business. However, I find myself in a position where I have to determine the law of the Northern Territory without my notes. If the Leader of Government Business wants to develop a relationship of cooperation behind the scenes, so this House proceeds well with its jobs and duties, then he is going to have to do much better than that. Fortunately for the government, I hope I am well enough briefed to navigate my way through this bill without having my notes and that piece of paperwork in front of me.
The Revenue Units Bill is a vehicle by which the government sets the prices of the services it provides to people in the Northern Territory. This vehicle is not entirely unlike the Penalty Units Bill. We have seen in recent times what goes wrong when people are not careful about how these legislative instruments pass. It was the debacle surrounding the Penalty Units Bill, which led to the passage in this House, of which the minister should have been more than cognisant, of a fine for a beggar of $6400. The government has yet to come into this House and give this House a vehicle by which that may be fixed.
I hope the government is going to be much more careful with this particular legislative instrument when it comes to applying the fees and charges to Territorians for the services it applies. The reason the concept of revenue units exists is, on certain occasions, as inflation catches up with the prices government puts on its services, for argument’s sake, a driver’s licence being issued, those driver’s licences, in the real world, become cheaper, so the government tries to keep its fees up.
The Revenue Units Bill provides a formula by which CPI can be applied to those fees and charges without having to change a whole raft of legislation. Rather than having appendices attached to the back of different legislation saying the fee for a one year licence is X number of dollars, and the legislative draftsman has to trawl through a whole bunch of appendices to fix them all up; they just refer to a revenue unit. When they refer to that revenue unit, no large amount of redrafting has to occur, you can conveniently refer only to the Revenue Units Bill and the formula contained therein.
That is a reasonable idea, as penalty units are a reasonable idea, but we have seen the consequences and the entrapments these sorts of units tend to develop over time, and with the passage of careless legislation. I confess I am nervous about proceeding with this matter without having my notes in front of me, for the reasons I have explained. Whilst I try to do my job as effectively as I …
Dr Burns: You should have been prepared.
Mr ELFERINK: If you had listened to what I just said, you would realise you were the idiot responsible for not telling me this bill was coming on now. You have no right to walk into this House, and say, for one second, you did not tell me this bill was not coming up today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! At no point in my discussions with the member for Port Darwin did I say it would not be coming up today. I said we may hold it over to the next sittings. We were talking about the priorities of our business within this House. Whatever the situation is with the priorities, the opposition should come into this House and be prepared to debate what is on the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: I was, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I can place on the table the Notice Paper on which I wrote, in front of the minister - and I seek leave to table that Notice Paper, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In a minute. Leader of the – sorry, it has been a long day. Member for Port Darwin, would you mind withdrawing the unparliamentarily comments you made earlier regarding the Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, which ones were they?
Madam SPEAKER: You were yelling at the time and you referred to him in an unparliamentarily fashion. I ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw, for the sake of the business of this House.
Madam SPEAKER: Seek leave.
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave to table this Notice Paper.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, on this Notice Paper is a very simple handwritten note, which, by the way, was not an accurate representation of the discussion we had. We sat down carefully and he asked that item No 11 of Notices on the Notice Paper be moved to be debated after items No 1 and 2. I drew an arrow and wrote ‘debate’ underneath that, in front of him, and I said: ‘Is that correct?’ He said: ‘Yes’.
None of that has happened, and I table that document. In any instance, I am prepared and reliant on the conversation I had with the Leader of Government Business. If the Leader of Government Business does not have the decency, courtesy, honesty, and integrity, for that matter, to be honest with how he conducts himself in this House, whilst I am not allowed to call him a liar, I have to say he has come perilously close to fulfilling that epitaph on this occasion. It was a clear understanding between the two of us. I also know that because he …
Dr Burns: You did not have a clear understanding of the volatile substance abuse bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … knew that. I tell you why he knew; because he delivered a note to our staff and, on that note, was a clear description he wanted to go through Nos 3, 4, and 5. He knew where I was expecting to go, and where this side of the House was expecting to go.
To attempt to entrap legislators in this House, in this fashion, is despicable. As far as I am concerned, it is demonstrative of how these guys on the other side of the House do business. They are a disgrace to the way they conduct themselves, and to the people of the Northern Territory; they are divided and shambolic.
They do not even obey the law of the Northern Territory when it comes to the issue of annual reports. They are all over the place on a raft of issues, not least of which is compulsory acquisition, when we had the same Chief Minister say compulsory acquisition was good and bad in one Question Time. They are shambolic! They are all over the place, and this is indicative of how this business proceeds even further.
Madam Speaker, I have made notes. I have made myself entirely cognisant of what is in the Revenue Units Bill, which is why I am able to proceed with it, despite the fact I have been misled by the Leader of Government Business.
This government really needs to clean up its act. Territorians deserve so much better than this. If I can find the handwritten note - and I hope someone could go and get James - to demonstrate this Leader of Government Business knew exactly where we expected to go on the Notice Paper; it will be a damning piece of evidence of his mindset as to what he was doing. He knew what he was doing, Madam Speaker, he knew where I expected to go.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I understand the concern of the member for Port Darwin, in terms of the debate on the legislation for revenue units, I urge that, for the order of this to continue, we get back to the debate on the revenue units. It is a simple piece of legislation, which I flagged in the May budget, it has been on the public record. I have introduced the second reading speech at sittings.
This is not surprise legislation. It is simply CPI indexation to the revenue units, which is an amount of $1. Whilst I understand the concerns of the member for Port Darwin, it is time we get on with the legislation before the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, if you could come to the bill before us?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have discussed the bill before this House, and because I am not a man of churlish disposition, whilst easily irritated from time to time by small-mindedness and pettiness, the fact of the matter is, I would have every reason at the moment to try to make the government’s life difficult in the passage of this bill. However, I am at least capable of being able to separate out the importance of legislative passage, and silly, stupid and banal political games. As a consequence of that cognisance, I am supportive, as we are all supportive on this side of the House, of the passage of this law.
However, make no mistake, if this government expects to see its legislation passed through a cooperative environment involving both sides of this House, as well as the Leader of Government Business and the Leader of Opposition Business, then it is going to have to do much better than this. The reason is simple: if we cannot trust the say so of each other in simple and straightforward matters, then we cannot trust the items of legislation the government brings before this House. If it wants to turn this House into a place where every bill, no matter how small or large, is taken through a torturous process of examination because we do not trust this government to do the simple things, then that is what the government is inviting to occur.
However, on this occasion, I am cognisant of what is in the bill, it is not a difficult bill and it deserves to pass. But, my goodness gracious me, what an awful display of mismanagement and ineptitude.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the support of the opposition to the passage of the Revenue Units Bill, and I thank the member for Port Darwin for the support. I understand his concern, in terms of the time, and, as Treasurer, I express my apologies; at no stage did I intend not to deal with this bill today. Miscommunication has occurred and my apologies are expressed.
This revenue bill is simple and it is also sensible. The existing Revenue Units Act, which it replaces, goes to one and one-third pages in length, with less than one page in regulations. Instead of amending this, it was very sensible to introduce a new bill, because the amendments would have been longer than the bill. We have introduced a new bill, which I announced as part of the 2009-10 Budget, so we have not been hiding what we are doing, it was in the budget speech. We are saying that, as the member for Port Darwin expressed, many of the penalties across government are expressed as revenue units, not all of them; we are doing a tightening up exercise of taking monetary values into penalty unit values.
The revenue unit was set in July 2006 at $1 and it has not been reviewed since. We have a whole series of penalties across government which are not moving with CPI and are being eroded in real terms. It is a budget measure, but it is a sensible budget measure, and it will hold all future governments of the Territory, as well as the current government, in good stead going forward.
The Revenue Units Bill replaces the current Revenue Units Act 2000, and it will provide for an automated process for changing the monetary value of the revenue unit to take into account the effects of inflation.
We are ensuring, where the monetary amount of a fee or charge expressed in revenue units is not a multiple of one, the amount will be rounded down to the nearest one dollar. A similar indexation mechanism was recently included in the penalty units legislation. Similar legislative fee indexation mechanisms also exist in Victoria and Tasmania. The bill provides for the value of a revenue unit to remain at one dollar until 30 June 2011.
I thank the opposition for its support, this is simply an indexation piece of legislation; it makes sense and it is practical. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 73)
(Serial 73)
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, my contribution to the debate this afternoon will be quite brief. I indicate the opposition will not be opposing this amendment because, like the previous bill, there are elements of it which seem to make sense.
I note Mr Bob Beadman, who is the chair of the Local Government Grants Commission has, according to the second reading speech from the minister, asked that this amendment be included in the act. Therefore, I give the amendment credence based on that.
However, I do have some concerns. Unless my colleagues indicate otherwise, there will be no need to take this to committee stage. My concerns are, the further delaying of reporting of the Local Government Grants Commission - the conspiracy theorist in me says - is pushing the scrutiny of reporting of local governments grants further away from the end of the financial year. It pushes it into the realms of the calendar year following the financial year it would report on.
I hope this is not an attempt to push scrutiny back further, into a temporal oblivion. With delays in time, there are issues which tend to get lost, and I would like some assurances from the minister, in his response, that this is not the case.
However, I want to quickly touch on what I find the ironic part of this, which is making the Local Government Grants Commission Report timed to coincide with the reporting dates of the local shires and councils in the Northern Territory. I will not belabour the point but, as of this date, we are past the shire councils reporting date for 2009, and none of the shires have been able to give those reports because the computer systems, the ShiresBiz or Technology One system, which are in place, have prevented them from doing that. However, I will not belabour the point.
The opposition will support this bill, however I ask the minister whether he is able to give me the assurance I mentioned earlier.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill. I thought it was an opportunity to comment on the idea that the financial reports and the reports from the Local Government Grants Commission align.
As we know, and as the member for Katherine said, the issues relating to ShiresBiz must be making it hard for some of the local governments. It is an issue which will not go away and we hope something is done very quickly, because it might be hard to align them if the financial system put in place for most councils does not work properly. I hope something is done quickly.
This bill is in relation to the Grants Commission, and I am a little concerned some of our councils are destined for quite severe cuts through the Grants Commission. I notice a letter went from the minister to the Tiwi Islands Shire Council, some time ago, and the Coomalie Council, basically telling them over the next four years their funding would be cut by half. I believe the Tiwi Shire Council has funding of $1.6m, which was to be cut down to $800 000 in four years; and for Coomalie, I do not have the exact figures, but I believe it was about $500 000 to be cut down to $250 000. I might not be that surprised about Coomalie, because of its population and, you might say, its isolation, because they are some of the figures which would be used to reduced its funding. It is still a successful council, even though it is small. It is looking at amalgamating with areas around it, and I do not know whether that was done to force amalgamation, or if it was done on a formula, as I said, based on isolation and, to some extent, Aboriginality.
When it comes to the Tiwi Shire it seems peculiar that its funding should be cut by half. About 96% of people in the Tiwi Islands are Aboriginal. It is isolated, in the sense it has no road connection with the mainland. I am interested to know why its funding will be cut by half, considering it is one of the growth towns in Working Future. It seems a statement which has come from the minister is a bit confusing, in light of the statements the government has made about A Working Future.
I know councils outside the shires are not happy with Local Government Grants funding because of the change in the formula, those councils feel they are going to lose out. I was talking to Damien Ryan during the week and he is unhappy about things like the amount of road funding now required and, considering the growth of Alice Springs, he is not particularly happy with the loss of that particular grant funding.
We have an issue when it comes to distributing the small amount of funds we have from the Commonwealth, through the Grants Commission, to help fund these super shires. Litchfield Council raises 64% of its money through rates to run the shire, then you hear there are other councils which have very little rate money being developed, and they are receiving a larger slice of that money per head of population. I know there is a thing called horizontal equalisation, but it is a little concerning to those councils, which raise quite a bit of revenue; it can be seen they are penalised for having the ability to raise rate money and have their roads and FAGs money reduced.
I raise that as an issue in relation to this debate because we do not often get an opportunity to talk about the Grants Commission. I do not have a problem with the intent of the amendment, but it is a little ironic that we are trying to line up two reports, and one of those reports is difficult to get at the present time because of the failure of ShiresBiz. I am interested to hear the minister’s response, especially in relation to where ShiresBiz is at the present time. It is of concern to councils, and it is costing them much money; money we need to be spending on roads and other facilities in councils, rather than on an IT system which has gone sideways.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine and Nelson for their contributions. The amendments in this bill were not really covered, so I will go through some of the points made.
Bob Beadman does a great job with the Grants Commission. He works collaboratively with the department staff who assist on the Grants Commission, and the Commonwealth Grants Commission. He is a man held in a great deal of respect.
The member for Katherine highlighted a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy theory; it was put forward by the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission has been able, consistently, to sign off on the annual report within the required time frame. However, there have been delays in getting the report finalised and printed. That was the reason the Chairman of the Grants Commission wrote, to seek the change to the tabling date. The sign off was done in time, but getting the printing done took a little time. There is no conspiracy theory. It is well within a time to debate it. It is now 26 November and, in future years, the report will be available before the last sittings of the year, so they can be debated, if necessary.
In relation to the members for Katherine and Nelson highlighting ShiresBiz, annual reports have already been delivered to me, as the minister; we have several of those. Some are outstanding and some have sought extensions of time; different councils have different degrees of functionality. There have been some reports. Obviously, there has been some functionality with the system that has been in the shires.
Through the remedial program, Des Kennedy has been sitting down with each of the shire councils, as a group, to determine the priority of work; that has happened. The first priority was the MacDonnell Shire, and that work has commenced, and they are well on track. The CTC met with them when it was here.
They are getting all their financial reporting and processes under way. It has been a mammoth task, switching over from a whole range of accounting systems and small councils into large councils and one software system, trying to get that done, so it is a good idea. TechOne is a good software program, it is used in the local government sector and outside the local government sector, so it is good accounting software but, as these things are, it is human beings who can cause problems with it. It was the installation and configuration of that software system into the local computer system which made it difficult. The shire councils are very confident in the abilities of Des Kennedy, and his team, to correct that configuration problem.
When speaking to the Central Desert Shire’s CFO the other day, he said there is a light at the end of the tunnel. They are moving through it. The advice I have is in the first few months of next year they will have all the shires complete, and they will be able to report on everything they do financially.
The member for Nelson also highlighted the changes in the grant funding. With grant funding, through the Grants Commission, it has to be fair, reasonable, and one methodology which applies to all. The Northern Territory Grants Commission has to be consistent with the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s methodology, which is what has happened. The Northern Territory Grants Commission has aligned the factors the Commonwealth Grants Commission take into account with its own methodology and, when the shires were formed, we had a fundamental change of the land mass covered by local government, going from 5% to effectively 95%, and taking in new people and new locations of service delivery. The factors taken into account in the methodology are around the number of people you have, Aboriginality, the dispersion of service delivery centres, and remoteness.
When you apply that to the new structure, where you have a shire council which could have maybe up to a dozen different service centres, across quite a large land mass, they obviously have greater disadvantage in the cost delivery of services. The Grants Commission, in the spirit of horizontal fiscal equalisation, has tried to assist those councils. It is also true for their ability to raise rates. The shires that have the ability to raise rates can do so, but obviously there is limited capacity within those more remote areas, especially Aboriginal communities. That will change with the house leases. Territory Housing will be liable for rates in those new housing lots, which will give some ability for the shire councils to rate those properties.
LGANT and some of the shires are quite concerned about the issue of pastoral and mining tenements being rated. In a short time, they will be able to rate those, as they rate them everywhere else in Australia, which will give them an added boost. Mining and pastoral rates cannot be used by the Darwin City Council or the Alice Springs Town Council, so it is a source of revenue that some of the municipals do not have, which the shire councils will have.
With respect to the point about Aboriginality, which the member for Nelson raised, and why the Tiwi Islands council had funding projected to be reduced, I guess those factors again. There are similar Aboriginality demographics between East Arnhem, West Arnhem and the Tiwi Islands, but the population is fundamentally different. Currently, the Tiwi Islands local government council is less than half the population of the East Arnhem Shire Council, but they receive the same grant commission funds. It is something which has grown over time. I understand the concerns of Tiwi Islands councillors and residents, but there is money members of East Arnhem, West Arnhem and other shires are not getting, which should legitimately go to them.
At some point in time you have to come up with a fair and reasonable methodology for the distribution of grant funds. I believe the NT and Commonwealth are the appropriate bodies to do that; they set it and they will come back into line. When I looked at the adjusted figures, there was quite a significant move in revenues for some of those shires, which is why we decided to phase it in. The councils which will have their funding reduced will be able to adjust either their revenue source or their expenditure budgets over time.
With that methodology, Coomalie only has two service centres, Adelaide River and Batchelor. They are not extremely remote, and they have a smaller population, which has affected them. With the shires taking greater land mass and having service deliveries spread out, they have attracted, through that methodology, greater funds. Coomalie is a very good council. Sadly, it has lost its long-serving CEO. However, it has been very proactive in moving towards expanding its boundaries. It is a very efficient council, and I have a great deal of confidence in its ability to look into either amalgamation or expansion of boundaries to be sustainable. There was not a change in methodology to force Coomalie to do this. The methodology was based on Commonwealth formulas, which Bob Beadman, as an independent person on the Chair of the Northern Territory Grants Commission, looked at following suit with.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. There are minor changes with this bill; changes in definitions and some omissions within the Local Government Grants Commission Amendment Bill, and the change of reporting dates.
I thank the members for Katherine and Nelson for their interest in this area. I know the member for Nelson is conducting a thorough investigation of many things, and there may be an opportunity for Bob Beadman to talk to him. There will be huge challenges for local government. We have to attract greater levels of funding from the Commonwealth government. We are conducting a road audit at the moment, in cooperation with LGANT, to attract more money from the Commonwealth for roads, which we have missed out on for over 30 years.
The South Australian government did a road audit and were able to lobby the Commonwealth government, and attracted an extra $30m into its funding pool. If we had received that sort of money over the last 30 years, our road system, especially in the bush, would be in a great state.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Continued from 19 October 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this will not take as long as the education bill. It was important and so is this. We thank the Chief Minister for the opportunity to speak on this, and also to take the opportunity to acknowledge the important work of the fire service in its broader application to protect our community.
We will be supporting this bill, and we appreciate the amendments are borne out of a number of unintended consequences, resulting from changes to legislation made in 2004 which we supported at the time.
We will go through this and make these important corrections - and I will go through those in a minute. I recall waking up this morning and seeing on SkyTV there had been a fire and it affected many people, and those few simple words people were saying: ‘I have lost everything’, brings into sharp focus how important the fire service is. Anything we can do to assist them in providing that level of protection to the community receives our full support, and the support of every officer in their important work.
It is important that the Fire and Rescue Service is able to enforce a notice issued to an owner or occupier of land if the relevant fire safety laws are not being adhered to. If the parliament, in making legislative changes, is impeding the capacity of the service to act in this way, we must make every effort to make the necessary changes, which is why we support this.
As we understand it, this bill does that in relation to splitting the hazard reduction powers, so it is clear which apply in emergency response areas and those which apply to the whole Territory. This bill also includes other consequential amendments, relating to the inspection of buildings and other places, to ensure those buildings and places comply with fire and safety requirements. It is important, and a responsibility of owners and occupiers, to ensure they comply with the law; when it comes to fire safety laws, the risk to personal safety and property damage cannot be ignored.
This bill expands Fire and Rescue Service inspection to any public building or place, rather than the existing provision for buildings and other places used for public entertainment or public gatherings. We agree this seems to be an anomaly.
However, this bill gives the service wide powers and we ask the government ensure appropriate training and guidance is given to those who are charged with the discharge of these powers. It also gives power to officers to issue notices to rectify any breaches of fire safety laws; this power also needs to be used fairly and with sufficient justification - which I would expect in any event.
Finally, we support any requirement which provides for the mandatory and regular inspection of hospitals, childcare centres, and shopping centres as described in the act. The community deserves confidence their safety is assured and every effort is being made, and their use and enjoyment of these spaces will not be compromised by non-compliance with fire and safety laws. We saw the tragedy of a fire in a backpacker hotel in Childers and, as I said this morning, we know of the devastating effects this can bear upon citizens.
With those thoughts in mind, acknowledging the corrections of some unintended consequences, the purpose and the intent of this is to provide greater protection and security for our community; it receives full support from the Territory opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the general thrust of the amendment. As we know, especially in the rural area, fires can be a major hazard. There have been a number of cases, even this year, where, luckily, no lives were lost, but buildings and equipment were destroyed by fire.
In the rural area of Darwin, where you have a higher population and still have a fair amount of native bush, or you have cleared areas for pastures or agriculture, in the form of mango production or other types of fruit trees, there is always a risk fires will get out of hand, no matter how well you have fire reduction strategies in place.
It is unfortunate we have some people in our community who seem to love to light fires. If there was a way of having portable CCTV cameras hanging off a balloon and floating over Howard Springs every day of the week, many people would be happy if we could catch some of these people. When you see fires as late as October, burning vast areas up towards Shoal Bay, you know they were not started by lightning; there was hardly any rain or storms around this year. This is an issue which is probably like catching people who drop litter: you have to see them and, in some cases, you need to have two people see them so there is proof, when the person says they did not do it.
My concern - and this is not against the bill – is I hope there is enough flexibility. I am talking from the rural area, where there are some people who would like to keep bush blocks. To keep a native bush block on five acres, with an appropriate firebreak around it, is not a bad thing. You do not want to be mowing lawns, that is adding to the carbon footprint and also making work. If you allow your block to have no fires, over a period of time, you, generally, reduce the annual grasses and develop perennial species.
If you ever drive along Howard Springs Road and look on the right, at what was Kowandi North, the Defence area, now called the Howard Springs Defence Complex, where INPEX is going, which is strategically burnt every year, you will notice a vast difference in the thickness and density of the growth between those two blocks of land.
When people decide they would like to keep their block of land as a native bush block, I believe it should be encouraged. I also realise the danger of keeping a block of land without any burning or reduction in hazard; if it does burn, it will usually be a very severe, hot fire.
I can give you another classic example. On Kowandi South - which is another large Defence area on the opposite side of Howard Springs, most of which is bush which has hardly ever been burnt, as it has very large firebreaks around it - about 15 years ago, on one hot, windy day, a fire started near Power Road. That fire was so severe, not only did the police block off the road, but it formed a crown fire and went straight through the Defence area like a rocket. One reason was because it did not have any fire reduction program; it had firebreaks but, on a very windy day, it did not help.
When I have mentioned the possibility of burning a five-acre block at the right time, in the right conditions, so people can keep their native vegetation, the response I have heard at times is: ‘No’. Then you ask: ‘How are you going to keep the fire reduction hazard low?’ ‘Put a slasher through’. The problem is that takes out all the benefits you have had over those years of trying to retain that vegetation. It also usually introduces weeds, and the two weeds we have in the rural area, which are a bigger fire hazard than the lot, are Gamba grass and Mission grass.
I believe there needs to be, for those people who require it, some flexibility in fire reduction, which allows people, if they wish, to do some strategic burning, maybe only patch burning, on their block, and it might mean someone from the fire brigade will come around and have a look at it. The usual requirements for a permit are you have to tell your neighbours. Normally a fire permit in, say the Howard Springs area, is given for a pile of rubbish or dead trees; it is not normally given for the whole block.
I am only raising this because the use of slashers to reduce the fire hazard can sometimes have deleterious effects. Whilst the bush might look nice, neat and tidy, generally speaking, weeds are introduced, you remove the undergrowth and you tend to remove new plants which will replace older trees. It would be good to have some flexibility in the way people can manage their blocks. Even if they are on five-acre blocks, as long as they have water and a good fire break, I believe there is room for, as is written in the act, a strategic burn-off, which is normally permitted by the fire brigade, although sometimes those strategic burn-offs are a little too often. The occasional strategic burn-off on people’s blocks is a legitimate form of fire or reduction hazard.
The other thing I noticed, which is important because if I asked the fire brigade, ‘Can I burn-off a block?’, and it said ‘no’, or if it said, ‘you have to do some fire reduction strategies, and you will get a slasher and you will slash it’. I might say, ‘I do not want to do it’ for the reasons I was talking about before. I noticed the appeal, which says in section 26, Review of the requirements:
- (1) A person who is served with a notice … may apply to the Chief Executive Officer for review of a requirement specified in that notice.
(2) The application must:
- (a) be in writing; and
- (b) state in detail the grounds on which the application is based …
- (c) be lodged with the Chief Executive Officer within the shorter of the following:
I might have the clause the wrong way around, but three days seems very short to get a response back from out bush. I might be a person without a fax machine or an e-mail. I might have a block out the back of Marrakai, Adelaide River, or Dundee, and I might not agree with what the Chief Executive Officer has said in relation to my block. I might not want to burn my block, for the reasons I put forth before, but I only have three days to respond. I believe it may be a little difficult, in certain circumstances, when you consider the size of the Northern Territory.
It is not that I do not support the amendments. I am trying to raise that - and I know it is from personal experience - I have heard, when asking about one of the national parks - it might have been Darwin Charles Darwin National Park - and I asked about why that area is not occasionally burned. I remember a member of the fire brigade saying, ‘our fire reduction strategy is to put a slasher in’. I do not believe that is always appropriate. The use of a slasher might be good on a block of land, like pasture land, land which has been developed for horticulture, or land is covered in weeds, fairly crappy land - pardon the expression - because it has been overgrazed or whatever. But where you have native vegetation, you do not want to be introducing slashers, because they introduce weeds. I believe the use of fire, as a fire management tool, which is done wisely, at the right time, under supervision from the fire brigade, is an appropriate tool for fire reduction. Not just for fire brigades, because it uses it quite legitimately, annually, but it should also be for private landowners.
On the issue of fire reduction by our fire services, I receive the odd complaint that sometimes they feel the fire brigades – I am talking in general, whether it is Bushfires NT or the NT Fire Service – burn the land too often. There will be one parcel of land which is burnt out every year, for good reason. I suppose they are saying, it is going to get burnt, we might as well burn it now to save a late fire. I know much of the work is done by volunteers, which makes it difficult.
Having read much of the work done about the Kapalga area in Kakadu National Park, there was a belief fire was a good tool to use for fire reduction, when used in a way which does not mean that over time the native vegetation will be worn out. If you have a fire year in, year out, you end up with a tall storey of plants, very little undergrowth, and eventually the area will be very poor in the number of species.
The Kapalga experiments also spoke about mosaic burning, which is not only about reducing the fire hazard in certain areas; it is about leaving habitat for certain animals and plants. One of the things which came out of the Kapalga experiments was – and I have forgotten how many species of ants there were – the discovery of a bunch of ants, some of which only live in burnt areas, some in non-burnt areas and some of them live in between the two. The relevance of this is there is sense in doing things in an intelligent manner.
We are talking today about traditional burning methods. The background is fires occurred at a certain time, and it was done progressively throughout the bush. One reason was for hunting and, the second, that the nature of burning after the Wet Season, is it is mosaic burning. Unfortunately, with so many vehicles, people can drive through the bush and throw matches and it is not really traditional burning anymore; it is widespread burning. It is good to hear some of these Aboriginal communities are working on bringing back those traditional ways of burning-off the land.
I should raise the point that strategic burning is sometimes used late in the season. Whilst that might sound good - and I have seen a number of strategic burns along the Arnhem Highway, which have been done around December - the idea is there is enough moisture in the ground, the grass is starting to be a little green, and you can wipe out last year’s vegetation without doing too much damage to the environment. The Kapalga experiment suggested the jury is out on burning late, because many of our species of plants may be producing seeds and flowers at a time when they would not normally get burnt. Then we come along, for technically good reasons, and we decide we can reduce the fuel load in December. Naturally, most bush is not burnt in December, most bush is burnt early, and we have developed species which can adapt to the early fires, but we have plants which are not ready to be burnt at that time of the year, yet we come along with an unnatural process of burning very late, which is an area which should be studied.
The point I am getting at is with strategic burning, there are two principles. One is the fire services are trying to protect property and lives, which is a fine principle. On the other hand, we have native vegetation, and the rural area prides itself on still having some native vegetation; it is not all suburban. We like living in the bush and we enjoy the plants and animals around us; we do not always enjoy things totally black. We want protection, but sometimes we need to do things a little more scientifically. I would say the problem is the fire service does not have enough funds to do that kind of work. It has its work cut out just going to car accidents, attending normal fires - if I can put it that way - doing a little strategic burning around the place; that is its role.
There needs to be - and the government might say this already happens, but I do not know whether it does - people who can do some background work into mosaic burning; keeping track of the dates on which these pieces of land are burned. We are trying to combine two things: reduce the fire hazard and check properties but at the same time, seeing if we can be clever enough to retain the bush in the best quality we can. It might be just bush, but for many of us, to some extent, it is cultural; we enjoy the bush and the plants in the bush.
The Chief Minister would understand there are some fairly passionate people, who do not particularly want 2500 people living on a fine piece of bush, even though it might not be good as the bush across the road; that passion is fair dinkum. It is not against INPEX or against development; they love the bush. I hope what I am saying is reflecting what many people in the rural area think: yes, we love the bush, we do not want to see it burned year in, year out, and we can probably do things a little better.
The fire services are stretched enough without doing the scientific stuff but, perhaps, with the help of NRETA, the fire burning program can be managed a little better. I am not knocking the fire brigade; it has an important job to do. It must get so frustrated at the fires that occur. There was a fire at the end of September on Gunn Point Road in the forestry land. Someone had gone past on a motor bike and thrown some matches out on a really hot, stinking day, with the wind blowing, high temperatures, dry weather and you had to have the entire Palmerston Fire Brigade out and every volunteer fire brigade was out that day. The back of the Lutheran School was also burned. I believe nearly everyone who had a fire brigade was there. Those volunteers, you might say are the regulars, that is part of their job and they get paid, but there are many volunteers who would like to be sitting down watching the footy. You see people go through that country burning-off, and they could not care less. It is a delicate balance between protecting property; you know if you do not burn-off some land it is going to get burned off by these idiots, who see it as a place where they can drop a match.
At the same time, we can do a little more work and do things cleverly. I give you another example of where things have changed a little. Howard Springs Nature Reserve had - and I do not know how well they are maintained these days - but it used to have two fire breaks. It had one on the fence line and another one about 50 m in from the bush. Obviously, the department of Parks wanted to maintain the bush inside the park in pristine condition, to some extent. It more or less had this sacrificial strip, which could be burnt each year. You knew the bush would not be great, but you could use it as a protection buffer for the rest of the bush, which is a good commonsense approach. Maybe that is an approach for some of the Crown land areas. We have two fire breaks or buffers, a certain distance apart, and we sacrifice one each year. We manage the other one on a mosaic process, so we retain the benefits of most of the bush. We know some idiot is going to come along so let us put some protection in by having a sacrificial area, and let us maintain the rest in a more scientific manner.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know it is a small bill, but it is an important bill. Some of those issues about looking after the bush are close to my heart, and I know many people in the rural area have similar views. If INPEX finally builds a village, there will be many of us saying: ‘If that is the site it has to go’ … - I would still prefer it to go north –… ‘then we will be asking INPEX to do as much it can to protect the bushland so, even though there is a construction village there, we can still enjoy the benefits of having our native plants and animals in our local area.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support for these amendments.
The Leader of the Opposition was very concise in his understanding regarding the impacts of the amendments we are putting forward. All of those have been articulated in my second reading speech, and I do not need to go through them again.
In regard to the very extensive and interesting comments from the member for Nelson- he obviously knows more about fire and burning-off in the bush than I do - I defer, member for Nelson, to your expertise in this area. I know he is passionate about these particular issues.
One of the first things this government did was build the new Police and Fire Stations at Humpty Doo. I know the work our fire service, along with the Volunteer Fire Brigades, has done over the years, putting firebreaks through the rural area, working with landowners in maintaining compliance with those issues, education programs - touch wood - we have not had the number of fires through those areas we had previously, as a result of the fire station being there.
The debate the member for Nelson was talking about is about whether more expansive burning practices could be allowable via permits. I urge the member for Nelson to continue that conversation with the firies and the Volunteer Fire Brigades, and I am sure they will be open to that.
The member for Nelson was talking about an appeal time period of only three days being allowable. My advice is from when the notice is issued from the fire brigade, people have 28 days to appeal that notice. If there needs to be some slight changes to the wording in the legislation, we can look at that, if it is not clear.
The other issue he picked up on was regarding traditional burning practices. That is a body of work in regard to what we have talked about over the last few days regarding climate change; allowing offsets to be made through traditional burning practices, like with the Darwin LNG and the West Arnhem fire program. That was a world first, I believe; one of the first accredited offset programs under the accreditation office in Australia. I want to see more of those opportunities available to Indigenous people in developing an offsets industry on their land, which provides employment for people, as well as getting better environmental outcomes. I believe there is a real opportunity for the Territory to continue to lead the way in regard to those types of programs, which provide jobs for people and give better environmental outcomes.
Member for Nelson, I encourage you to continue to have those conversations with our firies. It is an interesting and passionate debate for people. Whether INPEX goes on the site we are looking at or another site, I am sure it will be a good corporate citizen. If it goes where it intends to, it will maintain as many of those trees and vegetation as it possibly can.
In conclusion, on behalf of all honourable members, and as the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson said, I also pay tribute to our fire service. They are a fantastic bunch of people who do an amazing job on behalf of all Territorians. They put their lives at risk and are always there when we need them. On behalf of all honourable members, I thank our fire service for the great work it does. I also thank all our volunteers who spend so much of their time either training, or out in the field fighting fires on behalf of the broader community.
I thank honourable members for the support for the legislation, and commend these amendments to the House.
Motion agreed to, bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee Third Report to Eleventh Assembly – Cognate Debate re Noting Report and Adopting Recommendations
Standing Orders Committee Third Report to Eleventh Assembly – Cognate Debate re Noting Report and Adopting Recommendations
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That -
- (1) intervening business be postponed until after consideration of the motions to:
- (a) note the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee of the Eleventh Assembly;
(b) adopt recommendation No 1, and note recommendation Nos 2, 3 and 4 of the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee; and
- (2) debate on these motions be taken cognately, with separate questions being put on each motion.
MOTION
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations – Standing Orders Committee - Third Report to Eleventh Assembly
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations – Standing Orders Committee - Third Report to Eleventh Assembly
Continued from 24 and 25 November 2009.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, all members of the Assembly would be aware of the reference to a motion moved by the member for Port Darwin, on 18 August, in a number of broad categories, and I quote:
Questions:
Time limits on asking and answering questions.
Either a set number of questions from the opposition and other non-government members, or a percentage of questions from non-government members.
The automatic right to a supplementary question from non-government questioners.
Question Time to be moved to an earlier hour.
Implementing a stronger ‘relevance’ clause in the standing orders in respect to answers provided by ministers to questions without notice.
Questioning of participants to parliamentary agreements.
The adjournment debate speech time limit be lifted to 10 minutes.
Processes:
Removal of the ability to move the ‘put’ motion mid-speech.
Estimates
Estimates process to be reviewed and reformed so as to significantly extend the hours provided for questioning, including investigation of questioning to exhaustion.
There was an undertaking that this committee should report back to the November sittings of parliament, and there have been number of meetings in the intervening period on all these issues.
Another element, I must also mention, is the member for Nelson became part of the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that was a crucially important aspect, seeing it was important to have an Independent as part of that process …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … it is very important in the process of this parliament, that the Independents are involved, particularly in relation …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: … do you want to say it a couple of other times, get it off your chest and I will continue, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Are we right now? I heard you the first time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I heard you the first time. All right.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: There have been a number of very productive conversations within the Standing Orders Committee, on the motion put forward by the member for Port Darwin. The recommendations have been published in the report which is being distributed to all members.
Whilst all the issues or requests put forward by the member for Port Darwin in his motion have not been agreed to in the majority report - and there is a minority report, which the CLP members or a representative, or both of those members will speak to - I believe, in the main, there has been a very reasonable position reached in the majority position, and it will change, in many ways, the business of this parliament.
First, I will address the recommendations about changes to Question Time. When implemented, the recommendations in this report will prohibit lengthy questions during question time, limiting the asking of each question to one minute, and the answering of each question to three minutes. The opposition has been asking, for some time, to have a limit on the answers to questions, and there is also a limit on answers and also a limit on questions.
Additionally, the report recommends the Leader of the Opposition be allowed one supplementary question each Question Time. Supplementary questions are commonly allowed in upper Houses around Australia, however, they are rare in unicameral or lower houses, but, this is one House that is adopting it. The House of Representatives and the Lower House in Tasmania both allow supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker, whilst in the ACT, which is a unicameral parliament, supplementary questions, which are relevant to the original question, are allowed. The New South Wales Assembly allows one supplementary question per question time and this is the model recommended in this report.
Relevance clauses for questions, as well as answers, are also recommended in the report, with standing orders to be modified so questions and answers shall be direct, succinct, and concise. The opposition put forward a very strong position that it believed ministers, in answers to questions, were not direct, succinct, or concise. There are existing standing orders, in terms of answers by ministers to questions, but there was agreement the standing order should be beefed up to include those words.
There was also an argument from the government’s side that questions asked by the opposition, and the Independents, need to be direct, succinct, and concise. There was quite a debate about ministers taking a question and answering one element of the question or the prelude to the question, rather than what was considered to be the yes/no element of the question. We will still agree to disagree on that, but from the government’s side we feel that, in a preamble to a question, if assertions are made within that question, the minister should be given the opportunity to address the issues raised in the preamble to the question. For my part, I believe that is a very reasonable position. No doubt we will agree to disagree, and it will be your call, or whoever succeeds you in coming years and coming Assemblies, to make that deliberation. As always, the Speaker has discretion in determining what is direct, succinct, and concise.
As you pointed out Madam Speaker, I need to be careful about deliberative stages and privilege, let me widen it out. Speakers, in any parliament, have a problem in that when a minister might be giving an answer, the Speaker does not necessarily know what the answer to that question is, yet, they are called upon to adjudicate whether the answer is relevant to the question. There will always be differences of opinion on this issue of relevance, on being direct, succinct and concise. We have taken a step, I believe, in the wording of our standing order; it is probably one of the strongest within Australian parliaments.
I believe these changes will streamline Question Time, and they are ample in allowing opposition and Independent members to question ministers.
The opposition has argued these changes do not go far enough and, no doubt, it will argue that on the floor of parliament today. It will argue it should be allocated 10 questions or something like that, plus supplementaries. We believe, under normal circumstances, non-government members often have more than 10 questions per Question Time and, furthermore, we believe by setting limits to questions and answers, as I have alluded to, this will further streamline Question Time and ensure an adequate number of questions are asked. In other words, by putting boundaries around the time for questions and for answers, we believe – and that is the outer limits of the times allowed – it will facilitate question time.
I have been very interested to watch the APAC channel, I know there are probably a number of members in this House …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A very fine channel, member for Port Darwin. It is a little disconcerting to see the minister halfway through a sentence and completely guillotined by the time, but that is the negative side, in a way, when they are reaching a conclusion, and trying to answer the question, they are cut off. I believe it will come down to both questioners and answerers being aware of the clock and fitting their questions and answers around the clock. I am sure the member for Greatorex is expert at fitting things in to certain time frames, but there are others, particularly in the time frame around questions and answers, who will need a clock. I hope the Assembly has a clock to give us an idea, when we are on our feet, of how we are going in asking and answering questions; it will be an important physical support to what we are endeavouring to do.
The government is happy to agree to the changes to the standing orders, but we believe members on both sides of the House need to take responsibility for managing ourselves in an effective way, particularly in relation to the structure and relevance of questions and answers; it is a two-way street. Furthermore, at the end of Question Time, the opposition and the Independents have the opportunity to place unasked questions on the Written Question Paper and, outside of parliamentary sittings, to ask questions in written form to ministers. Standing orders will be amended to provide a 30-day time limit on answering these questions, or providing an explanation to the member asking them. There are time limits around that as well.
The opposition has advocated very strongly, and this was one of the major differences in the dissenting report, to shift Question Time to 11 am, suggesting the 2 pm Question Time somehow avoids media scrutiny. I do not see much justification for that position; I do not believe it is the case, but it will be interesting to hear the opposition arguing that today, as I am sure they will. The media reports on the happenings of Question Time every sitting day. The current arrangement for Question Time, we believe, allows sufficient time for the media to meet its deadlines, and I do not believe it is correct for the opposition to assert somehow this equates to the avoidance of media scrutiny.
General Business Day provides an opportunity for the opposition to manage an entire day of business, as the government does. Unfortunately, we saw yesterday, there was a large amount of business on the Notice Paper for General Business Day. The government believes we could have finished all that business if there had been discipline shown. But, by my calculations, three of the items were dispensed with and we had begun on another item.
I believe this opens up a very important issue, in terms of the resources of Parliamentary Counsel and people in this Assembly, to have such a loading up of the Notice Paper. I am not trying to limit the ability of the opposition to raise questions, legislation, and motions as part of the democratic process, but we all have to show some economy and realism in what we do, and have achievable aims. If you only want to deal with three items on the Notice Paper, it is a little ridiculous to load it up. I liken it to someone at a smorgasbord, who loads up their plate with so much food and then just have a couple of olives on top; it is a waste of food and resources, a your-eyes-are-bigger-than-your-belly scenario.
As we move into a system where we have a weekly allocation of time for General Business, I adjure and exhort the opposition to look at the way it does business. I thought it was quite unfortunate, yesterday, the Independent member for Nelson had a number of items on the Notice Paper and we did not get to within a whiff of them. In other jurisdictions, principally in the Australian Capital Territory, there is an allocation within the weekly time frame for business by the opposition, and for a certain set time for the Greens to have its business on General Business Day.
I am flagging this as something the Standing Orders Committee needs to look at. Within the next 12 months or so, the committee needs to sit down - there might be discussion in parliament also - and look at how this is going and whether it is achieving its aims, particularly in relation to General Business Day, of giving everyone a turn. It will be better for the opposition, which has complained that by the time General Business Day comes around every 12 sitting days, many of the issues it has raised as part of its motions or legislation, are no longer contemporary, and there is no doubt that is correct.
However, as it has an opportunity to be more contemporary about its general business, I hope the opposition slims down the amount on the Notice Paper and is a little more realistic about what can be achieved, or about how it is going to do business on the General Business Day. How many speakers will it have, and how is it going to progress through General Business Day? This is what the government has to do; it has to look at the business, the legislative program, and its other programs. We strive to achieve what we set out to do, in getting legislation through or before this House, along with other business.
To emphasise what I said before, there were 19 General Business notices and five orders on the paper yesterday for debate, yet we only got through three motions and partially through a fourth. I do not believe that is a desirable situation. People within the Parliamentary Counsel would be questioning, ‘We work to produce these motions or this legislation and it seems to sit there; we never get to it’. It is similar with members or staff within the Legislative Assembly. To be fair to everyone - not trying to impose any strictures on the opposition in the democratic process – but I am asking them to have a good look at General Business Day.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We need to have some economy about what we do. I believe it is all about working efficiently, and in a way which is going to gain results …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to get into it. I am going to stick to my script. When time is managed, when the opposition is disciplined, the current arrangements for government and general business days, I believe, will have the capacity to work well.
We are now moving to a system with general business given precedence on each Wednesday of sitting weeks, from 5 30 pm until 9 pm, commencing from the first sitting next year, subject to the passing of these motions. Under the new standing orders, we will have three-and-a-half hours, each sitting week, for the opposition and the Independents to manage their business. I know the opposition was asking for many more hours for general business, I believe it asked for over 60 - I may stand corrected - but it is 36, it was 24, which represents an increase, in real terms, of 50% in the number of hours devoted to general business within this parliament.
Basically, that is the way we have decided to go. In some ways it is a shame, because having a whole day for general business, while it has its disadvantages in terms of the contemporary nature or lack of issues raised by the opposition, it did give the opposition an opportunity, within a whole day of sitting, to order and move through its business, like an alternative government. I believe yesterday would have been a disappointment for everyone: the Independents, who did not get their issues and bills up, and for some members of the opposition, who did not get their issues up and debate them.
I honestly believe we could have debated them yesterday, if we had have shown discipline. The government was prepared to have one speaker on each bill, and if the opposition had shown the same discipline, we could have dispensed with many of those items on the Notice Paper.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is not. It is all about giving everyone a go.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You do not believe in giving everyone a go? That is terrible.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I hope the opposition will be able to organise its business better under the new arrangements, and Independents will be afforded adequate opportunities, by the opposition, to progress their business.
Another major recommendation, which is an important change, is the Estimates process and the Estimates Committee will be reviewed. The Standing Orders Committee will do that next year, and I welcome that review.
Changes are also being made to the adjournment process, by agreement of both sides and some have already been implemented. Adjournments have now been increased from five minutes to 10 minutes, and I believe that has been welcomed by everyone. The member for Sanderson observed I was galloping along, in my electorate adjournment speeches, to get through the material. I welcome the change. I believe 10 minutes is an adequate amount of time, and if you show discipline within that 10 minutes, you can get through an amount of material. That increases the amount of time to adjourn, and increases the time of this parliament on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and on Wednesdays, the global time available for adjournments is unlimited, which means all 25 members can adjourn. Within any sitting week, there is more than enough opportunity for a member of this Assembly to adjourn, not once, but a couple of times.
The Standing Orders Committee considered the proposal the opposition put forward about when you can move a motion be put - the ‘put’ motion. There was a fair amount of discussion about this, I know, in our Caucus, and we struggled - some of us have been around eight years in the parliament - to think of instances when this had occurred. I believe there has been one occurrence in recent times, but people struggled to remember when this has occurred. The majority report recommended that the ability to say: ‘the motion be put’ …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can call it that, but I believe the member for Nelson might have something to say about it. He has been on other committees before he entered parliament; I believe all of us have. Most rules around debate, in various organisations I have been in, have a ‘put’ motion. It is all about, in some cases, expediting the business of a particular group and parliament …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: As I said, member for Greatorex, maybe you need to stand up now and talk about the numerous times you believe this has occurred …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … because it is a standard part of most standing orders and most meeting procedures. I agree it should only be used in exceptional or extreme circumstances.
We also considered the opposition’s proposal for a formal standing order, that parliament can be recalled at any time, whenever a simple majority of members petitions the Speaker. As every member will recall, parliament was recalled by a simple majority of members only months ago, to debate the most serious motion which can be debated in this Chamber: a motion of no confidence or want of confidence in the government; the system works. A majority of members signed a letter and, on that trigger, the Speaker pulled the parliament together and we all recall the debate and the week. I believe that system is working.
In closing, this report has a number of reforms which will change the way this parliament works, generally, I believe, for the better. However, I believe, as members of parliament, we need to be continually monitoring what we do, how we are working, and what improvements we can make. The standing orders are not fixed in stone; they are a living, breathing, changing type of entity, which is what makes life in parliament interesting. I have always enjoyed the Standing Orders Committee; I believe it is a great committee, which has much important work to do.
I support the majority report. I thank the Assembly staff who have worked on it, Ian McNeill and all staff, and I commend this report to the Assembly.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston and my colleague on the committee for the work, and in some areas, the cooperation the government showed. There are a number of issues I will address today, and put on the record the opposition’s concerns in relation to a number of proposals it put before the committee for consideration.
First, I will deal with Question Time, and what the member for Johnston raised in relation to media scrutiny. Our side firmly believes Question Time should be moved to 11 am, and will continue to seek to have it moved to this time. This allows for early dealings with the matters which result from Question Time, and the remainder of the day is then available for the government and general business.
The member for Johnston said there appeared to be sufficient time for media to scrutinise various issues which come from Question Time. My understanding is when Question Time finishes at 3 pm, the media have about one hour-and-a-half in some instances, to scrutinise, make inquiries, put stories together, and meet deadlines; the media people I have spoken to say it is a very short amount of time. Our side proposes it moves to 11 am in order to have decent scrutiny.
- The opposition remains of the view that the government’s failure to agree to this change is related to its desire to avoid a full day of media scrutiny and, as such, we will continue to fight for further openness and accountability in the parliament.
While some changes were made to the limitation on times for both asking and answering questions, considering the relatively small number of sitting days, the opposition holds the view there needs to be both the ability for supplementary questions on all non-government questions, and a set number of questions for both the government and non-government numbers. It is noted the installation of time limits will give a greater ability, in conjunction with a stronger relevance clause, to gain answers. However, without the extension to provide a set number of questions - we propose 10 for each side, with only one supplementary question - it severely limits the extent to which greater scrutiny can be achieved. We will also continue to advocate for a greater number of questions.
I will go to the document, section 109, in relation to one hour - the House of Representatives has 10 questions each and it runs to 90 minutes, or up to 90 minutes, in its Question Time. Given we are in a unicameral system, and we do not sit for as many days as others, there needs to be scrutiny by the opposition, so we can ensure the government performs, or starts to perform, in so many different areas.
The argument I have put forward previously in this House, was when you do the mathematics of when the government changed the sitting days and the time we sit in this House, I averaged it out and it took about six days from the sitting time in this House, when you counted up the numbers of hours. The government gave us back three extra days, which were to be incorporated in sitting weeks on Mondays. I note the government has agreed that has impracticalities, and we have now shifted to an extra week of sitting. We still have a problem: we have given away three sitting days, even after we have done all that. We will advocate for more sitting days throughout the year, to both allow time for the government to get through its business, and for the opposition to get through its business of holding the government to account.
I move on to the issue of additional sitting days. I put on the record that, while an additional sitting week has been put in place, in effect, it gives no additional sitting days because, as a result, sitting days on Mondays will be stopped. The opposition firmly believes that the intent of this reference has been purposefully avoided by the government in not providing the additional second sitting week, and we are dissatisfied with only one additional sitting week. The opposition will continue to advocate for more sitting weeks.
I remind government members of the mathematics; count up the hours – I am happy for them to do the same - average it out and it ends up we lose three days. We now have an extra sitting week, but we need an extra week to make up for the three days we have lost, given it has changed the times the House can sit and has restrained the sitting times in the evenings.
I go back to proposed Standing Order 109, in relation to questions seeking information. I point out that under Standing Order 109(3)(c), and I quote:
- The Leader of the Opposition may ask one supplementary question each Question Time which shall not exceed 30 seconds and the answering of each supplementary question shall not exceed one minute.
We believe each of the opposition’s questions should allow a supplementary question to be asked.
If you go to the sections in relation to time limits on questions, where questions have been restrained to one minute and answers to three minutes, which allows us to be more succinct, the proposed Standing Order 109(3) states that:
(a) Questions shall be succinct, concise and direct and shall not exceed one minute
We now have the ability to be succinct, and ask for the answers to be succinct and relevant.
That brings us to the point of relevance. In the past, when there have been no sincere or relevance clauses, ministers have often wandered off the subject. It is disappointing, when you are in opposition and are trying to hold the government accountable for its actions that, in our view, ministers quite often do not answer the questions. We spend much time trying to craft questions to get something resembling an answer. Interjections flow freely, from both sides of the House in some instances, in relation to answering the question. It will be interesting to see what these amendments to the standing orders achieve, in encouraging ministers to be more succinct and direct.
I agree with the comments made by the member for Johnston; we should have an ongoing assessment on how these amendments are going.
I now discuss the process. I point out that:
- There was no change to standing orders in relation to the mid-speech ‘gag’ and the removal of the ‘gag’ provision at the third reading speech. In our original submission we set out that the mid-speech ‘gag’ should be removed and that there should be no ‘gag’ provision at the third reading.
Our view remains, if speaking at the third reading is undertaken, it is done as a result of the importance of the matter and, as such, it should be allowed to occur until such time as the fullness of the debate is heard. We will continue to seek these changes.
The issue of a change to the standing orders, in respect to the requirement for the Speaker to recall parliament following a petition of a majority of its members did not occur.
- This should be undertaken immediately, and not be left to convention. We will seek a specific change to the standing orders.
While general business has been moved to three-and-a-half hours each Wednesday, the opposition is of the view this is insufficient time for this debate. The opposition wishes to see this extended to occur from Question Time, or following a censure motion, it occurs on a Wednesday. We will continue to seek changes to this, and will closely monitor the effectiveness of the new changes.
I now move to the subject of estimates. Estimates has been set for review in 2010, and we will fully participate in the review process. The supporting materials, which we provided on this issue, show we trail other jurisdictions with respect to the effectiveness, the set-up, and the timings provided. We will also be seeking a change to ensure the direct questioning of public servants, as set out in our original submission and, with this, there is appropriate time provided for portfolio areas, along with the ability for supplementary questions.
We operate a unicameral system in the Northern Territory and, as such, we need to ensure the scrutiny of money bills is done in a studious manner which provides the necessary questioning and access to an understanding of this area of government.
Having been through that process for the first time during the last estimates, I was appalled at the lack of time given to question ministers on my shadow portfolio responsibilities. I found it quite appalling the amount of preparation which went into these questions. I also acknowledge the public servants who spent an enormous amount of time diligently working away to prepare possible answers and, yet, on occasion, some of these public servants were not even asked one question because we did not get to a particular portfolio. I find that quite amazing, and also, perhaps, a waste of resources.
I believe it would be in the interests of democracy to question ministers for a longer period of time, and utilise the hard work these public servants put in, over a considerable amount of time - weeks and months - to prepare information for estimates so the public can have the confidence the government is doing the best possible job, albeit, many people may dispute it, that is, in fact, the case.
I move on to the adjournment and adjournment debates. Members in this House would be aware of the passion I have had, over the last fifteen months, for the adjournment debates, especially after the government reduced the time limits on adjournment debates from 15 minutes to five minutes. I acknowledge the comments by the member for Johnston, who acknowledged that I, on many occasions, have acknowledged the speed at which he has had to read through his adjournment debates. The usually articulate member for Johnston has had to rush through in five minutes. I welcome the move to 10 minutes. We wanted the 15 minute time limit reinstated, however, I believe we need to monitor and ensure all members have the opportunity to raise important issues, not only to us, but to our electorates and the good constituents who make up our electorates.
- We welcome the change to the adjournment times and the removal of the time cap on adjournments.
The Speaker being able to vet speeches needs to be removed and, in its place, a gentleman’s agreement be instilled for the incorporation of speeches by each Whip, as set out in our original submission. We remain of the view a formal process, which gives the Speaker this authority, is an unacceptable reach, by the Speaker, into the freedom of speech afforded to parliamentarians.
There are a couple of other issues. In relation to Standing Order 113, regarding answers, we believe this will be quite challenging for some, but we will watch with interest. We might suggest some of those succinct questions can perhaps be answered with a succinct yes or no, and we hope the days of continuous waffle might disappear.
In relation to proposed Standing Order 118(2), which deals with replies to written questions, and I quote:
- A minister should respond to a Written Question within 30 days of receipt by the minister. If a minister does not answer a Written Question asked by a member within 30 days of the asking of that question, the minister is to provide an explanation to the member asking that question.
We note other jurisdictions keep the questions in the Chamber, so we will watch with interest the functionality of this. I believe we need to monitor this to see whether it is sufficient. However, going along with the member for Johnston, we also agree many of these changes need to be monitored on an ongoing basis.
In summary, the government has made some changes, but in each instance it has done enough to offer the pretence it is opening itself up for greater levels of scrutiny, but in practice it has not done that much. People expect the government to be scrutinised, and the current changes do not go far enough to affect that expectation.
The role of the opposition is to keep the government accountable for the public purse, its policies and the outcomes of those policies. It is the role of the opposition to monitor that, and ensure the good people of the Northern Territory are aware of what the government is doing and how it is performing.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not speak for long, I know my colleague, the member for Sanderson, has covered most of the points raised by the opposition.
It is disappointing the statement tonight, the Importance of Central Australia, has dropped off the government’s agenda, and I believe this goes to the heart - I beg your pardon?
Dr Burns: We could have reached it on Tuesday.
Mr CONLAN: Unfortunately, there was the serious matter of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill on Tuesday; this is what parliament is about. We can debate bills, and if the committee stage happens to drag out, so be it. However, because of the government’s time frames in parliament recently - I am not sure how long, it has been 12 months or so since the 9 pm knock off - we are unable to get through much of the business and an important bill, such as the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill, takes up much time and, as a result, we lose other items on the agenda, like the ministerial statement about the Importance of Central Australia.
Those listening to this debate on the radio or the Internet, across the world, will not be able to hear the government, and, in fact, the whole Chamber, debate the statement tonight on the Importance of Central Australia, which, pretty much, sums up the government’s attitude towards Central Australia. We have been prosecuting that case all week and, I believe, the government has actually kicked an own goal by dropping off the statement today: the Importance of Central Australia; not important at all in the eyes of the Henderson Labor government. Shame on them!
I want to raise the issue about the ‘put’ motion. I am not sure, there may be a little confusion surrounding the ‘put’ motion or the closure of debate, which is Standing Order 78. Our proposal is not to have this removed entirely. I believe there is a need to have the motion be put, if a debate is dragging on, there could be a need to have the debate closed off and the motion put; our argument is this should not happen mid-speech.
Standing Order 78 states that:
- After any question has been proposed from the Chair either in the Assembly or in committee, a motion may be made by a member, rising in his place and without notice and whether any other member is addressing the Chair or not, that the question be now put …
In order words, under the current standing orders, anyone who is in the Chamber could stand up and say - mid-speech, right now, with 16 minutes of time left - that the motion be now put. We believe this is discourteous, to a degree. We have a clock and time limits. What is the point in having a clock? Should we dismiss the clock altogether? Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, Ninth Edition, says:
- A motion may be moved in the course of debate but not so as to interrupt the senator speaking.
Our point, and our proposal, was to include that in the standing orders, essentially to amend the Standing Order 78, to say: ‘A motion may be made by a member rising in his place, but not so as to interrupt a member speaking, that the question be now put’. That is the point. I am not sure whether that argument was prosecuted well enough in the Standing Orders Committee meetings we had. I am not sure whether the government understood exactly what we wanted.
We do not want Standing Order 78 removed entirely; we want it amended, so a member who is on his or her feet, can finish their argument, and then Standing Order 78 can apply and that motion may be put. We have time limits in this place, it is only 20 minutes, perhaps it might be another 10 minutes, to wait before that motion be put. Surely it is not going to impinge on any further debate throughout the course of the day. That is what it was all about; the put motion, that a member who is on his or her feet is allowed to finish their argument and then, if so desired by the Assembly, and there is a majority of votes, Standing Order 78 can still proceed.
It was interesting listening to the member for Johnston. He referred to the Australian Capital Territory and its standing orders with regards to General Business Day. Business precedence in the ACT Standing Orders is as follows, I quote:
- Executive business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence over all private Members’ and Assembly business, except that:
(a) on sitting Wednesdays, private Members’ business shall have precedence over Executive business.
In other words, the example the member for Johnston was alluding to was our standing orders should reflect a similar circumstance to the Australian Capital Territory. He used the Australian Capital Territory as an example. Member for Johnston, Standing Order 77, in the Australian Capital Territory, states that:
- (a) on sitting Wednesdays, private Members’ business shall have precedence over Executive business.
If we were to continue, as we have been for so long, to debate well into the evening, not until 9 pm, then we would be able to get through some of that business. If we were to have a full business day each Wednesday of the sitting days, we could get through much of the opposition and Independent business. In fact, we could draw a pretty good argument that the opposition and the Independents have much more business than the government. We have seen it time and time again. We have seen the government knock off early. In my first 12 months, when we were a small opposition, of four versus 19, we were quite often home in daylight hours. Recently, I believe it was the October sittings, perhaps the August sittings, on several days we were finished by 5.30 pm.
There is much business to get through. The opposition has much business, demonstrated by the Notice Paper today, and I know the Independents also have much business. The member for Nelson has an agenda he would like to prosecute here. To say the opposition is essentially blocking the Independent because of bad time management practice, or whatever it might be, is nonsense. We do have much business. The extended hours which have been granted, and we are saying: ‘Hallelujah! We have finally got somewhere’, but it still does not reflect the increase in numbers on the opposition side.
The government has demonstrated time and time again it is not willing to stay back and debate into the late hours of the evening. No one is suggesting until 2 am but, then again, if it does go that late, why not? One way to avoid that is to provide the opposition with a decent amount of time to debate the bills and motions on General Business Day.
The member for Johnston, and the chairman of the committee, suggested it was a shame we only finished three of 19 items yesterday. Apart from the censure motion which took us past 9 pm, there was no reason why we could not have debated further motions.
We have brought this parliament to Alice Springs at great expense. I am not sure of the exact cost, but into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While we are here, why are we not making the most of the investment and staying back and debating until we clear as much of the agenda as possible before the year is out? Even not being on the road, as such, as this sitting is, even when we are in Darwin, parliament comes at a great expense; it is not a cheap exercise. Yet, we finish at 8 pm, 8.30 pm, 9 pm on regular occasions. In fact, we have had the ludicrous situation, where we have had four day sittings, with the Mondays, and we have debated over an eight-day sitting period - from the Monday to Thursday, over two weeks – and debated three bills. The rest were those propaganda puff pieces the government likes to put out in the form of ministerial statements.
I do not believe the government members are hard workers. If they were, we would see that reflected in the standing orders and the amendments to the standing orders. They would take up the recommendations of the member for Nelson and the opposition. We have much business to get through; if the government does not have much business to get through then, surely, the opposition and the Independents should be allowed to get through their business. Three-and-a-half hours a week is an improvement to once every 12 days which, on occasions, could only be twice a year; sometimes it was only once a year, I believe. Particularly after an election, it can work out to maybe once or twice a year; no wonder the Notice Paper is getting clogged.
Three-and-a-half hours is not too bad, but it could be extended to a full day. You would see the opposition and, I am sure, the Independents, making use of that full day, and getting down and dirty, and debating some serious legislation - something this government does not appear to be too interested in, and fails to do on a regular basis. There was an eight-day sitting during October and we debated three bills. We had the excuse today, from the member for Johnston and the chairman of the committee, that because we debated a very serious bill in this House - the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill - and it went into a rather detailed committee stage, somehow that had blown the agenda and, therefore, we were unable to get to other matters of importance and interest to the people of the Northern Territory. I refer again to the ministerial statement.
I reiterate that the argument we have been prosecuting all week is this government’s failure to address issues in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister was subject to a censure motion last night, as was the Labor government and its failure to address issues facing Alice Springs; serious issues facing Central Australia. We have a ministerial statement, which is not much, but it would have given the government, the opposition members and the Independents an opportunity to speak about issues facing Central Australia. We have seen that drop off the Notice Paper.
It is not all great news. If you look at the Police Annual Report which has been tabled today, I believe there were 35 000 drunks taken into protective custody, 5000 more than the year before. It is not a great news story, for the …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: 35 000 drunks taken into protective custody.
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is right. I believe its shows the alcohol management plan is not working, and that would have been another opportunity for this parliament to debate those issues, but due to the poor time management skills or, in fact, the inherent laziness of the Henderson Labor government, we do not get the opportunity, and the real losers are the people of Central Australia and the Northern Territory.
As for the two points I raised, I believe Standing Order 78 should be amended. We will continue to pursue that. It should say: ‘a motion may be made by a member rising in his place, and without notice, but not so as to interrupt a member speaking’. I believe that is the decent thing to do. We have clocks; that is the virtue of having a clock and having time limits, you do not have to wait a long time to stand up and put the motion if that is the will of the parliament.
As for standing orders, and the example raised by the chairman of this committee, the member for Johnston, Standing Order 77 in the ACT says that:
- on sitting Wednesdays, private Members’ business shall have precedence over Executive business.
We will continue to pursue that with the government. We welcome some of the changes. It is great to see the government has finally come to the party on this, with the help, I have to say, of the member for Nelson, who was able to pull some of his strings and broker a deal with the government and, in many instances, it has left us in a better shape. We are in much better shape than we were, but we would like to see the time limits lifted. We would like to see the issue with Standing Order 78 addressed, and we would like to see an extension of General Business Day.
Madam Speaker, it is clear, if history is anything to go by, particularly in the last twelve months, the opposition has much more to debate than the government.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a very long year, I believe we have worked for 36 days this year, which is much work out of 365 days in a year. A very hard-working parliament – it is probably the laziest parliament in the country, I would be right to say, possibly the laziest parliament in the world. The Territory has been called a failed state and recognised by many. It is hard to look at where the success stories are in the Northern Territory.
I was reflecting on the portfolios of Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Children and Families, homelessness, Roads, Transport, and I cannot see where this government is performing. I know it has a large bureaucracy to help with the government’s under-performance. We know the government is very tired, and is reluctant to work, which is why I support the comments made by the members for Sanderson and Greatorex.
If we are going to make improvements in the Northern Territory, surely the parliament must work harder than what it does now. This is the last day of a 36-day parliamentary year, and here we are, with the members, in government, looking tired, sitting here, waiting for the drinks straight after this session. Staff were in the hallway a couple of hours ago, running around with their red Santa hats saying: ‘The ministers are going to look good in these hats tonight when we have a few drinks’. We cannot all be present in the parliament on the last day. The government is out there partying, on the last day of a 36-day calendar parliamentary year, while Rome burns.
We know the situation in many of the portfolios. We know we have the member for Daly, who is looking forward to his drink after parliament tonight and to put his little red hat on. We know after two years, and $672m, he has not built a house under SIHIP.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is Christmas and I feel generous and warm-hearted towards the member for Braitling, however I call relevance. This is a debate about the Standing Orders Committee report. I ask he stick to the recommendations and the ambit of the report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you could tie your comments to the Standing Orders Committee report which has been tabled. That is the subject of debate at the moment: the standing orders committee and its recommendations.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the length of time this parliament sits is part of the standing order recommendations, the work it does and the legislation it brings forward. We heard the member for Johnston talking about how it was not fair of the opposition to only get through four pieces of general business yesterday, so we did not get to the member for Nelson’s business. That is not the point. This is a House of debate, and if we have one piece of legislation which takes two days to debate, so be it. That is what we are here to do. Maybe the reason nothing is working in the Northern Territory is nothing gets debated because we do not have people to put policy rigour around the discussions we are meant to have. That is why we did not get to number 17, 22 or 25 on the Notice Paper yesterday. Maybe we should sit 100 days in the year, so we can get things done and get things right.
We are all elected to work. We are not all out there with little red hats on, like the government ministers, having a drink at the party for the last day. That is why it is relevant. If the member for Daly was working maybe he would have a house built. I had a stunt prepared. This parliamentary term I was going to come with a bunch of flowers to congratulate the member for Daly for building a house. I thought he would have built a house before, or by, the last day of the parliamentary calendar. I thought he would have completed one house built, but, no.
The member for Johnston wants to call me for relevance about building houses; we are in parliament. He is the minister for building houses; it is relevant to raise the fact he has not built a house, with $672m, in two years. I should be able to debate that on more than 36 days in the year. I should not have to be told: ‘Hurry up, Adam. We need to go home. Debate early! We want to knock off early because of the party’. We should be working all night to try to fix some of our problems. We should be debating why the minister for community services spent only 33% of the assessed budget in the 2007-08 financial year; that is what we should be doing. That is why the length of debate needs to continue. That is why we should be working harder.
This parliament, with all its failures, is the most embarrassing parliament for the Prime Minister and the federal Labor party; it must be an embarrassment. He has brought about welfare reform changes - which are sure to be politically unpalatable - in the Northern Territory, because he must know Solomon is in trouble. Why else would you bring them in? He is in politics and he is the master of managing the media and playing the political game; for him it is about seats - Solomon must be gone; we will try it in the Northern Territory.
I commend the members for Greatorex and Sanderson for trying to make this parliament work, instead of being lazy, for trying to extend the hours we work, and for trying to extend the operation of General Business Day. It is only when we have true access to proper parliamentary procedure and to the available times to debate issues and hold the government to account, will things change, other than that, a general election.
I cannot see anything improving at the moment. We do not have the smartest people in the government. What are the member for Daly’s plans or visions for the Northern Territory and his portfolios? For power and water, it might be to keep the lights on, for housing - what is that - to build a house? For local government - he has even admitted he got that wrong, surprisingly. He only has three responsibilities and all three of them are not working. We should be able to debate that.
Member for Johnston, the former Minister for Health; we should be able to debate health. It is the same with all the other portfolios: Education - the NAPLAN results, we have not even hit the NAPLAN results. I do not know a school in the Northern Territory - and I have not spoken to all of them - that passed the national benchmarks. You shake your head, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would be happy for you to tell me of one school that passed the national benchmark, if you believe you can do that. I would be happy for you to find me 10, but I do not know one school that passed. I do not know one school in Alice Springs that passed the national benchmarks. But the government members will go home - stupid as they are - take their pay packets, work 36 days, hop outside this tent, put their red hats on and have a drink for a party.
I have been elected to be in parliament, to debate legislation, to make policy for the good governance of the people of the Northern Territory; not to work 36 days a year in a House of parliament. This creates a norm of complacency and lack of work ethic, so we turn into a committee debate and we have to rush through things, we do not get the time to properly scrutinise things; it is the norm now. It is how people do it, because we do not have time in our schedule to do work. The Notice Paper might be loaded up, but so it should be. We are here to work; we are not going to rush through different pieces of legislation. It is the same as me talking now; this is part of the debate. I am sure it is boring you to tears, and I am happy about that.
I want to see the clock continue to wind down, the 5.57 pm clock continue to grow. I want to keep you here all night. I would love you to have to stay all night or work until 2 am or 3 am; that would be fantastic. It would be fantastic to see Labor members working. We would even keep the spin doctors up working. One hundred and nine spin doctors in the Northern Territory government - I do not know what they do - but there are 109 spin doctors in the Northern Territory government. Based on the number of enrolled voters, that is one spin doctor for every 1000 enrolled constituents. One spin doctor for every 1000 voters in the Northern Territory! Correlate that with New South Wales; we would have 4500 spin doctors on the same equation in New South Wales. That is not a regiment; that is a battalion.
We could start invading New Zealand with spin doctors. Imagine the publicity we would get: ‘Look out; here come the spin doctors’. ‘Do not worry, it is all right’. That is this government. That is what we should be debating. I can see the New Zealanders now, watching the spin doctors come over the hill, armed with their notepads and pens: ‘I am here from the Northern Territory’. How can any government have one spin doctor for every 1000 people? I have 4500 people who vote in the electorate of Braitling, do you reckon I could have four-and-a-half spin doctors? I might go and invade a little outstation somewhere, give them some good publicity.
I support the member for Greatorex fighting for greater access to the parliament in the Northern Territory by opening the numbers of days we sit, the hours we sit, the opportunity we get to debate general business, and the opportunity we get to debate the key issues in the Northern Territory. Nothing is working; it is a failed state, and there are only a few ways we can fix a failed state in the Northern Territory. We could have a general election, someone holding the balance of power who might do the right thing, or we could have a government which was ethical and decided to act in the best interests of all Territorians.
The honourable thing to do would be for some of those politicians, or elected members who have been here for a while, to step aside. There are newer members. I might not agree with the member for Barkly, but I know he has a vision and an idea of where he wants to take things. The member for Johnston is staying here until the end of his term - see things out, wait until it comes around. I know there are other members on the other side who are doing the same thing.
The member for Casuarina - it is interesting. The Chief Minister likes to talk about the Country Liberal Party Senator for the Northern Territory and federal issues all the time to divert attention. I wonder why. There is a rumour going around the member for Casuarina is thinking about running for Labor in the Senate. Maybe he is trying to promote some sort of argument; I am not sure. Who knows what is going on? It is not really relevant to us. He could be debating child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory, but he wants to talk about the Country Liberal Party Senator. I do not know why he would want to do that.
I hope when we come back next year, long after the government retires tonight - after putting its red Santa hats on, having a drink and not doing anything for the Northern Territory - I hope it comes back next year with new vigour and a new lease of energy, and decide it wants to start dealing with things in the Northern Territory. I hope they look to further extending the standing orders, so they allow us to sit more often, to sit later, and debate properly; that would be good and I look forward to it.
I understand the member for Port Darwin is going to have a chat too. That is good. I hope he talks for as long as he can and holds the government to account. I reiterate, this government is the laziest government in Australia - possibly the laziest government in the world. Nothing is working. You would think they would want to work to try to fix it but, no, they want to go out there and have their Christmas drinks.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise to be brief because, whilst I believe it is important for debates to continue and be fulsomely debated, I also believe debates should be limited to the points being made.
Being lectured about discipline by the Leader of Government Business is a little like being lectured by Fatty Arbuckle about your weight problem. By its definition, this is a House of discussion and debate. It comes from the old French because, when parliaments started after 1215, the nobility still spoke French. The ‘parley’ part of parliament refers to the French word meaning ‘speaking’: this is a House in which you speak.
Whilst I appreciate what the Leader of Government Business is trying to impress upon us, about economy and discipline, the fact is, if he only wants to sit 36 days a year, then do not put a time limit on it; it is that simple, and it has been mentioned several times. However, this government has come into this House and changed the rules so there is a time limit on when the day ends, so we can all go home to bed on time and get a reasonable night’s sleep - all that sort of thing. If the business of the House is not being done - we are not a big House; we are not like the federal parliament - there is enough time for us all to express ourselves and to speak our minds in this place.
This government has assiduously, since forming government, tried to find ways to shorten the time this parliament operates. Of course, they find this House offensive; it challenges them, it asks, demands and expects of them, all those things which the public would express towards the government and the …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House asks, demands, and pleads with the government to provide information to the people of the Northern Territory; that is what this House is about. It is that beautiful expression of our democratic system. Ever since this government took hold of this House, it has used the gag motion more often then you could possibly imagine, because it did not want to hear the debates. It has truncated the evenings in this House because they wanted to be in bed on time. We hear now, from the Leader of Government Business, the most ludicrous arguments yet, as to why we should show, in his words, ‘economy in this place’. If you go back to what he said, the reason is the parliamentary draftsmen, who provide the legislation in this House, do not get to see their bills appear, because they sit on the Notice Paper and remain undebated.
Staff of this House also becomes concerned if you like, for a lack of better words, that the business of this House is moving too slowly. While I appreciate that may even be true, the fact is, and with all due respect to both the parliamentary draftspeople and the people who work here, the House should not define its business and its attitudes based on what the staff or the parliamentary draftsmen think. They will not be paid any less for their services to the people of the Northern Territory in this House.
It is not unlike a policeman, who arrests someone and the person they arrested is found not guilty in the court of law and the policeman is upset. Tragically, unfortunately the policeman does not always get his way. I am certain we would not argue the court should change its opinion because the arresting officer was upset, in some way, as the result of the decision of the court.
Equally so, it goes to the logic of this government, that we should subordinate ourselves to the whims of others. Take this example to its most absurd extreme: if a parliamentary draftsman - this is the person who drafts our legislation or bills and brings it into this House - is someone who we should take into consideration at the time of the bills being debated, then surely, to avoid upsetting him, we should not vote down those bills. We should pass those bills and allow them all to go into law, so the parliamentary draftsman is satisfied that his work has been worthwhile.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an absurd proposition, and I am sure all members would agree that is so. Consequently, and equally, whilst I appreciate it might be irritating for a parliamentary draftsman to draft a bill, which then sits on the Notice Paper for a longer period of time, and even if it reaches the next election and falls off the Notice Paper, does that parliamentary draftsman get paid any less or more for his day’s work? Not at all! It is not like they are on some sort of success contract, where they get paid more, or they get a bonus for every bill which passes through the House. This is an absurd proposition.
This government is simply tired; it does not want to work any more. It talks about economy of conduct. Well, boo hoo, frankly - tough. This House is a working parliament and, since the last election, it is a parliament which has taken it to the government and forced the government to sit up and take notice of this House, like it has never occurred before in the history of the Northern Territory. Never has a parliament been so finely balanced, and never has a government had the peril hanging over its head which this government has currently. Small wonder it does not like this House, because this government knows this House can bring it down, if it chooses to, and there are very good arguments, I might add, to bring down this government.
If it was not for the bloody-mindedness of certain members –and I mean members, plural - who despise this government, yet still support it, in spite of themselves, this government would fall and collapse in a heap. This parliament is a glorious example of what can be achieved through the democratic system and, for the sake of not upsetting the government, it is no reason to truncate the business we do in this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing forward the Standing Orders Committee Report. If it was in a larger font I would not need these glasses but, so be it.
In general, I believe the recommendations which have been put forward are reasonable and are an improvement on what has been put forward previously. Looking through the document, there is now an agreement to have one minute questions and three minute answers, which is something new for this parliament, but it is not new for the Senate in Canberra, and I believe it is worth trying.
A good way to find out whether questions are going through quickly is to see how many questions the Independents asked, which was two on the first sitting day in Alice Springs. The reason they got two was because the answers were long. The problem with setting time limits, will you get answers which are deliberately set out to be three minutes? Will you get questions which are deliberately spaced out to one minute, when they do not need to be? It is worth trying. It will cut out some of those long-winded answers, which sometimes go off at a tangent before we come back to the point of the question.
The automatic right to a supplementary question from non-government questioners, it has been agreed by the committee to have one supplementary question which will not exceed 30 seconds. I am not particularly worried about this, but a supplementary question is a question, if people have more questions on the subject - and I have been here long enough to know a normal tactic of the opposition is to get on a particular subject and keep hammering the government on that subject - you do not really need supplementary questions, they are all supplementary questions, because they are on the same subject. That is the process the opposition use to highlight what they think is wrong with the government and which, sometimes, leads to censure motions.
In relation to questions, the motion said to have:
- either a set number of questions from the opposition or other non-government members or a percentage of questions …
At the present time, it is basically a system of ‘first in’. There is no change to how many questions the opposition can ask. I believe the system works fairly well at present. Obviously, an Independent wants more questions to go through, so they have more chance of asking questions in parliament.
Regarding the motion that:
- Question Time to be moved to an earlier hour.
The main news bulletins in the evening are at 6 pm and 7 pm, and the drive-time shows are around 4 pm. Question Time finishes at 3 pm. You can argue the toss, but there is no doubt when it comes to news, especially television news, it is not going to matter if it is 2 pm, they will be there with their cameras. It may miss some radio news at 12 noon, but it is half a dozen of one, six of the other; I am happy for it to stay as it is.
A good attempt at one of the major issues raised in parliament, especially when, as I have said, questions asked and answers are so far off the mark, but because the word ‘relevance’ is such a broad word, even when you look it up in the dictionary, it is very difficult for anyone to give proper meaning to the word, when it comes to the answerer being brought back into line and come more closely to what the common person would think would be the answer. I use the idea that if someone asked a question to the minister for Primary Industry on cheese, he could start talking about the man on the moon, but it would not make for a good answer. It is good to at least have an attempt to tighten that by saying it has to be ‘direct, succinct and concise’. I suppose we will end up with an argument about what is direct, succinct and concise, but I will leave it up to the Speaker to work it out when the time comes.
Regarding ‘questioning of participants to parliamentary agreements’, I regard that as a move by the Country Liberals to find out directly from me about the parliamentary agreement, which I do not believe was appropriate; questions about the agreement can be put to the Chief Minister.
Regarding time limits:
- the adjournment debate speech time limit to be lifted to 10 minutes.
I believe everyone has agreed to that, and I believe it is good. It is a good compromise between the 15 minutes we used to have, and the changes brought in last year to five minutes. It has reduced the speed some members of parliament had to deliver their adjournment debates, at well over 130 words per kilometre; some members had to try to get their school reports in, so the 10 minutes is welcome.
The ‘removal of the sitting time limitations’ talks about the automatic adjournment, and I do not have much of a problem with that. I believe the ‘establishment of time limits for responses to questions “on notice” or written questions to ministers’, is good. There is now a 30 day time limit for responses by ministers, which has been needed for a long time. I pick up the questions ‘on notice’; that gets left on our desk, and I find some questions go back about 12 months. That change is needed.
I go back to the ‘removal of sitting time limitations’, which I support - I can live with what is here for the time being - I am a supporter. I said in my letter we should at least go until 10 pm and then have adjournment afterwards; I still feel the same. We could spend more time in this parliament debating issues but, I find it a little difficult, when the opposition is arguing that, and I know we debated a bill yesterday for about six hours which everyone said they supported. I would not mind if there were concerns about certain matters when they said that, but I have been here long enough and I know the tactics: you can drag out things if you want to. If the opposition wants to make the government look like it is not getting through its business, it drags things out.
The member for Braitling spoke before – we were talking about standing orders – and used that 20 minutes as an excuse to get stuck into the government, which is fine at the right time, but this was about standing orders. I feel that is a little hypocritical, and I do not believe I should be blamed. I note the government does the same thing, if it wants to drag things out. I remember statements that were pretty boring because they had been before parliament about three or four times, and when it wants to fill in time, it puts up as many speakers as possible. I
I would like someone to have a time management person look at what we do and say: ‘Are you sure you cannot get all this work done in the amount of time you spend?’ I believe we could get most of the work done. I am the first one to say I waffle from time to time, maybe if I made my comments …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am glad the opposition support the concept that I do not waffle. The problem is we do waffle from time to time; we fill in time with superfluous comments. If we got stuck into it and were well prepared, we would get our work done.
I find it difficult to take the comments that because we only work a certain number of days in this parliament, therefore we are not working. There is plenty of work in my electorate, on committees, and on research. If people are doing their jobs, they will be doing that. I was down here early, having a look at the roundabout. How many other members had a look at the proposed roundabout site at Larapinta Drive and Lovegrove Drive? How many other people went at peak hour to see …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, thank you very much. That is right, but there are few. The point is that is what it is about. You do not just spend your working time in here. When you come here, you should be well prepared and knowledgeable about what you are going to say. I do not want to see a parliament which sits here, as a charade, to say to people: ‘Look at the number of hours we work, are we not fantastic?’ What, when we sit here and waffle on?
We do not want a house of parliament which is going to pass legislation for legislations sake - that would be pointless. We do not want more laws if we do not need more laws. We need to look at existing legislation and see if it needs to be upgraded or reviewed. A classic example, which has come out recently, is the Traffic Act. It is an act which needs review, because it has gone past its use-by date. People keep adding bits and pieces to it, and it needs updating. We need to be doing that. We only need to be bringing in new legislation if it is necessary. One thing people hate is overregulation. I remind people of the Humpty Doo car park, where they had to look for 11 acts before they started putting the job out for tender. I believe that is a case of overregulation.
I find it difficult you are only considered to be working if you are here for 60 days a year, because that is what happens in Canberra. Canberra is a different kettle of fish. Canberra is dealing with large issues which require much legislation in some cases. Take the carbon tax emissions debate going on, that is huge work. We probably do not see legislation like that at all. I believe the biggest legislation we have seen is the reform of the lawyers act, and there were about 330 pages; that is the biggest act I have ever seen. We get many small acts, many of which are very good. We should spend our time making sure when we bring something to parliament, we know what they are about.
I believe we should have longer time. We do not have to go to 10 pm, but we should have room to move. We should not stand up and say: ‘There is not enough time’, and then spend six hours on a bill. I saw it. I knew what was going on - I do not know how many third readings, but we have a few third readings - I understand the tactics on both sides. When you want to drag it out, you drag it out. When you want to make one side look bad, you can make them look bad. You do not have to convince me time is wasted from time to time.
Regardless of that, I do not believe there is anything wrong with knocking off at 10 pm. Generally, we sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which is three nights at 10 pm and if you want to adjourn, then do so. I do not believe you should have a limit on the adjournment; 10 minutes, let people go, and we only do that at certain times of the year. It is about using our time more efficiently, and we will have no problem. The problem is politics gets in the way of efficiency sometimes.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, politics, not parliament.
Regarding the ‘removal of the ability to move the put motion mid-speech’. I accept what the member for Greatorex said. I believe it is worth looking at again. I am normally a supporter of the put motion. Go to the Rotary Club or the cricket club and if someone takes over a debate in the Rotary Club and everyone wants to go home, they will move a put motion. I have seen it done, and it nearly caused a fight. The put motion has a use, and I would not want to see that use go. Whether it should apply here, I am happy to look at that again. It may be something we can discuss as we are reviewing what happens.
We have put some things into process, which I believe are good. Not everyone is going to be happy with it, which is fair enough; that is the way parliament works. The motion that ‘the Standing Orders be amended to reflect the requirement for the Speaker to recall parliament’, I believe is the best way. ‘General business be allocated time in each sitting week’; I asked for six hours per sitting, we have seven hours - we have 3.5 – so it is somewhere in between what I wanted, which I believe is reasonable. It means general business is going through on a regular basis. I also believe yesterday we could have completed most of the stuff. It was dragged out a fair amount. I believe we needed to be tighter in the way we worked and we could have finished most of it. After all, these sittings have an extra hour added to them. I believe if we work hard and become a little more efficient – less waffle, and I put my hand up as being one of those - then we can do it better. We would probably not put so many people who are listening to sleep - if they happen to be silly enough to be listening - it would probably stop them falling off to sleep.
The change to estimates, I believe is a good thing. I believe it is time the estimates review looked at the weightings of each department. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is much bigger – I am not saying it is not as important – than the department of Transport, simply because it takes on a huge role. Whether the discussion is around which minister should have more time according to the amount of portfolios or the importance of those portfolios, it is something which should be reviewed.
Regarding whether you should question public servants. I believe you should question public servants but, generally speaking, when you start to talk about what happens in practice, the public servants speak directly. The only thing is if the minister has given permission for a public servant to speak then, instead of going from the minister to the public servant, back to the minister, to the Chairman or the questioner, and back again, the Estimates Committee people can speak directly to the public servant. I believe that change should happen. Do not fill it up with niceties. If the minister is going to have all these people behind him, the reason they are there is to answer the questions, unless the minister knows the answer himself, then it should be nearly automatic, and do not refer it back to the minister every time, unless the minister wants to interrupt for some reason.
Overall, I support what is there. I believe we could review the put motion at another time. I still believe it would be good to extend the time of this parliament until at least 10 pm. You do not have to go to 10 pm, but it is there, and then have the adjournment debate afterwards.
I advise that, unfortunately, attachment A in the report only has half my letter. Luckily I have the other half, because it tells me all the things I would have forgotten if I did not have the back part of the page. There is also a slight error in the documents. Members who are on the committee might note - it is not a great error - but if you are looking for what the matter is referring to, No 3 says:
- The Standing Orders Committee noted the following Resolutions of the Assembly
which has part (a) and (b), and (b) says:
- Amendment to Standing Order 41A(e).
However, there is no (e), so I believe it refers to 41A(a); I thought you might note that. It also has to be changed within the summary of what is going on.
It is good to have a review of our standing orders, which, more or less, are the rules which govern debate in this parliament and, without them, it might be wilder than it sometimes is. They are required. If we can open up this place for good, intelligent debate and if we all do our work, we can make this a place where people see both sides working for the benefit of the Territory, regardless of the argy-bargy. I believe we have a role to play in trying to do something good for the Northern Territory.
There was something else I was going to say, and it has slipped my mind.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not need an extension of time. I want to thank the people who helped the committee to get all this together; I appreciate that very much, and also the other members of the Standing Orders Committee for participating.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. The member for Fong Lim has an MPI, and there is a maximum of two hours for that; we are already at 6.30 pm and I believe the cut-off time is 8.30 pm. I am being considerate to you, member for Fong Lim. There might have been a few other speakers who could have shown the same consideration, but could not restrain themselves from getting up, which is the sort of discipline I am talking about, in getting through the business of parliament. But, I digress.
The member for Sanderson addressed a number of the issues I commented on in my speech, about the differences in approach between the government and the majority report, and the CLP. I believe I covered them quite well, and the member for Sanderson also expressed himself quite well, in defining those differences and pointing the way the CLP would travel with those issues.
One thing I have to address is we have put three extra sitting days on the parliamentary agenda, which did include Mondays but I believe we have all agreed we are going to dispense with Mondays and consolidate those three extra sitting days into an extra sitting week and, I believe, everyone is grateful for that.
The government has given up reports in the morning, which constituted around 35 minutes a day, so there is extra time in the parliamentary day through the government not delivering those reports. These are very important issues.
The member for Greatorex mentioned the motion on Central Australia. I do not want to go there. Obviously, government had an intention on Tuesday of delivering a statement by the Chief Minister on Central Australia. We spent quite a deal of time in the committee stage of substance abuse, which was not really flagged by the opposition. It seemed to be saying, a week or two weeks ago, there was no contention, but that is the wont of the opposition. I thought we could have dealt with the volatile substance abuse committee stage in a more expeditious way, and had time for the ministerial statement by the Chief Minister on Central Australia that day but, I suppose, we will have conjecture about why that did not occur. But, it did not occur. That was the reason.
The member for Greatorex pointed to something I said in my initial speech, which was off-the-cuff, and also said I might stand corrected on it, in terms of the ACT Assembly and the way in which it allocates time within the GBD for the Greens and the Independents. He was quite right in what he read out. I have been advised it is a convention for a division of time within the ACT Assembly. I am advised within the Tasmanian Assembly, there are set times within the standing orders for the Independents and the Greens. As I said in my speech, we could investigate whether there is a need in the future to allocate a set time for the opposition and a set time for the Independents, to give the Independents a go. Yesterday, there were 19 matters on the Notice Paper, on the opposition’s day and, theoretically, the Independent’s day, to debate and bring forward items to this parliament, but we only got through three of the opposition matters, in a whole day of debate, and a short way into the fourth.
The member for Greatorex said we should extend the time of General Business Day, but basically, it would almost need to be ad infinitum because, on my calculations - even charitably - if we got through four items in approximately seven-and-a-half hours of debate, to get through it all we would need 30 hours - a day-and-a-half - to get through business. If they had been disciplined on the other side, the government was prepared to have one speaker per matter, in two matters we were going to have two speakers, the Minister for Central Australia, appropriately, to speak briefly, I believe we could have come close to getting through that business, but we did not. The opposition chose to have a number of speakers on those matters, which is their wont.
I do not believe you can come back and say it is somehow the government’s fault. If we turn to the memo, the member for Greatorex said: ‘It is not our fault. We know how to organise our side. It is the government side which does not know how to organise itself’. That is a complete contradiction to the leaked e-mail by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has been invisible during the whole sitting. She is uninspiring, lacklustre, and one wonders why she is in that position. But she leaked this e-mail, or unintentionally leaked it, which says during the estimate process last year - where the opposition had approximately four-and-a-half days, from early in the morning to late at night, to prosecute its business and its case – there was ‘an inability to manage time constraints’. That still exists now, within its General Business Day.
It has acknowledged the problem within its own ranks. I suggest it starts to fix it in a real way, instead of blaming government for all its problems. It is there in black and white, in an e-mail from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Heaven knows why she is there. She is the invisible woman and, basically, in a political sense, has played hardly any role in the sittings this week; one wonders why she is in that position. But I digress, Madam Speaker.
I have already mentioned, and so has the member for Nelson, the offering by the member for Braitling. His was a very political offering; he is free to do it. He has done it, but he has set us back a little and eaten into his colleague’s time, the member for Fong Lim, in this Matter of Public Importance, which is coming on as soon as we dispense with this business.
The member for Port Darwin, I suppose reflected, as he often does, about the nature of parliament. He is a very learned gentleman in that regard. He uses the word ‘fulsome’ quite a lot. There are two edges to the word ‘fulsome’, according to the dictionary definition, and I meant to pick him up about it before. He gave literary allusions last night about George Orwell and 1984. I have a few myself, member for Port Darwin, I have been saving them up for a while, but maybe another time. But, ‘fulsome’ means ‘abundant’ or ‘plentiful’, so, in that context, yes, let us have an abundant and plentiful debate. But there is another side to being ‘fulsome’, which is ‘excess or want of measure’. I believe that is what we experienced in the General Business Day yesterday. I draw that to the attention of the learned member for Port Darwin.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know. It was not meant to be hurtful, member for Port Darwin; I was trying to be constructive.
The member for Nelson says we have brought in a number of changes, and he hopes we will get the results we want. I believe every member joins with him in that and, as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, it is also my desire.
With Question Time at 2 pm, he is probably in agreement with the government - we do not believe it particularly matters. When we came to the government there was a long history about Question Time being much earlier in the day. I will not digress into that topic. I am sure there were very solid reasons. Some other states may have a reason why it was earlier in the day. He believes 10 minutes for adjournment is good, and it is probably about the right amount of time. He agrees with time limits for responses. He still holds the view we could go later in the night with the shut-off time. Normally its 9 pm; he says it could go until 10 pm. However, I believe he was giving a message to the opposition that he wants to see a more efficient and effective use of the time we already have. In the GBD, whilst the opposition asked for 66 hours, or a number like that, the member for Nelson said a 50% increase in the GBD times is close to what he wants.
I will not say any more except, once again, to thank every member of the committee who has worked so hard. We have had some robust debates within the committee, but I believe they have all been constructive debates. None of us have received exactly what we wanted, whether it is from the government, the opposition, or the Independents, but, in the majority of instances, we have hopefully come to some equitable agreement. The opposition has flagged it still has issues, it wants further changes and it will push for those changes. I thank the opposition for its participation in the process.
Madam Speaker, you are on the Standing Orders Committee, as is the member for Fannie Bay. To all members, thank you. To all staff who work so hard in this regard, thank you.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there are two motions before the House. The first is noting the report, and the second is adopting the recommendations. I put the first one. The question is the Assembly note the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee of the Eleventh Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Madam SPEAKER: The second is the Assembly adopt recommendation No 1, and note recommendation Nos 2, 3 and 4 of the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion agreed to.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Constraints Placed on Business by the Government’s Lack of Investment
Constraints Placed on Business by the Government’s Lack of Investment
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance: the constraints placed on business by the Henderson Labor government’s lack of investment in necessary infrastructure, planning, essential services, and housing.
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call the member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am glad to see there are so many people in this Chamber who support calling on this Matter of Public Importance.
Having listened to the last debate, in relation to the standing orders, it does not surprise me why there is so little done by this government in its investment in necessary infrastructure, planning, essential services, and housing. We come into this House, essentially, as legislators; our role is to legislate. We should be discussing things like bills and motions. The government should be accountable for how Question Time is set down, and Matters of Public Importance should be able to be raised by all members.
The trouble I have with this parliament, and this government, is it feels it has a need to constantly throw out ministerial statements which need to be debated to the end. It is quite easy for the Leader of Government Business to say, on the last day of the sitting year, we need to expedite our proceedings, and we need to cut short our debate, because there are some bills which are completely necessary to pass through this parliament. A little foresight with the government might have told it that, rather than throwing out ministerial statements, which are, in effect, puff pieces designed to make the government look good and, more often than not, to belittle the opposition, Independents and anyone else who opposes its position in the community, if the government members had concentrated on their jobs, as legislators, it may be we would get through the business of the parliament in a much easier fashion.
It is not just the business of the parliament which is affected by this. This sort of behaviour carries on into the community to the point we are now living in the Northern Territory where we seem to have crime out of control, the budget seems to have been blown, we have a housing crisis, houses and businesses are constantly going without power and electricity, and it seems the whole place is crumbling around our ears, but the government seems to constantly make idle promises.
I have a short list of some of those areas where it has promised big and delivered little. The future water supply of Darwin, or the top End, and in Alice Springs, for instance. Many promises have been made in relation to ensuring and making certain our water supply. We have had discussions, studies and all sorts of stuff, yet the government has failed to commit funds anywhere, either in the Top End or Central Australia, to secure our water supplies.
Tiger Brennan Drive was a very early promise made by this government, where it would do extensions and upgrades. I remember, in the federal parliament, we first put up money in 2003, yet, here we are in 2009, a full six years later, and the budget for that has almost tripled. It has cost Territorians in excess of $80m on what it would have cost in 2003 to get the job done.
We hear about the famous Larrakeyah outfall closure. For those not aware of it, it is commonly referred to in the media, and sometimes in this House, as the ‘poo shooter’. It is not a term I particularly like, but the government promised time and time again it would close and remove it. Nothing has happened. There seems to be no work progressing on that. It says it costs a great deal of money; I am sure it does, but the government has stagnated there.
The Alice Springs courts and police station upgrades. These things have been promised for years now, yet nothing has happened.
Darwin and Palmerston closed circuit television network was a promise made by this government, I believe, quite some time ago. I note the federal government chimed in. It was also a commitment of the Rudd Labor government that we would have CCTV networks throughout Darwin and Palmerston. Again, nothing has happened, irrespective of the fact the federal government is chipping in a substantial amount of money towards that program.
Red light camera network. We get a red light camera, but they cannot process the fines. We are catching people running through red lights, but there is no system in place to process fines. While I am on that, I note the one red light and speed camera which we had in the Darwin area raised some millions of dollars in revenue and, all of a sudden, we are going to be getting another eight of them. I do not believe that has anything to do with road safety, but a little more to do with government revenue.
The construction of the Rosebery School, which has been on the books since 1999, was a commitment Labor made, only started twelve months ago.
Then there is the famous Bellamack and Johnston land releases. These things have been talked about for almost a decade now. Finally, we seem to be getting a move on there. It was interesting in this parliament, not so long ago, this government, in a very clandestine way, passed legislation in relation to the Land Development Corporation, but did not say at the time its proposals were about developing 150m blocks of land, which, at Bellamack, the government refused to say - point blank refused to say it.
Only three days after that legislation was passed, all of a sudden we were hearing about these 150m blocks. I note at the time the Independent - at the time - Independent member for Nelson, non-Labor member for Nelson, at the time, was absolutely and utterly outraged. This is a man who does not want to see five acre blocks or two acre blocks in his electorate subdivided to anything smaller. I cannot imagine how he must have felt about people living in 150m houses in Bellamack. Once you had built the house, you literally could not swing a cat in the place.
We see the Darwin gaol has been talked about for years now. We still seem to be years away from locating where that will go and starting construction. It is obvious this side of the Chamber is opposed to moving it, at the time, so was the Independent member for Nelson. Although now he seems to have joined the government, he is quite happy to see it moved somewhere else. In any case, there seems to be no start date on the horizon for that one.
We know about the Darwin Waterfront and the time overruns. What we do not know is what it has cost.
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the interjection from the Leader of Government Business. I do get down to the wave pool with my kids. We love it. It is a great spot, but, the fact is, it has cost Territorians an absolute bomb and those costs are still coming in. It is a 25 year liability for this government. Looking at the cost of those things, it is no wonder you can have a good time, but it is a pretty expensive good time. How long have we been hearing about the Darwin region cyclone shelters? These things were promised, I believe, two, three, four years ago, that there would be an upgrade to cyclone shelters. Every time it is about to happen, it is just before the wet and, here we are again, just before the cyclone season, and work has not started on the cyclone shelters.
Where are the boat ramps at Palmerston and Channel Island? They have been promised for years and years. The Blacktip processing plant is still not completed. The gas being delivered is wet gas. How does this impact on the operation of the pipeline? Perhaps it does, as we have seen this week, with a suggested pumping station failure. How long did it take to get the ConocoPhillips crosslink pipeline proposal to completion? Far too long!
We have heard this week about the Mereenie Loop, and sealing the Mereenie Loop, and we have had the Chief Minister answering questions on that, saying everything except answering the question. He could not give a date for when the sealing of the Mereenie Loop would happen. It seems to me it is on the ‘never never’.
I believe we are still many years away from seeing the Katherine heavy vehicle bypass happen, although it is another thing which has been promised time and time again.
I do not know if anyone even remembers the promises for the regional airstrips upgrades. I do. We heard much about the government upgrading the regional airstrips, but nothing has happened. Berrimah Road rail overpass and access to the port. If a train breaks down on that intersection, on that railway crossing, it could take hours for people to get through. That is a vital piece of our logistical and transport infrastructure with road, rail and sea access, and the overpass is a vital and strategic piece of infrastructure, but it has not happened. Nothing has happened in those areas.
Darwin Port loading facility upgrade. How long ago was it we were told the crane is not up to doing the job properly and had to be replaced? Where is it? The Darwin Port wharf facilities at East Arm, I do not know whether they are subsiding, sinking or what the story is there, but the thing is not going anywhere.
The classic one is the Darwin Airport upgrade. Here was the government - all bells and whistles - talking about the Jetstar hub and expanding the airport and the facilities. Nothing has happened. The government has not explained why it has not happened; it is has just disappeared off the map.
Only a couple of weeks ago we saw problems with passenger ships coming into the harbour and berthing. Again, it was another promise of the government, made years ago, with the Waterfront Development, that it would be able to fix those issues. Passenger travel. What happened? We had two ships in the harbour, and one of them had to park out at East Arm and only found out a couple of hours before they arrived in Darwin. This is embarrassing - absolutely embarrassing. It is a comedy of errors.
The Defence Support Hub - the white elephant, as I like to call it - I do not think it is going anywhere. I never knew it was going anywhere, but I believe this idea came up three, four, five years ago. The government, in a big, glitzy announcement, spoke about the Defence Support Hub. Where is it? Who are the people going there? Have we had a single interested company going out there? Maybe the minister might name them when he gets up, and he can say how far off that is from getting up and running.
The Oncology Unit - one of the great classics, which we will not go into, that was first promised in 2001. Goodness me, it has seen the back of every Health Minister this government has put up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Finally, I got to go out there the other day and do a tour. Maybe, some time next year it will be operating. It is a great thing, but goodness me, it has taken almost a decade to get that vital piece of infrastructure built in the Top End.
The Alice Springs emergency department was first committed to six years ago and they are just starting work on it now. SIHIP has to be the all-time clanger. Two years ago, almost $700m was handed over to this government. Two years later, not one single house. We have heard about the failure of this government so often. The Hidden Valley facility upgrade is another one first promised two years ago. The Rudd Labor government committed some $3m to the upgrade. Nothing has happened. The Palmerston water park - where is it? Nothing has happened. No Palmerston water park.
What is happening with the Northern Territory Archives Service? The Commonwealth is pulling out so the Territory government has to do something. Where are these archives being stored at the moment? Probably in a demountable somewhere - I am talking about the Territory Archives - we are coming into the Wet Season, and they are not in an air-conditioned or a climate-controlled facility. This is our history this government is ignoring. Nothing is happening.
The Palmerston Middle School debacle. The government committed $10m. There was a six-month time overrun in the final construction, and the finish was delayed. The old Waratah Oval retirement village in Fannie Bay was a commitment made some time ago - nothing on the horizon regarding the delay in constructing the retirement village.
Mt Johns Valley land release - here we go - we are up to the famous Infrastructure Australia commitments. We were going to get all of this money from Infrastructure Australia. We had Kevin Rudd, and we were ‘entering a new era of cooperative federalism’. They called it the end of the blame game, and we got rid of that miserly, rotten Howard man who used to run the country, who was all about saving money, not spending it, accumulating it. I remember the Treasurer saying how disgusting it was the federal government had a surplus – it was disgusting. Kevin Rudd has got in there and, true to his word, has been throwing money around like a drunken sailor - I take that back - a drunken sailor throws his own money around; Kevin Rudd is quite prepared to throw someone else’s money around.
We are some $300bn in debt already. We have seen a little over two years of this government. We are over $300bn in debt, and we have a budget deficit of some $60bn. Yet, this government has been able to secure five-eighths of nothing. Infrastructure Australia said it would get the Katherine Hospital and the ambulance flooding relocation done. It said it would fix up the Katherine region roads, and do the Katherine regional cultural precinct. Where are they? All of those applications failed …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, all of these things failed. They went there, I believe, with a $200m-odd request for our port. What did they come back with? $50m for a study, but not one cracker for the port from this great fund Kevin Rudd had set up to build roads, ports, and other infrastructure.
They said they would go to Infrastructure Australia and get money for the Outback Highway. Where is it? It is not there.
The list goes on. I note I am running out of time very fast. I said I only had a short list, and it is only a short list; there is a mile of other things I could be talking about, but I am running out of time.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, this government is a failure - a complete and utter failure. It is very good at making promises, but it is not very good at delivering on those commitments.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the matter of public importance which has been raised by the member for Fong Lim because, as the Chief Minister said today, business drives our economy in the Northern Territory, and business is front and centre in this matter of public importance.
I felt the member for Fong Lim, in his short list which, on my piece of paper, is a long list, had much latitude. In some cases, I am not completely sure of the relevance directly to business in the list he raised. No doubt, he has raised that list. It is a comprehensive list, member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have had your time, member for Fong Lim, please show me the courtesy - although I did interject a little in your speech, there you go; you can have a little latitude - sparingly.
The main point to make in relation to what the member for Fong Lim said is everything he says contravenes the evidence about business in the Northern Territory. If it was all so much doom and gloom, as the member for Fong Lim paints, business would be a debacle; business would be in very dire straights, which is exactly how we found it when we came to government in 2001. There was zero growth – zero - a big fat zero growth in business. Business was flat on its back. There were a myriad of stories about people out of work, particularly in the construction industries, unable to pay their mortgages, really struggling, much unemployment, a complete lack and demoralisation in the business sector.
Let us look at some of the evidence. The Sensis Business Index is not compiled by the government; it is compiled by an entity separate from the government. The report released on 17 September 2009, shows Northern Territory businesses are experiencing the strongest trading conditions in Australia. Business confidence improved for the third successive quarter, with Northern Territory business confidence recording equal highest in Australia. The Territory recorded the highest performance in the past quarter for sales, employment, wages, prices, and profitability - that is a list, member for Fong Lim. Stronger business confidence and profitability has resulted in growth in employment and capital expenditure on the part of business. We have the strongest employment growth in Australia for the quarter, and Territory businesses expect the workforce to grow further this quarter. I quote from the Sensis survey:
- Support for the Northern Territory government … remained second highest of any state or territory in Australia.
The key reasons identified for supporting government policies is that we offer incentives and support for small business. Support for the government in this category is particularly strong in the regions.
I believe what the member for Fong Lim had to say flies in the face of solid evidence which has been gathered by an independent body, outside the government and party politics, which has an acknowledged track record in its methodology and the way it gathers and analyse the information.
I mentioned the infrastructure spend by private enterprise, but I do not believe we should lose sight of the fact the Territory government is also a very important driver of our economy, particularly by our infrastructure spend. Our infrastructure spend in Budget 2009-10 is $1.3bn across the Territory, across the regions - strong. It is the highest infrastructure spend within the Northern Territory budget since self-government, since anything, and since we have come to power, we have invested increasing amounts into our infrastructure spend. I remember when we came to government, the previous CLP government did not even have enough money to fund its carryover of projects from one year to the next; it was a very dire situation.
I will be the first to acknowledge this government has been the beneficiary of the GST; there is no doubt about that, I put that on the table and acknowledge that straight up. I also argue, very strongly, the government has invested that money very wisely in infrastructure, in our infrastructure spend in schools, health clinics, roads, in the port - in a whole range of things.
The member for Fong Lim mentioned buying another container crane for the port. When I was the minister, there was a conscious decision made for the port to have its direction more in the bulk materials area than in the container area. It is still important to us and we still want to grow it, member for Fong Lim but, given the transport of bulk materials on the railway, it was common sense we should have been investing in bulk loading. I forget the exact figures we have invested in the bulk loader; I believe initially it was around $20m to $30m. We have also invested in the hardware, and continue to invest in the hardware, to bring bulk material from where it lands on the railway, to the port and into the bulk loader.
We can never compete against southern ports in terms of containers. They have such a large number of containers going through their ports. The per-unit cost of those containers, which they can do in the larger ports of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, we cannot really compete with. One day we will, and we need to keep on growing our container traffic but, given the world’s demand for bulk commodities like manganese, phosphate, and other commodities, that is where we need to be investing, and where we have invested in our infrastructure. That is why deposits up and down the track are developing and there is foreign investment, along with local partnerships, in developing those mineral deposits.
I suppose the member for Fong Lim, is - I don’t know - it is like mentioning the war all the time; he cannot stay away from Tiger Brennan Drive or the radiation oncology unit. We have spent much time on these issues on the floor of this parliament. I have all the literature. The member for Fong Lim knows about the radiation oncology unit and Tiger Brennan Drive and his promises, which never came to any fruition or any material result. He said he has been out to the hospital and he has seen the radiation oncology unit being built.
Everyone can see Tiger Brennan Drive being constructed and there was a well-attended open day, which was hosted by my colleague a month or two ago, with locals really enjoying what is happening at Tiger Brennan Drive; it is coming to fruition. I will also lay on the record, as I did publicly when I was Health Minister, member for Fong Lim, yes, the radiation oncology unit has taken too long; I acknowledge that. But as Health Minister, I worked very hard to bring this to reality. It is a complex project and I am not going into the nitty gritty of it; we have had this debate before.
I was a little concerned about your comments on the Waterfront, member for Fong Lim, calling it a liability. I believe you need to go through it. It is a public-private partnership and this government has leveraged over $1bn of investment, over the time frame you have talked about, with a minimal amount of public and government funds. What do we have so far? As you said, this development has a long time frame.
You have mentioned the wave pool, which everyone enjoys. I have a terrible confession to make, member for Fong Lim, I have not taken my surfboard there yet, but I will. I will make sure you are not around with a camera at the time. I saw the pictures you produced yesterday. Funny fellow, as my physics teacher used to say. I have been to the Convention Centre a number of times, and I do not have the figures in front of me, but I know there have been many conventions, some with over 1500 people, from all over the world. There was the SEAAOC conference, there have been medical and tourism conferences, one of which you attended member for Fong Lim. The feedback I receive from those in the tourism industry, and those who drive private hire cars and cabs, is this has provided a real opportunity, particularly during the shoulder season, when things traditionally are pretty tough in the tourism industry.
The economy is turning over, people are saying they are doing very well and they attribute much of that success to the convention centre. I believe it has been a wonderful investment, and there is more to come. I know with the new area, Jimmy Shu and others will be opening up restaurants - an Italian restaurant. There will be outdoor areas. I believe the people of Darwin really enjoy the area at present but there will be even more amenities and attractions, and the area is going to be a great signature for Darwin. We should all be proud of it and not be criticising it, member for Fong Lim.
You mentioned a number of things which are within the purview of my colleague, the member for Daly, who is the Minister for Essential Services, and I will let him speak to those issues.
Getting back to our economy, the Territory has benefited from strong economic growth since 2001. I have not mentioned the global financial crisis in my speech. All the figures, growth and business confidence, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, have occurred during a period of economic uncertainty, when many jurisdictions and regions in the rest of Australia have been going backwards, or at least been static. The Territory has moved forward and that is a real credit to Territory businesses.
I believe the government has provided a framework and support for businesses to do well. I believe the member for Fong Lim has implicitly, not explicitly, criticised the Building the Education Revolution. I know most schools in my electorate have received between $2m and $3m for those works. If you go to a school council, they are not complaining about the government, they are talking about the floor covering for the new …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: You want to quibble …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You want to quibble, member for …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: One would hope you are going to school council meetings…
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you are going to school council meetings and see what I am talking about. Schools are excited about the expenditure and the works they can carry on to support student education, to bring more amenity to their school. One school in my electorate, Millner School, has an environmentally progressive project, where they are going to be saving …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. We are talking about the Northern Territory government, not the federal government, the minister can address something. We are talking about infrastructure, fair enough, but not the federal government building infrastructure. This is not even going through the Northern Territory government; it is going directly to schools …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, there is no point of order, resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: … it has nothing to do with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat!
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I distinctly remember, as I believe all the people who have been listening would, you were very critical of the Rudd government going into deficit. The reason why it has gone into deficit is the package they have rolled out, not only the Building the Education Revolution, but a whole range of infrastructure projects, which I know my colleague, the member for Karama, has talked about, at length, within this parliament, and I know the CLP find it hard to accept. I commend the Rudd government for what it has done to lessen the impact of the global financial crisis on Australia and the Northern Territory in particular.
Access Economics recently forecast the Territory will achieve 4.9% growth in state domestic product in 2008-09, the highest of all jurisdictions, and an outstanding result in challenging times. This growth forecast does not factor in the massive INPEX project. Recently, the ANZ commented the Territory economy is leading the nation. The ANZ Regional and Rural Quarterly Report stated the following:
- The Northern Territory’s economy continues to brush aside the broader trends across Australia and the globe, with the retail sector and employment market growing at the fastest rate of any Australian state or region.
Madam Speaker, recent data highlights four consecutive quarters of positive nett interstate migration, a result seen for the first time in more than 20 years, highlighting our employment growth and strong business confidence are attracting workers, and that we need to continue our economy. As the Chief Minister pointed out in Question Time today, the problems we have in the Territory are problems of growth; they are not the problems of decay or contraction. They are the problems of growth and a strong economy.
We have acknowledged we have problems around land release, housing construction, housing affordability, rental, and public housing. We have announced, in this parliament, our strategies, and we have put them on the table, regarding land release and all those issues I have mentioned.
Yes, there are issues. There are wider issues in the Territory in the regions, in Indigenous disadvantage and in Indigenous employment. That is at the core of what is happening within the housing program, which the member for Fong Lim is being so critical about. It has been the desire of this government and the federal government that SIHIP will provide training, job opportunities, and opportunities for ongoing employment for Indigenous people in the regions. That is an important part of this very large project, which has been subject to criticism, but, I believe, in calendar year 2010, the results will be evident, particularly in the employment area I alluded to before.
Basically, I also have charge of the Land Development Corporation. We are going ahead with Bellamack Gardens, which is a pilot project. The government took on board the criticisms which were made publicly, and has amended the plan. It has gained praise and a tick in a way to go - it is one way to go. Of course, the government has wider strategies in land release and housing construction for social housing, which my colleagues, the member for Daly and Karama, have alluded to at length within this House.
You mentioned the Defence Support Hub. As you know, member for Fong Lim, the Defence White Paper has been released. There is movement in the Defence areas in a number of prime contracts. In my discussions with a number of the prime contractors, of course, they are waiting to see which way Defence is going to go in those contracts. I am very confident, given the way the Defence White Paper has highlighted Darwin, and infrastructure and personnel in Darwin, many of those contracts will come to Darwin. That fits in neatly with the Defence Support Hub. That is very important. Instead of being a white elephant, I believe it is quite a visionary project. I believe the proof will be in the pudding, and time will tell.
In summary, I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak on the matter of public importance brought forward by the member for Fong Lim. I believe I have highlighted the fact business in the Territory is doing well. I have also highlighted the government acknowledges there is much more to do: there is further investment in our infrastructure and services; and further support we can give to business. However, I will finish on this note: the problems we face are largely the problems of growth, which are good problems to have. The government is addressing that in a strategic and well-thought-out fashion, which has funding attached to the measures we are taking.
In short, this government is tuned into business, which has done very well under this government, in contrast to the previous CLP government. Businesses know what this government has done, both for it and for the people they employ. We are about jobs, development, and the economy.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this matter of public importance to the House.
To the member for Johnston, I really wish you would invest in the lives of Indigenous people and promote and put extra money into health and education, roads, homelessness, and the disadvantage and poverty of Indigenous people throughout the Northern Territory.
I pick up on one of the things discussed by the members for Fong Lim and Johnston, the 25-year liability for the waterfront. I hope the 25-year liability to the Northern Territory is not off the back of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory because, as Territory Indigenous people, we have suffered.
There have been more than the government on the gravy train of the poverty and disadvantage of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I believe the gravy train, somehow, has to stop, and this government has to seriously think about housing Indigenous people, making sure there are clinics in Indigenous communities - and Santa Teresa.
I will go to Santa Teresa. In 2001, the former Health minister, Dr Peter Toyne, promised Santa Teresa money to do repairs and maintenance to the clinic at Santa Teresa. We are now in 2009, and Santa Teresa still does not have that money – a promise made in 2001 by Dr Peter Toyne - and the people of Santa Teresa are still waiting.
In 2001, the Mereenie Loop Road was promised by Clare Martin. In 2009, Indigenous people, and the tourism industry of Central Australia, are still waiting for the Mereenie Loop to be sealed. This is a government full of spin and propaganda, not only to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory, but to all Territorians.
Not one house built under SIHIP. I heard the minister say SIHIP is about training. All you need is common sense to know you cannot train anybody in three months to get Certificate I, II or III. Territory Alliance presented to the committee on Monday and said it would only be in Ali Curung, a community where it is doing major rebuilds, for three months. How can you train anyone in the building industry in three months to get Certificate I, II or III? The whole package of SIHIP was about training; it was about building houses. However, in two years, not one house. It was about alleviating the overcrowding.
People are living in the rivers in Alice Springs; people who have had their limbs cuts off, are living in the Todd River under the bridge; people who are renal patients are living in the rivers. I hope you guys, from that side of the House, feel happy when you go out drinking tonight. I hope when you mob all go back to Darwin, that you drive past the Todd River and see all those people down the creek, and feel happy and confident in yourself, that you are going back to do more spin and more propaganda.
In saying this, I want to talk about a community called Arlparra, which is in the Utopia region and part of my electorate of Macdonnell.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the minutes of a meeting held at Urapuntja Council Aboriginal Corporation, part of the Barkly Shire Local Board.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: The minutes of that meeting reveal some very disturbing matters: children, as young as 14, have been supplied alcohol at the home of the people who have been contracted to run the Arlparra Store, and children have also been supplied marijuana at the home of the store managers.
The next two points are allegations made by senior members of the Arlparra community. In addition to the allegations at the meeting, claims have also been made to me that the daughter of the store manager has been engaged in sexual activity with young men, some of them as young as 14. There are also allegations children as young as 11 have been corrupted with alcohol and marijuana. These are very grave matters.
During the meeting, which was held in May this year, the store manager admitted that he does drink alcohol in his residence. Two police officers were present at this meeting, and witnessed that admission, but nothing was done about it. The man’s home was not searched, even though police had an admission that he had grog on his premises. There it goes again: one law for blacks, one law for whites. You can bet if he had been an Aboriginal man, his home would have been searched thoroughly, and he would have been charged and prosecuted.
Since this community tried to get rid of these people, the former licensee of the store has been convicted for drink-driving; he was on Aboriginal land at the time. He was clearly illegally consuming alcohol. But, it does not stop there. Since the meeting, his wife and daughter were also caught by police. They were stopped bringing a quantity of alcohol into the community. I am advised both the mother and daughter were charged by the police. The charges against the mother were later dropped, because she was able to successfully claim she was unaware of the alcohol in the vehicle. However, the daughter was successfully prosecuted. Both these incidents, the drink-driving and the grog running, happened after the community tried to force these people out.
It is six months since the community tried to solve this problem, yet these people are still running the Arlparra Store. These people have spoken to the Northern Territory and federal governments. I have been one of the biggest supporters of the intervention, but the intervention in that place has failed.
People like Rosie Kunoth-Monks, and the leaders of the Arlparra community, deserve the support of this parliament in making their community safer for their children. So far, that support has not been there. The Northern Territory intervention was supposed to prevent precisely those sorts of events occurring, but it has done nothing to protect the people of Arlparra from this sort of behaviour.
I table the minutes of the meeting of the Urapuntja Council Aboriginal Corporation, in the hope the Henderson government will finally take seriously the pleas for assistance from the people of the Utopia region. These people live in very vast country. They are so dispersed you might have seven people living in one little outstation, 14 in another, 25 in another and two elderly couples, as the member for Stuart would know, in one outstation.
They need the help of this government to sort this problem out. They have been talking about this problem for months, to the people who were supposed to have helped them. Nothing has happened.
Do we feel good when we sit here and listen to this kind of argument being put to this House? Can we truly say we have done enough for these people? Can we truly say we have done enough, not just for Central Australia, black and white, but, for our Indigenous people in the whole of the Northern Territory, who are suffering, while the people are still on the gravy train with their consultancies through your government? The poverty and disadvantage of Indigenous people determines how many of you people live, who your friends are, what you eat, and what kind of car you drive. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves that you have the first people of this country living in absolute poverty in your back yard.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this important matter of public importance about the constraints placed on businesses by the Henderson government’s lack of investment in necessary infrastructure, planning, essential services, and housing.
The first thing I raise is the investment in roads by the Northern Territory government. I understand, and I believe the member for Johnston spoke earlier about the investment the Northern Territory government is putting into roads, or through the infrastructure budget which includes roads. The minister might like to reflect the Northern Territory government had a big announcement with the budget for infrastructure but, the fact is, the works which end up being undertaken under the infrastructure budget, do not happen in this year.
You can call it a $1.3bn infrastructure budget, but most of the work has been carried over for the last few years, and will not be done in this financial year, it will be done in a few years time. I raised earlier in these sittings the Mereenie Loop Road. There have been 22 rollovers on the Mereenie Loop Road in the last 12 months. That road has been an election commitment by this government for a number of years but, despite that fact, it is not in this year’s election commitment, so it has planned not to do the remainder of the Mereenie Loop Road. There is nothing about the Ernest Giles Track. There is nothing in the budget about sealing the Sandover Highway, the road which was written about in the Sunday Telegraph two weeks ago, where it said it looks like a war zone, it looks like the road has been bombed. There is nothing about sealing the whole Tanami Road.
Despite the fact the member for Daly announced, in his 2005 budget election commitments, that he would build a bridge over the Daly River, nothing has happened. Four years later the bridge has not been built. The road between Daly River and Wadeye has not been sealed.
I know this was not done in the 27 years of the CLP government, and the member for Daly would like to say that, but this is the fifth biggest town in the Northern Territory, a town cut off for five months of the year, without those people having access to goods and services. That relates directly to the constraints placed on business by the lack of performance by this government. How on earth is business expected to get that community to trade? How on earth is that community supported to get its business to trade, for the purpose of goods and services? It is a real restraint on business and economic development in the Northern Territory, and these are the areas which need to be focused on, so we can help grow our economy.
The economy in the Northern Territory is currently running on a few things. In particular, it is running on the intervention, the billions of dollars the intervention is bringing to the Northern Territory, which is bringing both positive and negative effects – positive, in terms of infrastructure and negative in terms of some of the social outcomes.
How many more people does this government want to kill by not investing in roads infrastructure in the Northern Territory? The road toll in the Northern Territory last year was 75, the second worst on record apart from the 1980s. Clearly, if we have road tolls which are far exceeding the per capita basis across the country for our jurisdiction in the Northern Territory, something needs to be done. I recognise 50% of those fatalities are alcohol related, and 50% of those are seat belt related, but we still have to invest in the infrastructure in these communities. We have to invest in infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory, so we can assist people.
I note, and I will go back to, the Commonwealth Grants Commission statistics which I have quoted several times this week, which no one in the Labor government seems to be keen to talk about, least of all the member for Arnhem, who, quite atrociously, underspent in Children’s Services, to the tune of 66% of the budget.
In the area of road’s spending, in the 2007-08 budget, the Commonwealth Grants Commission estimated there needed to be $267m spent on roads in the Northern Territory. It assessed the Northern Territory government would have only about $79m of its own money, because the Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction, so the Commonwealth government, through its GST revenue, gave an estimated $188m extra to support the Northern Territory government with its roads.
What did the Northern Territory government spend in the 2007-08 year? It spent $98m, 37% of the assessed budget by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. How on earth do we expect roads like the Mereenie Loop Road to get sealed, the Tanami Road, the road to Wadeye, the Central Arnhem Highway, the Arnhem Highway, or getting the Barkly fixed? The Barkly was washed out earlier this year. It is still not fixed, nearly 12 months later, and coming on to the Wet Season. It sat on $169m, or should I say, diverted an assessed amount of $169m away from road’s spending. It diverted an estimated $144m, nearly $145m, away from Family and Community Services; it diverted an estimated $114m away from services to Indigenous communities; $58m away from Correctional Services. Where did the money go? It went to pay back excessive debt of $90m. It went to pay back $358m of superannuation in one year.
What sort of a government can stand by - recognising we have a vast network of very poor quality roads since this Labor government came to power - what sort of government can spend $358m on superannuation for its 17 000 public servants, but only spend $98m on roads? What sort of government can spend $358m – let me say that again, because they are big numbers - $358m on superannuation and $1m on transporting rural children to school. How can the government do that? How can the government spend $358m on superannuation, in the last financial year reported, and only spend $71m - nearly $72m - on looking after children. In the same year the Little Children are Sacred report came out, and the same year Mal Brough had to come to the Territory to try to rescue these children. How can it do that? It goes on year after year.
Albeit, the 2007-08 financial year was slightly better than the $45m it spent the year before. There was $45m on trying to help, rescue and protect kids, but it managed to spend $79m on culture and recreation, pork-barrelling electorates in the Northern Territory to keep them elected, but not looking after the children. The member for Macdonnell was right when she was talking about the services to Indigenous communities, but more importantly, the children. How can you invest in superannuation and not look after the kids? That is utterly disgraceful. I will move on, because I know I only have 15 minutes to speak.
There is something which I am very keen on talking about. Something which is 103 m long, has a beam of 14.25 m, a draft of 3.82 m, is 4000 gross tonnes, has an engine that is 3265 HP, runs at a speed of 12.5 knots, was built in Germany in 2003, and is registered in the Bahamas; it is, of course, a boat. It is a boat registered in the Bahamas and is built to carry hundreds of people. It is a cruise boat which comes to the Northern Territory and tries to promote our economy. It fits in very well with this MPI about the constraints placed on business by the Henderson Labor government’s lack of investment in necessary infrastructure, planning and others. This boat is called the Orion.
Let me sidestep for a minute and talk about the Darwin Port Authority. There has been much criticism about the Darwin Port Authority for a long period of time. I recall the member for Johnston saying we will never be competitive with containers in the Northern Territory. His words were: ‘We cannot compete on containers’. The Darwin Port Authority is a public body which is over-bureaucratic, top heavy, has high expenses on management, and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, at any one time. It is a reflection of how this government operates – top heavy, over-bureaucratic, too much money spent on consultants, and little work getting done; little customer service, and little delivery on the ground. One of the problems we have at the Darwin Port Authority, is while it spent squillions of dollars in the management sector, it is not ensuring the required safety standards are put in place throughout the Darwin Port Authority and around the harbour. There is over 13 500 km of coastline in the Northern Territory, and the Darwin Port Authority has responsibility in that regard.
When boats come into ports managed by the Darwin Port Authority, it must take responsibility to ensure the safe arrival and the safe management of those ships. I recognise the Port of Darwin is getting busier all the time. It is at capacity now in some regards, but there are massive opportunities for growth. However, because of this over-reliance on management and focus on management, the safety standards are not being adhered to and Port Authority staff are not going out and checking the markers appropriately, they are not checking the guide lights for the ships which are out, or checking the charts are right to guide boats.
I will go back to the Orion. I have Captain Taylor’s report for 1 May 2009; he was in charge of a boat which carries hundreds of people - I have described the boat. On 1 May 2009, he made this report as he pulled into Port Melville to dock. Recognising the Port Authority has not been carrying out its safety standards to check its equipment, guide lights and so forth, he pulled into Port Melville, and I quote from the report:
- None of the pile lights in the approach to Port Cockburn/Pirlangimpi could be seen. According to the locals, they have been gone for a while
I have checked and this is quite correct, and no one has been to check this.
It continues:
- … significant variances where the UKC dropped quickly from 20 m to 10 m, before opening up again.
We have the Orion, with hundreds of people on board, coming to dock at Port Melville, with no pilot lights or guidance, so the captain is trying to rely on the charts of the ship, which were out compared to the ocean floor. We have tourists coming into the Territory, on a tourist boat, to spend money in the Territory and help our economy, but because the government has neglected its management of the Port Authority, those 200 people’s lives have been put at risk. In Australia, we do not have boat accidents, fortunately; I cannot remember the last time there was a significant boat accident, which is a good thing.
We have neglect by the Northern Territory government, which put hundreds of people’s lives at risk, when trying to pull into Port Melville because this government has taken its eye off the ball; it is not listening to its staff at the lower level in the Port Authority, who have told it where the mistakes are. How many people does this government want to kill by its neglect? We have heard about its concerns with child abuse. We know it is not investing in the roads, not building any houses, and we have another area of deceit and neglect by this government. Hundreds of people could have been killed because this government is not undertaking the appropriate safety checks, which are the responsibility of the Darwin Port Authority.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, members. This is another glowing example of incompetence by the Henderson Labor government, which is placing restraints, or constraints, on businesses and putting people’s lives at risk. Hundreds of people could have been killed because of this government’s neglect, and the Henderson government should be ashamed.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on this matter of public importance. It is very appropriate, here in Alice Springs, I focus my contribution in this debate to Alice Springs businesses.
I know many of the other speakers have not; they have strayed far and wide. I had the distinct impression tonight - a night of tumultuous change at the political level - that the member for Fong Lim might be trying to emulate his former colleague in Canberra, Tony Abbott, in some sort of leadership changeover – it was very strange behaviour with a prepared speech at this late hour. Very strange tactics on behalf of the member for Fong Lim.
I have moved around in my travels to Alice Springs, and talked to business people about how they are going. What I get back from them, in different sectors of the Alice Springs community, is they are doing well, they are achieving strong sales and strong turnover in their businesses. Things are happening here. To a degree, I believe they have been surprised in the current environment of the global financial crisis, that they have had a bumper turnover.
The MPI is about business, and there seems to be very good business strength in Alice Springs. As has been highlighted earlier in debate this week, tourism numbers have been up and tourism providers I have spoken to are saying they have had a good response from caravan travellers. Maybe people are staying home and touring within Australia. The Northern Territory and Alice Springs are attracting interstate and international tourists. That is all good news.
What makes all this happen? What keeps business going? It is investment by the government. It is this government which has invested a record $1.3bn in a whole range of areas across the Northern Territory to stimulate the business community, the private sector, and also the social sector. It has been an unprecedented step to go into temporary deficit to support business in uncertain economic times, but it has been a very wise move, which has paid results.
That money is going into a whole range of areas. It is going into roads, both in the bush and in the urban areas, on major highways, enabling both residents of the Northern Territory and visitors to the Northern Territory, to get around more easily. It is also going into Essential Services, power, water and sewerage, and I will talk about those later, but it is a record investment in that area. It is going into schools, the port, recreational areas, and housing. There is a spread of investment across the Northern Territory and across different sectors of our economy.
We have a record spend in the housing area and, with our repairs and maintenance, using local contractors, we have increased spending in that area and are trying to get that money to those sub-contractors across the Northern Territory. I know the local contractors have done well through the Nation Building stimulus package. We had the first amount of $4.1m, a quick fix to inject money into the economy, which went, primarily, into getting sub-contractors working, keeping that work flowing into their businesses and keeping those tradespeople on board, so they did not lose any staff. That enabled us to upgrade many of our public housing dwellings.
The second part, I guess it was the first stage as they call it, was $7.1m, which was to build new public housing. In Alice Springs we have two four-bedroom homes nearly completed at Carruthers and Spicer Street. I inspected them this week, and they will be handed over to families. It is a good result getting that money out the door.
In the second stage we were able to attract $45m, and this money was based on per capita. Much of our other money comes to the Northern Territory through different formulas, where we get extra dollars above and beyond our per capita. I believe they thought it was the simplest way to do it. Of that $45m, $14m came to Alice Springs and has gone into local businesses and local projects. It will deliver a complete refurbishment of The Lodge, which was closed down, and those 35-units will be provided to renal dialysis patients. There is the Salvation Army facility, where there will be an extra eight one-bedroom units for mainly men, and there will also be, in town, four two-bedroom units and 24-units of managed accommodation.
It must be remembered a large proportion of our clientele, within public housing and short-term accommodation, is Indigenous. The Indigenous people of Alice Springs will benefit from this stimulus money coming to Alice Springs, especially those people who are in most need, with medical, physical and social issues to deal with.
Of those projects, many are under way and we hope to have them completed soon. Also within the homelessness area, we have $1m coming from the Street to Home Project, which has enabled us to get more homeless accommodation available. Within the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness there is $54m, over four years, which will see much short-term crisis accommodation provided.
It was announced recently $250 000 would provide an additional six beds for homeless people. That funding has been provided to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, which does great work, and it is good to see a proportion of that money coming down. I thank the member for Barkly.
I touch on some comments made by the member for Braitling, about the investment in housing and homelessness. Those comments are wrong and he is trying to form a point of attack, from old data, which fails to reflect our true expenditure on housing. He has heard many times in this House about our expenditure and he has seen the budget, so he is being mischievous.
He quoted the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, in which the assessed expenditure described the commission’s estimate of what all states and territories would need to spend in order to provide national average levels of services, taking into account a range of factors, which include socio-demographic characteristics and remoteness. It is an estimate based on national targets not in our budget. The types of services considered are those which are predominantly dominated by the larger states, and often do not correspond easily with services needed in the Northern Territory.
This is the case with the homeless category, where the needs in the Northern Territory differ greatly from those in New South Wales and Victoria. Our focus is on Indigenous housing, and improving Indigenous housing affordability. In the Northern Territory, the response to homelessness is to increase the stock and standard of Indigenous housing. Due to the Commonwealth Grants Commission reporting cycle, the data used is two years out of date. Under this reporting method used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, while the Territory’s actual expenditure is less than its assessed amount, it is sometimes misinterpreted as underspending on the category of service delivery. That is incorrect. The member for Braitling would know, that in this budget, we have spent a record $390m on social housing, which is six times the figure the member for Braitling was talking about; that is in our own budget.
The Northern Territory government is delivering more in its housing than ever before. This year’s budget, 2009-10, boosts housing funding by 92% from previous years. Importantly, these figures do not include the SIHIP project, which is $672m over five years; it does not include the National Partnership Agreements we have around homelessness, which is $54m over five years; or the $60m which is coming to the Northern Territory through the Operation Stimulus for Social Housing.
Taking all those figures into account, we have spent much more than the figure the member for Braitling has been touting around, quite incorrectly, but what does the truth matter to the member for Braitling?
I will move on to Power and Water. The member for Fong Lim talked about essential services to support business. The member for Johnston talked about a growing economy, and you have to grow your essential services. As members will be aware, there is $1.4bn going into capital works and repairs and maintenance in Power and Water. This is a record amount, which is rectifying the underspending of previous decades in those areas.
In Alice Springs, people would be aware of the new Owen Springs Power Station, which is a $130m investment in Alice Springs. A state-of-the-art generation and high voltage distribution network to Alice Springs. I was out at Owen Springs Power Station the other day, and it is coming along really well. Sadly, it was the early part of last week, which had about 40 C temperatures, so the workers were under great duress, but the work is on track. I hope, towards this time next year, we will be seeing the completion of that power station.
Members would also be aware of the proposed route of the power lines. It has tried to accommodate, as much as possible, the views of local residents. Usually, in these situations, those easements, the routes for those high voltage power lines, are already in place; they are in Darwin. However, with the move of the power station out of Alice Springs, it required a different route to come into the new Lovegrove Substation. Obviously, it was creating a little anxiety, but we have accommodated most of the interests of the tourism industry and local residents. The Scott Range and Heavitree Range will not be obscured by these high voltage power lines.
It is very relevant to have upgrades of water supplies, and we are investing in that area in Alice Springs. It is important to keep ahead of demand, to provide businesses with the confidence to invest, both here and elsewhere in the Territory.
In the Alice Springs region, the following planning and/or works are under way: new production bores at Roe Creek, to provide increased security of supply; three new bores to be equipped by later this year; planning on various upgrades …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the minister tell us why he can build a donga at Howard Springs and he cannot build a house for SIHIP?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr KNIGHT: … to the central zone water system is under way; and two new production bores at Kings Canyon will provide increased security of supply, one of these bores is to be equipped by early 2010.
Madam Speaker, there is much going on. I am confining my statement to the MPI; I was one of the only members who did. We are investing in infrastructure, essential services, and housing to support businesses, including businesses in Alice Springs. I thank the member for bringing this on.
Discussion concluded.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Alice Springs Sittings – Appreciation
Alice Springs Sittings – Appreciation
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I adjourn the Assembly, I take the opportunity to thank staff of the Legislative Assembly for the extraordinary amount of work required in setting up the parliament in Alice Springs.
In particular, I thank the Clerk, Mr McNeill, the Deputy Clerk, Captain Horton, the Building Services staff, the Clerk-Assistant, Mr Graham Gadd, the IT Manager, Greg Connors, who saved the mental health of a number of us; Annette Brown and Steve Stokes in the Table Office, as well as Helen Allmich and the people who are in Parliament House doing Hansard. It has been terrific they have actually been able to have this here every day - a very big job from Alice Springs.
I also thank the staff at the convention centre for all their effort in putting together this special parliament, the Alice Springs police, and everyone else who has been involved with this.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a great deal of congratulations.
Before we go, honourable members, I wish you all a very happy and safe Christmas, and I look forward to seeing you in the February sittings.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
As is traditional for the last sittings of parliament for the year, as member for Karama I acknowledge and thank the many people who have worked tirelessly in my electorate to support me both as local member and a minister.
First, I would like to acknowledge my Electorate Officer, Kerry Wetherall, who does an enormous job out there in Karama. Obviously, my ministerial requirements mean I am out of the electorate more often than I would like, apart from going home and shopping and living in the community there, but in day-to-day work life, she is running the Karama Electorate Office very capably, very efficiently, and very friendly.
When an advertisement appeared recently in a newspaper for a personal assistant for me, even though it was a ministerial position, many people called into my Karama office upset at the thought Kerry might be leaving. She had to calm them down and let them know it was not her job that was advertised; which goes to show how popular she is in the electorate, and how very much people appreciate the support she gives them in working with me to ensure their issues are followed up and taken care of.
Kerry is a great, local, Indigenous woman with enormous strength, enormous respect and networks throughout the community. She is a mother of four children and, despite a heavy workload and four children and activities at local schools, finds the time to be a foster carer. She is a woman I hold in enormous regard, and she is a hell of a lot of fun.
I also want to thank Dee Hona, who helps out from time to time in the electorate office as well. Dee is another local mother who is very interested in community issues, has a great, caring nature and is very supportive of people who come in seeking assistance.
I want to thank my ministerial staff without whom I could not achieve all the hard work we get through in the year. I sincerely thank the leader of my team, Bags. He and I have had a very good, close, solid working relationship over the years. I had to cope without him for some months this year, and I was certainly very pleased when he returned, and was delighted to have the team back together. Sonia, Carly, Tracey, Joanna, Campbel, Wolf, Marita, Fleur and Gracie - they all put in an enormous effort in my office. We work as a team and I know we are a very supportive and friendly team in the office. They are each, in their own right, highly professional, very dynamic, innovative thinkers, self-motivators, entertaining, and very embracing, kind, gentle people as well. I feel very privileged to work with such fine Territorians.
I also want to thank the support network I have around me. Doing the hours I do and having young children, I do rely on my support network. I sincerely thank Lisa, Giovanna, Graham, Freddy, and Greg - they are great - they provide the nurturing community in which I am raising my children.
Also, I want to thank the agencies I have had the privilege of working with this year.
Treasury do an enormous amount of work; they are a very small agency in numbers, but they punch above their weight. They work across government and, without Treasury, many things would not happen efficiently, effectively and reasonably. Jennifer Prince is a very fine Under-Treasurer, and she has a very professional, effective team working for her in Treasury, and I hold them all in very high regard.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure - I call them the engine room of government - through them the bulk of the heavy lifting work is done by Richard Hancock and his management team: Rod Applegate, Mike Chiodo, and Marj Morrissey and the others, who do a fantastic job and right down the chain; I know they all put in an enormous effort in DPI to get those projects out the door, to get the planning done and to get the engine room humming. So I thank them, and I acknowledge the work they do.
The Department of Justice; as Attorney-General, I have embraced that work this year and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the Justice team of Greg Shanahan and Elizabeth Morris. They are very fine people and they are good thinkers. I also acknowledge the fine advice the Solicitor-General, Michael Grant, gives the Northern Territory government when he is called upon. He is quick, and his advice is very timely and very thorough. He is a great legal mind.
I acknowledge the great work the courts do across in the Territory. They do the heavy, hard work at the pointy end of the Justice system, and I have a very high regard for the Chief Justice and all our Judges; the Chief Magistrate and all our Magistrates, and all the Court support staff who assist them in their daily work. They see the ugly side of Territory life, but they deal with the system in a very professional manner, and I have enormous regard for all of them in the work they do; equally, the policy team working in Justice and their legal advice.
I also recognise the fine work done at the electorate level by our schools. Karama was the winner of the Northern Territory Award this year for the innovative work they did in community engagement. The school is into the finals to take out, hopefully, a national award. The school has topped the Territory, and I am incredibly proud of the work Marg Fenbury and the team do at Karama working with the Smith Family.
At Malak Primary School, we have sadly lost Paul Nyhuis as Principal. He was a great leader at the school, and I welcome the strength the school is showing and look forward to working with the new principal. The school benefited enormously from $1m facelift of the assembly area, which the Northern Territory government funded; it is probably one of the better facilities in the Territory, and I have seen many schools.
I acknowledge Bill Armstrong and his team at Manunda Terrace Primary School. They work with a very diverse student cohort; they take on challenging issues every day; it is a great small school in my electorate, and I have a very high regard for them.
Holy Family is a very nurturing Catholic school in my electorate. I see the work they do in nurturing the kids through the system firsthand, as a parent, and the outcomes. I have enormous regard for Marty Ogle and his team there. I also acknowledge Rainbows, the Early Learning Centre attached to the school, which my son attends. Michelle and her team do a fantastic job working with the young children there, and I thank them for the work they do.
At Sanderson Middle School, we have had a changing of the guard this year with the Principal, and we are waiting for confirmation. We have a very fine Principal acting in the position at the moment, and we are hoping she gets the gig. The staff at Sanderson Middle School deal with a cohort of students who come from what we call socioeconomic disadvantage, and they do an extremely fine job in teaching and learning practices. The Clontarf Program has been fantastic there; and Kerry, who runs the girls program, is proving if you put the effort into children from a disadvantaged background, you achieve real results - you get school attendance, you see changes in behaviour, and you achieve learning outcomes. Congratulations to Sanderston Middle School.
O’Loughlin Catholic College is a fantastic college, and Lester Lemke and his team do a fine job taking students from middle school through to senior school.
Marrara Christian College is a school I am learning more and more about. They are doing incredible things there, particularly with VET and, of course, they have a large cohort of students who come from remote communities and live in group homes in Darwin. Congratulations to the staff there.
Malak and Karama Childcare Centres, community-based childcare centres, are doing a great job with the young kids there.
I want to thank my colleagues for their great support; I love working with the team. Also the Legislative Assembly staff, the ministerial staff, who all do an enormous job.
To my good mates who keep me going and keep me laughing: Adele, Vanda, Sally and Nick, thank you. We all need some joy in our lives and they bring a lot of joy to my life. However, fundamentally, you cannot go past your family and Christmas greetings to them because they have to put up with me mostly being at work. So, to Dawn, Dianne and Terry, thank you for keeping things going and running for me all the time, and being there as my backstop. It does not matter what is going down. they are there for me; they nurture me, love me, and that is enormous.
Most of all, to my children: Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. No one would choose to be the child of a politician, and they are doing well. They are very loving and they tell me they are proud of me - not that my five-year-old really knows what I do, but he does like Parliament House on his sick days, and he knows how to work the video in my office.
Merry Christmas to everyone; it is the festive season - keep safe, love your families, take the opportunity to have a breather and come back and let us get on with the good business of government, democracy and parliament in 2010.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure all members of parliament will want to hear this news. I want to announce to the parliament that pop singer, Jessica Mauboy, has won her first ARIA award. The seven-time nominated singer won the highest selling single for Burn. We all know she was a former Australian Idol finalist, and she is attending tonight’s ceremony in Sydney with her mum and dad, who travelled from Darwin for the Australian Music Industry’s night of nights. Jessica Mauboy thanked God, her family, and friends as she accepted the award.
Congratulations, Jessica! She has worked very hard and she makes us proud in the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I also extend my congratulations to Jessica; she is a fine role model for people like me who try to sing in the shower, but will never achieve anything beyond that; and thank God for that, I suspect.
Tonight I wish to address an issue, and as much as I would like to do my Christmas thing the fact is, I cannot avoid this. I have often been critical of this government for its inconsistent approach to native title and the issues of compulsory acquisition. Again, today, this side of the House was berated for a policy position which was incorrectly described and, more importantly, it is a policy position which we have always adhered to in this House because of its necessity, not because of any joy. I am talking about the issue of the compulsory acquisition of native title.
I listened with interest today to the Chief Minister congratulating himself and the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, on their success in the Federal Court over the acquisition of town camps in Alice Springs. It is then incredible and defies imagination when in that same Question Time the Chief Minister berates members of the opposition for having a philosophy which includes, potentially, the compulsory acquisition of native title.
How can you possibly come into this House and congratulate yourself for compulsory acquisition, and then berate someone else for compulsorily acquiring something. This inconsistency is repeated again and again. Case in point: the native title claim over Darwin was fought to the highest degree by this government. They took the native title claim over Darwin to the High Court of Australia.
You have to understand what a native title claim is. When you pay a lawyer to argue against a native title claim, what you are actually saying to that lawyer is: ‘Go into court and argue on our behalf that native title has been extinguished’. When you pay a lawyer to do that, you make a Cabinet decision to do so. All the ministers sit around in Cabinet and say: ‘What are we going to do with this particular deal?’ And the decision is taken: ‘We are going to fight these people all the way to the High Court of Australia’.
I find it extremely incongruous to then hear government ministers consistently stand up, the very same people who made this decision, and then recognise the native title rights of the Larrakia people over Darwin when they make a speech. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Blue Mud Bay is another case which intertwined native title and land rights issues. This government has a policy of negotiation rather than litigation - that is what they tell us. What did they do with Blue Mud Bay? Did they fight it all the way to the High Court of Australia? My word, they did. Moreover, they took out full page advertisements in the Northern Territory News to say they were going to do it.
For the Chief Minister to then stand at this dispatch box and articulate he is a negotiator and not a litigator, defies reason. Those words should lodge in his throat like a gorge. But, no, without batting an eyelid, he and this government will engage in an hypocrisy which can only be described as monumental.
Let us explore what the extinguishment of native title actually means. You have to remember there was land pressure on this town back in about 2001-02. The native title claimants over Alice Springs asserted successfully those native title rights survived in certain places. As a consequence, the government had a choice - they could either negotiate, or they could compulsorily acquire. Let us put something else to bed, which I heard articulated twice today: if you acquire native title, you will end up in the courts and nothing will get done. Wrong! The reason it is wrong is if you acquire a native title right, a government may do so, and the High Court has said a government may do so for any reason whatsoever
The fight you will have in the courts will have nothing to do with the land release or the land you are trying to acquire. The fight you will have in the courts, should it get that far, is how much compensation you will pay. It will not prevent land release from going ahead. That, again, is a misnomer.
Now let us look at what happened with Larapinta Stage 4. It was negotiated over a period of about three or four years - it took forever - as land prices and pressure on land in this town continued to increase and increase. What the government wanted the native titleholders to do was extinguish their title rights in return for some other value when the land was released. The reason for that is you cannot turn off a freehold block whilst native title still exists; it just becomes a nightmare for the transfer of title. So, you have to extinguish, which is what the government sought and Lhere Artepe, quite wisely, agreed. What they got out of that was the equivalent of about half the value of the freehold land, because they got half the blocks to turn off. That was a great result, but took too long.
Now let us look at what would have happened had native title been acquired. This would have been the result: native title would have been acquired; there would have been an argument over compensation, and compensation would have been set at probably about half freehold title. As a consequence, rather than three years of negotiation during which the Lhere Artepe organisation got nothing, they would have had the equivalent of half the value of freehold sitting in the bank account three years earlier. The result would have been exactly the same as the negotiated outcome: half the freehold value of the land, and the extinguishment of native title. Precisely the same outcome would have been achieved.
But, no, we get these lectures from government ministers who do not understand any of this stuff and, moreover, hide themselves behind a shroud of ignorance which is hard to imagine. They have taken on a role of such extraordinary hypocrisy when it comes to this important issue, that for them to stand in this place in the same Question Time and simply say they are happy to be successful in the courts over acquiring the town camps of Alice Springs, knowing the compulsory acquisition of native title is wrong, is simply absurd. It goes to the heart of how this government operates - so long as it looks good - so long as they can get the full page advertisement into the newspaper, so long as they can get the spin doctors to make it look good for them, they will take out the full page advertisements in the northern suburbs and dog-whistle their way through this particular claim which might upset the amateur fishermen. Then, in the next breath, they will congratulate themselves for fighting native title claims over Darwin; and in the next breath they will acknowledge the native title claimants over Darwin every time they make a speech; and in the next breath they will say they are negotiators.
This is why this government should no longer govern the Northern Territory - simply because they are incapable of any form of reasoned thought and consistent approach.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the ones I made before in my role as the Speaker.
It was remiss of me to forget to mention the Parliamentary Education staff, particularly Jan Sporn, Caroline Cavanagh, Phyllis and Karen for the hard work they put into bringing the school groups here this week. There were around 800 children from Central Australia, and it certainly made the parliament a more interesting place with so many young people here; so I would like to pass on my thanks to them.
Also, the security staff at Parliament House have done a terrific job looking after us; and also the extra security staff from the Convention Centre.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my own personal staff, Karen and Vishal who, throughout the year, have been hard-working, loyal and have shown a sense of humour throughout everything. It has been a very hard year for all members, and I believe our staff, family and friends have felt that as well, and I thank them very much for their good humour and hard work.
I turn now to my electorate, and I want to thank the people of my electorate and wish them a very happy and safe Christmas. In particular, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer, Janet Webb who, I am convinced, is the best electorate officer in the Northern Territory, and no one is going to change my mind on that. She does terrific work, works well beyond what is required. For example, I have been away for most of the last five weeks, to Alice Springs four times, and to East Timor, and she has held the fort here. Many ministers rely on having excellent electorate officers who contact us by mobile phone, or by e-mail, and Janet certainly maintains her sense of humour and pleasantness all the time.
I have the great fortune of being the patron of a large number of groups, and I would like to wish a very happy and safe Christmas to members of the Nightcliff Sports Club, the Nightcliff Orchid Society, and I am hoping my New Year resolution to actually grow an orchid will be successful. The Orchid Society gives me orchids every year, and I am afraid they have not lasted - the dog ate the last one they gave me - but I will happily continue to attempt to grow them.
I am also the Patron of the Nightcliff Lawn Bowls, and I am looking forward to attending their awards function this Saturday night.
The Nightcliff Evergreen Seniors Club is a wonderful group of people who make being senior citizens look a good thing to be
I also have the great honour of being the Patron of the Darwin Legacy War Widows and, once again, what a wonderful group of women they are. They suffered the loss of their husbands, who gave their lives as a result of wars, and it is a great honour to be the patron of that group. I wish them all a very happy and safe Christmas with their families.
I recently became the patron of Dragons Abreast NT, and what an inspirational group of women they are. As a survivor of breast cancer myself, it is a great honour to be asked to do this, and I look forward to working with them next year.
I am also the Vice Patron of the United Nations Association of the Northern Territory, which is a very interesting job, working with the United Nations and looking at the things they do right across the world, and being their link with the Northern Territory. I congratulate the people who are involved with that group.
I am also the Vice Patron for NT Surf Lifesaving, and I would like to wish happiness to Tony and Julie, and to the President, Bob Creek. This is a very inspirational group. There are about 1500 people in the Surf Lifesaving NT group across the Territory. There is a new group which has just been set up in Nhulunbuy, as I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy would know - the first Indigenous Surf Lifesaving group in Australia. They are a wonderful group of people, and it is wonderful to see young people involved in such a productive and special activity.
Honourable members, once again, I wish you all a very happy and safe season, and I look forward to seeing you next year.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I send festive regards to my family as well; I have two in the audience tonight, Eric and Imran, and my sister, Maureen, and little Mahlia and, of course, my children, Scotty, Kathy, and Nicholas.
I refer now to one of the strangest professional connections we politicians have in our public lives. It is one which has loomed large for me in recent months. I speak of the tie we have with local media. I passed the year in review. It has been an interesting year in which I have gone from the safety and numbers of the Labor regime, which exerts a strong influence on the media, to the lone road of independence.
I want to pay tribute to those brave, even-handed members of the media in both Darwin and Alice Springs who have given me a fair hearing. Everyone in this House knows I have been subjected to fierce and sustained attacks from some quarters of the press; and those matters have been dealt with elsewhere and I will not go into them.
I want to express one point in the strongest terms I can. I know members on the government benches have sat in silence and watched as I have been bullied by the media outlets they have close ties with. I know they have little smiles of satisfaction on their faces because they see me as one who has become their political adversary.
They see attacks on me and my reputation as a gain for them. They congratulate themselves on the brilliance of their spin machine, which has such control over certain media allies whose journalists will go into the attack at the 5th floor’s command. This is a short sighted attitude - the media can run unfair campaigns against any politician. Those who turn against me one day can turn on another person another day, Madam Deputy Speaker, against you or against any other member here.
I feel the media corps in Darwin is burdened with a number of biased reporters pushing their own political alliance. It is another vital NT institution in danger of failing and leaving us trapped in a dark, bleak night. There has been a terrible absence of serious political discussion in this parliament about the role of the local media: about the connections between government media advisors and certain sections of the media corps; and inadequate coverage of public affairs which results. In the wake of what has happened in recent months, the time for that discussion has come. We have reached a point where the great hope for the future of the Territory as a free society with open, clean debate now rests on radio broadcasters - they are the media heroes of the past year.
I want to pay tribute to the ABC’s Leon Compton, who combines style and intellect; whose programs compare with the best the ABC can offer on the national stage. He is a great asset for the Territory, and his voice lights up the air waves.
I also want to pay tribute to Pete Davies, whose boldness and candour warm my heart and give strength to the many Territorians who listen to him. All we, in the public eye, want is a fair go, and we get it from Peter and his able news reporter, Paris Lord. They have given me a voice when others have maligned me. I thank them both and look forward to speaking with them next year.
To Daryl Manzie: from the bottom of my heart I thank you for understanding what the battles of politics mean, how important they are and how much the truth matters, and how much clear thinking and plain speaking matter. Without you, we would live in a much more confused society where ideas would scarcely circulate, and we would have no real debate at all.
I say to Adrian Renzi of 8HA, thank you, my fellow Centralian, for the time you have provided for us to discuss the issues which lie at the core of our thoughts. We in Alice Springs can go forward together, hand in hand. We are not divided by race; we are united by place.
I thank the journalists of the Centralian Advocate, especially Dan Moss, for fair reporting in Central Australia. He is a very hard-working young man, and I thank you, Dan.
I thank, of course, those great heroes of the Centre, Erwin Chlanda and Keiran Finnane. Their paper, the Alice Springs News, is one of the chief professional and commercial success stories of the inland, even though the Northern Territory government refuses to give them a fair share of the public sector advertising dollar, and hates them for their fearless coverage. God bless you, Keiran and Erwin, you make me proud to be a Central Australian.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to end with a story about the media and its power to do harm.
I have many good, professional relationships with ABC journalists and with the ABC here in the NT. It plays a crucial part; it is a great national institution, but its real significance is local; in the region. Local ABC is where the gold is, but there is a mindset in some parts of the ABC, a mindset linked with the old, progressive, establishment in Indigenous affairs; reporters who do not want any annoying Aboriginal politicians getting in their way. When they hear traditional leaders speaking up for a new broom in Indigenous affairs, they want to cut them down; and they will use any method.
There is an old, dissipated television reporter at the ABC. I am not going to name him today, even though I could under parliamentary privilege. I could use his name and expose him before you all for what he is; but I am just going to tell you about the most remarkable event in a long campaign this reporter and his associates have waged against me. He has been trying to interfere in the course of NT politics and pull down traditional leaders and advance the course of the old, failed urban Aboriginal representatives we know so well; the spokesmen without traditional ties; the helpers we do not need.
In the early months of this year when I was the minister for Arts and I was cleaning out the mess and disorder in the old Arts system I inherited, this reporter was given a false leak about me, and he pursued it with a will in order to entrap me on camera. He rang my press secretary and told her the ABC had already filmed the CLP opposition discussing this matter. I established, as soon as I had done my television interview with the ABC, this was a lie.
I cannot tolerate liars in private or in public life; and in the media, which trades on truth, lies are utterly unacceptable. I will never speak to that reporter again. It would be best for the ABC to pay serious attention to the type of people it sends to report on Aboriginal politics. It would be best for the ABC to pay close attention to their biases, their dishonesties, their political connections, and their intrigues.
We politicians have to live up to high standards. We must use plain speech and keep open minds. There must be no lies from us, no deceptions, no spin and no slander. But I have heard little in the way of true speech in this House this year from the government side, or from the government’s allies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you will seek to enforce the principles of truth and honesty with more rigour in this House in the year to come.
I conclude by stressing how deeply I believe in a free media, but the media must also strive to live up to the high standard it demands of politicians.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to acknowledge the passing of Mrs Winifred McFarland, the matriarch of a proud Northern Territory family comprising a number of long-serving members of the Northern Territory Police.
Recounting the story of Winifred’s life in the Territory and the contribution she and her husband made to the Northern Territory Police, and to bush communities, bring home just how difficult and often dangerous life could be throughout that period.
Winifred, or Win, as she was affectionately known, was born in Derby in 1914. Her mother and father were Frank and Henrietta Sack and they lived in Western Australia in the early 1900s. Sadly, Win’s father died when she was still quite young. Win attended boarding school until she was 14 and, upon leaving school, she trained at a secretarial college in Perth.
Win and her sister, Dorothy, moved to Darwin in 1934 and Win’s mother, Henrietta, later visited Darwin for a short visit but, like many of us who came from elsewhere, she stayed for many years. She found employment at the Parap Hotel and, for a time, managed the tea rooms at the Adelaide River Railway Station. Win’s sister, Dorothy, secured employment with barrister, Tiger Lyons. Win worked for Dr Cecil Cook, who was the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Protector of Aborigines.
In 1938, Win married Lionel McFarland. Lionel served with the garrison in Darwin and then pursued a career with the Northern Territory Police. He was transferred by police to Alice Springs, at that time a town of just a few hundred people, and with few amenities to make life comfortable. Win recalled that, to escape the heat of their house, the family often slept outdoors.
Lionel and Winifred’s daughter, Gloria, was born in 1939, shortly after they moved to Alice. The family then moved to Tennant Creek which, you would know, would have been a further challenge. Tennant Creek at that time had no water reticulation, and even more primitive amenities than Alice.
In 1941, Lionel transferred back to Darwin. Lionel and Winifred’s second daughter, Lesley, was born in November 1941. Darwin at this time was under threat of invasion and Winifred, Gloria, and Lesley, just three weeks old at the time, were evacuated to Perth by sea. Lionel stayed on in Darwin, and did not see his family for over two years. I am told Lionel was known for being the only police officer to remain in Darwin during every single bombing raid.
In 1943, Win and the girls rejoined Lionel, and they then transferred to Arltunga in Central Australia. Now, this was isolation! Travelling the roads in that area in those times took about an hour per mile because of the poor quality of the roads. The Arltunga Police Station closed in 1944, and Lionel moved to Harts Range to set up a police station there.
One can only imagine what living conditions were like at bush stations at that time: - corrugated roofs creaking with temperature changes; no air-conditioning; often earth floors with no covering; walls made from bush timber; bathing in metal tubs in front of a fire in winter, and cooking on primitive stoves.
In 1945, Win was evacuated by the Flying Doctor to the Alice Springs Hospital, and their third daughter, Cheryl, was born. In 1946, the family moved to Maranboy and, in 1947, they moved to Pine Creek. Win is said to have always recalled with fondness the friendships she nurtured with Aboriginal women and their families during the time she lived at bush police stations. Life for a young mother who was not a born and bred bush girl would have been very challenging, especially during long, lonely periods when Lionel was out on patrol.
Lionel and Winifred’s fourth daughter, Terri, was born in 1948 at the Katherine Hospital. The family moved back to Darwin in 1950, residing for a few years at the old Parap Police Station. In 1951, Lionel and Winifred’s fifth daughter, Gay, was born; and their son, Gregory, was born in 1954.
Lionel retired in 1973 when he was Staff Sergeant for Commissioner McLaren, and he was awarded the British Empire Medal for distinguished service.
Like many others, the McFarland family suffered significant loss during Cyclone Tracy. Most of the family’s homes were lost and, after the cyclone, the family experienced a long period of separation with the women and children evacuated to Adelaide.
Win enjoyed her sports. She was an A-grade tennis player, a champion bowler and, I understand, she played bowls into her 80s.
Sadly, Lionel passed away in 1980. Son, Greg, followed in his father’s footsteps and served in the Northern Territory Police Force for 15 years. Grandson, Lance Goodwin, has been a member of the NT Police Force for 23 years, and is currently serving as a Superintendent in Alice Springs. It is good to see Lance and his family here for this adjournment. Lance’s father, Tony, was also a long-serving member of the Northern Territory Police Force.
Win often commented in later years that modern police had it too easy with four-wheel drives, air-conditioning and telephones, but she remained steadfastly proud of her family’s policing history.
Win moved to the Sunshine Coast in 1995 where she lived until her recent death at the grand old age of 95. Win lived alone, and she had a very active mind although, as you would expect, she was slowing down physically. Her three daughters Gloria, Lesley and Cheryl, lived in the same unit complex as Win, and they provided ongoing care throughout her later years.
Winifred McFarland was the proud matriarch of a family spanning six children, 19 grandchildren, 43 great-grandchildren, and two great-great-grandchildren. Her family made significant contributions to policing the Northern Territory, and I am sure members will join me in sending our condolences to her family.
Vale, Winifred McFarland.
I would like to publicly thank tonight a number of important people who have supported me and provided a great service to Territorians during 2009. To my Cabinet, Caucus, and parliament colleagues, I wish you a safe and happy festive season. In particular my team; I thank you for all your support and dedication this year, and look forward to the challenges we share in 2010. It is a great team, and I am excited to be working with them in the coming years. We have an exciting time ahead of us.
To my CEOs, Mike Burgess, Gary Barnes, Acting Commissioner Bruce Wernham, and Mr Graham Symons, CEO of my shared portfolio of Business and Employment, thanks for all your support and hard work; it is most appreciated and I wish them all a restful and happy Christmas with their families.
To our hard-working public servants across the whole of the Territory, your work does not go unnoticed, and I look forward to working with you all in the year ahead.
A particular thank you to all our Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, whether they be out on the beat, in our shopfronts, or in our police and fire stations. Christmas is, sadly, not a time of rest for so many of them, but we know they are doing a great job and will continue to serve and protect our community over the Christmas and New Year period. To all the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, my thanks; you are great tribute to the Northern Territory.
To all the other staff in Parliament House: the cleaners, security men and women, our drivers, the wonderful people in Speaker’s Corner who keep us fed, thank you, and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas.
To all the Assembly staff, Ian McNeill and his wonderful staff; you do a great job keeping us all in line, in and out of the Chamber, and we certainly appreciate your dedication and service.
Thanks to all my parliamentary staff for their hard work this year. It has been a challenging year for all of us, but one with much to be proud of. I look forward to working together over the next couple of years to ensure the Territory continues to be the great place we all love.
To some of my constituents: Coral Crombie-Brown, a lovely lady, I know you are not well, but I thank you for supporting me all these years, and I will get to see you soon.
I have to thank the team at the Lyons development, Geoff Smith, Sharon Fyson and John. Another year, more land releases - it has been great to see the suburb take shape over the last couple of years, and now it is nearing the end. I thank you all for your assistance, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a super New Year.
To the Tracy Village team, headed up by John Quinlan and the committee; Merry Christmas, I will see you down there shortly for our Christmas party.
Thanks to the Casuarina Branch of the Labor Party. I, and the other two MLAs in the branch, the member for Casuarina and the member for Johnston, appreciate the support all the members give us.
Thank you to my team of Hendo supporters, of which there are too many to name individually, but thanks to George, Tanya, Roberta, Joanna, Kosta, Tammy, Kent, Rebecca - Merry Christmas to you and all your families.
A big thank you to my Electorate Officer, Morgan who, sadly, is leaving me at the start of next year to move to Townsville. I wish you well, and thank you for your support over the last few years in my electorate of Wanguri. I know your family are looking forward to having you back with them.
Last, but no means least, I extend a big thank you to my family: my patient, loving and supportive wife, Stacey; my increasingly independent and thoughtful boys, Alasdair and Liam; and my beautiful daughter, Isobel. Thank you for being there for me at all times, unconditionally and without question. I am looking forward to spending Christmas together.
Finally, a Merry Christmas to all Territorians. Have a safe and happy New Year.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to report on a parliamentary study tour undertaken in Brisbane recently.
I met with the Chairman of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Robert Needham, and also with the Director of Research and Prevention, Dr Margot Legosz. The purpose of the meeting was to gauge whether the Northern Territory could benefit from having a Crime and Misconduct Commission, a CMC. Although the Territory is a small jurisdiction, I believe there is an increasing interest and, under this government in particular, a need to establish, or to consider establishing, a CMC or similar body.
For those who do not know, the aim of the CMC is to prevent and combat crime; it also strives to prevent and address misconduct in the public sector. An additional function is to provide an effective witness protection service, and it also engages in public policy.
I do not have enough time to summarise my trip in 10 minutes, so I will be brief. I will not be doing justice to the very interesting meeting I had with the Chairman of CMC and Dr Legosz, but I will endeavour to outline some of it. And for your benefit, member for Barkly, I will be quoting from certain documents and websites.
In relation to public policy, the CMC, sometimes by self-referral or by parliament, comments on various issues and legislation passed by the Queensland parliament. A recent example is its comment on the Nuisance Legislation, which culminated in recommending to parliament various amendments, and is in the process of looking at the so-called move-on powers laws passed by government. Arguably, a body such as this is needed, or may be needed, in the Territory at some stage in the future.
The CMC investigates complaints about possible misconduct from a number of sources, including the general public and public sector agencies. It also addresses wider systems issues such as agency-wide policy or procedural deficiencies, or inappropriate workplace culture, or failure of standards. I cannot help but think of the Minister for Children and Families and her department. One wonders, in the absence of government addressing some of the shortcomings, whether an institution or body similar to a CMC is required.
It performs research into crime and the criminal justice system, misconduct and other policy, and legislative issues. It also, from time to time, undertakes research into police methods of operation, police powers and their use, and the continuous improvement of the police service. I acknowledge members of the local police force in the parliament today, and thank you for your efforts over the last week.
The CMC provides significant services relating to preventing crime and misconduct and building the capacity of agencies to prevent and deal with misconduct; it operates in addition to the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman.
I spoke with the Chairman about whether a CMC or similar body could exist in the Northern Territory, and he reminded me the Tasmanian government is looking at establishing a similar body. The Territory is a small jurisdiction, but I believe all of us, on both sides of politics, should open our minds and thoughtfully consider whether a CMC is necessary.
In order to address the government’s spin machine, and I do not assert there is widespread misconduct in the public sector in particular, but it makes for a better public sector if you have strong organisations such as the CMC to capture any, in the event it does exist, to ensure a good culture in our public service.
The Chairman of the CMC did say over the years the existence of the CMC has improved practices within the public service and, as a result of the efforts of the CMC, the public service has developed a more ethical culture. Time prevents me from going into anymore detail, but I advise members this is something I am extremely interested in, and I will continue to do research in this area.
On a different matter, not so much related to my role as Shadow Attorney-General but, in an electorate sense, as local member, I met with the Brisbane City Council which is on the cutting edge of CCTV cameras in the country. Also, there is a conference in Brisbane in March - a graffiti conference. People are coming from far and wide, and I urge government to send someone from the Northern Territory to the conference; it may well be police officers or others. I have spoken to the Mayor about this and I have encouraged him to give consideration to possibly sending someone from council.
Time prevents me from going into great detail, but CCTV cameras are working very well around Brisbane. Interestingly, I was advised the perception of safety in Brisbane is at 80%, and I am sure that is significantly higher than the perception of safety as measured in the Territory; as the member for Johnston knows.
I also learnt a great deal about the task force addressing graffiti, which was an initiative the Lord Mayor commenced a couple of years ago, which is achieving fantastic results. I also attended the Roma Street Police Station and was shown how the task force addresses graffiti. It has been operational since October 2008, and the results have been extraordinary. It is focused around a rapid response and joint cooperation program which has achieved positive outcomes; and is a collaboration between council and police physically co-located at the Roma Street Police Station.
I also met with Bravehearts - well-known, I hope, to many members of parliament - an organisation which deals with childhood sexual abuse. Interestingly, while I was there, the person I had arranged an appointment to see said they had just received a telephone call from the NT News. I asked the person what they had said in relation to the questions asked, and I was very pleased with the comments made by the representative from Bravehearts.
Bravehearts does fabulous stuff for kids and families. I learnt an enormous amount, and was given many resources such as DVDs, brochures and so on, which I am happy to share with other members. Given the Minister for Children and Families is obviously so lacking in this area, I would be very happy to loan the material to her so she can learn more about child abuse.
Bravehearts did indicate, at some point, they may consider establishing an office in the Northern Territory, and I believe that would be of great benefit.
I had also planned to meet with Senator George Brandis at the eleventh hour, as it were, but, unfortunately, that appointment was cancelled. I also met with someone whose identity I do not propose to reveal - regarding child protection - a former Territory public servant, and I will not go into any further details.
Can I make this point in light of the comments made by the member for Macdonnell in relation to media? Some of my colleagues have been subjected to a great deal from some sections of the media, and the Labor Party, in relation to travel. Travelling interstate every year is an entitlement of politicians. Politicians should travel; no politician should be afraid of travel - it broadens the mind, quite literally, and there is much to learn. The Northern Territory is a very young and very small jurisdiction, and the interests of Territorians are best served by their members of parliament getting out and learning positive things and making a contribution so the Territory continues to improve. I do not shy away from parliamentary travel.
I do make this point: I note with great interest ever since I have been a member of parliament there has not been a requirement, under the RTD, for members of parliament to report on interstate trips, as I am. However, there is a requirement to do so in relation to overseas trips. My own view is - and I do not speak for my colleagues and I have not discussed this matter with them - in the interests of transparency, politicians should account for their publicly-funded study tours. I have no problem with that at all. I have done this tonight to alert members to the many things I have learnt, and I look forward to further discussions with them.
I also make this contribution on a point of principle. Politicians should not be afraid of pathetic media articles when they are undertaking their work in a serious and earnest manner and are pursuing an entitlement under the RTD, which is an independent tribunal. If members, in future, wish to discuss accounting for their interstate trips, I would be happy to engage in that discussion.
Finally, I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on Monday 16 November I travelled to the community of GanGan, approximately a two-and-a-half-hour drive from Nhulunbuy, at the invitation of traditional owner, Dr Gawarrin Gumana AO for the official opening of the Wayuwu Crossing, a $500 000 project. Until now, this crossing over the Durabudboi River has been impassable each Wet Season cutting off the homelands of GanGan and Dhuruputjpi, which fall under the umbrella of Laynhapuy Homelands. The construction of a causeway about 50 m in length and with culverts 1.9 m in height, will now provide year round safe access for the 150 or so people who reside in those two homelands. This opening did not make front page news, but it is a significant story for the homelands people to see this kind of infrastructure in place; the kind of infrastructure so many people take for granted.
On the subject of Laynhapuy Homelands, I received advice yesterday from Laynhapuy Homelands CEO, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, of the newly-elected board members, and I wish to offer my congratulations, and place on the Parliamentary Record, the names of the new board members; a very hard-working, dedicated and strong group of people who work tirelessly to advocate for their homelands: Chairman, Mr Barayuwa Mununggurr; Vice-Chair, Graham Maymuru; Secretary, Ronyiwuy Maymuru; Treasurer, Brian Garawirrtja; Djambawa Marawili; Lulpangi Mununggurr; Bandibandi Wunungmurra; Mayalambarr Wunungmurra Dorothy; Dhukal Wirrpanda; Waturr Gumana; Mangay Guyula; Banul Munyarryun; Lirrpiya Mununggurr; and Laklak Burarrwanga
I wish to offer my congratulations to the employees from the East Arnhem Shire who were presented with their Certificate III for Community Night Patrol on Friday 6 November, at the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, which houses the sobering-up shelter and rehabilitation service.
The enormous sense of pride for the 21 people who completed their course was shared by all of us present, including the elected shire president, Mr Banambi Wunungmurra and CEO, Mr Ian Bodill, Charles Darwin University staff and, especially, family members. The graduates came from Angurugu, Umbakumba, Milyakburra, Yirrkala, Gunyangara, Gapuwiyak, Galiwinku and Nhulunbuy.
Night patrol is not easy work; the hours are not family friendly and there is certainly nothing glamorous about it. I have taken the opportunity to go out with the East Arnhem Shire Night Patrol to see how they work and the challenges they face. In an ideal world, we would like to believe there is no need for such a service; but it is such important work in making sure people are safe from harm. I especially acknowledge the work of Jocelyn Cairns, the Night Patrol Coordinator for the East Arnhem Shire, who is absolutely passionate and driven about her work.
A team from Nhulunbuy High School recently participated in the 62nd Singapore Cricket Club Rugby 7s Competition. As one of the dads put it to me: they did not win, they absolutely blitzed it - an achievement all the more incredible given they had just two training sessions prior to the competition. They cleaned up their opposition, Tanglin Trust School, with a score of 47 to nil. Nhulunbuy High School was invited to compete, along with the East Arnhem Rugby Union Open Team, and was the first international team to be invited into the competition in 10 years.
The players from Nhulunbuy High School were: Sam Putland, captain, Richard Ofa, Rhys Mulholland, Nelson Browne, Tom Pearce and Lachlan Mallard, joined by Kritsada Phalaphon, David Munroe and Jack Tourish who have all lived in Nhulunbuy, and have now either left or are currently at boarding school. Outstanding sportsmanship and behaviour has ensured this team have left their mark on the schools’ and colleges’ competition. As a result, they have been invited back to compete in next year’s competition. I extend my congratulations to all the people involved.
The Gove Sprint was hosted by the Nhulunbuy Amateur Swimming Club on 14 and 15 November - and what a fantastic weekend it was! The timing was a little late in the season, which prevented competitors coming from other clubs around the Territory, other than two young people who travelled from Darwin with their parents. My two boys are members of the club and, along with their fellow club members, enjoyed a terrific competition; and I enjoyed my time standing at the end of the lane with 28 other parents time-keeping.
Winners of the Gove Sprint, an open relay race of 4 x 50 m freestyle were: Alyssa Petrofes, Holly Sims, Wilson Lui and Gabby Parsons. In the individual open events of 50 m freestyle for the title of Prince and Princess of Gove, the winners were Gabby Parsons and Wilson Lui. I was very proud to be the sponsor of the prizes for the Gove Sprint event.
I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the enormous amount of work my fellow committee members for the Amateur Swim Club do: Shane Guiney, Diane Sims, Jackie McGrath, Nicola Briggs, Dave Hoskins, Lesley Tankard, Tracie Donovan and Catherine Scott-Jones.
The Gove Junior Football Club held the official opening of its newly renovated clubrooms at Hindle Oval in Nhulunbuy on 14 November, and I was honoured to be invited to unveil the official sign. Many people volunteered their time and labour to contribute to this project but, without a doubt, Alan Fullard, Club President, has been the driving force behind it. Also playing a key role was Nhulunbuy Corporation, the owner of the asset. With Town Administrator, Paul Hockings, they have worked collaboratively to see a facility which is second to none. As I said, while there were many who contributed to this project, it is appropriate to single out Andrew Pidgeon for his hours and hours of labour, as well as Peter McCue from KP Carpentry.
I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have provided me with support through what has been an amazing and roller-coaster year. First of all, my Caucus colleagues who have provided me with advice, guidance and support - morally, professionally and politically. I single out one of them - Madam Speaker - who has been a real pillar of support in my duties as Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees.
I also extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk for their ongoing service and advice; and I also acknowledge our wonderful staff in the Table Office who, along with the rest of the staff in the Legislative Assembly, always work hard in the background to ensure everything runs smoothly.
I must particularly thank Vishal and Karen. Having my parliamentary office near Vishal and Karen I see much of them when I am in that office, and they are always incredibly supportive.
Our Legislative Assembly staff making sure everything runs smoothly is especially true this week. What an incredible logistical exercise in setting up parliament here in the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Thank you to all staff involved in this exercise. Thank you to the staff of the Convention Centre. Thank you to the people of Alice Springs for making us feel so welcome. It was especially good to see how many schoolchildren passed through this Chamber - approximately 800, I believe - and how well behaved they were. Hats off to the Legislative Assembly staff involved with the Education Unit, led by Caroline, who conducted the education program. What a fantastic opportunity for those children.
Back in Nhulunbuy, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer. Karen Cislowski, who started with me in February. Karen is everything you could want in an EO - she is a competent office manager and administrator, she is a good decision maker and, when she needs to be, she is a good gatekeeper as well. She is a fantastic person with an incredible capacity for empathy with constituents, but she can also be firm when she needs to be; and we all know all kinds of people step through the doors of our offices. In a similar vein, I would also to thank Lyn Mitchell, my casual EO, who covers during Karen’s absences, and also does a fantastic job.
I would like to thank my branch members, and especially John, Wendy, Trevor, Dave, Laurie, Jenny, Denise, Sue, Jack, Stacey and Lawrence who give me their wholehearted support and encouragement.
Last, but by no means least, is my family. Thanks and eternal gratitude to my husband, Lawrence, who is a wonderful source of support and always a great listener, whether I am bouncing ideas off him or just needing to vent a bit. As he has been on leave this semester, it has been fantastic for him to travel with me on overnight visits to communities, not only to share the driving, but because that sense of family is so important for my constituents in homelands, and it is important to me that they know I have a role with a family as well; and I believe they understand that.
My kids, Zoe, Harry and Patrick, you are not always angels, but you are so good in understanding my absences; and some of them have been lengthier than others. I have a conversation with my nine-year-old son, Patrick, before coming to Alice Springs to explain why parliament was being held in Alice Springs, and his eyes lit up when he said: ‘Mum, do you think we could have parliament in Nhulunbuy, because I really miss you when you go away’. It stuck a bit of a dagger in my heart, and I am really looking forward to getting home on Sunday.
It has been a busy and very challenging year for all of us, and I wish my colleagues, on both sides of the House; everyone in my electorate; and everyone in the Legislative Assembly a very happy Christmas with your families and loved ones, and a peaceful New Year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to cover a couple of things. The first is regarding information I have received from a property owner in Central Australia, and it clearly demonstrates a government out of touch with the real world; a government with a care factor of absolutely zero when it comes to protecting our heritage
The following information received from a property owner clearly demonstrates an internal focus on bureaucracy at a level which is quite disturbing, and provides a serious insight into how some internal processes work within that department. I will read out the information I received through a Senator’s office from the CEO of Shoujaa Pty Ltd, Mr Peter Beattie:
- Our company purchased Idracowra Station in 2007 and have since that time expended in excess of $2m in improving infrastructure and employing Territorians. We have, where possible, used local workers. In late 2007, we made an application for a $67 000 grant to restore the original explorers hut kitchen on the bank of the Finke River, the last one left of an original three. In August 2008, we were granted $20 000 towards that restoration. We would then put in an equal amount in kind and labour. Some months later, this was withdrawn due to our refusal to sign a grant document that was one-sided and conditional, conditions that we had never seen previously. The Northern Territory government refused to make some reasonable amendments. During this time, we made another application for a further grant of $30 000 to go towards restoration. This was refused as no quotation was provided.
We appointed solicitors in Darwin, at our cost, to write to the minister seeking reasonable amendments to the original grant document for the first $20 000. In August 2009, the minister’s department backed down on some minor changes, but some insidious clauses still remain.
Yesterday, we received a facsimile from the minister’s department advising: sign within seven days or the grant for $20 000 will be withdrawn.
In April 2009, we were advised by our architects the cost had escalated to in excess of $77 000. We agreed to meet all costs above the total grants of $50 000. The building is three metres from the front of our main homestead and is held up by acrows. My senior managers have had a gutful and we want to …
Our company will sign reasonable documents, put in our own labour and equipment and employ locals, if available, as our contribution. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Peter Beattie
Chief Executive Officer.
This is a heritage property, a piece of Territory history which could be lost forever if not adequately protected now. How hard can it be to find a resolution and to stop being so damn stubborn dealing with people and seemingly caring more about designing obstacles for people instead of being what you are paid to be - part of the public service? Where the hell is the service here?
The more I see this government operate, the more I am warming to the notion the government’s job should be to just get out of the way and focus on assisting people; focus on improving and simplifying the processes for people, rather than being absolutely obstructionist in almost every service you are supposed to provide.
I call on the minister to get involved with this and sort it out. For goodness sake, you have a property owner willing to put in their own money to protect our heritage, and perhaps pay for something government should be wearing the entire cost of to ensure our children and our children’s children have a piece of history, a real conduit to our past.
If this abysmal oversight has been addressed - fantastic - thank you, minister. If it has not - please fix it.
The last thing I would like to do is thank everyone from Alice Springs for making us feel so welcome. To all the staff at the Legislative Assembly – wow! What an amazing job you have done. With the help of the Convention Centre, you have pulled off an amazing event, and your work has not gone unnoticed.
As this is the last sitting of the year I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone from my electorate a safe and prosperous Christmas. To my parliamentary colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition’s staff, thank you. We certainly have had an amazing year, and an amazing team sincerely worthy of governing the Northern Territory.
My thanks also go to Amy, who has now left the office, but provided so much support since the election; and to Alison and Robyn - Merry Christmas.
To all the staff and students at Bakewell Primary School - I am sorry, member for Karama, Bakewell Primary School is the best primary school in the Northern Territory – Merry Christmas.
I wish the members of government, the Chief Minister, his Cabinet, other members, and our independents, a very Merry Christmas. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for applying a fair and even handicap to my jumping for adjournment debates against my more sprightly colleagues.
It is now time to hang up the black suit and get my red suit from the dry cleaners - there is more work to be done.
Finally, to my beautiful family: thank you so much for all your support; without it, of course, none of this would be possible. Thank you for sharing my dream to make the Territory a better place. To my beautiful wife, Robyn, to Brandon, Jackson, Gabrielle and little Harrison, you provide all the fuel I need to do what I need to do. Thank you. I love you.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a woman who has made an enormous contribution to the Northern Territory public sector and who, unfortunately, was here earlier, but has had to leave.
This week, Rita Henry celebrated 30 years in the Northern Territory public service, a very significant milestone. Rita and her husband, Bill, first came to the Northern Territory in 1979, taking up a teaching post in Numbulwar. She spent three years there as a remote community teacher; an experience she says she treasures. Since then, Rita has worked in secondary schools and senior colleges educating two generations of young Territorians.
It is not unusual to be out in the public or in a meeting with Rita and have people come up to greet, with obvious respect and affection, Mrs Henry. Rita’s contribution to Territory education is not confined to the school room. As a talented administrator and manager, she has held some very important advisory, management and leadership positions in Education, covering curriculum, professional development, policy and strategy development and review and change management. Rita played a significant role in the Secondary Education Review, which resulted in major reforms across the Northern Territory’s education sector.
In late 2004, Rita re-located from the Top End to Alice Springs to lead and manage the Department of Education in Central Australia. It was a role, I am told, she thoroughly enjoyed and one in which she made a huge impact. Staff have very fond memories of Rita, and she was very well respected as a boss.
She was asked to return to Darwin in May 2008, where she took up the role of Executive Director of the Innovation and Change Group with responsibility for the Transforming Indigenous Education Task Group, Distance Learning Services and the Teaching, Learning and Standards Division. She was also the Northern Territory Member of the National Curriculum Board.
In mid-2009, Rita was given the opportunity to join the Department of Chief Minister and return to Alice Springs to take on the role of the Northern Territory government’s Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, working in partnership with the Australian government to transform town camps and improve life outcomes for Aboriginal residents and visitors.
Despite her extremely busy professional life, Rita has also found time to devote to sport and community organisations. She is a keen supporter and former secretary of the Nightcliff Tigers Baseball Club.
I thank Rita for the frank and fearless advice she provides to me on a weekly basis and, sometimes on a daily basis, as Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan where, working so closely together, I have come to know Rita very well; and it is thanks in large part to Rita’s dedication and professionalism we have already achieved significant outcomes under the Transformation Plan.
Rita, congratulations on your 30 years in the Northern Territory Public Service, and I hope the Territory will continue to benefit from your expertise and experience.
I now turn to the traditional Christmas thanks and, along with other members who have congratulated and thanked the staff of the Legislative Assembly, I join in the thanks to them - to Madam Speaker, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, to all the Legislative Assembly staff, to Hansard – and, as already acknowledged, to the Parliamentary Education staff for their work not only throughout the year but, as Minister for Central Australia and the only government member in Alice Springs, for the great work undertaken to organise these sittings.
I am sure the other members who are based in Alice Springs also thank them for the success we have had this week. To the Convention Centre staff; to the General Manager, Mr Scott Boocook, a big thank you to you and your staff for your hospitality. To the security people, both the parliamentary security people who have come down, and the private security people, thank you for your professional service this week.
To the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia, and particularly to the hundreds of kids who have come and listened to their parliamentarians in action this week - I am sure you have gone away with a totally different experience to what you expected - a big thank you for your support, not only in the parliament this week, but supporting me as the Minister for Central Australia during the year. It has been a great experience.
Moving to my portfolios: to the Chief Executives of my department, Jim Grant and Richard Galton; to all the Regional Development staff who have moved to Central Australia and Alice Springs this year - a big thank you for your commitment and dedication - there have been some big achievements. Having the Indigenous Economic Development Forum here in Alice Springs was certainly a highlight for me as the new Minister for Parks and Wildlife; and I look forward to next year and the joint management approaches of this government, and working with traditional owners and Parks and Wildlife staff in the regions.
To all my ministerial staff in Alice Springs and in Darwin, I know the fifth floor cops a bit of criticism from the other side; that is probably because they do a great job. To Kieran, and all the others in my office, thank you for your dedication and hard work over the year. I certainly appreciate it very much.
To my Electorate Officers, Vicki, and Jo in Katherine; I know Jo feels isolated at times, but she does a great job for me in getting my message out to my constituents in that part of the electorate. It is a big electorate - the size of Germany - one of the biggest in Australia, and it provides its challenges for me, but I would not be able to do it without Vicky and Jo. So a big thank you to you, and all the best to you and your families over Christmas.
To my constituents, it is a great challenge to get around such a big electorate, and I have been to a host of great events throughout the year. A highlight for me was the opening of the new clinic at Kalkarindji with my colleague, the Minister for Health, during Freedom Day; the 40th anniversary of the Ti Tree School was another highlight for me, meeting some of the original principals and original students; also the official opening of the Wugularr School in the top end of my electorate. My colleague, the member for Barkly, I thank you for opening the school on my behalf; and also to the people of Barunga who, once again, did a fantastic job in organising another great Barunga Festival.
The year, for me, does close with a tinge of sadness, having lost some really close friends and people who helped me during campaigns in Stuart. Those people I have acknowledged in previous adjournments.
My family - with the portfolios I have and my electorate, as we all know, we all go through it - sacrifice a lot. To my wife Rebecca, to my three sons, Josh, Curtly and Jamie, thank you very much for your support; you are my foundation, and I would not be able to do the job I do without your support.
To Josh, hopefully, next year, you will get your licence, but we will keep banging away, even if it is the front gate. I am extremely proud of my son, Curtly, who has been in Adelaide at boarding school this year. He will be playing TAC Cup football next year with the new club, the greater Western Sydney Club under Kevin Sheedy. I am extremely proud of your achievements; your AIS scholarship and another trip to South Africa. I am extremely proud of you. To Jamie, your love and passion of Manchester United never goes astray. It is on my laptop as a screensaver every day.
In closing, congratulations to Jessica Mauboy on her ARIA Award. I also acknowledge some other successful young Territorians - the young AFL footballers who were drafted in today’s AFL draft - congratulations. To Troy Taylor who has gone to Richmond; Anthony Long who has gone to Essendon, and Shane Thorn, who has gone to the Hawks.
I have had some discussions with Troy Taylor’s management company; they were extremely worried about his record of coming across the wrong end of the law. It is great to see this young bloke be given another chance. There has been much national media attention on him, and I am sure he is not going to disappoint any of the AFL fans, particularly those at Richmond.
Anthony Long, nephew of the great Michael Long, is following the footsteps of a legend; and I wish you all the best in making your own path of success in AFL footy
I have watched Shane Thorn play quite a few games with the NT Thunder this year, and he has talent. He loves the evasive side step, and he will dazzle many AFL footballers in Melbourne, and in the other teams.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thanks for your support in bedding me down in my responsibilities as a minister; to the Chief Minister, thanks for your support. To everyone in the Assembly, both sides of the parliament, I wish you and your families a Merry Christmas; and see you in 2010.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House for some 14 or 15 months, and I continue to hear the member for Casuarina accuse people of not having much idea about very much at all.
I refer to a question I put to the member for Casuarina this afternoon in his capacity as the minister for Licensing, relating to smoking indoors and in enclosed areas. The minister gave this answer, which I will quote:
- Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am really surprised he has no idea about the Tobacco Control Act and the definition of an enclosed area. He has no idea about the guidelines developed at the request of the industry when my predecessor, the member for Johnston, announced that from 2 January 2010 we will ban smoking inside. For his benefit, it is very easy to download from the Internet.
It is a very interesting quote, because there are three points. One, the minister has hidden it so well on the Internet no one can find it. Second, he is hopelessly misinformed, and I refer to some searches we have done. There is a whole page of searches here. Finally, we did that grand old search that gets everything – Google - we googled all sorts of things, and we cannot find it. We are not the only ones who cannot find this; the media cannot find it; the minister’s own office cannot find it. At the request of industry, his office directed them to two websites indicating the Tobacco Control Act and the Tobacco Control Regulations. Third, the minister has misled the House in relation to where this document is.
My inquiry shows this matter, and the guidelines the member for Casuarina dropped on the desk of the member for Nelson, say, and I quote from the document entitled the Tobacco Control Act, Enclosed Area Guidelines Attachment A, second paragraph:
- This guideline is provided to all liquor licensed premises and made available to the public in the Northern Territory.
Well, that is not, in fact, correct. No one can find it, so I actually contacted the Australian Hotels Association in relation to this matter and faxed them a copy of this, and they said, and I quote:
- This document is a draft document and still is a commercial-in-confidence document.
This is the document the minister has just dropped in our lap and said it is available to the public. Yet, we cannot find it anywhere. The industry has said - and this is from the people on the Tobacco Action Task Force - this document has not been released yet, and they know nothing about it. I am stunned the minister would just drop this on people: you cannot find it anywhere, there has been no communication at all with the industry licence holders, and there has been no advertising campaign - there has been nothing.
I have made further enquiries, and I will quote from the notes I have made in relation to the answers I have received. This is from the Executive Officer of the Australian Hotels Association, and I quote:
- We have not heard any outcomes from government in regards to the consideration of that report, either directly to the AHA, or as a representative of the Tobacco Action Task Force.
I refer to the outcomes of the report which was apparently submitted to Cabinet on 17 November for consideration. So, here is the industry representative body, and two of the people on that body are also on the Tobacco Action Task Force, and they have not been advised either.
I further note the Executive Officer informed me:
- I note that this report, and dealings with the Tobacco Action Task Force, are subject to confidentiality.
I go on to quote the Executive Officer further:
- Government has not notified industry that these guidelines exist and are available on any website. We are still of the understanding, from government, that these are draft guidelines only.
I made further enquiries, and from some direct questions I put to the Executive Director of the AHA NT, this is the answer I received, and I quote:
- I have just got off the phone from Warwick Kneebone, who is Secretary of the Tobacco Action Task Force and Department of Health officer who has been developing these reforms. I asked him whether the draft Enclosed Areas Guidelines, which are subject to the TAT process, were available on Health’s website. Warwick confirmed that they had not been made available on their website.
I also asked him whether their site would be the appropriate place for the guidelines. He indicated that they were still trying to consider whether Licensing and Regulation’s websites would be more appropriate. He said he had not given the guidelines to Licensing and Regulations for this purpose as yet.
I quote from the sixth paragraph of this particular document where it says:
- Section 7(a) of the Tobacco Control Act provides that any ‘enclosed public area’ should be a smoke free area subject to other conditions of the Act and Regulations.
Well, we went through the Tobacco Control Act, and, in fact, there is no section 7(a); so this attached document is factually incorrect.
We go further down the list, and I quote from the answer the minister gave to my question in Question Time today. It says:
- We have legislation which defines an enclosed area, and guidelines which have been provided to the Australian Hotels Association to help them understand the legislation.
I reiterate, as far as the people in the Australian Hotels Association and the Tobacco Action Task Force are concerned, these are still commercial-in-confidence documents.
Dr Burns: It sounds like you do not support banning smoking.
Mr STYLES: No, no. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Johnston. Member for Johnston, I would like to make it very, very clear the Country Liberals, myself, and the member for Nelson, absolutely support banning indoor smoking. What we are concerned about is the woeful job the government has done in relation to getting these guidelines out. With only 34 days to go, industry still does not have a complete set of guidelines so they can go and spend, in some cases, considerable amounts of money.
We have a guideline which has not been released to the public, and it is still a commercial-in-confidence document - so it is not out there. There are people, who are not members of the Australian Hotels Association, who still do not know; they have had no communication; there has been no public communication, and no public awareness campaign.
Interstate, they fed this in over three years; governments interstate have had public awareness campaigns so the public actually knows what is going on. This government has made no attempt to educate the Northern Territory public that these changes are to come in on 2 January 2010. I will stand corrected if the member for Johnston, or anyone else in the government, can actually inform me when this public awareness campaign is going to happen, and when this document will be available, so the rest of us in the Northern Territory, apart from the minister, can find it on the Internet. I would be very pleased to be corrected. If the member for Johnston would like to correct me, I would be very happy to be corrected.
In the meantime, here we have another complete and utter shambles trying to manage even just a small thing like getting guidelines out to the industry so these people can get on with doing things with confidence.
I refer the member for Johnston to the disclaimer at the bottom of this document, where it says:
- … No person should act solely on the basis of the information contained in this document without having first obtained appropriate professional legal advice about obligations in specific circumstances …
So, here is a document which says you should not really take this as gospel. People are waiting for some guidelines from the government. It is a disgrace the government has not done this, with only 34 days to comply with all the requirements.
Merry Christmas to you all.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a long year. I would like to acknowledge all my constituents on the Tiwi Islands, Minjilang, Warruwi, Maningrida, Gunbalanya and Jabiru. And, in acknowledging my constituents, through all the trials and tribulations I have gone through over these last 12 months, their support has been unwavering.
I am looking forward, when I leave Alice Springs tomorrow, to getting back to my electorate and seeing everyone before we wind down for Christmas. To all those people, and the many people who supported me right across the electorate, I am looking forward to getting out there, particularly to Gunbalanya where, with the Minister for Local Government, I will be meeting with constituents to go through issues dealing with the Local Government reforms.
I want to acknowledge all the staff of the Legislative Assembly: the Clerk; the Deputy Clerk, Graham Gadd; Steven Stokes, Annette, and everyone in the Table Office; all the 5th floor staff, and I want to particularly thank these people who have helped me right throughout the year with any little request: Deirdra Fitzgerald, Corinna Kozak, Karen Turner, and Alice Tsang in the finance area, who have provided me with support and assistance. To Helen Allmich and all the Hansard staff, I send my gratitude; we appreciate the Hansard records which come through to us.
To all my colleagues, I wish you a happy Christmas with your families, particularly my ministerial colleagues. I was listening to the member for Nhulunbuy who had the opportunity for her husband to go with her on trips. Unfortunately, my husband being a police prosecutor, his job goes in another direction, and I am always out on the road; but I would look forward to having him come with me on some of those trips. To all my ministerial colleagues, I know the time spent away from your families, and the work you guys put in; the dedication, the commitment, and your staff - it has been fantastic to be part of this team.
I believe next year will be a good year. There is plenty to do, not just in our urban areas, but our remote areas. The work we have to do in our remote communities, I honestly believe, can only be achieved under a Labor government. Whilst there has been much criticism that we have not delivered in remote Aboriginal communities, I am getting tired of listening to CLP members in this House perpetuating the myth that not one single SIHIP house has been built. I have often asked members to come out to my electorate and have a look what is happening there.
If you look at the Tiwi Islands, and Gunbalanya, there have been many refurbishments, all under SIHIP; and over the Wet Season there will be construction of many new houses. For those CLP members who continually say not one SIHIP house has been built or no work has been done, they should get out beyond the Berrimah line, out of their urban-based seats to some of the communities and have a look, rather than being the armchair critics they always are.
I believe the way they carry on in their childish, churlish and immature way, saying nothing has happened, has been led by the member for Fong Lim. Watching him since he came into this parliament, I believe he has been a disappointment. The member for Fong Lim should act his age - rather than his shoe size - in targeting the Deputy Chief Minister.
The other disappointment for me is the member for Katherine. I actually liked the member for Katherine; I thought he was above some of the CLP members in this parliament, and that has been a disappointment. Boys will be boys, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I both have boys, and we know what boys will be like; and I am glad the member for Fong Lim has a good old laugh. But it has been a disappointment.
I feel for the Deputy Chief Minister; I know what attack is like. It seems the boys are attacking the girls all the time; it seems they have to exercise their masculinity as though it is something which has to happen.
Having said that, there are a couple of people I want to thank. One of them is my surgeon. I told him I would mention him in parliament because of his support, guidance and assistance – he was more than just a surgeon - throughout the year, and getting me to the point where I feel fantastic. I am actually doing yoga and I am trying to walk and get fit and healthy. So, I thank my surgeon; he has been fantastic.
Most of all, I want to thank my family and my husband, David, through all the trials and tribulations of the last 12 months. David was in court in Katherine when a police officer told him I had gone back to the Labor Party, and he had to ask the magistrate if he could have a five-minute break so he could ring me to find out what was going on. He has certainly been most supportive, and I look forward to spending some time over Christmas with him, because we have not had any time.
To my children: my son, Richard, who has finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and has a fantastic job in Western Australia. He will be coming home for Christmas, which we are looking forward to, and will go back to Western Australia for work.
And my two girls and my grandchildren - I am looking forward to spending quality time with them over Christmas. I have six beautiful grandchildren, three girls and three boys, and being a nanna and having that special time at Christmas and New Year with those little ones is wonderful.
To everyone, all my parliamentary colleagues - sometimes we throw insults across the Chamber - I do hope you have a safe and happy Christmas and you use this time to be with your families, because it is an important time. I will see everyone in 2010.
I should mention, most of all, my Electorate Officer, Helen, who has been through all of this and has kept the electorate informed, particularly when I was off sick for six months. She has been invaluable in her support.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will thank you and wish you Merry Christmas first. I hope you have a safe and healthy festive season.
I say thank you to members of the government; I hope you all have a safe and happy Christmas and festive season as well.
Politics can be a brutal game; it is meant to be a brutal game and we all play it as hard as we possibly can. That is the way it should be, but there is nothing personal in it, I am sure, from either side. Member for Johnston, you can be certain we will come back and box on next year.
I particularly thank my Country Liberal Party colleagues - a great bunch of people, and I am honoured to be in their ranks. I also particularly thank Lumpy, or Ian McNeill, and all the staff in the Legislative Assembly for your wonderful support.
I thank the Country Liberals themselves for their support, particularly my branch, the Darwin Branch.
In relation to the electorate, I should mention the schools: Ludmilla, Nemarluk and Kormilda, and the various principals and staff for their great support. I also thank Gretchen Ennis and the Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections, along with the tireless worker in my electorate, Mick Purcell. I thank the hundreds of business people who have supported me through the year, and the thousands of constituents in my electorate.
I particularly make special mention of my Electorate Officer, Helen Bateman. She is a tower of strength for me; she is forever professional; there is nothing she will not do in the line of duty. I hope Helen has a fantastic and a very safe Christmas; and also her husband, John Bateman, who assists me in a whole range of ways without reward at all.
To everyone in this place, thank you very much. I thank my family for their support. I hope everyone has a happy and festive New Year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I was at the magnificent Araluen Arts Centre here in Alice Springs looking at the latest fossils unearthed from the Alcoota dig. I spoke to Dr Peter Murray and heard these ancient megafauna died out at this unique site because some experts believe they failed to cope with the changing climate. I was shown the bones of a 2500 kg marsupial rhino, the largest marsupial to have ever lived; a taipir, a wombat-like creature the size of a bull with razor sharp front claws and a trunk and, interestingly, a giant, flightless goose which stood around 3 m tall.
It got me thinking these proud and arrogant beings which once ruled the Territory died out because they could not adapt to climate change; they did not believe in it - they denied it. They remind me of the dinosaurs, some of whom are in this very place, creatures that once ruled the roost but are now destined to be fossilised unbelievers.
I was particularly struck by the bones of the giant, flightless goose. The creature reminded me of the member for Fong Lim - tall, loud, with a huge beak, yet this goose was the master of a shrinking empire millions of years ago - steadfastly denying anything that was going on. He stuck to his guns until the bitter end, but his denial cost him, and his breed, their lives.
The bones of the rhino made me think, too: this guy was a leader of the pack; he was a big man in his breed, but he could not convince his mates to sniff the breeze and sense climate change. He could not get them to agree – and his bones also lie in the dust.
As a former chalkie, I say to the Country Liberal Party, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the member for Fong Lim: learn from history, do not be a goose and, even more importantly, do not be a fossil! You guys have to get on with the program and drag yourselves out of the dinosaur age. Territorians expect action on climate change. They expect a plan which will help protect future generations. They want action, not denial. They want action, not scepticism. So my Christmas message is one of hope to the opposition: get on board, take a leaf out of the history book and admit climate change is happening, and something needs to be done on a global scale.
On the subject of Christmas, I would like to wish Madam Speaker, and all the staff of the Legislative Assembly a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year. I thank all staff for your professionalism during the year, your hard work in parliament; and a special thank you for bringing parliament to Central Australia and Alice Springs.
Merry Christmas to all my colleagues here in government, in particular to the Chief Minister; and a special Merry Christmas to the Treasurer, one of the smartest, toughest people I have met, and an inspiration to me. To my ministerial colleagues, to my Caucus colleagues, it is wonderful to know I can travel the great Northern Territory and I have new friends in interesting places who will support me and inspire me.
I wish a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to my new electorate officer, Nancy Cowan. Three months into the journey, Nancy - yes, it looks pretty wild and woolly, and it is - but hang in there, it will get better and better.
To the people of the Barkly, I apologise, you are now sharing me with the whole of the Territory, but things will work out. We will work together, and we will not only make the Barkly a better place, but we will also work for the Northern Territory.
To my family: to Robert, Abby, and Reece, in far away Cobar, thank you for your support. To Thomas and Maria, now in Melbourne, thank you. Thomas, I cannot say enough that you have really matured this year, you have really changed things but, sonny boy, do not be in a hurry to mature too quickly, I still think there are days left for us to get back to Wollogorang, round up Edmonds and go bull catching. To Joseph McCarthy, Chrispy Strip, there is only one piece of advice for you – I hope you divert your energy into cartoons, because if you could put what you say to me into cartoon form, I think Wicking will give you a job.
To Dawn, my wife, one of the great followers of parliament, thank you very much. It is amazing how you can juggle work, and your community work with your following of the parliament. Thank you, Dawn. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, and we will have lots to do in the New Year.
It is my family who keep me grounded, and the people I work with. I would like to thank all the people on the fifth floor of Parliament House for their intelligence, their inspiration; they are a sassy mob; they are great to work with, and I like people who inspire me.
To my office staff, and there have been a few changes but at the moment the line-up is: Karlee Dalton, Carol Angeles, Stuart Knowles, Bethany Maley and Fiona Stuchbery. Then we go down the corridor to the famous Tim Pigot. Thank you, guys, for a wonderful time, and I hope I have been of service. That is what it comes down to; I refuse to take on the rubbish thrown at me from across the House about this holier-than-thou attitude of a minister. The McCarthy clan believe a minister means you are here to serve, and that is what I plan to do.
I would like to conclude by saying a big thank you to all the people from the departments I work with for your inspiration - people with degrees, people with experience which goes back decades in the Northern Territory, people who turn up to work every day for the Northern Territory. Thank you very much for taking me on board; and I am really looking forward to working with you as part of a massive government team as it comes forward.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to remember a very special Territorian. We say goodbye to a mother, a lady, a pioneer of the Territory, Peg MacFarlane. Peg will be missed immensely by her family, and by many in the Territory who have been helped by her, and who have received strength and courage to continue their lives in the Territory wilderness.
Peg, who was plucked from a very different society to land in the untamed Territory, always maintained her standards, despite the hardest and most trying conditions. Peg MacFarlane lived most of her years in the Territory on a cattle station in the beautiful tropical garden she established on Moroak, about 8 m above the Roper River, and 124 km south-east of Katherine.
Born on 18 March 1921, Patricia Crozier, Peg that is, was brought up on Cuthro Station on the Western Darling Downs of New South Wales. Peg started her schooling in Melbourne at the Ormond State School and lived with her grandparents, Arthur and Annie Crozier. She then began school at Cuthro with governesses, and later at a school on the station.
When Peg was nearing the end of her schooling, she decided she wanted to be either a hairdresser or a nurse, as she thought this would be a good way to travel; and decided to study midwifery at the Queen Victoria Maternity Hospital in Adelaide. However, this was not needed as her next position was Sister-in-Charge of post-operative cases at the sanatorium for tuberculosis sufferers in Melbourne. In those days, when Peg did her nursing training , the rates of pay were 10 shillings per week for the first and second year of nursing; 12 shillings and sixpence per week for third year; 15 shillings per week for fourth year; of course, much has changed since that time.
In 1950, at 29-years of age, Peg decided to go overseas, visiting Paris, Scotland and England and taking many private nursing jobs. On returning from England, Peg decided to venture further afield. A good friend, who was a doctor, suggested going to the Northern Territory; so she thought she would give it a try for six months. She tried to get into Alice Springs and Darwin Hospitals, but ending up at Katherine. After a few months, the matron at Katherine Hospital left, and Peg was appointed matron. Six months turned into 36 years.
While living and working in Katherine, Peg lost her heart to Les MacFarlane, called Mac, who, at the time, owned Mataranka Station, 60 miles south of Katherine. A brief courtship followed, and they were married at King’s School Chapel in Parramatta in February 1952, where Mac had gone to school. Immediately following their return to Mataranka, Mac went away on a droving trip for three months, whereupon Peg set up a garden and vegetable garden, and took over the day-to-day organisation of the station’s Aboriginals.
There was no house on Mataranka Station, but the army had set up areas for a workshop, kitchen and living, and they were able to utilise the material left behind by the army to make it into a reasonable living area. Mac had bought a half share in another station called Moroak, which was 60 miles east of Mataranka on the Roper River.
Peg’s first son, Tim, was born at St Andres Private Hospital in Melbourne; and four other sons - Tony, Jamie, Lindsay and Hamish - were later born at the same hospital.
Life on Moroak, then three-and-a-half hour’s drive from Mataranka, was hard. Home was a bit of an understatement, as there was no house, only a shelter with some corrugated iron on the roof, about six feet by eight feet, on one side. They had to make do with the few materials they had. There was no floor, and Peg used to joke about making her own Persian carpets by sewing together chaff bags, wheat bags and any other bags she could get hold of; she would peg them to the ground and these became the floor coverings.
With no power plant or refrigeration, meat needed to be dry salted, and vegetables picked daily from Peg’s huge vegetable garden and numerous fruit trees. This was quite a challenge for Peg and Les, raising a young family of five boys, supplying an Aboriginal camp, and running a cattle station, but they took it in their stride.
Peg lived without power for almost 20 years before 32 volt power was connected at Moroak in the late 1960s, for the first time giving powered lights. Finally, the 240 volt power was connected in the 1970s. So, although Peg was very busy, she must have longed for the companionship of other women and other people, especially during a two-year period when she did not leave the station because Mac was often away for long periods on droving trips. School for her sons was with the Aboriginal children at Moroak, where they learnt many bush skills from the Aborigines.
This was also the time Peg’s husband, Mac, entered parliament, becoming the long-time member for the electorate of Elsey - the entire Katherine region - from 1968 to 1984. Although there was little thanks for a politician in the Territory in those days before self-government, Peg supported his decision to enter politics, as Les believed in a better deal for those who lived and worked in the Katherine district, particularly in the cattle industry. Les served as Speaker of the House, this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, for more than half his time in the Assembly; but never hesitated to stand aside from the Chair and put the problems of his electorate to the House in a typical blunt and direct fashion.
Not long after Mac died, Peg MacFarlane left the Territory in 1987, after some 36 years, to live at Box Hill in Melbourne where she once again was able to see some of the performing arts, exhibitions and beautiful gardens. However, her heart was still in the Territory, and she returned in 1999 to live in Katherine and be near her sons and grandchildren. In 2003, Peg once again left the Territory for Toowoomba, where she spent her remaining years.
For one final time, Peg has returned to the Territory to be buried where she came so many years ago, alongside the enchanting Roper River on Moroak Station, beside her beloved husband, Les, and cherished son, Jamie. Peg MacFarlane passed away on 11 November 2009.
I would also like to use this time to thank the many people who, over the past 12 months, have been instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. First, I would like to thank my Electorate Officer, Pat Witte. I often describe Pat as the glue which keeps me together, and how right I am. She does an absolutely marvellous job as my Electorate Officer in Katherine, and I could not be without her; and I am grateful for the service she provides me. Thank you, Pat.
To my colleagues in the Country Liberal Party, and to the Leader of the Opposition’s staff; we have formed a strong bond, and we are a great team. We have been working together well this year, and I am looking forward to continue working with you in 2010. I wish you all the very best for the season.
To my colleagues on the other side of the House, I also pass my thanks. Every time we come to this House, I make no apologies for saying I learn something new. I believe that is absolutely imperative in fact and attitude, to continue to learn in life. Believe me; I learn much from the government’s politicians, the Labor members across the Chamber.
I also thank - as many people have done tonight - the staff in Parliament House. I will not go into names, but let me say they do perform tasks at an extremely high standard; their work is exemplary; and I really appreciate the fact I can pick up the phone and have problems solved in no time flat. Thank you for your work during the past 12 months.
I thank the people of Katherine for their ongoing support over the last 12 months. I say this very sincerely: I love living in Katherine, it is a wonderful little town and I know the people of Katherine feel the same. I am looking forward to representing them for many years to come, I hope. Rest assured, people of Katherine, I will be working extremely hard in this House for you.
I also thank the Convention Centre staff here today; they were thanked several times tonight, but their contribution is often understated. They move around without much thanks; they slip in and do their job very fastidiously; they are good at what they do; and their hard work over the last few days has certainly been appreciated.
I also thank the police officers who have worked here today, and in the last few days. I have certainly felt safe working with all these guys around me, because I know how good they are. I thank my former colleagues in Alice Springs - I have seen a few of them through the course of the sittings - and all my former colleagues in the police force.
Last, but not least, I thank my wife and my children. They have put up with a heck of a lot over the past 12 months. My wife has said to me she feels she is a wife only in name at the moment, because I spent so much time away. I thank her very much for her indulgence over the last 12 months. I thank my kids, also, for managing to get through the last 12 months without putting anything on Facebook which has embarrassed me.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016