2009-02-11
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death on 12 January 2009 of Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM, a former appointed member of the Legislative Council, former elected member of the Legislative Council and distinguished Territorian.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the family and friends of the late Mr Fisher. In particular, I acknowledge his widow, Mrs Eleanor Fisher - they were married for 68 years and it would have been 69 years in April; their sons and wives, Mr Rob and Mrs Trix Fisher, Mr John and Mrs Jenny Fisher, and Mr Greg and Mrs Sue Fisher. I understand that many of Mr Fisher’s 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren are also present this morning.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also acknowledge the presence of Mr Scott Perkins, the CEO of the Resources Council, and guests from the mining sector, as well as a group of 17 Rotarians recognising the very long association of Mr Fisher with Rotary. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
Joe Fisher passed away last month at the age of 90, about 55 years to the day of his arrival in Darwin in January 1954. It was a life that witnessed remarkable changes in the Territory and, in many of those changes, Mr Fisher was an active participant as a member of the Legislative Council, as a commentator but, above all, as a key player in the Territory’s mining industry. Perhaps the size of that change can be measured by his first sight of Darwin Harbour, which was then still littered with shipwrecks from the bombing of Darwin. Apart from a few paved roads in the town centre and on the road out to Berrimah, ‘dirt roads were the order of the day’, he would write many years later.
Joe had already spent 17 years in the mining industry on Cape York and had arrived in Darwin to work for Northern Uranium Development which had exploration leases under the 1953 Atomic Energy Act in the upper South Alligator region - an area he would be linked with for the rest of his life. His work led to the establishment of El Sharana, a base camp for a number of small uranium deposits in the region, and Moline, a processing plant for the area.
It was a tough life, with equipment initially dropped in by chopper before the first airstrip was built. One of the first loads to be dropped in was a wheelbarrow and a shovel. During the same era, in the 1950s, Joe Fisher explored huge tracts of the Territory as well as the Kimberley, much of it by air with Ozzie Osgood, an early aviation pioneer whose name is commemorated nowadays by a road to Darwin Airport behind Bunnings.
It was hairy flying by all accounts, hundreds of hours with flyovers as little as 20 feet above the ground. According to Ozzie, and I quote: ‘We did not realise or did not care how dangerous it was’. On one occasion the pair landed in a clearing too short for both of them to take off. Joe Fisher extended another clearing, by hand, a few miles away, which allowed both of them to get out in one piece. However, this and other exploration work led to the ultimate finding of important gold, copper, and diamond deposits, amongst others.
Joe was to maintain a lifelong involvement with the mining industry in the Territory, and was recognised as a life member of what was the NT Minerals Council and the Darwin branch of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, on which he served as President in 1984. He was honoured with an AM for his services to the mining industry.
We pay particular tribute to Joe Fisher today for his service in the Legislative Council, on which he served from 1961 to 1974. These were the days of an appointed Legislative Council and, for his first eight years, that is how he served. But if anyone thought he would be a lapdog of Canberra, they could not be more wrong. He was a constant thorn in Canberra’s side, once daring the Commonwealth government to sack him for its refusal to assent to the Child Welfare Ordinance.
He also played a key role in the 1962 signing of a Grand Remonstrance to federal parliament in a protest against the lack of commitment to the Territory and its constitutional advancement. He did this, even though he was an appointed member of the Legislative Council. The original Grand Remonstrance led to the beheading of Charles I. The then Menzies’ government escaped this fate, at least in part, by refusing to accept the delivery of the document because its language was not ‘respectful, decorous or temperate’. I have to get a copy of it, Madam Speaker. The original of that document has now been returned to this parliament as a commemoration of the Territory’s constitutional development. That will have to be a ‘must see’ later today.
As well as being an appointed member of the Legislative Council from 1961 to 1969, he was one of its first elected members, serving in Fannie Bay after a 1969 by-election, and re-elected in 1971.
At this point, I pay tribute to Eleanor, Joe’s wife of 68 remarkable years. The role of Territory women in our development is underrated or ignored. Eleanor Fisher personified the strength of so many women who, like her, lived through very tough times, in very tough conditions, in raising families - in this case, three surviving sons, 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren. All in this Assembly can only admire her for her strength and her contribution to the Northern Territory as well as her devotion to her husband for nearly seven decades.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I should add a footnote here. Eleanor Fisher deserves a place in the Territory’s culinary hall of fame. In the 1960s, she won a national White Wings competition with her recipe for buffalo burgers. She may not have invented them but, certainly, must rank as the producer of one of the Territory’s first culinary exports to the rest of the nation.
Joe Fisher was an early proponent of what would finally become Kakadu and Keep River National Parks and served on the Northern Territory Reserves Board, the predecessor of today’s Parks and Wildlife, from 1965 to 1974. The bridge leading into Kakadu was named after him in 1993; an unusual honour for a living person.
As well as serving the mining industry, Joe Fisher was a man of firm opinions - and not just on mining. He held passionate views on government, Aboriginal affairs, statehood, the environment, and development. From 1978 to 1982, Joe Fisher had a regular opinion piece in the NT News. As Joe described it, it was, ‘a little column in the local rag’, but it provoked much debate and controversy - not least, I confess, from people on my side of politics.
Madam Speaker, last year we farewelled another pioneer of the Territory’s constitutional and economic development, Sam Calder. Today we bid adieu to another in Joe Fisher. Neither was from our side of politics, but that is not the point. Honouring the legacy of their work and their commitment to the Territory is something we do as a whole parliament, as a body that serves all of the Northern Territory and represents all Territorians - just as Joe Fisher tried to do over many years.
Our condolences go to his wife Eleanor, his extended family and his many friends, as we mark the passing of a long-time Territorian who did make a difference to this great Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this important motion to acknowledge the passing of a legend. The term ‘pioneer’ is widely used, and is even over-used. However, to describe William Joseph Fisher as a Northern Territory pioneer is an understatement. He was a miner, a conservationist, a politician, a champion of the uranium industry, a newspaper columnist, a recipient of the Order of Australia, an author, and Rotarian, and, to those who knew him, behind those twinkling, smiling eyes, a good bloke.
He arrived in Darwin in 1954 with his family from Cairns. His public service included being a non-official member of the Legislative Council from 1960, then as an elected member until 1974. But it is for his work outdoors, and not what he did as a legislator, that Joe is really remembered.
Life in the Territory in the 1960s was tough, but, rest assured, Joe was tougher. Compared to today, Australia was a rather primitive place, but in the Territory it was downright archaic.
Consider this story from 1966, within the time frame of most of us in this Chamber, when Joe had landed on the Cobourg Peninsula in a Bell G3 helicopter in search of bauxite deposits. After a successful trip, they prepared to leave, and when it was time to return:
Joe finished this story in typical deadpan style:
Joe was a man of a thousand stories, and a fistful of strange facts. In his book, Trials and Triumphs, he tells how the Coronation Hill uranium deposit was so named because its mineral riches were discovered on the same day as Queen Elizabeth assumed the throne on 2 June 1953.
It was he, the champion of mining in Queensland and the Territory, who made the first formal proposal in the Legislative Council to turn the 2000 km2 parcel of Kakadu into a national park. By the same token, he was furious that, when the national park was finally declared, it was more than 10 times the size he originally recommended. To his death, he was scathing of the Commonwealth stewardship of the Northern Territory. In typical colourful fashion, proclaiming the policy of many federal governments since 1911 always reminded him, ‘of a large, powerful dog guarding a juicy bone that it was too full to eat, but did not intend to share’. Part of his frustration was his belief that Kakadu was a source of untold riches and home to hundreds of billions of dollars from potential mineral export earnings.
While he was undoubtedly a passionate, committed, pioneering Territorian, first and foremost, the legacy that lasts is his family. To be there at his farewell and to have seen the family in strength swells your heart with pride, and you realise what is really important. To see those boys over there - two of them sporting moustaches just like Dad, the three of them looking just like him - he is with us still in his family. That is the strongest testimony you can have to the quality of a man. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences to the family of Joe Fisher. It is beautiful to see you in parliament today, and also his friends, the many long-term Territorians who have known Joe and his family for so long.
My first memories of Joe were of when I was a five-year-old, at the old Legislative Council, where he was one of the characters who certainly stood out from the pack. As you have heard from the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he was a man of enormous passion for the Territory. He was not a follower, he was a leader. He earned that title of ‘pioneer’ in the mining sector with incredible feats of exploration that he undertook throughout the Territory and, as you have heard in the debate, he had passion for our country.
At the funeral, I was talking to Dave Lindner, who is a bit of a wild man of the Kakadu country area. Dave talked about all the memories he had of Joe and how Joe was, as he said, happiest when he was out in a bush camp, living rough and could take the rough aspects of the Territory bush better than most people.
He was a very strong man but, as often is the case, along with enormous toughness, steel, and strength, he had enormous compassion and love - and that compassion and love was for his family. He was a very proud man, but incredibly proud of his family. As we know, any successful person in life is successful because, generally, they have people around them to support them through their endeavours. Joe had a tremendous strength in his widow, Eleanor, and the love of his children, the love of his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, some of whom are here.
I acknowledge and pay tribute to the family who supported Joe through what must have been an incredible life of adventure with an incredible man as the patriarch of the family. I know that strength of his will be passed down through the generations, and it is great to see. I am quite excited about all the Fishers we have in the Territory still, and I am sure they are doing great feats in their own way. I have quite a few of the family living in my electorate of Karama where, ultimately, Eleanor and Joe settled to be closer to family.
As the Chief Minister said, he was not of this side of politics, but I have many fond memories and funny stories that my mother has told me. She was the woman in the middle of the political spectrum for all those years, as Gerry is now. She sat there as an Independent. As a child I saw both sides and I judged a person not on their politics but on their character, as children often do - you look at the person and he was a man of tremendous character. Joe was a fantastic person and a tremendous Territorian.
It would be good for Territory schools to have his book, Trials and Triumphs in their libraries - it is a phenomenal read. It tells so much of our history. I commend all members to encourage your school libraries to get copies of Joe’s books. It is a story of the Territory and a Territorian’s commitment and passion for the Territory, a passion which I am sure we all share.
We will pursue the legacy of Joe Fisher; that is, the strength and independence of the Territory. We will not stop the fight for our self-determination. We are still a Territory. We still are under the control of Canberra. That is a fight and a cudgel taken up by our member for Arnhem through Statehood. Men like Joe Fisher, Sam Calder, Dick Ward - our forebears in this parliament, in the Legislative Council and in the first elected Legislative Assemblies - require us to continue the fight in Canberra for absolute independence for our great Territory. It is a commitment we have. I commit myself to the memory of our great, strong leaders who preceded us in the Council. Joe Fisher stood out amongst a group of great leaders.
This is my simple condolence to the family of Joe. You knew him better than any of us could imagine and the love that I have seen, the embracing, is a fantastic legacy in itself. Trials and Triumphs gives us a glimpse of the enormous legacy he has left the Territory. Thank you for having shared him with the Territory through the decades.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion for Joe Fisher. It is, indeed, a pleasure and a privilege to pay my respects today in this House to the Old Man of Territory Mining, Joe Fisher.
Joe Fisher was a true gentleman and a genuine pioneer of the exploration and mining industry in the Northern Territory. He was a staunch advocate for the development of the Territory at a time when not everyone saw the potential of the north. Joe’s contribution to the Territory was considerable, and he will be remembered for his love of a challenge, capacity for hard work, and good common sense.
Joe’s days of mining were when it was a pick and shovel affair. It must have been those days of hard yakka, sweat, and toil that gave Joe his health and longevity. His early days in the Territory were spent in the Top End, particularly around the Pine Creek and Alligator Rivers region. Joe was there when Coronation Hill was mined. He was there when the gold mines were popping up like daisies in the Pine Creek region; and he was walking across the back blocks of what is now called Kakadu. We have heard that Joe was involved in the naming of Kakadu and also setting the boundaries.
I am quite sure that he was a staunch supporter of conservationism, and it shows that, as was the case with Joe, mining and the protection of the environment can go hand-in-hand and co-exist. Joe was also into diamond exploration - although, if he did find them, I never got to see any of them - and did a lot of work in the Merlin area. He worked with the original company, Ashton Mining, which explored and made discoveries.
There was not a mineral that Joe did not know about, and there was not a mineral that he was not prepared to try to find in the Northern Territory. Perhaps it was from those days of working in the Alligator Rivers region that Joe became such a strong advocate for the uranium industry, even though most of Australia, at that time, would not say the word, let alone support the industry. This support never wavered, and it was about this time that I met Joe when I started work at the Minerals Council.
He was a champion like no other. He loved the Territory, its land, and its people. Joe gave the time of day to everyone, and I do not recall anyone having a bad word to say about him. He was polite, he was courteous - a true gentleman. He knew all about legislation, particularly mining, uranium and land rights. He gave no slack to any colour of politician at any level. If they did not recognise the wealth of the Territory and its development needs, then he was not sure that they should still be standing. He had a passion for the Gulf region and he wanted to see it develop and open up; perhaps one day soon it will develop the way he saw it.
We often had meetings with visiting southern politicians. I recall that they would walk into the room and see this slightly ageing fellow, with silver-grey hair, sitting there quietly. I am sure they thought to themselves: ‘Hmm, this will be a bit of a pushover’. And then Joe started to talk. They were left with no misunderstandings about how things should be done and what they were meant to do - that is, the federal politicians - and what they were, more importantly, doing wrong. Generally, the next time these people visited the Territory, they had the answers ready, and they were always pleased to talk with Joe.
Joe’s thirst for knowledge and his activity level never waned. Well into his 70s he started to write his first book and then went on to write his second book. I have signed copies of both books and I have read them. Joe wrote and organised the publishing himself. He would often come to the Minerals Council with scraps of paper, old maps and scripts. My then Office Manager, Sue Langmair, would patiently type them up and give them back to Joe. After the work had all been done, Joe would stroll back into the office and leave a bottle of champagne behind for Sue to say thank you. Joe was such a lovely man that he would bring two bottles of champagne into the office, unannounced, every Christmas, for Sue and me with the simple words: ’These are for you to enjoy’.
Joe was a Rotary man all his life and while I do not know much about this part of his life, we sure as hell knew when the Tomaris Sweep was on and obediently bought all the tickets that Joe brought into the office. We made sure that every book was sold on the day Joe said he was coming back to collect them. I recall when he used to help on the Rotary chocolate wheel; it was a brave person who tried to walk past Joe without buying a ticket - that is for sure.
Joe may have been a conservative person and a deeply religious man, but that did not mean he did not have fun. He loved his red wine and a party, and Eleanor was his main party organiser, both for milestone birthdays and marriage celebrations, complete with belly dancers - I was at that party, I believe it was his 70th or 80th, and it was a hoot.
In preparing for this today, I rang around a few of my crusty old miner mates, and asked them if they had some words or some thoughts and memories of Joe. One of the examples I was given – and mining people and exploration people would remember this and possibly the minister over there, who is chuckling – was when Joe would be at our functions, our lunches, our dinners, and a politician or a person would be the guest speaker. They would finish and it would be time for questions. Guaranteed, Joe Fisher was the first one with his hand up. He had a question and he asked the question. However, before he asked the question he had to have a little conversation with the guest speaker to show them, perhaps, where they were not quite going the right way. We could guarantee that Joe would always kick off the question times.
The other quirky thing was that Joe was one of the signatories on the Minerals Council’s cheque accounts. Sue Langmair would go around there with the documentation and ask him to co-sign the cheques. There was always a cheque written out for ‘representation’. Joe kept saying to Sue: ‘What is this representation?’ Sue said: ‘Joe, that is when the executive goes out to lunch’. ‘Oh, that is a good name for it’.
I have some words from one of Joe’s colleagues from the Minerals Council days, Grant Watt. Grant was President of the Minerals Council for many years, and also one of the early explorers in the uranium province. These are his words, for Joe’s wife, Eleanor, and family:
Vale, Joe Fisher!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and pay tribute to Joe Fisher AM, a pioneer explorer in the mining industry, a highly effective politician, a journalist, a family man, and a proud Territorian.
At 90 years of age, Joe passed away on 12 January 2009. He and his wife, Eleanor, had four children, 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren. He was born in Queensland. He went to primary school in Brisbane and won a scholarship to Brisbane Grammar School. His family moved north to the Batavia and Coen goldfields in Cape York in the 1930s.
Joe met his wife, Eleanor Roberts, a nurse at Cairns Base Hospital, whilst visiting a work colleague. Joe married Eleanor at St Michael’s Catholic Church in Gordonvale, Queensland, on 24 April 1940 - and I apologise if I disclose information here that I should not. The first son, Jef, was born in 1941 in Gordonvale, then John, was born in Brisbane in 1943.
The family then moved to Mt Morgan, where Joe worked at the Mt Morgan copper mine and commenced studying for a mining diploma at the Mt Morgan Technical College. As a student, Joe joined the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Joe’s third son, Robert, was born at Mt Morgan in 1946. The family returned to Cape York after the war and eventually settled into suitable accommodation at the Wenlock goldfields. Mining operations continued under extreme conditions until finally ceasing at the end of the 1952 Wet Season. The family then moved to Coen, and worked at his brother Norm’s transport business.
In 1954, the family moved to Cairns, where Joe soon accepted a position as field superintendent for a Melbourne-based syndicate, Northern Uranium Development, exploring for uranium. This syndicate held exploration areas in north Queensland and the Rum Jungle area of the Northern Territory. During this time, Joe spent a considerable amount of time exploring throughout the northern part of Australia, and at the company’s Melbourne headquarters. This was to be the start of a long association with the Northern Territory mining industry.
Joe’s fourth son, Gregory, was born in 1955 in Cairns, and the family moved to the Northern Territory in 1955. Joe was heavily involved in the discovery and mining of uranium, and later gold, silver, and lead in the South Alligator valley region, which was later to be declared Stage 3 of the Kakadu National Park, including El Sharana, Rockhole, Palette, Scinto, Coronation Hill, Sliesbeck, Moline, and the Evelyn Mine.
The El Sharana deposit, discovered by Joe and his team, was recognised as one of the richest uranium lodes in the world. El Sharana was named after the daughters of one of his field staff, Ellen, Sharon and Anna. In 1958, operations were moved to Moline, where uranium ore from the South Alligator valley was trucked to Moline, producing considerable gold from this ore as a by-product.
N & I Fisher, owned by Joe’s brother Norm, was the transport contractor using AEC body trucks and dog trailers. Operations were confined to the Dry Season only due to the non-existence of good roads and bridges.
Joe had been involved in many other exploration and mining ventures around the Territory, including the Maranboy tin field, Running Creek copper deposit, Mathison Creek barite, Mt Diamond copper mine, Goodall Mine, and Evelyn Mine.
Joe served as a non-official member of the old Legislative Council from 1960 and won a by-election for the seat of Fannie Bay in 1969 as an Independent. Joe later held the seat of Port Darwin until 1974. Joe became famous during this time for challenging the federal government to sack him after he slammed their refusal to assent to the Child Welfare Ordinance. Joe was a member of the Northern Territory Reserves Board from 1965 to 1974, which looked after national parks and reserves throughout the Northern Territory.
Joe also had a literary bent, writing a weekly column for the Northern Territory News from 1978 through to 1982, and publishing two books, Battlers in the Bush in 1998, and Trials and Triumphs in the Northern Territory and Northern Australia in 2002. I agree with the member for Karama, every school should have a copy of those books. My copy, given to me personally by Joe, stays firmly planted in my bookcase.
Joe wrote about his first encounter with the Territory in his second book. During a visit to the ‘war wrecked town’ of Darwin in 1954, he wrote:
In 1980, Joe commenced an extensive exploration program on Ringwood Station, south-east of Adelaide River, which led to the discovery of the Goodall Mine, which poured its first gold in 1988. In 1984, Joe became President of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Joe was instrumental in the discovery of the Merlin diamond pipes and the Argyle Diamond Mine in Western Australia.
Joe retired from active work in 1995, but continued to roam the countryside with a geology pick in hand. He spent his time with his large family and his relatives throughout the country. I know the Chief Minister and the member for Karama said he was not from our side of politics, and he certainly was not, but we never had a disagreement, especially when he discovered that I shared his view about uranium. We both believed that uranium mining exploration was acceptable and without danger, so that was the end of any political disagreement and argument I would have had with Joe. I was one of his kind; we believed the same thing.
In 2007, Joe was quoted as saying:
That was in 2007. It took quite a while for people to change their minds and certain political parties to change their position. But Joe was certainly a visionary. May he rest in peace.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. To me, Joe Fisher was a lovely old man, a fellow I have known on and off for 15 years or so. Reference has been made today to Sam Calder, whose passing left a hole in the Territory because, as I said at the time, Sam Calder, like Joe Fisher, was that breed of person who sought to fight for the rights of Territorians to determine our own future. We, as parliamentarians, particularly in this place, owe a debt of gratitude to people like Sam Calder and Joe Fisher. Without those fellows, the world and the system we know in the Northern Territory would be very different.
It is very difficult to imagine what things were like. The member for Karama said she was a five-year-old watching the sittings of the Legislative Council. However, for most of us, it is very difficult to understand what the Territory was like in those days, and how poor we were in the eyes of some of our interstate counterparts.
Joe Fisher was one of those people who did a huge amount for the constitutional development of the Territory and it is something that we, as parliamentarians, should never forget.
Joe, as has also been mentioned, had a rich mining history, a rich conservation history, and a history of being a big supporter of the environment. These things do not always sit together in many people’s minds. I know the battles I had in Canberra with some of the people in the bureaucracies in the Northern Territory, who believed that any tourist or any mine was a blight on the environment. Joe was of the school that believed not only could mining, parks, tourism, and other ventures co-exist but they could all thrive and complement one another. To some extent, that is rather progressive thinking. Views like that are relatively accepted these days, but over the years have not always been so. Joe was a big supporter of preserving our natural environment and, at the same time, utilising some of the resources the environment provided to eke out a living for ourselves and continue to preserve the environment.
The member for Goyder mentioned the area of land rights. It seemed that Joe was an expert in so many things. In my time in the federal parliament, I would have a little query on something, and I would bump into Joe in the street and ask: ‘What do you think about this?’ or ‘What do you think about that?’ Joe always had a response. He always had a particular point of view on a particular issue you could ponder somewhere down the track. I found Joe an incredible resource, almost a living historian, and the wealth of knowledge he had about the development of the Territory and what was in the Territory, I found was unmatched by other people I have met. His knowledge was incredible.
For a bloke who had done so much throughout his life, he was an incredibly humble person. He did not try to put it over you or talk up his own achievements - far from it. He was an inherently decent bloke. For those reasons, I find his passing incredibly sad. He is from a generation of people who value decency, humbleness, and lack of hubris. I believe the Territory will miss Joe Fisher enormously.
I extend my condolences to Eleanor, the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren. You should feel proud, because Joe Fisher was a man who did so much for all of us and was a great Territorian. I am incredibly pleased to have had the opportunity to make these remarks.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we heard the Chief Minister and other members talk about the significant achievements of William Joseph Fisher, and they were many - from his work as a politician, as a journalist, in the mining industry and, perhaps most importantly, as an active member of the community.
I have always believed it is important, as members in this Chamber, that we remember and respect the work of those who have gone before us, especially when they are members who have served the same local community that we do. We follow in their footsteps and we build on their achievements. I believe the number of guests in the Chamber today is a measure of the man and of what Joe achieved.
Over the last few days I have spoken with a few people who were close to Joe, and it was clear that he was much loved and respected. I want to share a couple of their observations of Joe. The first thing anyone talked about when they talked about Joe was his family. He was very much a family man, with his wife, Eleanor, their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. He was honest, forthright, and proud to be a Territorian and, like most Territorians, he had a healthy sense of humour. I love his e-mail address: lostinspace@goodship.enterprise.com.
It was these character traits that formed his life in public service, a service that went beyond his years as a politician. He spent a large part of his life in charitable services; Joe was a Rotarian for a little over 40 years. The Darwin Rotary Club does much great work and Joe helped with club projects like Meals on Wheels, and the Christmas parties they organised for underprivileged children.
The member for Goyder talked about the chocolate wheel. I am sure we have all bought tickets in the chocolate wheel; I know that I have - I have not won anything but I always buy a ticket. The chocolate wheel raises about $25 000 a year, which is all given to charity. Rotary was also responsible for another Territory tradition, the Tomaris Sweep which, unfortunately, is not held any more. We can all remember the card table in the mall. It looked like a pretty hot job and I understand Joe and Eleanor would volunteer to man the stall. I believe it takes a pretty close couple to sit out in the sun, for several hours on end, selling raffle tickets. Mind you, back then there were probably a few more trees in the mall.
Rotary is not all hard work though. There are the odd social occasions with guest speakers, and the member for Goyder touched upon this with her mining lunches. We are all familiar, as a guest or a public speaker, with the awkward silence that can follow a speech when the question goes out: ‘Are there any questions for the guest speaker?’ This was not the case for the Darwin Rotary. The first question was always reserved for Joe; he always had a question. I understand sometimes it was more of a statement, but that is a privilege you can afford a former politician. At East Point, in Joe’s former stomping ground as local member for Fannie Bay, there is a sign dedicated to him at the Rotary Club of Darwin’s ‘Joe Fisher Exercise Site’. The plaque reads: ‘
My thoughts are with Joe’s family and friends. All the best. God Bless.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I want to share a few words in relation to this condolence motion. At the outset I wish to pass on my condolences to Eleanor, his wife. Whilst we realise that Joe lived a full and long life - 90 years is what many people would describe as a good innings - the truth is that that in no way diminishes the loss that his widow, Eleanor, feels at this time. My heart goes out to her. To lose a partner of such a long time must be an extraordinary loss, and particularly to his widow, my deepest condolences.
I knew Joe Fisher more or less in passing. I never had a great deal to do with him, but I was sufficiently impressed by him that after the last election I sought out his photograph, as well as several other photographs of former members for Port Darwin. His photograph appears on my office wall, glowering over me with a view of expectation that I do the job that he did, well and effectively. I am mindful of the legacy that he has left and the duty that he has thrust upon my shoulders. It is for that reason that he joins the likes of Shane Stone and Tom Harris on my office wall; because of the work those men did, in their own times, to advance the Northern Territory.
What I did know of Joe Fisher makes me wonder if he would have really approved of this motion before the House, because this motion is about Joe Fisher, not about the things that he stood for. Whilst we appreciate that we want to put on the record our passion and our appreciation for the things that Joe Fisher stood for and did, I suspect that, if I read the man correctly, he would rather have us talking about the issues, even now, that were important to him.
Decency transcends politics, and Joe Fisher was a decent man. One of the other hallmarks of decency is that it is never really about ‘you’. If Joe Fisher was interested in an issue and he was out the front leading the charge on a particular issue, it is not because it was about Joe Fisher, and elevating Joe Fisher to some height in his own mind or in the public mind, it was because the issue that Joe Fisher believed in was important.
That is the thing that attracts me to people of his calibre. I have never been one to champion heroes, because heroes have noble ideas but, sometimes, step back from those noble ideas or tend to be more human than their ideas would have you believe. Take somebody like Martin Luther King, who was a passionate fighter for what he believed in. If you look into his character, he was actually very human. It is the principles and ideas those people carry forward which is what I value. That is not to diminish Joe Fisher. In fact, it elevates Joe Fisher because it is principle before personality that drove him.
Everything that I know about Joe Fisher is the essence of decency and the maintenance of those principles of decency. He was a Rotarian for 40 years - we have heard that in this place. And what are the principles that drive Rotarianism? They have a four-way test. Everything they do is run through this filter, and this test determines whether it is the right, proper and decent thing to do. Those are the things that Joe Fisher held as important - those principles that guide us through life, what is right and what is wrong, and staying true to those principles for the sake of being a decent person. That is what we should be remembering in this place: the principles that Joe believed in, principles such as the ability for Territorians to enjoy a place which is theirs.
When Joe Fisher came to the Northern Territory in 1954, it was administered like a public service department with no real local representation. So bad was the treatment of the Northern Territory and the people who lived here, after the 1911 hand back to the federal government, at one stage we were two Territories, cleaved in half in the mid-1930s because some bureaucrat in Canberra thought it was a good idea. Joe Fisher smelled, touched, and tasted the neglect of Canberra. It used to be rumoured at least – but I suspect there was some truth in it - that if you were an incompetent federal public servant, you were promoted and sent to Darwin to live out your days in the Siberia of the public service. It was probably a little harsh; I know there were a lot of dedicated people here. However, reading the experiences of those people who lived with the results of those decisions, there might have been an element of truth in that as well.
Joe realised that the Territory had to have its own representative body. It had to have its own structures in place, where we could determine, for better or for worse, our own destiny to a much greater degree.
If you read today’s Australian Constitution, you will find that there is a reference, towards the back, as to whether Western Australia chose to join the Federation of States. That is an indication of an inverse square law which applies to Australia in its relationship to Canberra. The inverse square law is that you are directly, proportionally, and inversely dissatisfied with the operation of Canberra relative to your distance from it. The further you are away, the less satisfied you are with Canberra’s conduct towards you. The Northern Territory and Western Australia - well, the Northern Territory from 1911 onwards - and Western Australia at the time of Federation, were the furthest flung outposts of Canberra’s reach, and both of those jurisdictions had expressed their dissatisfaction.
There were two Remonstrances from this jurisdiction - Joe was a signatory to one. What was the issue? Our right, as Territorians, to govern ourselves. Joe became a passionate federalist as far as the Territory was concerned. I continue to share his concerns about the erosion of the federal system, with a greater focus, in this nation as a whole, towards a centralised form of government. I suspect that Joe would not have been particularly approving of the High Court, which has consistently underwritten and undermined the federal intentions of our constitutional fathers. Those are the sorts of principles that Joe would have been concerned about, and would have like to have had talked about in his memory in this place, I suspect.
Joe was a man who believed in personal responsibility. It was the cornerstone, I believe, of his political world view. It is a cornerstone of my political world view. I believe that personal responsibility, above all else, is what we should try to achieve as people, and not try to find grounds to blame other people, or find comfort in being a victim, but getting on with it - rising above and getting on with it. Those are the principles and belief systems that Joe has left for me to study and to build upon, and that is what I wish to acknowledge Joe Fisher for in this House.
I believe Joe was a good and decent man, and there would be no one who would cross that opinion. For me, Joe Fisher leaves a legacy of principle - a principle that transcends life. I am grateful to Joe Fisher, not because he was a decent bloke, but because he left me with principles and beliefs, and things that I can build upon so that I might make his legacy worthwhile into the future. I am grateful to Joe for leaving me those ideas. I hope I can do it with the same sense of decency that he had, and with the same sense of belief and passion for the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of this motion. I endorse all the comments made by my colleagues. I would like to speak in the context of legends and leadership.
I came to the Territory the first time, which was 30 years ago, as a very young man. The reason I came back to the Territory was because I met people like Joe and Eleanor Fisher. They were the people who created the can do attitude in the Territory that so inspired me and, I assume, many others, to come to the Territory - and not only come here but to stay here. It was a lifestyle that had been created and demonstrated that you could survive here, do well and raise families. It is where my wife and I came to raise our family.
I did not know Joe Fisher well. I met him on numerous occasions, but was unfortunate to not actually have the time to sit and listen to some of the stories that have been relayed here today. However, I do know about his reputation, about the fine person that he was, and about his comments - I used to read the NT News when I first got up here, and a week would not go by when there would not be a letter to the editor from Joe, or his comments in the columns of the NT News.
He was a person I looked to, who I knew pushed the envelope and encouraged others to push the envelope. This is why we have that can do attitude and, perhaps, why the Territory is the place that it is today - because of those people who came before us and pushed the envelope. He was a leader in our community and as a student of leadership I studied present and past leaders. I was very fortunate to be able to look to people like Joe Fisher and be inspired by what he did, the way he did them, and the results he achieved.
His life will not only be an inspiration to his family, but it will be an inspiration to future Territorians and to future students of leadership. They will be able to study Joe Fisher’s life, his achievements, and his style of leadership within the community. Fortunately, I was able to talk to him in his lifetime, but others who come will be able to read his books, go back through the archives of the NT News, and read many other words that have been recorded in his name.
I extend my sincere condolences to Eleanor and his family on the passing of such a fine Territorian. He will be sadly missed.
Those members of our community who inspire others, not only in their lifetime but continue to inspire others after their passing, are known as legends. I firmly believe Joe Fisher will go into the Northern Territory history books as being one of our very own Northern Territory legends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was a little reluctant to contribute to this condolence motion because I did not know Joe that well, but as soon as someone mentioned he was an Independent politician I thought that it is a good opportunity.
I suppose I did know him – I knew more about him, rather than knew him personally. I have not even lived in the Territory for half the time he was alive; much of his life was before I was born. However, to me, he is up there with those people I remember such as Tiger Brennan, Dick Ward, Sam Calder and Bernie Kilgariff. They are all people I have not known particularly well, but as people who many of us hold in high respect. Joe Fisher is one of those people.
I also know Joe because his son, Greg, lives in my electorate. I believe that in every son, well, there is certainly going to be 50% of your father biologically, and I believe Greg has many of the characteristics of his father. Greg will certainly tell you what he thinks, and Greg has firm views on things. That is not a bad thing, because I believe that is why Joe was such a successful person in the Territory. He was determined in many of the things he did. He was determined as a miner. He struggled with the politics of mining. He was determined, as you could see, in his letter writing. I remember his letters. We have regular letter writers today. Unfortunately, one passed away recently – Col Friel. We have Howard Young. We had Joe Fisher. They were regular letter writers. I must admit the letters to the editor in our NT News are sometimes the most intelligent part to read – apologies to the NT News. It reflects what people really think without all the extras added in, and that is where I got to know him as well.
I also came to know him through the Church. I do not live in Darwin but I frequent St Mary’s Cathedral and I knew him because he came around with the collection plate. If he was anything like when you passed him at the Rotary wheel, he certainly would not let the collection plate go past without you putting something in it! I also say that because we need to reflect on him as a man who believed in his God - not in some airy-fairy way, not in a wishy-washy way. He went to Mass regularly with Eleanor. I saw them Sunday after Sunday when I attended. I felt he reflected the God that knew about the place we live. He would have come across that God many times when he went around the bush with his pick. It would be very hard for even the strongest atheist, to sit down in Kakadu or parts of the Territory when there is a beautiful sunset, to believe there is not something else out there that is the cause of this beauty we call the Northern Territory.
Also, his work in the community was a reflection of his beliefs. He worked with Rotary for 40 years. People do not just work for Rotary for the sake of working for Rotary. They have something deep inside them that says: ‘I wish to help the community’. That is a reflection, I believe, of his belief in God.
He, obviously, believed in parliament; he believed in improving the democratic processes in the Northern Territory. We would not be standing here today if it was not for Joe Fisher and people like him.
The most important thing - and it is something we forget - is that regardless of all the things he did in relation to parks and mining, the community and parliament, he left a family, and that family is a permanent legacy. They will pass the stories of Joe Fisher on and on. We have lost a Territorian; we have lost a part of our history; we have lost someone who reflects the Territory as I knew it when I first came. I probably could say, unfortunately - and some people may disagree - it is changing, and maybe it is changing to look like just another part of Australia. I hope that does not happen, but it does appear that way sometimes when you see the changes in Darwin city.
Yes, we have lost a very important part of our history, but we have lost a person who has left us, I believe, the greatest gift; that is, a family of sons, daughters, granddaughters, grandchildren, and they will be his living memory to the Territory. They will pass on his stories. We should be eternally grateful to Joe and Eleanor for that. To Eleanor and family, my condolences; and to Joe Fisher - may he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their contributions this morning. Before putting the motion, I extend my condolences to Mrs Fisher and extended family. I had the honour of attending Joe’s funeral at St Mary’s Cathedral. It was clear from the ceremony, celebrated by Bishop Ted Collins, that he was a very strong Catholic and a man of faith. It was very moving to see so many Territorians gathering to recognise the passing of this great Territorian.
Honourable members, I have received a number of apologies from people who wished to be present today, and I will put those names on the record: his brothers, Mr Stan Fisher and Mr Hugh Fisher and, particularly, the former Senator for the Northern Territory, Mr Bernie Kilgariff and Mrs Aileen Kilgariff. When I spoke to Bern last week, he was hoping to travel to Darwin for this condolence motion but, unfortunately, ill health - he has been in hospital for the last few days - has prevented him from doing so. He has asked if I would pass on the condolences of their family to yours.
Vale Joe Fisher, AM.
After I have put the motion, I will be asking members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members. There is morning tea being served in the main hall for those members who wish to join our guests on this special occasion.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, on 30 January 2009, I announced, jointly with the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners, an agreement that we have reached in the way forward that can be taken to the Commonwealth government to finally resolve the Kenbi land claim.
The Kenbi land claim was first lodged in 1979 - the longest running claim in Australia – and was continually opposed by the CLP government. The first hearing of the Kenbi claim resulted in the finding that there were no traditional owners of the Cox Peninsula. Following an appeal and further hearings from 1995 to 1999, in December 2000, Justice Gray recommended the grant of a large part of the claimed area as Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In his finding, Justice Gray identified six people as being traditional owners for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, but he also noted that a grant under ALRA would benefit a larger group, including the broader Larrakia.
Since the election of the Labor government in 2001, there has been an agreement that the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth, and the Northern Land Council would seek to develop an agreed position on detriment issues arising from the land claim. Detailed negotiations between the NT government, the Commonwealth government, the NLC, and the traditional owners have been ongoing and are now at a point where there is agreement between the Territory, the Northern Land Council, and the traditional owners on a proposal that can be put to the Commonwealth minister for decision. The essence of the agreement is that the aspirations of traditional owners and the broader Larrakia for economic development opportunities, and aspirations of government for land to be available for residential and urban development, can best be met by a combination of the grant of Territory freehold and Aboriginal land under ALRA.
Importantly, the interests of other key interest groups, particularly commercial and recreational fishers, recreational users of the Darwin Harbour and its features, and existing land users, have all been accommodated in the agreement. This makes this agreement a shining example of the kind of win/win outcomes that can be developed when stakeholders sit down and work through their issues together. This is a strong contrast to the history of legal objection to the land claim and obfuscation that was characteristic of the previous government’s approach to this and other land rights claims before 2001.
The agreement announced on 30 January represents not only an end to a protracted and unnecessarily expensive Kenbi land claim, but also an end to the bad old days of enmity and opposition. Whilst the final boundaries for grant of ALRA and freehold titles needs to be settled with the Commonwealth, the agreement proposes that the recommended grant of land include 13 000 ha as Territory freehold held in a land trust for future developments, and 52 000 ha as Aboriginal land. Land becomes available for development, and Larrakia traditional owners will have the first option to develop the Territory freehold land held in trust.
I am pleased to say that a key feature of the proposed agreement is that the High Court Blue Mud Bay ruling will not apply to Darwin Harbour. All persons, whether commercial or recreational fishermen or other recreational users, will be able to not only access the inter-tidal zone without fee or permit, but also be able to access the beaches in the areas proposed for both ALRA grants and Territory freehold. The only exceptions to this are a number of known sacred sites, and an exclusion zone around an outstation near Ida Bay. Because of the high visitation to the Cox Peninsula by members of the public, a marine ranger unit comprising full-time employees will enable the Larrakia to participate in surveillance, monitoring, and natural and cultural resource management, including the protection of sacred sites.
I am also pleased to say that the proposed arrangements accommodate all of the existing uses of land at the Cox Peninsula, in most cases by way of a grant of a lease from the Aboriginal land trust to the affected persons. This includes Telstra facilities, the Charles Point Lighthouse, private interests including holiday shacks, a fishing base and a private airstrip, mining tenements, a pearling operation, and use of land by private organisations.
Understandably, the agreement has been received very positively by all parties. It clears the way for development of the Cox Peninsula and gives traditional owners an opportunity to participate in economic development and maintenance of their sacred sites. It removes uncertainty for commercial and recreational fishers and users in Darwin Harbour, and makes suitable arrangements for existing land users. The Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs has commended the NT government and the NLC for reaching a negotiated agreement, and is on the public record that she will now move to finalise outstanding issues in relation to the claim, including the status of Australian government facilities. In addition, a commitment will be sought from the Commonwealth for the cleanup of unexploded ordinances on the former bombing range on Quail and Bare Sand Islands. This agreement demonstrates that, with a commonsense approach, determination and goodwill, it is possible to resolve Indigenous land issues with outcomes that benefit all parties.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst I would like to speak at length on this matter, of course, in this stifled parliament, I only have two minutes, so I will address one issue and one issue only; that is, this business about dressing up the CLP as this awful bunch of people who challenge land claims ...
Ms Lawrie: You did.
Mr ELFERINK: We did challenge land claims, but we did not buy full-page ads in the NT News saying what a great job we are doing fighting land claims, which this government has ...
Mr Henderson: You went to election after election on it.
Mr ELFERINK: If this government was as committed to the process of negotiation rather than litigation, then why would they argue in the Federal Court of this country that native title has been extinguished over Darwin by virtue of the fact that cultural genocide has been successful, because that is how you argue a native title case. This government has the audacity to walk into this place and suggest for one second that they are the wonderful communicators with Aboriginal people when, in fact, the CLP also, in its time, did come to negotiated outcomes with native title issues such as the area of Rosebery, as I understand it, in which the Larrakia Development Corporation got its start.
This business of dressing up one side of politics as being the evil ones because they had the audacity to challenge and, then, dress themselves up as the great and wonderful communicators with Aboriginal people, when they too happily go to the courts and actively resist claims against the Crown from Aboriginal people, is hypocrisy in its lowest form.
When I hear the Minister for Health - as he is at the moment, I do not know what he is going to be next week – say: ‘Oh, we are really just testing the case to ask the High Court for an opinion’, it is an opinion that would have had the effect of depriving Aboriginal people of their rights. They were also taking out full-page ads to say what a great job they were doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, without getting into the long-running politics of this particular land claim, I am relieved that, eventually and at last, we appear to have come to a conclusion. In the case of the Kenbi land claim, there were good reasons at that time for the government to at least challenge it. When I say challenge, it is not saying they were challenging that people had a right to own that land. My understanding - and this is where the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan came from - was that the government felt that there should be some consideration to the growth of Darwin.
I suppose what this has highlighted is the fact that, if the legislation and the circumstances are right, many of the issues that we are concerned about can be dealt with by negotiation, as long as all parties are willing to deal honestly and fairly with those negotiations. The facts are that we live together, both black and white. The Kenbi land claim is close to Darwin and, if you are a town planner, you would ask where Darwin is going to grow, and the nearest place is either Adelaide River or Cox Peninsula. I believe that debate needed to happen. Whether it needed to happen over 25 years is probably the debateable point. Whether we could have solved these issues at less cost and without all this time going under the bridge - I believe we could have - that is over now and we have now achieved an agreement.
This will be good for Darwin, the broader Territory community and, also, for the Larrakia people who will be able to develop their own land as well. I believe we have achieved something that, perhaps, could have been achieved in a shorter time, but at last it has been done, and we should say, let us move on from here and develop the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory suffered its own mini-disaster early this year due to flooding, which was severing the Barkly Highway to our east, and subsequent rains closing the Victoria Highway to our west.
While the Territory experiences heavy monsoons every Wet Season, which can see our roads flooded and closed for periods of time, the rainfall level that closed the Barkly was at least 1 m higher than the predicted 50-year flood levels. Following rain over a number of days, the Barkly Highway was closed on 5 January when a major breach washed away 70 m of the highway with water flowing at depths of up to 2 m. The embankment where the breach occurred is 3.5 m high.
In my first days back from leave, I visited the site to see firsthand the incredible level of damage. Workers were mobilised immediately to repair the damage and a working platform was established 7 km from the breach, on high ground, to stockpile and cart 2300 tonnes of rock to fill the breach. Our Construction Division, under the supervision of Glen Jones, Manager of Roads Projects at Tennant Creek, did a great job in difficult conditions, working around the clock to get the road reopened.
The reconstructed Barkly Highway was reopened to light traffic on 22 January and to heavy vehicles on 29 January. Initially, travel was restricted to daylight hours and one-way traffic. The road was reopened to 24-hour, two-way traffic on 25 February. Heavy vehicles are now able to carry 100% of their legal axle group loads. Roadworks will continue at the site for the next two weeks repairing the road shoulders. Post-repair inspections will be carried out on a regular basis to ensure that there is no settlement of the works. The repair bill across the Barkly region is estimated at $3.2m.
Heavy rains in the Victoria River region also caused road closures on the Victoria Highway. The water levels have now subsided and the Victoria River Bridge, 200 km west of Katherine, has been reopened to traffic.
In response to the damage caused by these heavy rains, the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements were activated. The NDRRA is a joint Territory and Commonwealth government program designed to share the costs of relief and assistance and help communities to re-establish following a natural disaster. The program particularly targets public assets and restoration such as schools, health centres, roads, power stations, and other government infrastructure. While the majority of the expenditure and recovery from the monsoonal trough will be met through the Territory’s own budget, the extent of the damage is such that the Territory will be able to call on the Commonwealth for some financial assistance.
Under the scheme, the Territory funds all disaster-related activities up to a threshold amount - we have spent $7.4m so far this financial year. The expenditure after that point can be reimbursed by the Commonwealth at a rate of 50%. Once expenditure exceeds a further threshold of $13m in 2008-09, the Territory can claim reimbursement of 75% of its disaster-related relief expenditure over that second threshold. In past years, the Territory has received considerable disaster recovery from the Commonwealth and we acknowledge its role in helping us to repair damaged infrastructure.
I sincerely thank the staff of the Roads Division. I know that with the significant road washouts we have seen at both the Barkly and the floods at the Vic, they had to mobilise very quickly. I also sincerely thank the contractors, particularly in Tennant Creek. They were coming off another road job so they were able to mobilise very quickly across the Barkly. They set up their work camp and we saw a heavy effort. As I said, they were working day and night to get the Barkly open again. The problem was the extent of the washout; we lost both shoulders, so were down to one lane leading up to the breach. That meant that it was very difficult for trucks to get in with the 2300 tonnes to fill the breach. Until we covered the breach they were reversing in to get the rock and the fill into that breach. They worked under difficult and precarious conditions. They worked around the clock. The gravel was coming in at a rapid rate, with trucks up and down the open section of the Barkly, and they did a great job.
I know we are suffering, of course, with closures on the Queensland side of the highway now. That is the nature of the issue of significantly heavy rains and floods that they have been experiencing in Queensland.
I am often on the record as saying that 23% of our road network unsealed creates difficulties, but monsoonal rains across highways and unseasonal and unpredicted floods will take out a highway regardless of what you do …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I also thank and congratulate the hard-working staff at DPI and the contractors and maintenance crews who have been trying to fix the Barkly Highway. I understand that the floods were beyond 50-year expected flooding, and that road going under put a great strain on the Northern Territory.
I am aware of many people in that area who have suffered, from Tennant Creek up to Darwin, through the passage of transport coming that way. There were many holidaymakers in Alice Springs who could not get through, and many people were affected by that. Our only hope is that we can get that highway back up to standard as quickly as possible, and pray that the rain does not again come down as hard as it has to cause these problems in the first place.
We need to also reflect on the impact flooding of places such as the Barkly Highway has on the Territory, the Territory’s economy, and the people in the Northern Territory. The inflationary pressures this puts on the prices of groceries and other materials that come to Darwin from interstate, especially from Queensland, and how we manage contingencies, so that when these disasters occur, they do not have such a negative impact on people in the Northern Territory. We are aware that people in Darwin and Palmerston already have over-inflated prices on their rent, mortgages, and groceries, and to see the Barkly Highway go down and put further impact on inflation in the Northern Territory, is a significant problem. We have to ensure that we have appropriate responses so that Territorians do not suffer.
The $200m black hole that the Northern Territory government has us in is already $20 500 on the head of every single Territorian – man, woman, and child. We are in a $200m black hole and, when we see the unfortunate incident happen on the Barkly Highway to put more inflationary pressures on people in Darwin and Palmerston, it is an absolute disgrace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I visited the Barkly Highway on 4 February, just before it was open to traffic both ways and, until you go there, you do not realise the extent of the disaster that hit the Barkly Highway. For about 600 m south of the Barkly, near the Rankin River, you can see 20 culverts, about 10 foot in diameter – enormous culverts – that have been completely washed out from the road and are now in the bush. There is also scarring of the landscape. I did not know that the people who live on Soudan Station, which is right on the Rankin, were surrounded by the floodwaters and were evacuated when the floodwaters nearly rose to the top of the roof; it was something that no one could have expected.
Contractors have done fantastic work to get the road open. The only thing that concerned me was the conditions of opening the road, which I believe were detrimental to some of the local industries, like Three Ways, that did not have the amount of traffic come through that was expected. They told me they had put off a couple of workers because the road was only open for a certain amount of time each day. It worries me that someone made a decision to close a road for nearly 18 hours of the day, if you came from the wrong direction. I do not know why the government did not look at putting sets of traffic lights on these areas and have them open 24 hours a day.
After all, our trucking industry does not sit around and wait at night - it can get through. For some reason, the entire road was blocked off all night and it was only open one way during certain hours. I ask the minister why we could not have used those portable traffic lights at those sections of the road which were being upgraded, so that people could have moved through? They might have had to wait 20 minutes or so, but they would not have had to wait the extraordinary amount of time they had to under those conditions.
I would like to congratulate all the people who got the road open - we need it open ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, The traffic management conditions on the Barkly Highway were put in place for safety reasons. We had the breach to fill and, once it was filled, we had the compacting of the surface and then sealing to do. We also had the shoulder damage still being fixed, and perhaps that provided the restrictions. It was not just the section where the breach had occurred; there were sections closer to the Queensland border that also had some significant shoulder damage. It was about the closeness to the edge of the drop-off of 3.5 m. If you went out there, member for Nelson, you would recognise that the highway is sitting quite high and, then, you have the black soil floodplains sitting below it. When the shoulders are washed away and you have one lane, you do have to be very careful with those big trucks coming through, particularly at night when visibility is very low because we do not have street lights sitting out in the middle of the highway.
The traffic management was put in place based on safety. They followed all normal traffic management procedures on that highway. We did recognise there was a bank-up of trucks wanting to get through. There were also the holidaymakers returning from Queensland to the Northern Territory, as well as the holidaymakers from the Territory going to Queensland. It was a particularly intensive time of the year for volumes of traffic on the Barkly. All traffic management actions where thought out very carefully by people whose technical expertise is put to use ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Central Australian Tourism Marketing Campaign
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the continued focus on tourism in Central Australia and, in particular, the latest marketing campaign for the region which builds on previous campaigns.
In September last year, we launched the first-ever global marketing campaign for the Red Centre, a $2m campaign with a simple message Get CeNTred - with a big NT right in the middle of the Centre - for Australia’s Red Centre, where people can rediscover themselves, get back to basics, and refocus on the important things through unforgettable experiences. A visit to the Red Centre will leave you looking at life differently.
The first global Red Centre campaign was an ambitious program for Tourism NT, as we sought to reposition the Red Centre as a favoured international destination. Key to this was educating would-be travellers about what there is to do and experience in the Red Centre, highlighting the value of this experience compared to others. This is an ongoing process.
We have had good success with our campaigns, but we need to continue to put in the hard yards. I am pleased to report we have just launched the latest marketing campaign for the Red Centre, the second phase of the government’s $2.2m Get CeNTred marketing campaign targeting Australians. More than $500 000 of this amount was invested by our national partners, AAT Kings, APT, Peregrine Adventures, Connections, Great Southern Rail, Flight Centre, Voyages, and Territory Discoveries. This campaign commenced on Sunday, 7 February, and will run into March-April 2009. It is marketed under the Share our Story branding and creates a compelling reason to travel to the Red Centre, a visit where you will experience something that is different, appealing and unique to the rest of Australia, but one that will leave you with unexpected benefit - after all, it is the real Australian outback.
The campaign kicked off with seven consecutive days of full-page broadsheet exposure showcasing the Centre, a deal negotiated with Fairfax’s Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. This campaign has also provided opportunities for our national trade partners to place product and price offers in support of the broadsheet spreads. Importantly, given the current economic climate, we have ensured that the offers link in with the federal government stimulus package by showing what you can do in the Red Centre for under $950.
The campaign is also supported by a new 15-second television commercial which will appear on the free-to-air and pay-TV networks in the first few weeks in March. Online advertising is also a component, through leading websites such as Yahoo, National Geographic, Fairfax Digital and Total Travel, as well as promoting special deals through Territory Discoveries. There will be advertisements in leading magazines such as The Weekend Australian, Good Weekend, delicious, and Sunday Life, which will run for five weeks, reaching over 1.9 million readers each week. Twenty large outdoor sites, displaying iconic images of the Red Centre, will be featured in CBD locations across Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. One will be a new digital billboard on the corner of Swanston and Flinders Street in Melbourne - a first for us.
This phase of activity is timely, given the launch of Tiger Airways’ new Adelaide to Alice Springs service next month, opening up markets in south-eastern Australia. While there are challenging times ahead, the latest Roy Morgan Research Holiday Tracking and Campaign Tracking Surveys show awareness of the Northern Territory is increasing, with a highly differentiated brand compared to other Australian destinations, strengthening its appeal as a travel destination. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to have a strong presence in the Australian market, highlighting the range and depth of the Territory experience, and working with partners such as those I have mentioned in this report - partners that will work hard to convert consumer interest into holiday bookings.
The 2009 domestic Red Centre campaign is a key platform to launch our marketing program to strengthen the position of Central Australia as an appealing and highly rewarding holiday destination.
Madam Speaker, I thank the CEO of the agency, Maree Tetlow, and all her staff involved in putting this campaign together. They continue to push the boundaries. I commend this report to the house.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, is outside with the family of Joe Fisher, so as shadow minister for Central Australia, I will respond.
The member for Johnston has made a complete mess of Health; I do not know if it holds much help or hope for those in the Tourism industry. We can only hope that he can employ himself much better in the business of tourism than he has in Health; he has an absolute legacy of failure in that department.
He is right when he talked about a key destination and about the hard yards that have to be done. I believe law and order is a big issue. The member for Johnston, or the new minister for Tourism, needs to go to Alice Springs as soon as possible and have a look at some of the law and order issues, talk to people in the mall and the tourism business operators who are desperate for some sort of help. We have had a meeting, as you know, with the government MLAs in Central Australia on ways to address that. I hope that Cabinet will approve some of those initiatives that were raised at that meeting to address some of the law and order issues. It goes straight to the heart of tourism. If you have roller shutters and smashed windows, it does not augur well for tourists and tourism operators.
The minister needs to go to Central Australia more than he has on previous occasions in the vast number of portfolios he has held since he has been a minister, in parliament, since 2001. Let us hope that he can deliver better outcomes for tourism - Central Australia is relying on him - than he has in the area of Health.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it seems like the member for Greatorex is continually talking the town of Alice Springs down. Yesterday in this House, Madam Speaker, he was calling across the Chamber to me, ‘Burnsy, you are no match for me, mate’. He is displaying his shallowness of spirit. I have an old political adage for the member for Greatorex: ‘dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on’.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this House:
1. acknowledges that the major deterioration in the world economy is having a serious effect on Australia’s economy and that of the Northern Territory;
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, there is no question that 2009 will be a critical year for the Northern Territory and its economy. It will be a year of immense challenges, as the global financial crisis and the slowdown of the Australian national economy impacts, not only on the Territory’s economy, but Commonwealth revenues to the Territory government.
It will also be a year of opportunities for Territorians. It will be a year that will forge the direction of the Northern Territory well into the future as we challenge the global financial crisis and the impact that it will have on the Northern Territory. What we do this year will be fundamental in how we perform as an economy in future years. Over the course of this year, the Territory will be caught between the disintegrating international and national economy, the subsequent hit to our financial bottom line, the opportunities presented by a very significant population growth, and potential expansion of our industrial base. For the government’s part, we will be balancing major demands on our budget for infrastructure and expansion, at a time of shrinking revenue from the GST as a result of the failing and slowing national economy.
The combination of a weaker world economy, downward revisions to China’s growth, and sharp falls in commodity prices, increase the risk of Australia following the rest of the world into recession. The effect of this global recession on Australian economic growth is wide-reaching, with almost all sectors of the economy facing significant weakness over the forecast horizon. GDP growth in Australia is expected to be weaker, at 1% in 2008-09 and 0.75% in 2009-10. At this stage, however, Australia is one of the few OECD economies not forecast to record negative growth in 2009-10 years.
The world economy is expected to grow by 0.5% in 2009 - the slowest growth for the world economy going back over 50 years. In line with the significant slowdown in the domestic economy, unemployment across Australia is expected to rise through 2009. The national unemployment rate is expected to increase to 5.5% by June 2009 and 7% by June 2010. There has been a marked deterioration in the outlook for business investment within Australia. Total investment is now expected to fall by 15.5% in 2009-10, reflecting weaker global and domestic demand, weaker profits, tight credit conditions for business, and the high cost of equity funding.
The outlook for Australia’s export growth has been revised down sharply to just 0.5% in 2009-10. While some support will be provided by the depreciation of the Australian dollar, the broad-based and pervasive weakness in growth across the world economy means that demand for Australia’s exports are likely to be weak. There is also a significant drop in household consumption. It is expected to be some time before household confidence improves and consumption recovers to the levels of recent years. As a result, consumption growth is forecast to be 0.5% in 2009-10.
Key bulk commodity prices are expected to lose much of their gains of recent years – in fact, they already have – and prices are expected to remain under pressure until the global economy and China, in particular, begin to recover. On the positive side, inflation is expected to fall to 2% by June 2010 and the Reserve Bank has slashed interest rates four basis points since September.
The speed and magnitude at which the financial shock has fed through into the real economy has surprised economic forecasters around the world. Whilst conditions in financial markets remain fragile, the volatility has eased. This is mainly due to aggressive government interventions including interest rate reductions, massive liquidity injections, extended loan facilities, capital injections, and banking guarantees.
There is no question that the Territory economy is already being affected by this global meltdown and will be impacted upon into the future. Due to our small size and our commodity and tourism focus, it will be impossible for us to escape the effects. There have already been some mine closures and production cut backs, with a subsequent loss of jobs. As we all know, exploration activities across the Northern Territory have slowed dramatically as a result of those small exploration companies being unable to access finance. That leads on to all sorts of small companies across the Territory involved in the mining exploration sector.
Nevertheless, there are a number of world-class resource projects that could start up over the next two years, including the massive INPEX project that this government has fought so hard to achieve for the Territory. The Territory remains one of the most highly prospective areas in the world for uranium, an energy resource that will remain in high demand in coming years. Uranium prices have stood up well, as other commodity prices have plunged.
Despite the weakening dollar, the tourism industry will be impacted by this crisis. It was great to hear the new Tourism Minister talk about the government maintaining its effort in marketing, to ensure that we maintain our share. There is no doubt tourism will be impacted. There is no doubt there will be a downturn in the number of international tourists visiting Australia and the Northern Territory. We have to maintain our market share. We will fight hard to do that.
Tighter credit conditions are impacting on the construction projects, with some real risks to larger private sector residential buildings. But with a 4% decrease in interest rates and high levels of demand in the Territory, there is great potential for construction, and we will do everything we can to maintain those skills in the Northern Territory. Despite this buffeting, the Territory economy is still expected to grow over this year and the next financial year – a significant achievement in the current context. Both Treasury and Access Economics forecast growth, which is significant, given that every other jurisdiction in Australia is forecasting at least flatlining and most of the states going into negative economic growth.
Access Economics predict growth of 4.7% this year, slowing to 2.4% in 2009-10. Treasury is slightly more conservative, as it normally is, predicting 4.5% growth for the 2008-09 year. Importantly, key drivers such as private consumption, residential dwellings investments, and exports are expected to remain strong. Population growth is also expected to remain strong. Access Economics is predicting growth of 2.1% across the board, but the work done by our Territory Growth Planning Unit shows significant spiked growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston areas, and in key remote communities.
The real impact on our economy comes through the potential for significantly reduced GST collections. This is a reflection of the national economy, not the Territory economy. Downward revision of GST has already resulted in the government revising our cash position to a deficit of around $47m this year, announced in November in the mid-year review. We still expect the deficit to be in that order in 2008-09. The real downturn happens next financial year, when we expect the deficit to be up to $150m.
Both the Territory and the federal governments have been working hard to meet the challenges presented by this crisis and, the most important thing, to protect Territory jobs. On 14 October 2008, the Prime Minister announced a $10.4bn economic security strategy. Territorians benefited from the strategy that contains long-term pension reform, support payments for low- and middle-income families, investments in first homebuyers, and significant new training places.
On 3 February 2009, the Prime Minister made what may prove to be one of the most important statements of any Prime Minister since World War II. He announced a $42bn plan to stimulate Australia’s economy. In that statement, the Prime Minister committed his government and this country to an active role in fighting the world financial crisis by doing whatever it takes to prevent our national economy from sliding deeply into recession. It is a clarion call to action to protect the jobs of Australians.
The Prime Minister’s package includes $14.7bn for Building the Education Revolution. The Primary Schools for the 21st Century Initiative will receive around $140m for the Territory’s primary, combined, and special schools to build or refurbish school buildings such as libraries, assembly halls, and performing arts centres. The Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools Initiative will allow the Territory’s 25 middle and senior schools to apply for a share of $1bn to build up to 500 science or language centres across Australia.
The Renewing Australia’s Schools Initiative will provide up to $200 000 for every Territory school in repairs and maintenance. The Building Trade Training Centres Initiative means that $110m from the Trade Training Centres in Schools program will be spent a year earlier. There are 13 schools in the Territory interested in hosting a trade training centre.
Territorians will also benefit from the $6.6bn in Social and Defence Housing. In total, 20 000 new homes will be built across Australia, with 2500 upgrades to public and community housing. Even if we only achieved a per capita share of that funding - Housing is working hard on that particular package and what may come to the Territory - we would see at least $66m coming to the Northern Territory for new homes and upgraded housing, and we all know the Territory needs that money. It is also likely that we will receive 185 Defence houses – a great stimulus for the housing industry in Darwin.
Territorians will also benefit from $890m to be spent on black spot roads funding, boom gates, and repairing regional roads and community infrastructure projects. The Black Spot Program will be increased by $90m, providing $200m to undertake around 350 critical road safety projects. The Boom Gates for Rail Crossings Initiative will share $150m between the states and territories to install up to 200 boom gates. The Repairing Regional Roads Initiatives will share $150m between the states and territories. The Community Infrastructure Initiative will share $550m between local councils. With our shire reforms and the shires up and running, the capacity for those shires to receive significant capital funding for projects in our regions is very important. Territorians will also benefit from $2.7bn in the Energy Efficient Homes plan.
Small Territory businesses, in particular, will benefit from the tax investment allowance. We know that 90% of people employed in the Northern Territory are employed in small businesses. There are 12 795 businesses in the Northern Territory with a turnover of less than $2m. These businesses can now claim a 30% taxation deduction for capital items worth more than $1000 purchased between 30 December 2008 and 30 June 2009, and a 10% deduction for items purchased between 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009. 12 795 small businesses in the Northern Territory can claim a 30% taxation deduction for capital items - a very significant initiative for our hard-working small business community. Businesses with more than $2m in turnover can claim the same allowance for items greater the $10000.
The Rudd government is also making five separate payments, up to $950, available to individuals across the Northern Territory. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians will give a one-off payment of $950 to those earning less than $80 000 a year; $650 to those earning between $80 000 and $90 000; and $300 to those earning $90 000 to $100 000. This is money, and if there are 80 000 Territorians, Treasurer, eligible for this – I believe I did the sums right – that is about $76m available to go into the consumption side of our economy, supporting jobs in the Northern Territory.
The Single Income Family Bonus will give a one-off payment of $950 to families with one income earner. The Farmers’ Hardship Bonus will give a one-off payment of $950 to farmers and small business in rural areas that are in drought and facing exceptional circumstances. The Back to School Bonus will give a one-off payment to eligible families with school-aged children to help defray education costs. The Training and Learning Bonus will give a payment to students and social security recipients entering education or training to provide additional help with costs. These one-off payments will provide a significant boost to the economy by promoting consumption, whilst helping their recipients with these costs. This is a stimulus package that will reach every family in the Northern Territory; in one way or another, every Territorian is going to benefit from this package.
Unbelievably, these payments to the Territory and Territorians are opposed by the Liberals and the County Liberal Party. I have never seen anything like it. In response to this stimulus package, and following discussions with the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Premiers, and Chief Ministers, I have ordered an immediate response from the Northern Territory, before this Appropriation Bill has even passed through the Senate. On behalf of all Territorians, I hope it does. I have ordered work across the Northern Territory to ensure that we are ready to start …
Dr Burns: Spade ready.
Mr HENDERSON: … spade ready -absolutely, new Business Minister - getting this money out to Territory businesses and contractors.
Last Friday, I established a five-point plan to ensure the Territory receives as much of this money as it can and protect as many jobs as it can. By not supporting this package, and voting against it in the Senate, the CLP is voting for higher unemployment in the Northern Territory. They are voting for throwing Territorians out of a job – that is what the opposition is doing - for whatever bizarre political purpose they are following, regarding the federal Liberal Party leader, Malcolm Turnbull. They are voting for higher unemployment in the Territory if they do not support this package.
The five-point plan includes:
The Development Consent Authority will now meet every fortnight instead of every month and we will recruit five staff to start immediately.
Talk to any developer around the Northern Territory; this is part of speeding up the approvals processes to allow work to start.
Dedicated Stimulus Action Squads will be set up in government departments to ensure these projects are up and running as fast as possible.
Advertisements seeking expressions of interest from industry will be placed within two weeks.
you need to go to tender and involving contractors earlier in the process.
Despite the opposition from the Liberals and the Country Liberals - you can hardly distinguish the two these days - we will be strongly engaging with and implementing this package, to the benefit of all Territorians.
The Treasurer, the new Business Minister, and I have been calling industry leaders over the last couple of days to gauge support for this project. Every industry association we have spoken to in the Northern Territory supports this stimulus plan - every one of them.
I find it amazing that the Country Liberals would oppose upgrades for schools, tax breaks for small business, energy efficiency measures, and one-off payments directly helping those who need help. To oppose this package is quite amazing. They used to stand up for Territorians. In fact, it is more than amazing, it is outrageous. I do not think that I can recall, in my time of serving politics in the Northern Territory, that there has ever been an opposition that has not supported additional funding for the Northern Territory - until today. They have stood and said: ‘We do not want this for the Northern Territory, do not give it to us’. It is irresponsible. I find it outrageous that they can not support jobs in the Northern Territory, and vote for higher unemployment in the Northern Territory - it is outrageous.
It is not only the Territory and the federal governments that are calling on the Liberals and the Country Liberals to support this package. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Chief Executive, Peter Anderson, urged the package to be passed. Peter Anderson said the package ticks the boxes businesses advocated as a response to the economic downturn.
The great economists opposite, the shadow Treasurer, and Nigel Scullion - I have the Hansard of what he said in the House last night - obviously think they know much more about how Australia needs to ride through this global financial crisis than people like Peter Anderson, who heads up the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
There are other commentators, though. The Institute of Chartered Accountants called for the package to be passed as soon as possible. Tax Counsel, Yasser El-Ansary said that it is important that everyone gives it full support because it is a measure aimed at giving a stimulus to business in the immediate term. Somehow, members opposite think that the member for Port Darwin knows more than the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Support for quick passage also came from the Australian Trucking Industry and the Housing Industry Association. Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, was a real doyen of the previous Howard government as an industry commentator, and she has been a very passionate advocate for Australian industry. She is not normally a friend of the Labor Party, but she said:
‘Absolutely critical’, said Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group. Yet, here we have the member for Port Darwin and Senator Nigel Scullion somehow thinking that they know more than these people, when the nation is looking at significant growth in unemployment.
Australians are being thrown out of work, Territorians are losing their jobs, and Heather Ridout said that:
Frank Lowy, one of the great business people of Australia, has also come out in support of the package. I could quote more industry people who support this package.
It is a real puzzle why the Liberals and the Country Liberals do not support this package. Why not? It is all about politics, that will, if this bill does not go through the House, lead to higher unemployment and people being thrown out of work - through no fault of their own and no fault of Australian governments, past or present.
Our banking system is probably one of the strongest in the world, but we live in a global economy. Australia is impacted by the economy of the world. We can see the turmoil that the world economy is in. The people opposite, in opposing the stimulus package, are voting for higher employment in the Northern Territory.
My government has decided that it must continue to spend in a focused way to stimulate the economy. Despite calls from the CLP, the government will not be cutting its expenditure, nor will it be cancelling projects or cutting jobs in the public service. Despite the call from the CLP, the government will not be slashing deficit at the cost of economic growth in the Northern Territory. I do not like going into a temporary deficit. I know the Treasurer does not like going into a temporary deficit. We have worked so hard to repair the budget position of the Northern Territory and the legacy of debt and deficit that we inherited from the CLP. We have worked hard to rebuild the financial position of the Northern Territory from the empty cupboard and the enormous debt and deficit that the CLP government left us, as their legacy, after 27 years on those benches.
We have worked hard. I do not like going into deficit, but I know what I fear even more: seeing good Territorians lose their jobs. It is appropriate for us to go into temporary deficit. The government will not be slashing the massive 700 jobs out of the public service that is the election commitment of our opponents. At the very time that unemployment presents a worrying spectre for Territorians, the CLP is telling public servants that their jobs will go ...
Mr Mills: That is a lie!
Mr HENDERSON: The Territory government has also been active in ensuring our economy as reported …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition has always used the little mumblings that he undertakes to accuse our Chief Minister of …
Mr MILLS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, if it troubles her, genuinely.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very simple motion. It is a motion to protect jobs in the Territory. I will be amazed if the opposition will not support it.
We remain the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small and medium business in Australia, a badge of pride that we have worn for some time. Those 12 795 small businesses in the Northern Territory pay less tax than they would if they were operating in any other jurisdiction in Australia. We wear that badge with pride. Over the last year, the government has continued with its program of tax cuts, including significant reductions in stamp duty for conveyancing on home purchases, not just for first homebuyers, but for all homebuyers.
We have introduced the Buildstart Grant program to support those building their own home and to build investment homes in the Northern Territory to put on the rental market; supporting jobs and housing in the Territory. We have reduced debt to its lowest level in more than a decade. We have grown services so that Territorians can access the services they deserve.
We are spending $1bn on improving Power and Water. With the Commonwealth, we will spend around $1bn over five years on housing across the Northern Territory. We are releasing land at around five times faster than average, and we have announced the site of the new city, as well as plans for medium- to longer-term development around the Cox Peninsula. We are working at all times to attract more projects to the Territory. I have recently travelled to China, Japan, and the United States, speaking to senior members of very important companies investing in the Northern Territory.
These are the things we are doing. This is what a Labor government does: it works to protect jobs. Where I stand as Chief Minister, and in the Labor Party, the economy is not about profits or business, it is about jobs. The economy is about jobs and people - and that is what we stand for.
What do the Country Liberals do? They oppose a major stimulus package that will deliver hundreds of millions of dollars and jobs to our community. I cannot hear a reason why they would do that, but they do because they are just bowing to Malcolm Turnbull, and I cannot believe it. Senator Scullion said, in the Hansard last night - it is an amazing speech - and I quote:
They are playing politics with it. That is not what Heather Ridout, Peter Anderson from the Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Industry Association, the chartered accountants, or Frank Lowy say. Yet, somehow Nigel Scullion has more economic insight and foresight than these people? It is unbelievable that they would play politics with this.
In the wrap-up of this amazing speech, he talked about the schools, and said:
Tell that to every primary school principal, every chair of a school council of those primary schools around the Northern Territory that are going to get up to $3m for every primary school, that this is a political strategy. It is bizarre. He went on to say:
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, he is trying to say that investment in our schools is not an investment in economic infrastructure. There is not a more important piece of economic infrastructure than a school; education for future Territorians to move into the workforce. if investment in a science laboratory or a language laboratory so our students can learn Asian languages - which I know the Leader of the Opposition is passionate about - is not a long-term economic investment for the Northern Territory and Australia, I do not know what is. Not to mention the immediate impact that it will have for many hundreds of businesses throughout the Northern Territory, that will secure packages of work, either directly or indirectly, as a result of this funding; and the many hundreds of Territorians who will have their jobs protected for a couple of years whilst they have this work rolled out, whilst we wait for the major investment from INPEX and, potentially, other resource investments in the Northern Territory.
If investment in capital infrastructure in schools is not seen by the Country Liberals as an investment in the long-term economic capacity of the Northern Territory, well, I do not know what is ...
Mr Mills: Read the speech.
Mr HENDERSON: I did read the speech, I read it this morning and it is quite bizarre. I was at the COAG meeting and I have had a couple of conversations with Colin Barnett. I know the Leader of the Opposition travels to Perth on a regular basis and has met with Colin Barnett. Of course, we are on the political divide. However, when you sit at COAG, you are there not only representing your state or territory, but also looking to the future of Australia. Listening to the presentations that are made to COAG by Ken Henry, a senior taxation policy person who worked for previous governments as well as the current government, and senior Commonwealth bureaucrats, senior people from the private sector, you have sit there and listen and then make decisions in the national interest, and also look after the Territory’s interests while you are there. That is what Colin Barnett has done and I take my hat off to him. It was a very uncomfortable press conference for him. The Canberra press gallery was there, with many cameras - there are about 50 down there; it is quite intimidating. They were trying to wedge him against the Prime Minister. He would not be wedged. He said:
That is what leadership is. The Western Australia Premier did not say: ‘No, I am not going to take this. I am going to walk away from it and I do not want that Commonwealth funding for schools in Western Australia. I do not want that Commonwealth funding for Western Australians to help them spend in the economy and keep jobs in Western Australia’. He did not say: ‘No, I do not want any of your 20 000 houses that are so desperately needed’. He did not say no to the small business tax cuts and walk away from the table and say: ‘I am not going to sign the COAG document. I do not want this; I am walking away’. Colin Barnett’s signature was on all of the documents that I signed. He signed up to it. That is what leadership is.
I thought that the Leader of the Opposition and the Country Liberal Party - that used to stand up for the Northern Territory, not kowtow and bow to whatever problems Malcolm Turnbull is having in establishing his economic credibility, as he sits there nervously waiting for Peter Costello to make his comeback - would stand up for the Territory. He has a chance to say today: ‘I support this package. I am going to support this motion and I am going to exert my leadership and my authority’ - if he has any – ‘by insisting that when this package of bills comes before the Senate for a vote tomorrow or Friday, as the Leader of the Country Liberal Party, I am going to instruct Senator Scullion to vote and support this in the interests of the Northern Territory’. If he does not do that, he is not a leader, he is a follower. He is a follower of Malcolm Turnbull; he is not a leader of the alternative government here in the Northern Territory.
I know the Leader of the Opposition fairly well. He is a decent person - I mean that genuinely. I believe that if he was in my shoes last Thursday in Canberra, as the Chief Minister at COAG, he would have signed up for this package as Colin Barnett did. You would have. I cannot believe that you would have walked away from the table and said: ‘No, I am not signing up to this. I do not want this for the Northern Territory’. I do not believe you would have done it, because you are a decent person. You have the interests of Territorians at heart, and you would have signed up to the package, because you know it is in the best interests of the Territory as we move forward into a difficult time.
We are doing it better than anywhere else in the country. I could not meet with the bank managers the other day, but the Treasurer and the Business Minister did. There is cautious optimism in the Northern Territory. We are doing better; banks are still lending money ...
Ms Lawrie: The doors are open.
Mr HENDERSON: The doors are open, they are lending money - we are doing okay. But we are on a tightrope, and there is cautious, nervous confidence, as opposed to despair everywhere else in Australia - and that is where we need to keep it. We need consumption to be strong, we need Territorians spending money - 80% of our economy is the wage earners of the Territory spending money in our local economy. Once they are in fear of their jobs, once they stop spending money, it starts to spiral, and that is why this package is a vote for jobs. If you vote against it, you are voting for higher unemployment and all the social and economic consequences that will follow.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to support this motion. In asking him to support it, I genuinely ask him to consider that if he had been in my position last Thursday, as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, sitting around the table - sitting next to Colin Barnett as he signed up to this - you would have also signed up to it. If you would, you should support this motion, Leader of the Opposition, and get Nigel Scullion to do the right thing and vote for jobs in the Northern Territory.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have attempted to deal with serious matters in a serious way, and yesterday I believe we did that. We were complimented for showing leadership by attending to matters in the right way and recognising where our attention should be focused. Then, today I heard someone utter a phrase: ‘Our side is keen to let the hostilities commence’ which, once again, reinforces this notion that is held by some; that this is a game, some kind of activity or sport.
That was reinforced strongly, and I find it quite disappointing - embarrassing - to see this kind of activity consume the time of parliament. This mock concern about the position of the opposition, when it is quite plain - and I have been around for a little while and I believe anyone can tell, whether they have been here for a short time or a long time - that this is merely a political activity to try to extract a political point, when there really are very serious matters to attend to ...
Ms Lawrie: This is serious. It does not get much more serious than this.
Mr MILLS: Yes, well, I do not believe you. What betrayed the real intent and motive of this is that it was all cooked up; they were all ready to go. Then the Chief Minister jumped up, because he had no motion before the Chair, and you have these two delighted looking little characters over there thinking – ‘Oh, excellent, we have played a really good trick on the opposition. We will be able to wedge them and play some kind of game, put a media release out and run this hard so that the community knows’.
It is a political agenda that is being delivered and run with great gusto. It is as people have described this parliament and parliaments: theatre for the ugly. It is not necessarily how you look, it is how you behave and what your real motive and intent is. It is quite plain to see. It is a bit like some poor amateur magician who is really nervous coming up and performing a trick in front of everyone. Everyone can see that it is plainly not magic, or the illusion is just evaporated by their clumsy approach. This is very clumsy and I do not believe it serves the true interests of Territorians at all.
Let us get it clean and plain. Without a doubt, there is a problem; an economic crisis. Commentators, as we talked about yesterday, are in accord that there is a problem. It would be quite foolish to rush in - fools rush in where angels fear to tread - emboldened by the political opportunities that abound in times such as this. In times of uncertainty, the government rushed in to capitalise and maximise political benefit, as the members opposite have rushed in - as fools do - and denied their obligation, their duty to attend to detail and to ask the necessary question.
As you have seen into today’s media, you will stone the questioner but not attend to the question that is asked. When we really need to engage - not on an emotional level but more of an intellectual level at times such as this - think it through and consider the consequences. That is the only position that has been described by the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory - bottom line, what is in the best interests of Territorians and what is the best interests of this nation. We have every right - in fact, a duty - to ensure that the questions are asked and satisfactorily attended to regarding all that is involved in this. To come up with this cock-and-bull story about this feigned concern that we are going to deny all to Territorians. My gosh! It is going to make a great media release.
You said at the last election, of that damning result from Territorians, who saw through the spin and games that were played by the Labor government for eight years, you would change. Territorians said that they had had enough. And they get the same again. Some big stunt, a big clever game played by the smarty pants from upstairs thinking, ‘We have a good point here; we will be able to drive a wedge, we will achieve something’.
Come on! Territorians require more; they want better. The only position we have held is the obligation, requirement, and the duty for proper scrutiny. To accept it without any look behind the scenes, behind that blank cheque that says, ‘Sign here, you will get this’, would be an abdication of your responsibilities. I believe you need to check these things out. No one buys a house without checking things out. You carefully plan these things, you match your capacity, you do forward projections and you weigh it carefully and, then, you put it on the line.
People who run around with great enthusiasm about these things really do not have a value for money. You do not really value money. Why would you not value money? You have never had to earn money and never created wealth, so you do not really know the value of money. You bring that attitude to bear on a situation like this and you become enthusiastic about spending because you do not understand the value of it and how difficult it is to generate wealth. We have not had much consideration of what generates wealth. How is wealth created - the wealth that creates a surplus that can be used in times like this? The ideological blind spot that this Labor government has regarding a result or an outcome, with their enthusiasm for expenditure, clearly indicates they have no real value for money because they do not understand how wealth is generated. If you have missed that part of the equation, if you do not attend to that, you end up in the position that we have: where you are happy to run at this really narrow, little shallow level of game playing and try to create impressions, which is completely unsatisfying.
If anyone here has any learning - and I know the members opposite have done some tertiary studies - you have to find that you are actually satisfied by the exercise. I do not reckon, after a fair amount of time in this game, you would be satisfied with the approach that this Labor government has taken. Even the newer members of this Chamber could see through this, I hope. It is humility and honesty that will help you see through it. There is a requirement for an assessment of this.
Dear old Barack, who has caused hope to rise, has a massive obligation to deliver on that hope. Even in the good old USA they allowed a passage of time to pass with proper scrutiny and assessment of this very significant package. Even in that case, after a period of time, it was not completely passed through. There were some reservations that were allowed. Unlike the grand chairman here, where you have to push it through and, if you do not, you hate the country or you do not like people - or some weird shallow argument which is really governed by a political agenda.
If government is genuine about this and can demonstrate that they are actually interested and can dig a little deeper - because leadership is not about following the bouncing ball; leadership is about doing what is right. Here is an opportunity. What the chairman said is right, is it? Without question?
A member: Without question.
Mr MILLS: Without question? Swallow it, hook, line and sinker?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I will be showing leadership by saying: yes, we do agree that there is a major deterioration around the country and the world and it does require a response - without a doubt; no one disagrees. What type of response? We need to have a talk about that. However, it is time for action. The second one is …
Member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: You need to consider these matters - that there is a package sitting there. I have an obligation - as all members do - to look at these things and satisfy myself. It is difficult when it comes to point 2. However, we will continue on because if we can have the support of an amendment, I believe we could find our way through in the interest of dealing with this issue properly.
There needs to be a stimulus - that could be debated - but I say that there does need to be a stimulus. What kind of stimulus? We need to assess that so we are all in this together. I accept that. We accept and support that governments will need to continue to spend.
This is the tricky little one. Point 5 asks us to forget all that - swallow it, hook, line, and sinker - and you have to pass it immediately; let us all panic and pass it immediately. I propose a motion and an amendment to Point 5 and, if that is agreed to by honourable members - I am not trying to find a political point here - we would be able to move on together in the best interests of Territorians. If you are fair dinkum, if you are not engaged in a political agenda, but an economic one, then we would find our way through. You would find that there is much more that unites us on this than divides us. It is that we look to our duty and obligation for closer assessment, and ensure that we are not actually being dudded in the Territory. Have you ever considered that? Could it possibly be that we should be entitled to more? Have you looked at that? Have you assessed that, honourable Treasurer? Have you had a little look at that …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … or is it that you, the chairman, said: ‘Yes, certainly. Let us go and play politics, it is a great game’. However, the people are the losers.
The Country Liberals are supportive of initiatives which are soberly considered and focused on projects that will continue to deliver benefits for all Australians in the years to come - wealth generation. There is no doubt that moving the budget into deficit is unavoidable in the short term, but consideration should be given, when planning any stimulus action, to how the projects that will put us in the red will pay back the debt in the future. Go back to your own household budget; you have to take that sober consideration.
Therefore, I request an amendment to Point 5. Madam Speaker, I move the deletion of Point 5 as circulated by the Chief Minister, and replace it with the following:
5. Urges the federal Senate to conduct proper scrutiny of the $42bn stimulus package in a timely manner and pass it without unnecessary delay,
subject to the condition the proposed stimulus package is the amount that is needed, going to where it is needed, to achieve the outcomes
that are needed to protect the Australian and Territory economy from the impact of the global financial crisis and position Australia and the
Territory economies for a speedy recovery.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please sign it.
Mr MILLS: Why would that be resisted? We will have to see, but I move that amendment, Madam Speaker.
It is important to have proper scrutiny of these matters. The Country Liberals are supportive of the intent of the stimulus, but we believe that this package is an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to a situation that has been brewing for the last 18 months. The Rudd government is planning to spend a whopping 5% of Australia’s GDP by, basically, writing a blank cheque without proper and detailed consideration of the long-term impact of the spending. Stimulus spending must benefit both physical and social infrastructure projects, to build a stable platform for private sector development as the economy picks up.
The major projects that will achieve these goals are not short-sighted advancement of projects that have been lurking in forward planning, but significant, inspiring, nation-building projects such as we have seen in the past with the Snowy Hydro-Electric Scheme, the Ord River Scheme - large projects such as that. In the Territory, that would be something like building a dam, a new rail link from the east - something significant that would lift the hopes of our community, that lifts the economy and the aspirations of Territorians, so that we can see with some hope that there is some future. We need those messages of hope at this time. Nation building is the means to do that. That could well be - and it must be - a part of this stimulus, because you need to stimulate hope with nation-building projects.
These are the sort of projects that will create jobs now and provide capacity for business growth. They also have the added benefit of contributing to repaying the debt - wealth generation - that would be needed for the project in the first place, through increased productivity and direct revenue. It took 10 long years for the former Liberal government to pay off the $100bn debt accrued by the Hawke and Keating government. After less than 15 months in government, Labor is going to put us back up to our eyeballs in debt, without providing any constructive plan to pay off that debt once the economy begins to recover. It is short term and we do not have the foundation stones of nation building being laid that we can build hope upon. They are the elements that are required, and that is a discussion that is needed. It is not short term, it is long term; it is visionary. It extends beyond the reach of your own political ambition. It is for the nation, not for you.
A house is the biggest single purchase the average Australian will consider in their lives. Many of us have been involved with that. We have younger ones who are considering it, and it is an awesome consideration for young people who have young families. It is a personal commitment - a real commitment. You actually put it on the line to enter into years of debt, but you do it because you have the hope of what lies ahead: your capacity to repay it. On average, a house in the Territory will consume 44% of a person’s annual wage. You need to have the resources and the capacity to be able to repay on that kind of income level. It is a big commitment.
You understand the value of that money because you have to earn it; not because someone else amassed it for you. The previous Coalition government had it worked out and put there, and you just waltz in and said: ‘There you go. We do not understand how this came to be, but it is good that it is there. Let us spend it’. We need that other element kicking in so that you actually understand the value of the money and the need for wealth generation.
You give the same consideration when you are going to buy a house. It is different paying rent for the rest of your lives -- money in, money out. Who cares about wealth generation, because you are not thinking about the next generation. It is only short term and it is quite selfish. You actually think beyond the scope of your own vision. The commitment of going into debt to purchase a house is not dissimilar to the situation we face with this stimulus package, and cannot be considered overnight. As much as you would like to score a political point, you simply cannot consider these things overnight. You do not do it with a house - not in these times - you consider these things.
Why should we not consider the structure of this package, and understand its purpose and intent and possible effectiveness, and look at the consequences: are we in fact delivering it in the right way? Ask those questions. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that, it is just that you are not really worried about that because you want to score a political point. That is really good fun, but it is quite dishonest and not worthy of the office that we hold: to craft policy in the best interests of, not of our political agenda, but what is right for the nation, the Territory, and families. We really have to dig deeper than to play these kinds of games. Territorians have had enough - they said that on 9 August.
If you are going in to the house business, you have to work out what type of house suits your needs – a flat, a townhouse, a house in suburbia or on acreage. You have to work that out before you make that investment. You have to work out what suburb you want to live in, then what type of house - number of bedrooms, bathrooms, carport, garage, single storey or split level. Move in - no more worries, or fix it up - if you want to fix it up, if you are a handyman. You have to weigh all those things up. It is not a simple matter; you do not consider it overnight. It is the same with a package such as this.
Once that is decided, you must determine a price bracket; what you can afford and how long you can afford to be paying it off. You pitch yourself at the right place. You have to match your capacity against the long-term debt that you will be saddling yourself with. Do you need income or life insurance in case you lose your jobs? You look at all those contingencies. You have to weigh it up. Once you have the type of house and price range, then you start looking at properties, in much the same way that we are requesting here; that there is a deeper consideration, an engagement. We are not asking for delays, we are asking for proper consideration. It takes as much time to panic as it does to plan and to react with some thought. The most common advice is not to fall in love with the first one you see, but keep on looking and comparing, and looking again.
It appears that because our grand political masters in Canberra have said this is good, they have all said it is good ...
Ms Lawrie: Access Economics said it was good too.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: If you are inclined to fall in love with the package you are allowing emotion to govern your decision-making, and that really is not the necessary or the required capacity you need to solve these problems. You need something more than that.
Then, when you have found your dream home - you never know, you might go back to the first one - you go through the building inspections and you check for termites and asbestos, and other problems that might be hiding out of sight, before you consider signing on the dotted line. This is a process you go through. This will take some time and, in some cases years, but there will be some peace of mind at the end of it, because it will be an investment that will retain its value and become an asset to be proud of in the future - not just for yourself, but for those who come after you. You have to that quality of thinking, and that is what we are asking for. That is what is required here. I do not think it is too great to ask.
The Rudd government wanted Australians to commit themselves to years and years of debt, with only 48 hours to consider the package - just 48 hours. Unbelievable! They did not do that in the US, but they did it here - 48 hours to consider. I really do not believe that is right. That shows a reaction. It does not show you are being proactive, it shows fear and panic. If you have that level of speed in a very serious decision, it does not engender hope in the community.
All that is required is the capacity to ask questions and have proper scrutiny, so that we are in it together, because it is our children who will be affected by the decisions that are made with 48 hours consideration. It is not on, and I will not stand for that. There needs to be proper consideration. That is all we ask by the amendment to Point 5, by removal of that paragraph which clearly betrays the real motive of this shallow Labor government that is more interested in a political stunt and the scoring of a political point on a political scoreboard, than doing what is right for Territorians.
Who knows? You may, in fact, find that you are being dudded. I, and members on this side, suspect you may well be. Results from the last $10bn cash handout before Christmas – now, come on, really think about this – are showing that the $1000-plus cash windfall has done little to increase business confidence and has had an negative impact with confidence dropping to record lows. Did it work – $10bn? Did it have the desired result? There is growing evidence that, rather than spending the windfall to enhance pre-Christmas retail sales and flow-on effect of job stability and growth, much of the money has been spent on alcohol, drugs, and gambling, exacerbating the antisocial effects in parts of our community the package was desired to help.
Did you have a look at that? Are you fine with that? I believe that warrants further investigation. Do you? It should be a case of once bitten twice shy when considering these cash handouts. Did we have the opportunity, did we have the care taken to ensure that this massive expenditure of billions of dollars – in that case it was $10bn - achieved the result …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: So once again, the comment across the Chamber …
Ms Lawrie: Bought some food. It made a difference.
Mr MILLS: Yes, look, without a doubt, a churlish one. Without a doubt there are those who may have spent the money on the things that you have described but …
Ms Lawrie: It made a big difference.
Mr MILLS: Yes, well, there is a big difference when you look at the whole picture; that is clear evidence. You would know it if your eyes were open to see, down at the Karama Tavern, how many people sat there in front of the pokies. Have a look at the figures yourself. Have a look yourself if you want to satisfy your own conscience on these matters.
Did that $10bn package deliver what was expected? Did it increase, did it boost the economy as was expected? That betrays the fact that you have no real sense of the value of money. You are happy to spend someone else’s money - to heck with the consequences of it.
Ms Lawrie: Look at the consumer. You look at the retail spend results.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: We are talking about one particular aspect that warrants scrutiny. It seems particularly hypocritical, when this Rudd government is profiting so nicely from the 70% tax increase on alcopops. You think about that for a second. They have benefited from that directly into their own revenue. That was an incentive to do what? They said it was one thing but it delivered something quite different. That warrants scrutiny. We ask a question and you are against something or other: ‘You are not to ask questions’. It is time to reason on these matters.
The definition of a windfall is this, and you should know it very well: money received which was not expected and not as a direct result of something a recipient did. There is a problem in that, because it erodes the value of the money. Of course, that is demonstrated by what we saw at Question Time. We talk about the results that are required, the value for money, producing a result. All we get is that lock-in position of ‘We have spent on this, that and the other. We have a record here, a record there’, but with a complete blind spot on the value that is meant to be created by that investment.
That is why there is concern. Clearly, you guys do not understand that point, or refuse to. I believe that, perhaps at a quiet moment, a couple of you may concede to it, but with great reluctance. However, you do not demonstrate an understanding of that point. It is just not good enough.
You have received a $1.2bn unexpected windfall – $1.2bn – and have nothing to show for it. Rather than paying off debt and stashing away some for a rainy day, we are now faced with a $200m black hole, before the introduction of any Territory growth and delivered projects to keep Territorians insulated from the worst of the global financial crisis. We are so badly positioned; you have not taken advantage of the times of plenty to prepare us for the lean times. You have spent it all, and still hold the position that spending is a result, spending is an achievement. It is not. You cannot run a business like that. You cannot run a government like that. Territorians out there are uncomfortable and in pain as a result of the way you have managed this economy, the way you have managed this windfall and spent it all and think you have achieved something. You have achieved no result to match it in education, health or law and order. Nor have you retired debt, nor have you enlarged our capacity. $1.2bn, all gone - and we are looking at a black hole.
This is after the Treasurer assured us, in her delivery of the mid-year financial report, that we would be back into surplus in the 2009-10 financial year and beyond. Not only has the Henderson government been short-sighted and wasteful in their handling of unprecedented windfalls, they have only just pulled their head out of the sand and admitted that we may be in trouble - only now. We have had assurances upon assurances ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the Opposition Leader be given an extension of time to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Not only has this government been very short-sighted and wasteful in its handling of the unprecedented windfalls, it has only just woken up and told a different story: that we could well be in some difficulty. If you had gone out there with your ears open and spoken honestly to people in the business sector - albeit there are things on the horizon, I will never take that away from you. The gap between where we are now and when they will start to generate wealth and income into the Territory is quite large and requires a firm hand and a clear-sighted view of the problem that we have. You need to be honest at times like this.
It might buy you some space here and now to say that everything is going to be fine - Access Economics says this. However, I will say that; I do not think they have factored in INPEX. In full sight of making that assertion, have they factored in McArthur River? You cannot have one or the other. We have had mining operations close one after the other and, yet, you only pick out one to suit an argument. But it is just not true. You have to be honest. The community is smarter than that, and they can see these stunts being pulled, and have had enough.
Some of the Territory’s largest export destinations are under pressure - that is a fact. You can make assertions, but have a look at it. There are some challenges lying ahead with China and with Japan, and we should be prepared for those things - an assertion is not adequate preparation.
This is also quite betraying of the intent and the seriousness of this government to actually manage in difficult times. There was the nation-building infrastructure planning. When that was first floated, we did not actually have any response from government until the last moment ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You are misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You should check the dates, because you are misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rescue me, please.
Here was an opportunity to engage in a constructive way, providing leadership and talk about the things that are required: the need to build infrastructure. People have gone past believing you guys. You say things because a focus group told you this, or you picked up a snippet of a conversation somewhere or other from some advisor or minder. It is plain as day: basic infrastructure needs to be strengthened in preparation for the difficult times that lie ahead. Check the record, that has been said in this Chamber for years. Be prepared with the roads, the bridges, the port development and expansion, the dams, the increase in power generation, and the release of land. We have had media releases, announcements, and assurances that have gone over the horizon and vanished into thin air with no result. There was an opportunity, but no leadership was shown. There was a reaction at a time; at the last moment there were a couple of announcements. They tried to make up a bit of space, because they are more aware of how they appear in the public for what they actually do, whether it is right or not ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Mills: You will have your chance to rebut these things in the best way you can.
Ms LAWRIE: You are misleading the parliament and you should not mislead the parliament. You are saying …
Mr Mills: Madam Speaker, this is not a point of order, it is nonsense.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: I am raising a point of order. You are saying the government only issued some media releases when we submitted an Infrastructure Australia Bid in June of 2008 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, what is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: He is misleading, saying that we did not submit a bid until the last minute. It was wrong. He is clearly wrong. If he accepts the date, it is wrong …
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish you can approach me about making a personal explanation. Leader of the Opposition, you may continue.
Mr MILLS: This is an inspiring Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, behaving in such a shallow and shameless way? Nonetheless, our community lies in wait for change, real direction, and some genuine approach to the issues that concern them. That is not about our political fortunes and how we look and sound; it is what we do - whether it is right. They are waiting for that response from those who aspire to lead us.
The government was alarmingly silent when the announcement was made and we found that the Territory had been short-changed quiet significantly. ‘Oh, there are troubles in New South Wales’, said the Labor government, ‘Let us make sure they get the lion’s share and let us short-change dear old Territory. They have had their election and we can look after them another day, or perhaps they are a lost cause because they are an embarrassment’. They gave you a very small dose and they shovelled it into New South Wales. Where was the Chief Minister standing up and fighting for the Territory and the basic infrastructure that is required; that nation-building stuff? Where was he then? It was his political master, so they stayed quiet on it because politics is more important than doing what is right for the Territory. You have been caught out by your inaction and your insincerity when it comes to real issues. You were dudded by New South Wales – it was plain to see. You were slow to get there to put your request in, slow to mount your case and, then, slow to defend. In fact, I do not recall your defence when you found that New South Wales got the lions share and we missed out.
It is the same with this. Where is the level of scrutiny when it comes to the quality of this package as it affects the Territory? Or do you just shallow it whole …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Where is the level of scrutiny? Where is the honest assessment of where we are positioned now with this, Treasurer? We have had enough of breathy assertions, with that smug and snarling look into the camera: ‘Trust me, trust me’. You are saying that we are going to be okay into the air. Open the books and let us have a look. There are some smart, genuine people out there who want to know exactly where we are at, so that we can be properly positioned and take responsibility for the decisions that are made that are going to impact upon our children and our children’s children.
We had a condolence motion today and we had the children’s children sitting in here - and there will be children’s children affected by decisions that are made now. You are happy for it to go through without scrutiny. I urge members to accept the amendment because it provides for honest assessment to ensure that we do get what is required in the Northern Territory, to build this nation and to lay the foundations for wealth generation so that we have the capacity to repay the debt. If you do not support this, you are indicating clearly that you do not understand the value of money, do not know where it comes from, and do not know that money needs to be produced by the type of infrastructure that will generate an income. If you do not understand that, you are just happy to spend it - and blow tomorrow.
I cannot do that. I know the value of money. I have worked on the land and I have run my own businesses. I know what it is like, and I know people who struggle hard in the backblocks. They know the value of money. That is why I urge members to recognise the need for honest assessment and scrutiny without delay.
We do not deny that there is a difficult period of time; there needs to be scrutiny. However, there needs to be some respect shown to this debate – 48 hours is an obscene gesture and disrespectful to hard-working Territorians, and a slight on the future. I urge honourable members to recognise that need for proper scrutiny in the interests of doing what is right.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that all further speakers are speaking to the original motion and to the amendment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the global economic situation, as we know, is deteriorating further. The International Monetary Fund is calling on governments to spend to stimulate the economy, and I quote:
The construct of the Leader of the Opposition’s response to this motion is to delay, to have further rounds of debate, in direct contrast to what the International Monetary Fund has said. I say that it is an economic body we could all agree with; it would know what it is talking about. The Leader of the Opposition, the CLP, would rather we do exactly what the International Monetary Fund is telling us not to do – delay, have another chat, a few more discussions, or a few more meetings. It is surprising they did not ask to set up some kind of a committee, like their federal mates wanted to do – do an inquiry, another committee, do a full-blown review. Meanwhile, we plummet into national economic turmoil ...
Mr Elferink: When does this money hit your bank account? June?
Ms LAWRIE: The rubber will hit the ground - if you had been listening in Question Time, shadow Treasurer - in April. Minor new works dollars will flow in April ...
Mr Elferink: April - February, March, April. Three months.
Ms LAWRIE: Minor new works. Yes, there are tight time lines to get those tenders ready ...
Mr Elferink: No time for scrutiny in three months.
Ms LAWRIE: If you are listening to the debate by the economists, the impact of the stimulus package occurs on how swift the stimulus can hit. It is too late to wait. The paradigm shift that we are now in as a result of the global financial crisis means it is too late to wait. The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that this government said: ‘Well, beauty, Kevin has announced $42bn. We will go down, sign up and we are not going to have a look at any of it’. What a lot of nonsense. What an absolute load of rubbish. The man simply does not understand government or how government works.
We have had teams of our best people, of our best officials, poring all over this stimulus package. The Chief Minister and I travelled to Canberra, poring through the detail. We had teams of Treasury officials poring through the package to see what the package could provide the Territory in economic stimulus. We did not go down to Canberra thinking: ‘Okay, let us just sign up and who cares what it is’. We need to know whether it will hit the mark. We need to know whether it ticks the boxes of what is going to help the economy through the tough times of 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. They are the tough times, the financial years where every economy is going to be hit by the global financial crisis to an extent that no one could have considered possible ...
Mr Elferink: Your Treasury warned you in every Budget Paper No 2 that the GST is vulnerable.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection ...
Mr Elferink: Warned you every year.
Ms LAWRIE: Every Blind Freddy in the Territory knows the Territory’s revenue is vulnerable because 67% of our revenue is GST. The GST is outside the control of the Territory government, therefore, the revenue base is vulnerable ...
Mr Elferink: But spending is not, and you have spent for seven years.
Ms LAWRIE: I am a Treasurer who takes that scenario very seriously. I have gone - as did the Treasurer prior to myself, Syd Stirling - after a more stable base of funding, which is the five-year agreements sitting within the Special Purpose Payment packages, in the core areas of service delivery – health, education, and training. We have spread our base. It looks better than it did before. We have a long way to go, because we have been increasing own source revenue in our time, something the CLP slams us for every chance they get: ‘Oh, you are raising taxes’. No, actually, we have been reducing tax rates, but we have been receiving greater tax revenue because we have improved the economy. We are in growth. We are not flatlining at 0%, as it was when the CLP had the reins on the Treasury.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan has been scrutinised by the Territory government. We have had teams of our smartest and best officials - the CEOs that the CLP would want to slash and sack under their latest plan - poring through the package as it landed, down into the detail because, as we have all learnt, the devil is always in the detail. It is the economic stimulus package that is going to help us through the tough three-year financial cycle we are facing. We are already into it; 2008-09 is the start of the tough times. Despite being well placed, and being the best place in this nation, the Territory has to ride through the tough times - they are tough times.
The International Monetary Fund is forecasting a deep global recession. Seven-year cycles are the type of cycles that we know exist. I disagree with the view that it will extend to the full seven years, which we will see in other economies. We will come through this, in my prediction, in a three-year period. My predictions are based on good advice of what we know is occurring - years better than most economies ...
Mr Elferink: Three years of deficits. Is that what you are saying?
Ms LAWRIE: My prediction.
Mr Elferink: Surplus after three?
Ms LAWRIE: Very clearly, the shadow Treasurer is interjecting because he wants to play little tricks on whether the National Partnership payments we pick up when it comes through will then boost up, and whether or not we get a surplus out of the SPPs and the NPs flowing through. Obviously, every bit of revenue that comes in will affect our bottom line.
I am giving and forecasting conservatives, in Treasurer’s comments about deficits – a $47m conservative deficit ...
Mr Elferink: Conservative deficit now? What is the non-conservative?
Ms LAWRIE: I have always been conservative in what I have said. The stimulus package deliberately aims to insulate the Australian economy from entering recession. This is done by achieving economic growth of 0.5% in 2008-09, and between 0.75% and 1% in 2009-10. We know that federal budget is also now forecast to move into deficit, forecast at $22.5bn. This is a global financial crisis.
On 23 January 2009, Australian shares reached a new five-year low. We have always said that the Territory is not immune and, while our own source revenue is holding, we will be affected by this crisis. My Treasurer’s Mid-year Report tabled in the last sittings forecast that due to our declining revenues and as the result of this global economic downturn, we will have a cash deficit of $47m this financial year. We have released public figures which demonstrate that, despite this continuing downturn, we will maintain that forecast for this financial year. Additionally, I have released a forecast of a deficit of about $150m next year. The government did not make the decision to go into a temporary deficit position lightly. However, we believe it is the right decision for Territorians.
The only other option was to slash spending or increase taxes, and now is not the time to do either. The CLP do not support going into deficit, so they must support slashing jobs, spending or tax increases. We do not, and neither does the International Monetary Fund.
This government has been busy talking to industry groups in the Territory and, to date, none of them have opposed our decision to maintain spending - quite the opposite; they have been urging us to maintain spending because they know the squeeze is on the private sector. When the squeeze is on the private sector, that is when they need government stepping up, not pulling back. After six budget surpluses in a row, the Territory is in a better debt position than when we came to government, and a temporary deficit in that context is affordable. It is a better debt position than ever ...
Mr Elferink: You were warned, you were warned about this coming.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is continually interjecting. I ask you to ask him to refrain.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please cease your interjecting. You have the call, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague.
The stimulus package ticks all the right boxes for the Territory, and we believe the CLP needs to support it and stand up for Territorians, rather than their mates in Canberra. The package is bold. It is targeted at supporting spending and delivering jobs while we build our nation. It provides those one-off spending payments and, importantly, tax benefits to individuals, families and businesses provide an immediate stimulus to the economy. It is the immediacy of a stimulus that is needed for the 2008-09 financial year. As we know, construction projects cannot hit the ground and be delivered within the final half of this financial year. It is an immediate injection of those payments - the $950 payments and the tax cut benefits - which will see that stimulus in the 2008-09 financial year.
The construct of this package is for the infrastructure spends and their drops to lift in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years. It is a very astute construct when you dive into the detail of the package, which is why organisations like Access Economics are supporting it. It provides for that fundamental public infrastructure that everyone needs: for schools, roads, housing, and halls that will become community centres in many of our communities. This will represent the single largest injection into infrastructure projects across the nation by an Australian government in one package. It is not saying ‘match us’, it is saying, ‘Do not replace your effort, do not pull back on your own efforts’. Our $870m investment in infrastructure this financial year has to be maintained and delivered, and they have tough sanctions. If we try to do the dodgy replacements - that would be a temptation, I am sure, to some of the southern jurisdictions who are cash strapped.
For the benefit of the members opposite who, with their federal mates in Canberra, do not support the payments, I will turn to some of the commentary that is occurring around the stimulus package at the national level. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the package is good for business:
Over the last week, I have met with a number of our key industry representatives including the Territory Construction Association, the Housing Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, the Civil Contractors’ Federation, the Resources Council, the Cattlemen’s Association and bank managers across Darwin’s key banks - our lending institutions. This package has been welcomed by those groups. It ticks all the boxes in supporting business with tax breaks, and providing extensive and guaranteed work for our construction industry. On top of our own infrastructure spending, it is the construction pipeline we need to meet INPEX on the horizon. It will support jobs like brickies, painters, tilers, and plumbers in housing construction, and also our larger construction companies that will bid for the $3m infrastructure projects.
The package is good and will deliver for Territory families in jobs. Many will benefit directly in this stimulus payment and the boarder community will benefit through extra housing. We are estimating 200 public housing dwellings. Add that to 185 Defence houses - all landing in this window of two to three years. What a phenomenal improvement in housing opportunities, where we have such a tight market; decanting Defence into that new housing, freeing up the rental stock. We had the HIA on radio saying what a difference that will make. If you do not want to listen to this Treasurer, listen to the HIA. They are in the industry; they have the finger on the pulse and understand the importance.
Based on census data, it is estimated that 90 000 Territorians will be eligible for the up-front, lump-sum tax bonus. For a Territory family earning less than $100 000, including combined incomes or a single income that is less that $80 000, both working adults will receive a lump sum bonus of $950. If that same family has two children and is eligible for the Family Tax benefit, they will receive an extra $950 for each child, aged between four and 18 years. For this family it is a tax bonus of $3800. These payments mean Territorians will have the money to spend supporting our economy and jobs, particularly in those important sectors of retail and hospitality. I encourage all Territorians eligible for the one-off bonus payment to ensure they lodge their 2007-08 tax return to receive the payment. The package is great for families.
Regarding the infrastructure component, I am heartened by the Prime Minister’s words in announcing the package. He recognised the backlog of need in the area of regional roads in the Northern Territory. He singled us out, along with a couple of other jurisdictions. We are in the front running team there, folks.
With $200m in the construction, every primary school will be upgraded with new facilities in libraries, multipurpose halls or art centres and significant refurbishment works. There will be major investments in public housing with our estimated 200 new dwellings through new construction and refurbishment programs in urban centres.
This package is good because it contains a policy shift that will deliver for what we need right now in the Territory. You can buy off the plan. Governments can go in and purchase off the plan. That helps the private developers with apartment developments, because we can help them with the pre-sales, to get housing delivered quickly into the marketplace. It is also a stimulus in the private sector. It ticks every box worth ticking.
I have mentioned the 185 new Defence homes for Darwin. We are estimating approximately $9m for roads and road safety to address black spots, boom gates, rail crossings, regional roads and community infrastructure. They are estimates; we need the package to pass through the Senate to get more into the detail. The housing package will be a significant boost for our residential construction sector. Go out and talk to the home builders, CLP, if you do not think they want this money. Go and listen to them. As we know, we need that extra housing stock.
The roads package will help fast-track road improvements across the Territory. I met with Infrastructure Australia just a few days prior to this economic stimulus package being announced, and I said: ‘We have road projects ready to roll. When the dollars drop down, we have the crews out in the bush working on all our major arterial regional roads …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the Treasurer to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We have crews out there. We can extend contracts. We can get new tenders and new contracts out there. We have the capacity in our industry to build those roads. That 23% of road network currently unsealed, folks, we will get out there, build it, and seal it. We are ready to go. We have increased industry capacity, with record upon record of roads budgets in the Territory, since Labor came to government, taking it from $80m under the CLP to $270m this year. That has put the civil contractor capacity out there. Go and talk to Kevin Williams from the Civil Contractors Federation if you want to hear what they think about the stimulus and the opportunity for roads in the Territory. I spoke to Kevin again this morning ...
A member: Which Kevin?
Ms LAWRIE: Kevin Williams. I caught up with him on the night the stimulus package was being announced, along with other key industry representatives, and I spoke to him again this morning. They are welcoming the initiative of the stimulus package, and they will work with the Territory government to look at its application, and the early timing and packaging, so that all levels of the industry can be included in the employment objectives and outcomes.
The community infrastructure element of this package represents the second round of infrastructure stimulus for local councils. We all know how much this will mean for our local shires and councils. Tell them to say no to $500m-worth of economic stimulus. We are looking at 162 primary, combined and special schools receiving an upgrade. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity brought about by a once-in-a-generation global financial crisis. Granted, it is a bad reason for it, but it is an enormous opportunity for the Territory.
The government is ready to roll. The most significant aspect that the Prime Minister wanted with the economic stimulus package was an assurance from the states and territories that they would move swiftly. The Chief Minister has pulled together the Stimulus Action Squad. It will develop the submissions for the education infrastructure funding, under the $1bn secondary schools package, and it will deliver the resources that are available to the 500 secondary schools across Australia.
We have estimated that there are approximately 12 000 businesses in the Territory that will be able to benefit from the tax breaks in this package. Small businesses in the Territory with a turnover of less than $2m a year can claim back 30% tax deduction for capital items - that is like manna from heaven for small businesses - worth more than $1000, bought between 13 December 2008 and 30 June 2009. To cite an example, we had a farmer ring Senator Crossin and ask: ‘The water grader that I bought on 18 December, can I claim that?’ Yes, 30% tax rebate off that water grader. Tell a farmer that is not a worthwhile investment in economic stimulus. Tell that farmer he does not deserve that. Examples of eligible assets will range from computers to earthmoving machinery. These tax incentives are significant. They will offset the cost of capital expenditure by Territory businesses, helping to support jobs.
The Cattlemen’s Association supports the package in broad terms. They welcome the tax breaks for their members. They also view the infrastructure component as a long-term shot in the arm for the Territory and support arguing for as much of that funding as we can get. We will do whatever it takes to fast-track this being delivered.
The rubber will hit the road in the Territory with our Stimulus Action Squads. We are fast-tracking our planning; the DCA will now meet fortnightly. We will streamline our procurement processes. I spoke with the Property Council this morning. We all know Allan Garraway. He does not mince his words:
Allan is a realist; the Property Council welcomes this investment.
The Leader of the Opposition is confused between this economic stimulus package and the nation-building funds, which are available through Infrastructure Australia. I want to point out that there is a distinct difference between the two, as indicated by the Prime Minister in the Infrastructure Australia announcement. I met with Sir Rod Eddington a week ago, to discuss the Territory’s bid. I was on my last round of lobbying efforts before reports were signed off. I know the reports are almost finalised by Infrastructure Australia; it was in the final stages of putting its report together for the federal government. We submitted in June 2008, amongst the earliest submissions, so I did get upset with the Leader of the Opposition misleading the House about that because we were one of the first jurisdictions in …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Treasurer is aware that if she wishes to accuse a member of misleading the House, the vehicle to do it is a substantive motion. No such motion is before the House, therefore, her words are unparliamentary.
Ms LAWRIE: For simplicity’s sake, I will withdraw, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing those remarks.
Ms LAWRIE: What I will say is this: the Hansard record shows that the Leader of the Opposition said that the Territory had put its bid in at the last minute. That is wrong. We worked very closely with GHD - a reputable local company - to put an early bid in. We have met the bid requirements every step of the way with Infrastructure Australia. We have not rested with that. I have actively lobbied at every level, even to the very top to the Chair, Sir Rod Eddington, and we had a very good meeting.
The nation-building funds through Infrastructure Australia are for the port, the $1.65bn in roads, the water and power supply - our essential services. That decision has not been made by federal Cabinet; Albanese has been working hard on it. I know that the Prime Minister is aware of its importance to all the states and territories. I am quietly confident about the veracity of our bid.
We will not know until maybe March. I hope not much later than March, because we are ready to go with our key infrastructure, particularly the port, but also our bush roads - no doubt about it. They are the arteries of our economy, and they will take the produce that we have. I have been working with the Cattlemen’s Association in the bush roads lobbying effort. It has been great and I thank Luke Bowen and Roy Chisholm. It is moving approximately 350 000 head of cattle across the port now. It believes it can double that figure, given the markets it knows it has in Asia. It says it needs that significant investment in bush beef roads, which are sitting at the heart of all our submissions to the federal government. It recognises that the billions involved in fixing our roads is not something that the Territory government can do alone. It acknowledges, just as the civil contractors and other industry groups have acknowledged, our focus on roads and roads funding within our infrastructure budget. We will keep doing it. I am focused on infrastructure spending as Treasurer; so is the Chief Minister. I have the great support of my Cabinet in that.
This economic stimulus package and the $200m in infrastructure it can deliver during the window of the toughest economic times, is critical to the Territory. The individual payments are a critical stimulus. The tax benefits are a critical stimulus. The opposition would have us believe that we did not scrutinise, but we did. We put our best minds to this package. They went through it, and we continue to pore through the detail of it. We will deliver it. We stand ready to deliver the most significant investment in the Territory by the Commonwealth in decades.
We inherited an infrastructure deficit and backlog when the Commonwealth provided self-government to the Territory. Successive governments, irrespective of political creed, have tackled that. It is not easy to meet that backlog on our own; many would acknowledge that it is impossible. I will take this economic stimulus - I will take the $200m - and deliver it, acquit it, and not rest on that. We will continue to spend Territory funds as well in the area of infrastructure - we must and we will.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her edifying, exciting, thrilling, and scintillating dissertation on the $42bn package that we are discussing.
Is it not interesting, that when a government is in disarray one of its first options that it exercises is to lash out at those around them? This is a government which has shuffled its Cabinet more often than my deck of cards at home. Because it knows it is under the pump in that particular area, it is motivated by the world’s view of it and its need to protect its image. What we have today is a government playing dress-ups and little more.
This is not a motion which will excite anyone, other than the people who delivered it, simply because most reasonably positioned people will see this motion for what it is, especially when you consider the context of the environment in which it is delivered by the government into this place. The cute little trick about no notice to the opposition – ‘We thought we would waltz in here and drop this motion on the table’ – is indicative of the attitude this government has been developing since the last Territory election, and stands as another example of the poor and contemptuous approach it has towards this House and, indirectly, towards the people who put us in this place.
This place is where we are supposed to discuss issues, hopefully, in an informed and effective way. Whilst both the Treasurer and I - and, I suspect, most of the frontbenchers on both sides - would have had some indication of the $42bn package, the truth is that not all members in this House would have been prepared for a motion of this nature. What was the intent of bringing in the motion, in an environment where it was not signalled this was going on to the other side of the House, or anyone else in the House? The intent was to create a stink, a stir, some excitement, a tizz, a little fizzer for the media to get all excited about. I notice that the corresponding media release has gone out, and I do not doubt that 58 zillion phone calls from the fifth floor are being made to the various journalists spruiking the government’s position. It is all about image and how it looks and those sorts of things; it is not about the stimulus package.
Furphy No 1 that we have to deal with is that the CLP does acknowledge that there may be a necessity, in these times, to engage in deficit spending. To say otherwise is incorrect. Of course, the government likes to trot out that line, because when do they can trot out all of their own furphies about public service numbers and such things. They are being blatantly dishonest in the way they are conducting themselves. That is what you would expect from a group of people who are under pressure and in disarray, and whose only response is to try to draw attention away from their own shortcomings and develop in other peoples’ minds what they perceive to be shortcomings in others, rather than themselves. That is what we have come to expect. It just goes to show how arrogant, tired, and lame this government has become in a very short time.
I will make some general observations about the economic philosophy underlying the stimulus package. Whilst the Treasurer can name many people who say that the economic stimulus package is a good idea, I can put on the table a list of 193 very well-positioned economists from the United States who say it is not a good idea. I am not necessarily agreeing with these economists from the United States but, for 193 of them who buy advertising space to disagree with their President on exactly the same type of package that has been proposed by Mr Rudd, in spite of a very fulsome scrutiny process of their package, gives me pause for thought.
The argument or the economic philosophy that underpins rescue packages was first described by a fellow by the name of John Maynard Keynes, who lent his name to this style of economics; called Keynesian Economics. It was born as a model before World War II. It was picked up by President Roosevelt in his new deal. The idea is that in the good times you squirrel money away so that in the bad times, you have some money to spend. It is called counter-cyclical spending.
One of the assumptions of counter-cyclical spending is that you save in the good times. That is why the Treasury, in every Budget Paper No 2 and, yet again, in the most recent mid-year report, say to the Treasurer: ‘Gee whiz, Treasurer, you are exposed in one very serious way. You are predominantly reliant on a source of income, the GST, that leaves you exposed because it can change. If it changes, it will be indicative of a change in the way that people are spending money, being a consumption-based tax. That is what you are vulnerable to’. What Treasury is saying in between those lines is: ‘Put some money away’.
The Treasurer says that they have lowered nett debt. Nett debt plus employee liabilities have ballooned. If you are talking about the general government sector, nett debt is going down. However, if you take in the non-financial government sector cash statement and track nett debt into the future - not cash statement; wash my mouth out - the non-financial sector balance sheet and track nett debt into the future, it is exploding. Why is it exploding? It is exploding because the government needs to borrow to underwrite our Power and Water infrastructure, because it is Power and Water that is raising this debt, not the government. Nett debt is tracking down on the general government sector balance sheet, but it is going up on the non-financial public sector balance sheet. Why? It is a public corporation that is carrying the debt, not the actual government. Nice sleight of hand - but that is how it is working.
The Treasurer can come in and say: ‘Yes, the government sector balance sheet is going down; nett debt is going down’. However, the whole-of-government, which includes PAWC - its corporation - is increasing debt. If you amplify that with an increasing employee liability situation, you have debt out of control. How much debt has been retired? Not much. How much debt could we have retired? A whole heap more.
One of the advantages that Kevin Rudd has enjoyed in running the argument for this particular package, which he wanted to shove through in 48 hours, was the fact that it was there. The money had been paid off; there had been some savings squirreled away. He was actually capable of touching an amount of money that was saved up during the good times. However, that frugality has not been replicated by the states - the Labor states. Why? Because they have a social program for every occasion - a program for this and a program for that. It is all important; we have to ramp up the spending - ramp it up and up. It is all about improving vital services, but the services do not actually improve, just the bureaucracies get bigger.
Therefore, you have a situation where this government now, realising that it cannot really touch its own sources of revenue because it is already pushing debt up way too much, is now saying, in almost gleeful desperation: ‘Oh, my goodness, look, the federal government has a bail-out package and we are going to be recipients of this magnificent amount of money; this wonderful bail-out package. We are going to get $200m. Our people have gone through it. We have looked at the deal that is offered to us and, goodness gracious, $200m’. That sounds like a lot of money, but let us put that $200m into the context of $42bn. I am using $42bn, not $42.8bn which is the actual figure. Let us have a look at this.
How did we break this money up around the country? You have the Kevin Rudd way of doing it, which is fairly specific and targeted in certain ways. The Kevin Rudd way, according to Kevin Rudd, means that you cannot have scrutiny. It has to be pushed through in 48 hours. That is about $25 000 a second, by the way. But it has to be pushed through in 48 hours and then we can go and do it. Then the Greens, Senator Fielding from Family First, Senator Xenophon, and Senator Scullion go in, and every other Senator, other than Labor Senators say: ‘No, we want to have a look at this; we want to take a moment to look at this. We do not just want to sign the cheque’. All of a sudden, anybody who is not signing up to this immediately, without slavish adherence to the Ruddian model, is immediately castigated as some sort of financial heretic; the fever pitch of the screeching of the critics has a hint of hysteria in it.
This money is not hitting the bank accounts until April or May, so what is the urgency? Why can we not spend a bit more time scrutinising this package? But, if we had, if this Treasurer had signed up to scrutinising this package a bit more carefully, she would have asked some questions. Question 1 – how is the money being divvied out? What is a fair share for the Northern Territory? Well, here is a quick calculation - $42bn, carved up by Australia’s population, means that we are eligible for around $400m in the Northern Territory; that is, per head of population, which is one way to do the calculation. Assuming that the $200m she is referring to does not include about $85m worth of payments - which is the $950 payments going into people’s pockets - Territorians will be on the receiving end of closer to $285m. If that is correct, if that is not included in the $200m, then we are still, per head of population, over $100m short-changed than the other jurisdictions. That is not particularly good at defending Territorians’ rights. I would like to see a little more scrutiny when we are defending those rights, to be quite honest because, if we are going to get a share, we might as well get our fair share.
Let us find another way to calculate this. Maybe we should do …
Mr Tollner: What is a fair way?
Mr ELFERINK: I am getting to that. That is fair enough. Let us look at it by another vehicle. Let us do it on land mass. We are 1/6th of Australia. Oh goodness - $42bn, we are 1/6th which is 20%, that is $7bn. I am not arguing for one second that Territorians would receive about $7bn out of a $42bn package. But, my goodness gracious me, that is a long way from the really cool deal of $200m.
There is another way by which we can calculate this, and we do it every single year. Do you know what we do every single year? We have a principle in this country – as Syd Stirling used to say: ‘the glue that holds the Federation together’ – and the adhesive that holds us together is horizontal fiscal equalisation. The Commonwealth Grants Review Committee sits down with a really complicated formula every year, and it calculates our disabilities on a whole raft of different areas and, in amongst that, it calculates a disability rate as applied to each jurisdiction. The Australian average is $1, so everybody gets $1, and then you have the upsies and downsies - land mass over population, need, etcetera - and out it spits a number. If the Australian average is $1, New South Wales and Victoria receive about 80 each. The Northern Territory receives in the order of $4.50 and, as a consequence, out of the GST pool of about $50bn, we get $2.3bn, which is one of the reasons we are so reliant on it.
If the pool of the federal government’s money is $42bn, or $42.8bn then, surely, using the very tried and tested, true to the history of this country’s system, of applying disabilities, we should be worth about $2bn out of that package - 10 times the amount that we are actually receiving. This government, that is so angst driven about its need to sign up to Kevin Rudd’s great package, has short-changed Territorians in its inability to negotiate an outcome. That is one of the reasons this bill needs to be scrutinised and that is the amendment we are proposing.
This is the amendment we are proposing to this particular motion, so that we get some decent scrutiny on behalf of Territorians and we do not slavishly adhere to what the messiah in Canberra says is a good deal for Territorians, because all the Treasurer would have been told by Treasury is: ‘You will receive about $200m out of the deal’. If this is a government which represents Territorians, and if Senator Crossin wanted to stand up for Territorians in the way that she should, then Senator Crossin should be voting against this package on the grounds that it short-changes Territorians by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is the great travesty of this is: that they are trying to sell us some sort of you beaut argument that this is the best thing since sliced bread when, in actual fact, we are being sold a pup - an absolute dud. Goodness gracious me, it is just astonishing what these people will sign up to. ‘Oh, Kevin said that. Pant pant pant pant’. For goodness sake, what are you guys doing over there? Get in there and fight for the Territory. Do not sit there and whinge about Nigel Scullion wanting to have more scrutiny of the package as some political stunt. Get real. Make the numbers work for the Territory. We have serious infrastructure problems. We know that; we always have had. We have had it since we had self-government and before then, because we were, and still are, a growing jurisdiction with many demands on our infrastructure. Go in and fight for it. Do not just sit there and say: ‘Oh, Kevin says this is a good amount’.
The other thing that I am really taken by is this little three-card trick that was played immediately prior to the last TAFR. This money is not hitting the accounts until April, with another lot coming in June. I bet you they sit on the cash on 30 June so, all of a sudden, the deficit disappears or becomes a whole lot less, so they have to start spending on 1 July, which they did last year - a little three-card trick here.
Kevin has become wise to the states on another issue. He has issued a warning saying: ‘Do not pull back from your expenditure and your commitments from your own budgets using this money to supplement it’. This government has history of doing that. If you look at the appropriation for last year’s budget for Health and the actual amount reported spent in TAFR, it is about $18m less. How did that happen? It is because the SPPs were being used to offset Territory government expenditure.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time to finish his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: It is amazing to see that Kevin has become wise to the fact that if you give the SPPs the …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, could I please interrupt. In accordance with observing Madam Speaker yesterday, the member for Fong Lim was asked not to refer to members other than in accordance with the protocols of this Chamber. It is Prime Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That is fine, Madam Deputy Speaker, absolutely – His Holiness the Prime Minister. Gosh, I have lost my train of thought now.
The Prime Minister has become wise to what the states do with these SPPs. In an effort to keep the state expenditure close to surplus, or just slightly in deficit, you take the money that the federal government gives you through the SPPs or NPs, and start spending that on the areas that you were going to spend money in your own budget. You take that money out of the department and you put it back into your Treasury, or in this case the Central Holding Authority, which is what happened last year – and you hope nobody notices. The fact is that it did get noticed, and I really urge this government to be honest, because I still cannot figure out how, and by what mechanism, it thinks that it is going to return a $47m deficit, which is based on its last November figures, when all of the other drivers have changed and they have gone south.
The government must be anticipating some other source of income to continually run that argument. However, I do notice that the language has changed. The Treasurer has the capacity to change language slightly over time; she does not change her position - her positions evolve - and now the $47m deficit, which it was standing by, has become the conservative estimation. That tells me that, whoops, the language is about to change, and in the next few months it will become the very conservative estimation, or the ‘November last year’ estimation, or something like that, as we cruise to a deficit which is much greater than the government is currently ‘fessing up to.
This government has also been caught out. A bare deficit this year would have been a lot worse if it was not for the minimum guarantee of $2.313bn, which was attached as part of the GST deal back in 2000 - the IGA, I should say. But that dries up at the end of this year, that is why we are heading towards a $150m deficit next year, because the GST pool is going to shrink and there is not a minimum payment. We have to take our slice of the trunk and pull, so that is also problematic.
I will make one other observation about these sorts of packages, and it is purely a general observation and something that is generated by my own thought processes: I am concerned in one respect about stimulus packages dealing with crises. Everything we are experiencing, both nationally and internationally, is a product of people's confidence, and you hear the words all the time - confidence in the marketplace. The idea of a stimulus package is to make people feel more confident in the marketplace, because there is more money floating around. Is it possible or conceivable - I do not know if the question has been asked anywhere - that if, through the processes of applying stimulus packages of this nature in this way, people see improvements in their bottom lines but gain no more confidence because they think it is government charity? The residual effect is that there is a continuing lack of confidence - in spite of the bottom lines improving. In some ways, these sorts of packages can amplify or exacerbate a lack of confidence because people do not believe the figures in their own accounts. Gosh, I hope not.
The assertion that the CLP is inherently anti-spending during bad times cannot be sustained in this building, and I will tell you why. We have gone through cyclical problems of financial difficulties in the past and one of those periods, during the recession that we had to have, if I recall, very badly impacted upon local businesses. The CLP government of the day decided to do some borrowing, and they borrowed for a building. When this building was constructed - Multiplex had part of the deal - there was some toing and froing about how the deal was put together.
I used to work in town and, as I drove around the back of the building, there were all these tilers’ utes out the back. It was not one big tiling company, there were about 30 utes belonging to all these blokes who work out of the back of their utes – tilers, plumbers, chippies, and sparkies. None of them got rich working on this building - the Parliament House we are standing in. None of them got rich, but they got food on the table through a tough time. That is what Keynesian economics seeks to achieve. It is not about making people wealthy and those sorts of things, it is about building a safety net of sorts. The CLP understood it then as we understand it now. This building was built in exactly those sorts of times, for those sorts of reasons, and I still …
Mr Knight: A bit over budget.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Mr Knight: A bit over budget.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it went over budget and the CLP still supported it. To run the argument that the Treasurer is running, that the CLP is anti-investment or anti-borrowing for investment, is errant nonsense. It is a fib. It is something that is fabricated. That is why this Treasurer has no credibility.
The other problem is that they have been in charge now for eight years, or nigh on eight years. When are they going to realise that they are now responsible, not only for the future and the present, but they actually carry responsibility for the past and what has happened in the last eight years? Yet, they seem incapable of turning their attention to that period, and they still seem stuck on the economic and budgetary environment that existed eight years ago, to labour their points.
This government is committed to not, in any way, curtail its expenditure. It has already said that it is going to produce a deficit of $150m next year. Okay, that is their choice. It is a choice that they can still revisit, because Budget Cabinet has not met yet, as far as I am aware. If Budget Cabinet has not met, then they will still be able to have a look through their various departments, and there might be areas where they can find savings. I hope that they do that. However, to announce, automatically and slavishly, that because there is a drop in GST revenue there has to be a corresponding deficit, without consideration to the Budget Cabinet process, indicates to me two things: first, that the Treasurer has an utterly cavalier approach to budgetary management; and second, the ministers are actually not in control of their own budgets and have no power in Cabinet to exert authority over the proposals of the Treasurer, who simply makes announcements on their behalf.
To announce at the outset that there is going to be $150m black hole in next year’s budget, without consulting with other ministers, is a surprising thing for a Treasurer to do, at this part of the budgetary cycle, considering its remoteness from the beginning of next financial year. I am curious to see how they actually organise their Cabinet meetings. I am curious to hear how Cabinet ministers defend or argue their positions in Budget Cabinet, and if these carte blanch statements are made without any reference to the Cabinet ministers themselves.
If Budget Cabinet has not been held, then what is happening on the other side of the House is nothing shy of cavalier. It may be that they have to form a bigger black hole because own source revenues are not sustained. If you believe Access Economics’ tracking out in the next couple of years, then we are going into negative territory. That still does not factor in the loss of revenue that we know will occur with things like McArthur River Mine, Browns, Compass, and the other mining companies which are contracting or shrinking their operations during these tough times.
Madam Deputy Speaker, all I am asking for is scrutiny. Let us go and have a proper look and test this package; see how much more we can get out of it for Territorians. Do not blindly sign up to it. Yes, $200m does not sound like bad money. However, compare it to what we should be getting and what are not getting, and I believe we might be being short-changed. Here is a suggestion. Go back to Canberra, tell them that we want our $400m, based on per head of population, and tell them that we want it as complete discretionary spending. See how you go with that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was thinking about the budget stimulus package, believe it or not, when I was driving up the track last week. I thought what a great opportunity for this parliament, which is only a single House parliament, for all sides to get together and see if we could work together in these times of economic hardship. I must have woken myself up and realised I was having a dream. When I got this motion before me today, I said: ‘There is no chance of that happening’.
Whilst this is a matter of great importance for our country, I do think it is sneaky - if I can put it that way - to ask us, all of a sudden, to move this motion which includes the $42bn stimulus package, as if we, as local members, have sat down and actually scrutinised it ourselves. Some people might say: ‘Oh well, you should do that’. I am a member of this parliament and I do take some notice of what is going on in the federal arena but, to some extent, what this is saying is that I, just like members of the federal parliament, should have sat down and looked at this properly. Surely, it would be foolish of me to say I agree with this, when I have only had this since about 11.30 am today. I find that I am uncomfortable with that. It is not saying that I should know some of the details of this stimulus package but, when it comes to actually moving a motion that says I support everything that is in the $42bn stimulus package, I would be derelict in my duty if I just said, ‘Yes, great idea’, and had not really looked at the details of that particular package.
The matter that really concerns me is that, when I first read it, it appeared to be totally political. Forget the issue of whether Liberals are opposing this in the Senate, members of the Greens have concerns; there is the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Senator Fielding, who have some concerns. Surely, that does not make them all anti-Territory or anti-Australian; what it does is make them do their job. What it shows me is that they are not willing to look at $47bn as if it was chicken feed. They are saying to the Australian public that this needs a reasonable analysis before they pass it. The Senate, I believe, has had two Standing Committees to look at this. From the media release I saw today, those reports will only come down in the Upper House tonight and, then, the Senate will have to make a decision by midnight on Thursday.
The package being put forward today by the Chief Minister may not be the package that is agreed to by the government after it has does some toing and froing with the Greens, the Independent and the Senator from Family First. What will we be agreeing on? We are agreeing on the initial package that Mr Rudd put forward, but that may not be the package that actually ends up being approved by the Senate and, then, approved by the House of Representatives. To some extent, it is presumptuous that we are debating this until we know what the final package will be.
There has been much discussion today about various people supporting the package, as if they are the only people who have spoken on this issue. For the sake of keeping a balanced debate about whether this stimulus package needs some scrutiny, I will quote from the ACTU. Jeff Lawrence, who is the ACTU Secretary, repeated calls for the government to hold a job summit with employers and unions to examine issues around retraining, skills development, the preservation of entitlements, and flexible working arrangements. He said:
I have some concerns about the number of people unemployed. The member for Port Darwin was talking about the Keynesian model; I believe he is referring to being able to keep people employed. I believe it is better to spend money on making sure that those people employed presently do not lose their jobs because, if we can keep people working, it means they can keep paying their mortgages. In America, if people start to fall behind with their mortgages, then we are in real trouble. One of the key things we should be doing is making sure those small businesses can retain those employees, and whether it would be better to give a one-off payment or put some of that money into a pool which would enable companies to hang on to their workers in these harder economic times. It is something that should be debated.
Another person, well known to this House, Clare Martin, representing the Australian Council of Social Service, said the package will help create jobs in housing but does nothing to help those on the lowest income. She said the government’s package should have increased the unemployment benefit by $30 per week, and I quote:
The Australian Health Care and Hospitals Association said that by ignoring the Health sector in the package, the government had missed an opportunity to support one of the most crucial areas of the economy, and I quote the Association’s Executive Director, Prue Power:
I will give you another reason why I believe it needs scrutiny. The Treasurer mentioned the pre-Christmas money that was given out, I believe, under the Building the Nation program. It was called the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. It was a $250m allocation fund for councils. This is why we need to ensure that we are, as the member for Port Darwin said, getting our fair share. I highlight one little community in Victoria called Ararat, which is a rural council. I believe its population is around 7000 to 8000. It received $484 000 under its allocations from the federal government. Litchfield Shire Council, which is a rural council as well, with a population of at least 17 000 people, received $152 000. Who was scrutinising that? Who made sure that we got our fair share of local government funds under this program? I do not think there was enough scrutiny. That is why it is important that this particular package is scrutinised.
It is strange, from my point of view, that this was announced on 3 February, and we are now at 11 February - that is eight days, take out the weekend and the problem with the bushfires - and the Senate is being asked to approve a huge package of money of $42bn. This motion is saying, regardless of all that, we should just approve this because it is so great for the country. I am not saying it is not necessarily great for the country. The issue is whether we should check it out and make sure everything is hunky-dory. Surely, the people in the Territory and people in Australia generally would expect our politicians to ensure that this money is well spent.
What concerns me is that in the excitement, the government has decided to speed things up. The Development Consent Authority is going to meet every fortnight instead of every month. We will increase employment there because it says that the recruitment of five more staff will start immediately - I suppose that is a stimulus straightaway - and we will have a summit of construction industry leaders. I remember this building being used for those sorts of things before. We will see what happens.
Then we had this great acronym, the Dedicated Stimulus Action Squads. Who dreamt up that? The SAS. I can see them going around to the department with their AK-47s strapped over their shoulders, and they will be ensuring, as it is quoted here, Chief Minister:
And does that not sound like ‘or else’? Then:
I know the military well, Chief Minister:
There will be:
I have actually heard that before, especially in the planning area. I remember the minister for Planning say that she was going to put more staff on the front counter. What happened? Before that happened - before the charges came in for planning - everyone rushed in the front door to escape those, and it took a long time for the bottleneck to get out of the way. What concerns me with this is that the government is getting all excited over the money they will receive from the federal government. However, let us ensure the processes do not go skewwhiff, otherwise the Auditor-General’s report at the end of the year might be very thick. It is still money flowing to the community that we must make sure is correctly spent. I have seen these great projects before, where people are given a heap of money and it does not get spent with enough due thought.
Maybe I am wrong, but the Treasurer has been talking about the amount of money each school will receive. What would happen if we had a school that did not need the money? For example, a brand new school was built and finished last week and it got another $200 000. You would have to ask: is that money being well spent or should we be putting that $200 000 through a school that is in far more need? Is it just $200 000 for all schools regardless of whether they need it? Is there some way of ensuring that is what is needed? They did not give out the money to the councils like that. They did not say $200 000 for each council; they said ‘this council needs this much and this one is in a more popular state, like Victoria, so we will give it more’. They had some sort of formula, I presume, for giving out the money.
I support the amendment, and I do not support the motion. The motion is about the Labor government backing up the Labor government in Canberra. It is also about trying to create a division in this parliament by making it appear as though the opposition is not onside, and that is what disappoints me. Why could we not have had more unity in relation to this? We are going to go through tough times. Tell me how many mines are now open in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Bootu, Gove, Jabiru. That is three. Who has gone? Compass. How many gold mines have opened in Pine Creek recently? I asked them when I was down there. None! The only place open there is Frances Creek. McArthur River …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We are in for tough times that are not really under our control. We can pretend that we can do things, and we probably can do some things. Surely, when times are tough, we need to ensure that people can still pay their mortgages and get a job. We should be working together to do that. We are only 200 000 people.
I must admit, if one thing gives me the gripes, it is the Westminster system, because it is somehow meant to be a boxing match all the time. This is a government for a small – as someone called it yesterday, a province – area like the Territory, in population, and there should be more times when we work together and be less stuck on our political party loyalties. However, that is the system we have. We have been given the Westminster system, but there are times when I believe we should bury that system and work together.
Territorians would have much more respect for us if we said: ‘Righto, let us work together to get through these tough times. Let us ensure as many people who need a job, have a job’. I believe that we will find our way through this. I admit that the Territory, as the Chief Minister said, is probably the best place in Australia to get through these economic times, because people will need energy, LNG, and uranium - the Territory has these in abundance. We have things that other countries need. Unfortunately, with the downturn in China – unless we buy more Chinese goods, which I am not sure is the way to go at the moment – I believe that the Chinese market will come back. We have iron ore, bauxite, and manganese. Perhaps, Compass Resources or someone else can look at taking them over, although there are some issues. The member for Brennan sent me an e-mail yesterday about who would take them over.
I believe we are well placed to come out of this economic crisis because of the resources we have. We would be far better putting our energies into working through these problems as a Territory. The member for Port Darwin made a good point regarding scrutiny. The scrutiny I am talking about is whether these particular packages that the government is putting forward are any good – and some of them are good packages. I have here a media release from the National Farmers’ Association saying how they support most of the package; they think it is good.
I am not here to say that the package is necessarily bad. I do have concerns about handing out money to people because, as the member for Port Darwin said, we should have scrutinised that to see whether it actually did what it was meant to do. There is no harm in doing that. If there was a better way of doing it; if we knew some of that money was wasted, perhaps there is a better way of giving that money to people. I do not want people to spend it on gambling. I hope people would put it, as the government said, into buying things to put a bit of consumer confidence back into our economy.
It is not saying that the package itself is not something that is not worthwhile; it is ensuring that it will work and, as the member for Port Darwin said, ensuring that we are receiving our fair share. Surely, there is nothing wrong with that. I am interested to hear, in the comments from the Chief Minister, whether anyone looked at what our fair share should be? We know the other states are pretty powerful, and I have heard that people from New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria knock how much money the Territory receives. That has been a common thing, saying that we get too much money. Have they influenced the decision about how much the Territory receives in this case?
Madam Speaker, I support the amendment. I do not support the motion. I believe we should be scrutinising the $42m and when it has been scrutinised; maybe I will give it support …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: We have two questions before the House. The first is the …
Mr Mills: The amendment.
Dr Burns: We know the amendment comes first.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are two questions before the Chair. We put the amendment first, as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and then we will put the original or an amended motion.
The question is that the amendment, as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as moved by the Chief Minister, be now agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 25 November 2008.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, you tabled these sitting dates for 2009 in November last year. The government supports what was tabled and urges the House to support the sitting dates for 2009, as well as elements of the motion that relate to the Register of Members’ Interests ...
Madam SPEAKER: You do the first motion first please, Leader of Government Business. Have you finished speaking to the first motion?
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for too long on this motion. However, once again, this exemplifies the situation we find ourselves in, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, where a fundamental mistake is being made. For some reason, it has formed in the mind of this Chief Minister and his minions that the principles of responsible government are that, somehow, parliament is responsible to the government of the day. Political Science 101 in any university degree will tell you that the principles of responsible government mean that the government is responsible to the parliament of the day.
Whilst these sitting days have now been well publicised, the truth of the matter is that they should not have been until this House resolved that this was a decision of this House. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where government, glibly and without recourse to this House, feels that it is necessary to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory how they expect that they have no recourse to this House.
Madam Speaker, I realise that these dates came from your office when they were publicised and, with all due respect to your Chair, the point that I made last year, and I return to on this occasion, is that there was no motion by this House to support those dates and only now is the motion before the House.
Madam Speaker, I ask that both you and the government turn your attention to the order in which things should occur so that Territorians can have at least faith, to some degree, that their representatives have some meaning for them. With the numerous motions we have, If we continue along the line that we just had of another gag motion - mind you, in the government’s defence we were given advice of that one where the motion had to be put because they did not want the debate to go on too long. The fact that they do give notice of motions nowadays and use gag debates and shut down adjournment debates just shows the level of contempt that the Australian Labor Party and its Northern Territory Branch have for the parliamentary process.
I find the reprehensible processes that we are seeing are far in excess of anything that the CLP was ever accused of, when it was accused of being so anti-democratic back in the dark ages. If they were the dark ages, it is just downright charcoal coloured now.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am speaking in support of the motion from the Leader of Government Business. I want to point out that I was the former Leader of Government Business who should have moved this motion, as is customary on the last day of the sittings year of 2008. Unfortunately, I had to be in Canberra for a meeting of Treasurers to finalise the SPP arrangements, which have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the Northern Territory.
It was an oversight because, as Leader of Government Business, I was in Canberra with the other Treasurers, negotiating the Territory’s fair share of the Commonwealth funding.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, as the Treasurer has indicated, there has been quite a lot of work done within the Standing Orders Committee over a number of issues including this one; it has been a long time in the pipeline. I believe it is a worthwhile reform to make the pecuniary and other interests that members have more transparent. In this age of accountability, the public want to see that and it does bring us in line, as I understand it, with other jurisdictions.
It has been before the Standing Orders Committee for some time. The Assembly has been asked:
1. to assign the Standing Orders Committee to act as the Committee of Members’ Interests for the purposes of the act;
of Registrable Interests, and specify the required information for members’ registrable interests - that will be the work of
the Standing Orders Committee;
with section 5 of the act; and
guidelines for inspection of the Register of Members’ Interests recommended by the Committee of Members' Interests.
There is some work to be done, but I believe this motion gives a process for the way forward. Madam Speaker, I commend it to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, before you sit down, I am just a bit concerned that you did not actually move the motion and read it first.
Dr BURNS: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You could say, as printed in the Notice Paper to cover that if you wish.
Dr BURNS: I move, in accordance with the Notice Paper, the four points that I have been through, Madam Speaker, and I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the newness of the Leader of Government Business. I am sure he will get used to the position soon enough, regarding the technicalities of …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I am sure that he will get used to the position soon enough and these little teething problems will go away.
There are a couple of things that I would like to flag in relation to this issue. First, I ask the committee to turn its attention to the level of detail that is required in what is declared. Whilst I have no problem going into intimate details in my own situation, some other people like to be more private about their financial arrangements, and that is fine. I believe I nominated, at a certain time last year, not only my share portfolios but also the exact amounts of the share portfolios, which is probably more than is reasonably required, considering what a register of interest is intending to do. Regarding the value of share portfolios, I ask that reasonableness be applied with a declaration of the names of the company and those sorts of things, rather than the actual values. I urge the committee to consider an element of balance when they approach these particular deliberations.
Similarly, if a street address - in my case 17 Narrows Road - is sufficient to identify a block, I hope I do not have to put in lot numbers, easements, and other details like that which will not achieve anything, just simply a descriptor of the property involved.
The other thing I would like the committee to turn its mind to, a procedure which I believe occurs in other parliaments, is that when a Register of Interests is checked by a journalist, a third party such as a fifth floor advisor, a fourth floor advisor as the case will be here, or whatever, that the member is advised that the register has been checked, and by whom, and why that register was checked. The reason could be as simple as: ‘I was mildly curious as a member of the public’. However, I believe it is a matter of courtesy if someone has a look into your personal financial and property arrangements, that you are at least advised that it occurred. As I understand it, that is not an immediate requirement of the current system.
I also wish to absolutely and clearly put on the record that, whilst this is a reference to the Standing Orders Committee to look at how the system operates, it is not a reference to the Standing Orders Committee to deal with breaches of the reporting requirements of the Declaration of Interest, and that any such breaches naturally would still, in every instance, go to the Privileges Committee for consideration, rather than Standing Orders Committee. Whilst it is not implied in any way in these particular references, I cannot forebear but to mention that issue.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2009 be now read a second time.
As honourable members would be aware, under the First Home Owner Grant Act first homeowners who satisfy a number of criteria are entitled to the payment of a grant of $7000 from the Territory. The grant is intended to encourage and assist home ownership by first homebuyers.
On 14 October 2008, the Prime Minister announced a fiscal stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis. Part of that package is a temporary extension to the First Home Owners Grant scheme called the First Home Owners Boost. This boost scheme is aimed at providing a short-term stimulus to the housing industry. The bill provides legislation to facilitate the boost scheme, which the Territory has agreed to administer on behalf of the Commonwealth. The boost increases the existing Territory grant from $7000 to $14 000 for the purchase of existing homes, and to $21 000 for the building or purchase of a new home. It applies to contracts entered into or, in the case of an owner builder, where the construction starts between 14 October 2008 and 30 June 2009.
All the normal eligibility criteria of the Territory’s grant also apply and, as a general rule, construction of the home must be completed within 18 months. The bill provides for a retrospective commencement date of 14 October 2009, to coincide with the Prime Minister’s announcement. As such, all payments of the additional grant, made under the current administrative arrangements, will be taken to have been paid under the amendments provided by this bill.
Finally, this bill includes the ability to amend the amount of the grant and the date on which the grant ends by regulations under the act. This has been inserted to facilitate any extension or variation to the scheme that might be required by the Commonwealth. This measure has provided a timely boost to new homebuyers and the construction industry.
The Henderson government also announced Buildstart, its own financial stimulus package that complements the boost scheme and fills in the gaps in the Commonwealth package, by providing a $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers and investors to buy or build new homes. This will provide further support for the local construction industry and will increase the stock of housing in the Territory, which should assist renters and homebuyers alike.
The existing first homebuyer stamp duty concession of up to $15 515 or principal place of residence rebate of $2500 will continue to be available for Territory homebuyers, in addition to the first homeowner or Buildstart grant. This will allow total assistance to eligible first homeowners of up to $36 515 and assistance of up to $16 500 for other homebuyers buying or building a new home.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Evidence Legislation (Authorised Persons) Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 27) passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to clarify and expand the classes of person authorised to take recorded statements from vulnerable witnesses. These statements are admissible in court as the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses.
In 2004, this government reformed the procedural law for the prosecution of sexual offences. The aim of the reform was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and to improve the quality of the evidence of the witnesses.
Further reforms were made in August 2007 through the Evidence of Children Amendment Act 2007. This act clarified the operation of the 2000 reforms and also increased the options available for vulnerable witnesses in the delivery of their evidence. The 2007 amendments provided that the recorded statement of a vulnerable witness could be admissible as their evidence-in-chief provided that the statements were taken by an ‘authorised person’. ‘Authorised person’ was defined in the act as classes of ‘authorised person’ as declared in regulations.
The regulations setting out the classes of ‘authorised person’ were made in October 2007, being the Evidence Amendment (Authorised Persons) Regulations (the Regulations). Regulation 4 provided that: ‘all police officers approved by the Commissioner of Police as suitable’ and ‘all employees of the relevant agency (at the time the Department of Health and Community Services, [DHCS], now the Department of Health and Families, [DHF]) approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the agency as suitable’ were authorised persons.
The Commissioner of Police signed an instrument approving all police officers of the rank of constable or above as authorised persons; while the Chief Executive Officer of DHCS signed an instrument approving, in effect, employees appointed as social workers with Family and Children Services as authorised persons.
Over recent months the NT Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Solicitor General identified several issues with the instrument signed by the Commissioner of Police:
the Supreme Court queried whether the commissioner validly exercised his power. This question was not determined by the court
and remains a cloud over the admissibility of the 500 recorded statements taken from vulnerable witnesses since October 2007.
a number of Australian Federal Police officers and some interstate police officers have been deployed in the Northern Territory as
part of Task Force Themis, and the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Emergency Response, either at Themis bush stations or
as part of the Child Abuse Task Force. These officers were sworn in as special constables under the Police Administration Act.
They have taken a number of recorded statements from vulnerable witnesses; in particular from children allegedly victims of sexual
offences.
sometimes it is necessary to obtain a recorded statement from a vulnerable witness residing interstate. This can arise, for example,
if a vulnerable witness attends an interstate police station to make a complaint about a sexual or serious violence offence which
occurred in the Northern Territory.
These problems need to be rectified. The consequences for vulnerable witnesses and for the proper prosecution of sexual offences and serious violence offences in the NT are significant.
Additionally, witnesses may withdraw their complaint rather than go through the ordeal of recounting their statement again before the court; inconsistent statements might be obtained; and evidence may become tainted due to the passage of time since the first interview.
Requiring vulnerable witnesses to recount their statements again is contrary to legislative intent of the 2004 and 2007 reforms. The overriding intent was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and to improve the quality of the evidence of those witnesses.
We have considered other options, such as having the Commissioner of Police sign a new instrument or making new regulations, but these options would not ‘save’ those recorded statements already taken since October 2007. Statements taken by the Australian Federal Police members deployed as part of Task Force Themis could not be used as the instrument or new regulations cannot operate retrospectively. Additionally, there is the continuing risk that a challenge to a statement before the court could see the commissioner’s approval ruled invalid. This would have the effect of making all recorded statements taken since October 2007 inadmissible. The only practical solution is to amend the parent act - the Evidence Act - and that is what we have done in the bill before this House.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement. The bill is intended to pass through on the final day of sittings.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, before adjourning, I would like to point something out, given that this matter has come on urgently. I refer the minister to Part 2, Clause 4(1)(d), which is an ‘authorised person’ amendment. ‘Authorized’ in subclause (d) is spelled with a ‘z’, ‘authorised’ in subclause (e) is spelt with an ‘s’. I much prefer the English version, Madam Speaker. I am not sure what the minister prefers, but I believe that we might have the proper English spelling in the legislation in any parliament in this country, and I suggest that the minister may wish to turn her attention to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you may wish to seek leave to continue your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this has been an extraordinary long run up to this day. We can see the bar that was set a long time ago, which raised the expectations of Territorians in 2001. Now, we have the jump, and many of us will give a round of applause. We are pleased to see this day occur.
Interestingly, however, there has been much comment on this matter in recent times. One looks at New South Wales and thinks: ‘Oh, gee whiz, do we want to have fixed parliamentary terms’? What happens if you get a situation where you do not like the government and you really need to get rid of them, it is: ‘No, you are stuck with us; you cannot get rid of us’ ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: No, not at all, but it seems that we need to make a comment on this. It appears to be an inconsistent argument anyway, the assumption being if we do not have fixed parliamentary terms, we have the situation that we have here; that you still have some mechanism to get rid of a government that is completely corrupt or inept. It is not quite the case.
We need to put that aside. There are some very good reasons why there should be fixed parliamentary terms. The fact that this was not in place, though promised, has probably saved the skin of this government, some would suggest, by going 11 months early. The only reason for going 11 months early was to create a political certainty for government in managing political risk. That should really be out of the equation ...
Mr Wood: Do not forget INPEX.
Mr MILLS: Yes, there was INPEX. It really should not be corrupted by the influence and the use by government of those levers to their own political advantage. It is simply wrong. It is a welcome day and I am pleased to see this. We have had a look at the legislation. It is an effective tool to establish that which has been promised, and we welcome this day.
I put on the table another topic for consideration, while stating that we support this. It is the issue that is linked to the matter I raised before: how do citizens effect change in a situation where a government holds onto those levers of power and will not do the right thing in the interests of people, and hold on? In an extreme case, you could have increased social disorder if a government just hangs on, as we have seen in other places. I should not mention them because I do not want to make any parallels. However, in the worse case scenario - these matters are crafted to deal with worse case scenarios - that is what constitutions, law and all that is about: we should consider a means whereby the citizens, in extreme circumstances, have the capacity to bring on an early general election.
I refer to a citizen’s initiated referendum. I put this on the table for consideration by honourable members. It comes into the category of the foreshadowed electoral reforms that will flow after the passage of this bill. I draw members’ attention - particularly those who are members of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee - that this is a topic that has been discussed by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee a number of times. So much fine work has been done in constitutional development in the Northern Territory by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. One of the booklets, which was published in August 1991, was Discussion Paper No 3 – Citizens’ Initiated Referendum. I draw members’ attention to this and put it on the table for consideration. In future times, there may be the circumstance where we need to provide our good citizens with the capacity to protect their interests, through a means to change or to put a question before the community, by means of a citizens’ initiated referendum.
There are a range of models that could be considered, and there has been much work done on tools that would allow citizens to bring before the parliament the requirement for an early general election. I raise that as a topic for consideration. I believe that it is a necessary topic to consider if we are genuine about electoral reform. I know that some members in my own team have an ongoing interest in this, as members who have gone before us have as well. We have had discussions about this, member for Fong Lim, and I am sure other members have been approached about these sorts of topics. I do not think we should exclude ourselves from the possibility of doing something that would strengthen democracy and the will of the people as expressed through this parliament. Ultimately, it would, hopefully, never ever be used. However, in thinking ahead, to avert the possibility of civil unrest, there may be the need for crafting something which gives that capacity to citizens; to know that their will can be done.
I put that issue on the agenda and, I believe, it will be continued. I understand too, in the Statehood Steering Committee, that the matter of a citizens’ initiated referendum will be considered as a topic of discussion even with the current committee.
Madam Speaker, we support this bill and we are pleased that we have come to this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take up the comments the Leader of the Opposition made about citizens’ initiated referendums. I am fairly sure that those types of referendums were in the Local Government Act, although I do not recall whether they are in the new Local Government Act. However, I know in the Litchfield Shire there was a clause that if so many people signed a document they could hold some form of referendum. It was not binding, but it was at least a way of allowing those appeals for the community to be at least heard. Yes, this has been around probably in a minor form.
In relation to civil unrest, there is one question I asked during the briefing. My understanding is that under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, if there was, for instance, a major earthquake or tidal wave or something that brings havoc to the Territory, I am not sure whether the Administrator has power to re-form a government or to allow for a government to be dissolved and a new election to take place. This is only in the case of pretty serious times, I believe, like natural, extraordinary circumstances, which we had in 1974. That was not an earthquake. I digress.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. My notes here say it is a long time coming. I remember it in the Labor Party’s platform, and when I raised it occasionally I was given all the excuses in the world as to why it was not the right thing to do, when we had the three-year permanent section of the term, and the government had the choice of when it wanted to call an election in the last term.
I know we are looking at changing the Electoral Act and I wrote down here a couple of notes. I raised one of these in public before Christmas. Now, local government has set terms throughout the Territory. Even though municipalities and shires do not quite line up with their dates, they do have set periods. It is worth the debate to see whether we hold all the elections on the one day. I have had some preliminary discussions - and they have only been informal discussions; they could not be regarded as official. Some of the issues that we might come across if we did that have been put to me by someone from the Electoral Office. They were not making an opinion, but they were putting forward some of the issues that may be against having them all on the same day, as against the advantages of having all the elections on the same date.
I note that if you pulled out a sheet of newspaper from the United States on the day that President Obama was elected - I know this because I was sent a copy of the Columbus Press, I believe it is called, which is the main paper for Columbus, which is the capital of Ohio - you would see the state elections as well as the federal elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also had small elections in their counties and small referendums and little things such as people were able to vote whether the pub or a bar in that little town could extend their licence. You saw all these little referendums in little towns throughout Ohio that were all put on that day. They also vote for their magistrates, as you know, in the United States, so that was there as well.
I am only talking about having two elections on the one day. In the United States, they have many other things to take into account. This is probably not the right country to compare the Territory with, but I remember when President Mugabe had his last election in Zimbabwe …
Mr Henderson: This is very unfair, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, sorry. Well, you were talking about the SAS in a previous motion, minister. What I am saying is that they had elections for the president, their state parliament, and their local government, all held on the one day. I am not saying their elections are …
Mr Henderson: Is it any better though, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: No, but I am saying that they held them on the one day. I am not saying that there is a good government there. That is the last thing I am saying. However, that is the system they have had, probably before Mr Mugabe was around. They just decided to have all their elections on the one day. I am just saying that is something that could be debated when the Electoral Act is looked at.
The other issue of having a fixed time for your election, is whether the government would consider setting a date from which no government advertising can continue, except for things like tenders or advertising for jobs. We will know the date and when the writs are declared. The government would know the criticism that they came in for when they brought out a glossy brochure on INPEX about a week before the election was declared. One of the things we should be looking at is a moratorium - maybe a month or two months - when there is none of that extra type of government advertising allowed, so the accusation that this advertising is political could be void; we would avoid that controversy.
These particular changes raise some other issues which we can deal with when the Electoral Act is being reviewed. As the Leader of the Opposition said, when he was talking about citizens’ initiated referendums, there are many issues that we can discuss in more detail when we get to those changes.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support for this bill. In the evolution of self-government in the Northern Territory and the of our democratic system, it is another step, but it is a very big step. It has taken 30 years to get to this particular point and …
Mr Mills: Whose platform was it in?
Mr HENDERSON: Hey?
Mr Mills: It was in your platform.
Mr HENDERSON: You embraced it. It is interesting that the opposition embraced the concept after 26 or 27 years in government. However, this is an evolution. I acknowledge, with the Leader of the Opposition, that there has been that debate in New South Wales. I believe if Western Australia follows on and introduces fixed parliamentary terms that will mean 80% of all electors in Australia will be voting in state elections with fixed parliamentary terms. It is a long way.
When we did come to government in 2001, we had a significant reform agenda regarding our electoral system in the Northern Territory. We established the Office of the Electoral Commissioner as an independent statutory office, rather than a division of the Department of Chief Minister. We introduced a minimum of three-year terms with a maximum of four and, now, we have moved to fixed four-year terms.
Regarding the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on citizens’ initiated referenda, I encourage all Territorians to continue the debate on parliamentary reform. Anything that we can do to stimulate debate about the workings of our democracy is a healthy thing. I have not done a great deal of study on citizens’ initiated referenda. I can see the political, populous appeal, but the practicalities of it, and being hijacked by vested interest groups, would be a concern, and no other state in Australia has gone down that path. However, why not have a debate about it?
Member for Nelson mentioned shire and Northern Territory government elections being held on the same day, and talked about the recent US Presidential elections. That is something to have a debate about. I believe the big challenge that we face with the local government elections, as we move forward, is stimulating public debate in those elections to try to create some interest in them, with all due respect. If you went into any of our urban electorates and conducted a street poll, and asked people who their local aldermen were, most people would not know. I am sure that would be the same case with our shires and the newer elections in the shires. If you are trying to attract more attention and debate around local government issues, one thing that may occur by having the elections at the same time as the Northern Territory election is that it may dilute focus even further - that is something I can see. However, I am open for a debate on those things.
If you look at the US system where they do not have compulsory voting – and I have not seen the final numbers from the latest US Presidential election - normally only 40% to 50% of eligible people actually vote in the United States. If the object of the debate is to increase participation, understanding, and debate about the big issues as well as the smaller issues that face citizens, the fact that they have their Presidential, Senate, county and referenda voting all on the same day, lumping them all in together, I am not convinced actually raises awareness of those issues. Let us have a debate on those things.
I can see the pros and cons of a debate on government advertising and putting time frames around that but, at the end of the day, I believe our democratic system serves us well. My observation of our democracy is that if governments abuse their capacity and overstep the mark in that area, they are normally punished. People are not silly, and if they see governments abusing that particular privilege, I believe, normally, the Australian public and Territorians will see through that and take it out against the government of the day in the ballot box. However, again, in our evolution of our democracy, let us have a debate on it.
I thank everyone in the House today. This is another significant step forward in the evolution of our democracy. Once this bill passes, we all know that the next Territory election will be on Saturday, 25 August 2012. Terry; sitting here at the beginning of 2009 it seems a long way away, and who knows what water is going to go under the bridge, politically, in the Northern Territory between now and then. I know that all of us who have had the privilege of being elected to this House to represent our constituents will do the very best we can to serve the people of the Northern Territory; to serve our electorates between now and 25 August 2012, God willing.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their support for this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition has spent a fair amount of time assessing the intent and the capacity of this bill to do what has been described by government for the course the government has embarked upon. After that assessment, it is our intention to support this bill. Notwithstanding, there have been a number of issues that were, perhaps, contentious in such a complex matter as this. In the balance, and having consulted with stakeholders, we felt that we should allow this amendment bill to proceed with its intent.
It is an interesting word. Some of us who have been here for a while know that there was a former member for Brennan who had great difficulties in saying this word. He must have dreaded every time this was raised in debate in parliament. Even thinking about it now, I feel that I am going to say it the same way. ‘Ombudsman’ is a Swedish word which means protector of citizens. That is the purpose, the intent therein. How does an individual find redress against wrong - perceived or otherwise - of government? That is the role and the purpose. Then there is the question: who watches the watchers; who governs the government? It is a question asked in many debates throughout history. To prevent the abuse of power, absolute power is shared between the executive, legislative, and judicial arms to provide checks, balances, and oversights of each other. That is a good thing!
Looking back in history there was a role. The Romans had the Office of Censor, where every five years two magistrates were elected, for a period of around 18 months, to examine and investigate the conduct and decisions of officials over the previous five years and to hear public complaints. You can see that nothing has changed. We move to develop systems to ensure that the system itself is protected, and that the purpose and the intent of those systems are honoured; that is, to deliver good for the citizens. Even the Chinese, during the early Han Dynasty, had a counsel who heard complaints and petitions against the administrators. The earliest modern example of the role of Ombudsman exists in the Swedish constitution of 1809, to observe the application of laws and statues by courts, public bodies, and their employees. The Ombudsman can initiate investigations, comment on procedures, and commence disciplinary actions. The underlying principles of the Swedish Ombudsman have been taken up by many countries, particularly the Westminster-based system throughout the 20th century.
You can see that it is a very important role, and the office, the one who bears the title of Ombudsman, bears a great responsibility as a defender of the citizenry. Our consultation involved speaking to the current Ombudsman, and I pay my compliments to the way in which the Ombudsman has fulfilled her role. It is probably a difficult role and, perhaps, made even more so by the need to be very careful about your weighing and measuring of issues, and to recognise that you will sometimes be stepping into a position where you will earn the wrath of the government. That is the very point; the nub. That is the issue that needs to be recognised in all of this, so that we have the appropriate cross-tensioning to ensure that the rights of citizens are defended. Our Ombudsman has done a sterling job and I commend her.
There are other Ombudsman offices in other states - slightly different - and also police watchdogs in different places. They are always worried about these sorts of things and it is always very difficult to get the right balance. You have to ensure that you are not going to establish a system that goes across the line and creates a sense of fear, uncertainty, or mistrust of the institutions that are there to defend the citizens. For example, with the police, if we feed a culture of mistrust of our police we actually work against the very purpose of that agency to defend law and order within our community.
There is a very fine balance and we have to ensure that we are guided by good principle in establishing the mechanics whereby proper scrutiny of matters of concern, raised by citizens, can be addressed without going across that line and feeding mistrust of the agencies that are there to protect us. There is a danger in modern times to go across that line because popular culture ingenerates a mistrust of authority. Recognising that, politically, the leaders of power can feed that and do something which is popular but, maybe, irresponsible.
There have been some challenges in the developing of that notion and the drawing of those lines but, after meetings with representatives of the Police Association, they recognise that this will proceed and they accept, with some reservations, certain aspects. Nonetheless, the passage of this bill will occur. During the consultation process, we ensured that we had those discussions and we, in the opposition, are satisfied that we do not find sufficient concern to mount a spirited defence of certain fine aspects of this; in the balance of things, I believe, we offer our support.
At this point, I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes and thank the government for making briefings available to us; the quality of those briefings is appreciated. However, I must say that the opposition will be watching very carefully to see how this proceeds, how it works in application and to ensure that those lines are not crossed; that we do strengthen our institutions and that we preserve the sense of justice for citizens and increase freedom, basically. We will watch this as it progresses. We acknowledge that this is the government’s plan; they said that they were going to do this and they have implemented it. I respect that the government has been elected and this is something they have been embarked upon and we will not oppose, but we will watch carefully to ensure that there is the right balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those words, and also with recognition that there are some amendments, I hope that we are able to find time to assess these and to hear those discussions. We provide our recognition of this bill and we will not be opposing it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. First, I thank the government for allowing a briefing; we had a fairly long briefing. I believe that this is one of the most important bills that has come before parliament.
The Ombudsman is the umpire that we need. The Ombudsman protects the citizen from excesses, you might say, within government - whether it is the Territory government, local government or the police - and I believe it is a really important role.
I also thank my research officer. She has only just started in the job. I have been to Alice Springs and back. She was down there because of an illness in the family, and she came back with me. We read this act from cover to cover all the way back ...
A member: You are a very sad man.
Mr WOOD: I know. We did some Kenny Rogers and Garth Brooks when it got dark. We found that the best way to get through this. It is a complicated bill and we took it slowly and got to understand the way the bill was made up, and the differences between this bill and the previous bill. I thank her for having the patience. It is not easy to go through something like this. I do not find it easy and, for someone who has just started the job, she must have wondered what she struck when we had to read our way through this. We made the effort because it is a very important bill.
I also thank the Ombudsman for allowing us to have some time to discuss her concerns about the bill. I came to the conclusion that, except for some relatively minor amendments - I am not sure whether the government will agree and maybe they could come back at another time if the government believes it should have more time - overall, it is a very strong bill. The difference between this bill and the previous bill is that it is far more prescriptive, especially when it relates to complaints against the police. I gather the reason is that there has been this ongoing uneasiness between the police and the Ombudsman. That reached its peak with the previous Ombudsman. There were public statements made between various members on both sides. With the relatively new Ombudsman, those things have certainly improved since that time.
I find it funny; I have just picked up the Ombudsman’s 30th Annual Report. It is 30 years since the Ombudsman came into being. It is 30 years, since 1 July 1978 when self-government was announced. The first Ombudsman is the one I know the best - Harry Giese. He was one of those people - I am not sure I would put him quite in the same bracket as Joe Fisher, Bernie Kilgariff, and Dick Ward - who was a character. He certainly belonged to the Territory. He was involved in Aboriginal affairs for many years. The kids at Daly River used to laugh at him when he would turn up because he was one of those who always wore his belt just about round where his navel is. They laughed at that. They had a saying - I do not whether Hansard is going to be able to write this down - ‘high gunder’ as against ‘low gunder’ when you wore your trousers down lower. Mr Giese would turn up at Daly River and get off the plane and the kids would all have a laugh because of the way he was dressed. However, he was a person who was very much involved in the administration of the Northern Territory and it is no surprise to me that he was the first Ombudsman because of his experience in the Northern Territory.
I have some amendments coming, but I need to say a few things in relation to some of the broader aspects. There is a concern - and I notice that there are two papers that write about the Ombudsman. One is the budget papers and one is the Ombudsman’s report. In the budget, it talks about responsibilities of the Ombudsman on page 23 of the 2008-09 Budget. Referring to the normal responsibilities of the Ombudsman and the Health and Community Service Complaints Commission, it says:
I did not know whether the section I just read out, in relation to the powers of the Ombudsman in the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act, would be some of the Ombudsman’s functions. I am not moving an amendment in that way, it is something that arose when I was reading minister Vatskalis’ speech.
Overall, I believe it is a very well put together document. As you work through it, you get an understanding of the complexity of what the Ombudsman has to do. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate all matters, pretty much. My concern - and you will see that when we talk about the amendments - is that, when there is a disagreement between particular authorities or the commissioner, it can end up basically a stalemate, which then goes to the minister, who reports directly to the Legislative Assembly. I have some concerns about where that finishes.
There is a section that I know the Ombudsman is not too happy with, and it relates to Part 7. I noticed in the second reading, the minister said some commentators are of the view that police investigating police will never give a fair outcome. It says in the scheme established by this bill, at any time, and at the Ombudsman’s own volition, the Ombudsman can audit an Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act investigation being undertaken by police. My understanding is that there is some disagreement in this area; it may be philosophical or it may be a legal disagreement. Not being a lawyer, I found that a little difficult to understand when we had a briefing from the Ombudsman, but there were some issues related to what evidence could be cited in the case of some investigations.
I know it is mentioned here, and it is also mentioned in minister Vatskalis’ response to the annual report. He said:
I find that a fairly difficult area to work my way through. I am willing to see how this act works out with time, and see whether some of those issues that the Ombudsman has concerns with are real concerns or, as minister Vatskalis said, the Ombudsman has misapprehension about. They are some of the issues that were raised in the discussions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, overall, it is an important bill. It is one that should have support from all members of parliament, because it is a bill to set out the guidelines for one of the most important people in our democracy; that is, the Ombudsman. I will keep my further comments until we deal with the amendments.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. This government is committed to providing the highest possible level of service to the people of the Northern Territory, across all areas of government. That is why we believe it is essential to establish a best practice modern scheme for the operation of the Ombudsman. It is certainly not before time. The existing Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act is 30 years old and no longer reflects contemporary practice.
The Ombudsman Bill represents the first major reform at modernisation of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act since commencement on self-government in 1978. I reflect a little on what the member for Nelson spoke of regarding democracy. We are very passionate, as politicians, not only in this parliament but across our country, that we are a country that prides itself on its democratic process - an effective democracy; a democracy where transparency is clearly a value of all Australians.
The primary purpose of the Ombudsman Bill is to establish a transparent, modern, best practice and, comprehensive scheme for the ongoing operation of the Ombudsman in the Territory. The Henderson government commissioned the review as part of our commitment to strengthening the role of the Ombudsman. The review examined all aspects of the existing framework to ensure that Territorians have in place an accessible and comprehensive scheme for resolving complaints about administrative actions taken by public authorities and, as we have heard, the conduct of police officers.
The review considered the Ombudsman’s powers, existing practices and procedures, the use of conciliation and mediation as an alternate resolution mechanism, and involvement with the police complaints process with particular regard to best practice and the delivery of a more open and transparent complaints handling process. We believe it is not only essential that the Ombudsman has that capacity to deal effectively with complaints against government agencies and police, but Territorians make such complaints confident in the knowledge that they will be handled in an expeditious and efficient manner.
We all know of stories where people feel they would like to put forward complaints at various stages in either their personal or professional life. They need to know that there are avenues for such complaints to be heard. Our government is committed to see that the process of the Ombudsman is a clear and efficient one. Territorians also need to know if they wish to make such complaints, they will not face the prospect of having obstructions placed in their way. They also need to be confident they can lodge a complaint without fear of reprisal. They need to be sure that information they give to the Ombudsman will be dealt with confidentially.
Territorians need to be confident that the Ombudsman has the power to take action in relation to their complaint. This is equally important, if not more so, than a person having the belief that they need to confide about something. They also need to know that when they do confide, the Ombudsman has the power to do something about it. The Ombudsman Bill before the Legislative Assembly provides that clarity and certainty for Territorians.
I will look at some examples, especially in my portfolio of Families and Children, in the area of Aged and Disability Services. The Ombudsman has an important role to play in several of those areas. For example, in the area of Aged and Disability Services or Mental Health Services, if a family is dissatisfied with the treatment that is provided to one of their loved ones, they can always ask questions and make a complaint to that service provider, whether it be the Aged Care Service, Disability Support Service, or the Mental Health Service. However, if the family feels too uncomfortable to make that approach, or they make an approach and feel unhappy with the response that they receive, then they can complain to the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission, and they can be sure that the matter will be investigated.
For the family this can be a way of double checking that everything has been done properly and that their loved one is getting the care that they deserve, and it may allow the family who makes the complaint to be confident that the matter is investigated and, the next time they take their loved one to their treatment or service, they can have trust in that service.
It can also be a way of bringing serious issues to the Ombudsman’s attention, acknowledging that a mistake has occurred and making sure that the same mistake does not happen again. I believe that is the crucial point in all of this, not only for our government but for this parliament. When you strengthen laws to provide this kind of clarity, you are doing it because you want to learn from what has happened before, and you want to ensure that it does not happen again if there are mistakes. From my point of view, as the minister responsible for departments and services that fall within the areas of the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, I welcome all recommendations of the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner that suggest changes to the ways that we do things so that we can learn from the mistakes we make.
I share some examples in the area of Power and Water. The Ombudsman can also help out in relation to other areas such as power and water supply. There was a case where a person who owned a unit in a residential duplex had a problem which was successfully resolved by the Ombudsman. There was one water meter which was shared between the two units in a duplex. Power and Water billed both unit owners separately for their water and, when Power and Water records showed that one of the unit owners had not paid their bills on time, Power and Water said that they would restrict the water flow to the entire property. This was unfair to the person who had paid their bill. That person complained to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman was able to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman can also help out in relation to education. As a parent, we all know situations where children complain that they are not treated fairly or properly by their teacher and, in usual cases, it might be regarding normal homework or the school socks and shoes, or not getting to school on time. In more serious matters - we would never want anything to happen to our children while they are at school - when our children do complain of something serious and we need to raise the issue with the school, if things continue and our parental concerns are not properly addressed, then we can complain to the Ombudsman and, where appropriate, they will investigate the matter.
Similarly, parents of young adults starting out in apprenticeships hope that all things go smoothly but, if there are problems along the way that cannot be sorted out with the provider, the Ombudsman is a point of call.
The Ombudsman Bill substantially improves and builds on the processes set out under the current Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. The bill provides more clarity about the role of the Ombudsman and procedures that will be followed by the Ombudsman in relation to complaints. In particular, the procedures for the handling of complaints against members of the police are more clearly set out in this bill than under the current act. Under the bill, the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations about the administrative practices and procedures of government agencies and to require government agencies to report back to the Ombudsman about steps the agency has taken to give effect to the recommendation.
When I think about my constituents in Arnhem and the many communities across Arnhem Land, I have had, on very rare occasions, not as often as I would like, a fair few questions about the role of the Ombudsman and the ability for those people in remote areas to have access to better understand what the Office of the Ombudsman is all about. I would like to see, in major reforms in local government with the use of the shires, the education process of the Ombudsman carried out throughout our shire councils. I am absolutely sure, because of the limited requests I have had about this particular office, that people are unaware in the regions and in the remote communities, in particular, of their rights regarding access to the Ombudsman’s Office. I know with the major events that go on, or the major visits that occur in communities by departments, at both a Territory and Commonwealth level, that the relationship that people on communities have with departmental officers is part of everyday life.
I know for sure that people on communities would like to have better access and understanding of that particular role. We will be working on that from this side of the House. It is something that the Office of the Ombudsman would be aware of as well, as they are with the use of interpreters. The Aboriginal Interpreter Service is available - and this is a good thing - but it is about informing people in the regions that they can access somewhere to find out some information on the issues and concerns that they may have with departmental officers.
It is not only Territorians who need to be confident about their capacity to make complaints to the Ombudsman; it is equally important that the Office of the Ombudsman should be confident in its capacity to operate in an impartial and independent manner. Just as importantly, the Ombudsman should be seen to be functioning free of government interference. That independence is assured under Part 3 of the bill, which provides that the Ombudsman must act independently, impartially, and in the public interest. Further, the decision to bring the term of the Ombudsman’s tenure into line with that of the Auditor-General and make the tenure a single seven-year term provides added assurance of this independence.
It is also worth noting that certain penalties under the bill are significantly higher than those in other Australian jurisdictions. These penalties include possible penalties of imprisonment for preventing or obstructing a person from making a complaint to the Ombudsman, or disclosing information obtained in the course of an Ombudsman’s investigation.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are very robust mechanisms for ensuring accountability of government in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman Bill will further strengthen these mechanisms by clarifying and modernising the role, functions, and powers of the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on this bill and wish to touch particularly on the point that the minister closed upon; that is, the seven-year tenure of the Ombudsman. Although not everybody in this House was here the short time ago when the Ombudsman Bill was last reviewed, the tenure was changed then, from another tenure arrangement.
The assertion by the member for Arnhem in relation to this matter, as well as the assertion in the second reading speech, that the seven-year single tenure will improve the independence of the Ombudsman is unsupported by anything real. Whilst I accept - and I presume that the implied argument in that position is that if a person knows they are there for a seven-year tenure only, there is no pressure that can be brought to bear upon them, in remuneration into the future, because their contract winds up, whether they like it or not, after a seven-year period.
This replaces the current arrangement, which is a five with an option to renew for five more tenure system, which replaced another system which was actually based loosely on the way that we deal with judges in the judiciary. Whilst I accept, to a degree, the argument that a seven-year tenure has the effect of unshackling the Ombudsman of the expectation of a repeated tenure, therefore, making them feel more at liberty to point out the shortcomings of government, it is a repair job on a five-and-five tenure system, where there was an option to renew.
However, when the five-and-five tenure system was put into place, it was put into place because it had the natural effect of getting rid of an Ombudsman. That Ombudsman was Peter Boyce. Peter Boyce was an Ombudsman who brought down a negative report against government. This was Toyotagate - the great Toyota giveaway - that hit the table in 2005 - was it? I remember Toyotagate particularly well, because it was Thursday afternoon, the last day of the Alice Springs sittings, when this report hit the table and, goodness gracious, the government was hoping that no one would notice. What was the allegation in that particular matter? The allegation was that a Toyota had been given by the department to a community at Belyuen, and the minister at the time, Jack Ah Kit, was so quick to blame the department and the public servants responsible.
It did not take a great deal of reading of that report to realise that the Ombudsman was trying to do what he could not lawfully do; that was, to criticise a minister of the Crown directly. It is one of the shortcomings of the Ombudsman. It is not actually a shortcoming if you look at the structure of how government works, but one of the limitations on an Ombudsman is that they cannot directly criticise a minister. When Peter Boyce became aware of these particular issues, he did the next best thing and traced the trail all the way to the minister’s door and, then basically, said to the reader of that report: ‘You decide. You decide whether or not the minister had a hand in dishing out that Toyota’.
The response from government: ‘Oh, we need a new Ombudsman act, we better get rid of this one’. They got rid of that one, and got the new Ombudsman, who has proven to be, in my opinion, an excellent Ombudsman in her forthrightness and courage in her position. Who can forget that crowning moment of that Estimates Committee, when the new Ombudsman was sitting next to the new Chief Minister, and the Chief Minister was assuring Territorians that the Ombudsman was well funded, and then the new Ombudsman said: ‘Well, actually no, I am not, and it is going to take $150 000 to clear the decks on the backlog of cases I have’. For those of us who witnessed it, you could have cut the air with a knife. ‘Oh my God, we got rid of the critical Ombudsman and what did we get back, a critical Ombudsman’.
The new Ombudsman has proven to be courageous in the work that she does. Even most recently as late last year, we got to see the courage of her work. Whilst I confess to raising my eyebrows at her use of adjectives in the particular report I refer to - the matter of the security in the paediatrics unit - the language was quite un-Ombudsman-like but, nevertheless, it was probably a measure of her exasperation with what was going on.
One of the shortcomings, I still believe, of the system that we have here in the Northern Territory is that we seem to forget that the Ombudsman is an officer of the Northern Territory parliament, not an officer of the government. Why an Ombudsman’s negative report still has to be forwarded directly to a minister of the Crown is quite beyond me. Whilst I appreciate that there should be fair warning of a negative report, or any report for a minister of the Crown, I would prefer, in the future, to see a system where the Ombudsman’s report goes directly to you, Madam Speaker, and that the minister of the Crown is also advised. The minister of the Crown has certain legislative capacity to sit on the report for as long as it suits them, within a particular time frame. Whilst the minister who received that last Ombudsman’s report was at pains to point out that he chose not to hold it over until after the Christmas period, he certainly waited until the Thursday - if memory serves me, I could be corrected - of those sittings to table that report, after having sat on it for four days. He gets the heads up before anyone else. How does that work when the Ombudsman is an officer of the parliament?
This dates back, by the way, to the former government; this arrangement is not new. I have some concerns about that because, as far as I can see, there should be a capacity for the Ombudsman to at least not be vetted, stopped, or delayed in reporting to this House by dint of a legislative instrument because it suits the government of the day, whichever that may be.
I will return quickly to the issue of tenure - I have strayed a little. The issue of tenure is that we still have a capacity for a government to truncate, if you like, an Ombudsman’s tenure. Our Ombudsman has been on board for three or four years, so she has only has a few years to run and then she is gone, under these arrangements. Under the old arrangements that predate the ‘let us get rid of Peter Boyce arrangements’, there was another approach. The Ombudsman was an officer of the parliament, and their tenure was until they retired. The only way that you could get rid of an Ombudsman, under the original arrangements, was for the government, the Chief Minister, or a member of this House to come in and justify to the House why an Ombudsman’s tenure should be stopped. That gave a real security to the Ombudsman because it would have to be done publicly. There is no way to avoid a motion of this House being done in the public arena and, consequently, a minister or government seeking to get rid of an Ombudsman would have to state the reasons why.
This is the same mechanism by which you get rid of a High Court judge at the federal level. There are very good reasons to get rid of a person from a High Court before their tenure is up. They may go mad or be incapacitated by some other problem. There might be any number of issues when the removal of such a person would be justified. But the removal would have to be done by the majority of the House, locked in step behind the decision to remove that individual.
I prefer that system. Whilst it is not reflected in the current legislative instrument before this House, it is something that I would like to see revisited at some point in the future. If we truly want to demonstrate to Territorians that we have an open, honest, and accountable system - something often promised but little performed by this government - then, I believe, a vehicle of that nature would be a whole lot more confidence inspiring than a government which is prepared to change the rule of tenure-ship quickly, with the passage of a few years. If the government chooses to be really grumpy at an Ombudsman, they might find another reason to reintroduce a new tenure system. There is no comfort in that. The argument will come from government, ‘Well, it is fixed in legislation’. Well, the government changes legislation when it sees fit.
Why not have a system by which tenure is a matter for this House to consider, not a matter for the executive arm of government to determine on a day-to-day basis?
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will address some of the comments that members have made.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for this bill, and a very considered contribution in the second reading debate. This bill has been a long time in development and, as he said, it has been a real and genuine attempt to strike a balance between the requirement for the Ombudsman to have significant powers regarding the capacity to investigate complaints, not only in delivery of services and decisions by government agencies, but also in complaints against police.
As this bill has been developed, it has seen a significant amount of toing and froing within government and between police and the Department of the Chief Minister, which had oversight in putting this bill together over some years. I believe that, finally, the right balance has been struck. I have been Police minister for quite a few years on and off and, as Police minister, have been a part of this internal toing and froing.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition regarding the powers of the Ombudsman to scrutinise complaints and run investigations on complaints against the police. It is a fine line between demonstrating confidence from the parliament and the government in our police force and demonstrating that to the men and women who serve in our police force; vis--vis the ability for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against the police. There are some fine technical issues around that. It is a debate that has been long and significantly debated. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition; I have also met with the Police Association on several occasions about this and, obviously, the commissioner and his executive team; and there is a general agreement now that this is a significant improvement to the process.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and his acknowledgement that this has been a genuine effect, in not only updating, modernising, and bringing into place contemporary legislation that will better meet the needs of Territorians; it is also one of balance. Not everyone got what they wanted out of this, but I believe we have found the right fulcrum.
Member for Nelson, I thank you for your support for the bill. I know he did receive a very detailed briefing on the bill and there were many questions. I agree with the member for Nelson that this is very important legislation. It is about protecting the interests of Territory citizens regarding the actions of, and decisions made by, government agencies and the behaviour of the Northern Territory Police who enforce the law of the Northern Territory.
It is a very important bill. I know the member for Nelson has a number of committee stage amendments that I look forward to working through with him. He raised some issues that will be raised in more detail in the committee stage.
The issues the Ombudsman identified in her annual report regarding complaints against police are picked up in this legislation, I believe. The Ombudsman now has complete oversight and supervisory authority over the conduct of an investigation and can request that an investigation be conducted in a particular way; previously, she did not have complete oversight and supervisory authority. This oversight and supervisory authority means the Ombudsman can request, at any time, that the Commissioner of Police provide an update on the progress of an investigation or inspect any documents in the possession or the control of police that are relevant to the investigation. At the end of the day, in the response to the investigation, it is up to the Ombudsman to determine what documents are released and what reports are released. I believe the concerns have been picked up in the drafting of this bill.
Minister for Families and Children, I acknowledge that this legislation has not been significantly overhauled since self-government in 1978, and we have endeavoured to craft legislation that is best practice and reflects contemporary practice. It does not give every power that the Ombudsman was seeking, but I believe it effects the right balance.
The minister talked about the outcomes that we are seeking in this legislation as legislators in the Northern Territory. It is not only a grievance mechanism, an investigation and a complaints process; it is about leading to improvements of treatment of Territorians in services that government agencies provide, and also ensuring that when mistakes are made - and they are made; we have any number of Question Times in here in regard to the health system and, in any health system where complex medical and clinical care is provided and treatment is provided to individuals, there are going to be mistakes made - they are investigated and we learn from them. That is a critical role of the Ombudsman and that is strengthened in this legislation.
In regard to the Ombudsman being more widely understood in the services that are provided, there is an opportunity now, with the shire structures in place, for the Office of the Ombudsman to provide education through the shires on what the Ombudsman does and how it can be accessed. We support that aspiration to work through the shires to get the message out there that the Ombudsman is there to receive complaints from all Territorians.
Then, in waltzed the member for Port Darwin. I thought that the opposition was supporting this legislation. The member for Port Darwin said he does not support the seven-year tenure. He did outline, quite appropriately, the argument for a seven-year tenure. I am not going to repeat it, but it is the policy intent that a fixed one-off seven-year appointment will remove any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political influence. The Ombudsman is coming up to a five-year clock and the interest rates have gone up and the mortgage is getting a bit tough, ‘I might have to run soft on the government so I can get that renewed appointment’. A one-off seven-year appointment removes any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political influence. Why the member for Port Darwin would not support it is quite bizarre.
He then went on to talk about the Ombudsman maybe having a lifetime appointment. I believe that, in every area of public office, it is important from time to time to turn people over. If you have the same person in the job for 20 years - well, goodness gracious me, I do not know that I would like to live in a world where we have people who have ultimate and supreme independence and authority, for 20 or 30 years in the same job. I do not believe that brings any new clarity, thinking, or objectivity to the powers that people have …
Mr Elferink: Justice Thomas is on the way out according to you. Justice Thomas has no objectivity, is that what you are suggesting?
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin just cannot help himself. I listened to him in silence, Madam Speaker. I listened to him in silence; I expect the same respect.
There is a totally different set of circumstances for the judiciary than for the Ombudsman. However, I am not going to engage in those debates. If you look around Australia, regarding the terms of appointments of Ombudsmen, there is a range. To bring this into line with the Auditor-General - both are statutory appointments by the parliament, which report to the parliament - and to bring those terms into sync, seems to make common sense, and removes any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political interference. The member for Port Darwin acknowledged that, but then went and spoke against it in a totally contradictory manner.
I thank honourable members for their support. I also acknowledge many people, over quite some years now, including current public service officials who have worked very hard on this bill. It has been a long process that has led us to this point, where we are in this parliament with very important legislation that protects the interests of Territorians. To have arrived at this point and achieved contemporary practice legislation has been a very significant body of work. I thank everyone involved and all honourable members for their support of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Ombudsman Bill 2008 (Serial 25).
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, may I raise a matter before we get into the business of this? First, it is to acknowledge two things: (1) is the amount of work that has gone into the project we have before us; and (2) the amount of work that the member for Nelson has put into the amendments. In order to finish this off well, I believe we need a little more time to consider these amendments, as they were only brought before us today.
Some of them may not comply as they have not been through Parliamentary Counsel. I am requesting that we give support for a motion to postpone the consideration of committee stages of this bill until a later hour, so that we can give proper consideration to the important matters that the member for Nelson is bringing before us, and we can ensure that we have closed the door on this and completed the job. It has been a long process. I am only asking for a little longer, so that it can go through Parliamentary Counsel, then we can give it our consideration.
I seek leave to move a motion to postpone our consideration of committee stages of this bill until a later hour.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted?
Mr HENDERSON: May I speak in responding ‘no’, just before we get into the committee stages?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! The vote has been taken. You cannot speak when a vote has already been taken on a motion.
Ms Lawrie: No, you can speak at the start of committee stage, if you want to be so precious. Do you want to gag the Chief Minister?
Mr ELFERINK: No. There is no question before the Chair at the moment. The question has been put, the vote has been taken, and he is on his feet.
Madam CHAIR: I have not ruled on the vote, member for Port Darwin. The noes have it.
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. For my call, I would have expected there would have been a ruling from the Chair if the call was asked for.
Madam CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as whole?
Mr WOOD: No, do not take it as whole.
Mr HENDERSON: Do you want to move through it clause by clause?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I apologise that these amendments came in late, but I might have been worn out from reading the bill. I put these amendments forward as sensible amendments. The first two amendments will, hopefully, not be too difficult for people to understand. The other ones may be a little harder.
In relation to clause 10, when you read the budget papers, in page 23 of this 2008-09 Budget Paper, it talks about the objectives of the Ombudsman and the commission. One of those objectives is to promote access to and awareness of the roles of the Ombudsman and the commission.
That role is also mentioned in the Ombudsman’s 2007-08 Report on page 11, where the Ombudsman talked about the number of access and awareness visits. I believe it was also raised at the Estimates Committee. It seems to me that if you do not put that in the act, under the functions and powers, you are leaving out a very important role and function of the Ombudsman.
I have said that, to ensure this important role is put into the legislation so there is no misunderstanding of the role of the Ombudsman, we insert after (e):
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, for the public record, even if the member for Port Darwin did not want to hear the reason, other people will be reading the Parliamentary Record of this debate. The reason that the government did not support the proposed motion to defer this committee stage debate to further consider the amendments as moved by the member for Nelson is as follows.
It was not out of any churlish attempt to not give more consideration, but the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson do not give rise to any significant issues in the bill, they do not go to any of the policy intent of the legislation, and they are mostly around administrative process and timing issues. The amendments the member has prepared are clearly written and are understandable; therefore, the government sees that it is important to continue with this bill today. The advice that I have is that Parliamentary Counsel would not be adding any more value to the amendments that have been proposed by the member for Nelson.
I just wanted to clear up why the government did not agree to the motion to defer the committee stage. We think they can and should be dealt with this evening, and, for the public record, that was the reason.
In regards to the proposed amendment to clause 10 of the bill, I understand the intent of what the member for Nelson is proposing. The Office of the Ombudsman, as opposed to the Ombudsman as an entity in itself, does have a role in promoting the services of the Ombudsman to the community of the Northern Territory, and there has been an expanded effort in that area over recent years. I am aware that the Ombudsman is keen to see that role expand.
This particular clause talks about the function of the Ombudsman, as an entity in itself; that is, to investigate and deal with complaints about administrative actions of public authorities and to consider the administrative practices and procedures of public authorities that are being investigated or dealt with on complaint, and so on.
This part of the act goes to the powers and the functions of the entity which is the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, which is the agency which supports that, has the responsibility for promoting the role of the Ombudsman. On advice, it is not really appropriate to have that particular responsibility as part of the entity of the Ombudsman in itself. It is acknowledged that it is part of the role of the office to get out there and promote it, and there have been increased efforts over the last few years to that effect. There was no reference to the Ombudsman as an entity having a responsibility for promoting the role of Ombudsman in the previous legislation.
I am not trying to be difficult, member for Nelson, but it is just the way the legislation has been crafted; that responsibility lies with the office to do that. It is implicit. It is part of the budget process every year, regarding that agency having budget line items for promotion, and that will continue into the future.
Motion negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 46, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 47:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I hope that all MLAs support this one, because in the previous act, the Ombudsman would notify the local MLA in relation to a matter, I believe, in their electorate. This has been removed in the new act and I have not been really given any substantial reason. There does not appear to be much said about it when the bill was introduced, just that it was removed. I believe there are times when it is important that the local MLA is at least notified that there is an investigation in his electorate.
I know that does add a little more burden to the role of the Ombudsman, but I believe it is also important that local members are aware of any issues in their electorate, whether it is relating to the police, the local council or a department that perhaps has been operating in that area. I feel there was an oversight, or perhaps it was deliberately removed, but I believe it is something that should be put back into this new bill.
As I have it, inserting an extra clause 47(d) is in relation to the Ombudsman giving notice to the local member of the Legislative Assembly, if the complaint is related to a matter within the member’s electorate.
I hope that one will get some support because we are all MLAs and it was something that was, at times, beneficial in the old act.
Mr HENDERSON: It was really interesting when I saw your amendments come around, member for Nelson. It took me back to my induction briefing, when I was elected as an MLA in 1999, and part of that induction was a briefing on the roles and powers of the Ombudsman. It was highlighted in the briefing that the Ombudsman was required to notify the local member in regard to any investigation they may be conducting on behalf of a complaint by someone in your electorate. I was not aware of that, obviously, as when you come to this job you are not aware of many things it entails.
When your proposed amendment came around, I remembered that clause in the old bill. For nine years of being a local member, I have never had anything referred to me by the Ombudsman in relation to the clause in the existing bill. On one occasion, a constituent come to me with a complaint that had been forwarded to the Ombudsman, and was also very keen, when the Ombudsman had completed the complaint, to come back and bring me the results of that - to see, if the complaint was not upheld, whether there was anywhere else, as a local member and as a minister in government, I could take that particular issue. It was around the procurement process.
At that time, I had questions for the Ombudsman in regard to the results of the investigation; the report that was presented to my constituent, and had an opportunity to talk to the Ombudsman about how she came to her conclusions and to discuss that. There was a full and frank discussion because the approval and authorisation of the constituent was given. The issue was not resolved to the constituent’s ultimate satisfaction, but he understood why the decision was made. That did not come to me from the Ombudsman; it came to me from the constituent.
In responding this evening, the advice I have, that seems to make sense, is that this position differs in every jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions require notice of an investigation to be provided to the principal officer of the public authority or department, and the responsible minister. In other jurisdictions, there is no requirement to notify the responsible minister. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction that required the Ombudsman to notify the MLA in whose electorate the complainant resided about the intention to conduct an investigation. We were out there on our own.
I have not done a poll of my colleagues. The provision may have been in the bill; however, I do not believe that, in nine years of being the member for Wanguri, none of my constituents have made a complaint to the Ombudsman, because I know quite a number have. It was a provision that was not, in practice, put into place for whatever reason. Ultimately, the Ombudsman is responsible to the parliament, not to us as members individually - responsible to the parliament. Through the provision of the Ombudsman’s ability to report to this parliament, all of us, as members of parliament, have access to those reports, not just individuals.
In essence, we were, even with 30-year-old legislation, out of step with every other jurisdiction. I do not believe it was a provision that, for whatever reason, was complied with - not only with the current Ombudsman but previous Ombudsmen. Ultimately, the policy intent is that the Ombudsman is responsible to this parliament, not to us individually as MLAs. I understand the intent of the amendment, to keep in place in this legislation what was in the previous legislation but, on consideration, the previous legislation was not, for whatever reason, providing us, as MLAs, with copies of every investigation that the Ombudsman made on behalf of constituents. Parliament is the supreme and ultimate authority, and the Ombudsman is free to put any report into this parliament that they see fit.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, just because we are the only ones who have it, does not mean we should not have it; we are more advanced.
My amendment did not say every matter that related to a person in an electorate should be notified to the local member, but only if it related to a matter within the member’s electorate. I tried to narrow it. You might have lots of people with complaints to the Ombudsman, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the electorate. That is why I tried to hone that down. It could be issues about Power and Water in your electorate. It could be issues about Darwin City Council or the Litchfield Shire in your electorate. That is what I was getting at.
I have been notified about an issue that was related to my electorate, but it also dealt with a bigger issue. I know there is probably nothing stopping the Ombudsman writing to an MLA, regardless of whether it is in the bill, to let you know that there is an investigation; simply for your own information. However, as you know, we live in fairly small electorates, and many of these things come back to us in some form or another. I did not see any reason for it being taken out in the first place. Even though it may not be used very often, I thought it was a handy thing to have there, to let the local MLA know what is going on. Obviously, if government does not support that, I will live with that, but I am sad that it has been taken out of this bill.
Mr HENDERSON: In concluding debate on this particular issue, the other point here would be one of privacy. I can think of all sorts of issues that our constituents may want referred to the Ombudsman for investigation but, for whatever reason, would not want referred to the local member of parliament. To have a provision in the legislation that requires the Ombudsman to do that would be contradictory to the privacy principles. At the end of the day, I understand where you are coming from. I do not believe it was working in practice in the old bill, and there is no reason that, even if it was retained in the new bill, we would see any practical implementation. It is the privacy issues, where members of the community would want to go to the Ombudsman, knowing that the issues being raised are totally confidential.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 54, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 55:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my comments here will probably relate to the other clauses I have, clauses 55, 63, and 104. I do have a query on clause 172. In dealing with clause 55, to save me repeating myself three times, because it is the same argument for each one, I will now put the arguments for these amendments.
When I read clause 55, it is headed:
It says that, basically, a public authority, if it does not want to comply with that direction that has been issued, can do so. It says in clause 55(5)(a):
And then, in (b):
Clauses 63 and 104 are similar, except clause 63 refers to an action by the authority, and clause 104 refers to the commissioner.
My feeling, having read that, is where does that leave us? The answer I received in the briefing was that the minister would table a report that the Ombudsman would give to the minister which would highlight this particular fact. The minister would have to table it and you would hope that someone would pick up that there was a disagreement between the authority and the Ombudsman.
When I was reading minister Vatskalis’ report on the Ombudsman’s report for 2007-08, he said that, during 2007-08, the Ombudsman also undertook inspection of the Northern Territory police records to report on the compliance with the legislation protecting the rights of citizens when surveillance devices are used and when telephone communications are intercepted. A report was provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 18 September 2008. The report identified that the Northern Territory Police were not complying with some aspects of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. I have not heard any debate about that, I must admit. Perhaps we have not finished with the Ombudsman’s report. That report would have been tabled and, in theory, we should have picked that up and there should have been a question. What is happening? I feel that someone has to make a decision and the person at the top of the pile, you might say, is the minister.
In this case, clause 55(5)(b), the minister basically tables it. My amendments add to this as follows:
(c) in relation to (b) the minister must, when tabling the report, make a decision as to whether he or she will require the principal officer to
either comply or not comply with the Ombudsman’s request.
And then (d):
(d) in relation to (c) the minister must state his or her reasons for the decision.
Madam Chair, in this, I am saying that there is a dispute between the Ombudsman and either the public authority or the commissioner and it has reached a stalemate. I thought that to bring this process to a conclusion, it would be better for the minister to say whether he agrees with the public authority, and require the public authority to do what the Ombudsman has directed - and the same for the commissioner. I do not know what happens then. Is it a matter of public pressure on the minister to require the public authority to comply with the Ombudsman or does it just die, so nothing comes from that?
I am looking to these amendments to find a practical solution to an impasse between either the public authority and the Ombudsman or the commissioner and the Ombudsman.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I know that these three clauses have been put together in terms of similar amendments; clause 55(5), clause 63 and clause 104(3).
Regarding the issue of transparency and ministerial accountability, I understand where the member is coming from. The fact that the Ombudsman is accountable to the parliament, and any report made by the Ombudsman is required to be tabled in the parliament, gives that report parliamentary scrutiny. In parliamentary scrutiny, there is the opportunity for any member of parliament to ask questions about the issues raised in that report, during Question Time processes, procedural motions in the House, questions on notice, or by seeking a briefing from the minister regarding a response to any report before the House that has recommendations.
Whilst the bill does not expressly state that a responsible minister is required to specify a time frame for action to commence or provide reasons for making a decision in relation to recommendations and findings made in the report, the minister is, ultimately, accountable for following through, with the chief executive of the departments, the recommendations and findings in the report. We have seen in this House, even under the existing legislation - which is must less transparent and precise than the legislation we are currently debating - that when the Ombudsman’s reports come to this parliament they do receive significant parliamentary scrutiny and, on occasion, are the subject of intense debate. I can recall any number of occasions when that has occurred. I understand where the member is trying to get to, but I argue that the minister is accountable, under the legislation as it stands, to respond to the parliament, if the parliament seeks a response from the minister. The fact is that the information is publicly available, and the minister is ultimately accountable.
Member for Nelson, picking up on the issues regarding the Ombudsman’s oversight of the powers that police have in telecommunications intercept, that report was tabled in the House and I can say, because you are asking a question, ipso facto, that I did direct the Police Commissioner to implement the recommendations. I did not really have to direct him because he was doing so, anyway. I do not see there is a requirement to have an express provision in the legislation, as drafted by the member for Nelson, that requires the minister - from reading the proposed amendments, that the minister must - when tabling the report, make a decision as to whether he or she will require the principal officer to either comply or not comply with the Ombudsman’s request.
The time between the minister receiving the report and the requirements under the act to table it in the House may be a few short days. It may be a very complex issue that has been raised by the Ombudsman that will take some time to work through for an ultimate decision; and requiring there and then the minister to direct either comply or not comply, may not be practical, feasible or desirable, given the gravity and the complexity of the report that comes to the House.
I understand what you are trying to do, member for Nelson. However, I do believe that it is unnecessary, because the fact that the report has been tabled means that the minister is available for scrutiny and for questioning on the actions of the minister in ensuring that the recommendations are either implemented or not implemented and the reasons for non-implementation. I also point out that, in updating and upgrading this legislation which has been through an intense process to bring forward contemporary legislation, all Ombudsman’s acts around Australia were looked at and this legislation has been benchmarked against other Ombudsman’s acts, and this is very much contemporary legislation. This express provision for the minister to respond at the time of tabling is not in any other legislation around Australia.
I understand what you are trying to achieve, but I argue that the fact that the report is tabled in the House for everybody to see means that the minister is, ultimately, accountable for decisions as to the implementation of those recommendations or not.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister, I appreciate that explanation. I accept that there could be problems, as you say, with complicated legislation. I am trying to get rid of what appears to be a stalemate with the Ombudsman’s authority or when the Ombudsman and the commissioner simply do not agree.
I highlight that I will have to wait and see if a case does occur to see how the process works, and I am happy to do that. It was important to highlight this issue because, in some way, you say the Ombudsman has the power but, in these three cases, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make the final decision. I will wait and see how the act goes, and if there is a case where there are issues relating to clauses 55(5), 63 or 104(3) which come back to the Legislative Assembly. Hopefully, I see it. We will see how it works in practice. I accept what you are saying, Chief Minister, and I will not be commenting on the next two clauses. However, I have a small problem with clause 172, Madam Chair.
Mr HENDERSON: To conclude these three separate amendments, I will also look at this moving forward. I pick up the point about a stalemate between the chief executive of a department and the Ombudsman regarding a particular issue, recommendation, or point of difference. Ultimately, the minister does have to make a decision in the direction that the minister may choose to make. It will be interesting to see, as report comes forward, how often there is a stalemate. I cannot recall that there has been; it happens on very few occasions. Most times, when the Ombudsman’s report comes around, agencies say what they have done to rectify those issues.
I pick up on a comment that you made, member for Nelson, about the Ombudsman having the power to make the decisions. Ultimately, decisions rest with ministers. The Ombudsman can make recommendations and can conduct an investigation in an independent and transparent way. However, the Ombudsman cannot require certain things to be done and can only make recommendations because, in the Westminster system, ultimately, the government of the day and ministers are accountable. If stalemates do come to the table, ultimately, the minister is accountable to try to resolve those. We will keep an eye on it. If this issue is highlighted in the future, then I will be open to an amendment as you suggest. It has been an interesting position that you have put forward and we will keep a close eye on it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I accept what you are saying, Chief Minister. The Ombudsman gives a direction or makes a recommendation hoping the authority or the police take them up. The problem is when they do not take the direction and they do not take up the recommendation. That is when you reach a stalemate.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 55 to 104 agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you had question on clause 172.
Mr WOOD: I have a query in relation to clause 172. Do you want to move to that point first?
Clauses 104 to 171, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 172:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, this clause says, and this is a technical comment:
Before Part 4, Division 3
insert
49C
referring to the Information Act. When I turn to the Information Act, there is section 49A, there is no section 49B. Maybe there is something missing there, but section 49C is inserted when there is no section 49B.
Mr Henderson: Member for Nelson, can you go through that again, sorry?
Mr WOOD: In clause 172, and it is referring to the Information Act, it says:
Before Part 4, Division 3
insert
49C
When I go to the Information Act I find there is section 49A, there is no section 49B, but we are aiming to insert section 49C. I do not know whether there needs to be a change there. Can someone tell me where section 49B is?
Mr HENDERSON: This is a technical issue in drafting of legislation, and I wish that the officer in the box could stand and answer the question, member for Nelson. This is how this legislation intertwines with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the whistleblower’s legislation which comes into effect and operation on 1 July, and its integration with the Information Commissioner’s legislation. The advice I have is that section 49B, which is currently missing from that act, will be inserted as a result of the commencement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act on 1 July, which will then allow this section 49C to operate. That is the best I can do. Did I get that right?
Mr WOOD: I thought I was going to get one amendment through, and I did not know it was going to be such a complicated answer to beat me. I accept that explanation, Chief Minister. Anyone reading that would say that something has gone wrong but, obviously, there is an explanation to everything when it comes to parliamentary drafting of legislation. I will leave it at that.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim and I have give my approval to this definite matter of public importance.
Is the matter of public importance supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this definite matter of public importance.
We have heard yesterday and today much talk about the global financial crisis; what it means for Australia and some of the areas that we might look at to address some of the impacts that will occur in the Northern Territory and around Australia. The Chief Minister and the Prime Minister have made much of this and they have said that they will, if I get this right, turn every stone to save every single job that they possibly can. I have a chuckle to myself at times and I have often said that you should not listen to what they say; you should look at what they do.
That is a case in point in relation to the McArthur River Mine. There has been a reprehensible lack of support from this government to see the McArthur River Mine operation continue. It has been an absolute shambles of a story involving the neglect of jobs, community services, the rights of traditional owners, and basic infrastructure. All the way through, in recent months at least, this debacle the Territory government has buried its head in the sand and said ‘nothing to do with us’.
I provide a little history, Madam Speaker. The McArthur River Mine, in some ways, could be described as one of those great Labor achievements. The McArthur River Mine, in many ways, is the baby of former Prime Minister Paul Keating and his Parliamentary Secretary at the time, Laurie Brereton. They were very much instrumental in getting that mine started, along with Territory politicians Barry Coulter and Eric Poole; to see that mine kick off and start operating. It held great promise and, for a long time, that mine was one of the great mining jewels in the crown of the Northern Territory.
It has been estimated that the mine contributed somewhere between 4% and 6% of gross state product at times. It has employed hundreds of workers. It has put millions of dollars to local contractors and businesses. They contribute millions of dollars into a community benefits account. It was really starting to look like a jewel in the crown of the Territory mining industry.
Last year, the McArthur River Mine won the National Mine of the Year Award, and it won the country’s highest metallurgy award that could be offered. That mine provided hope, aspirations, and opportunities that had never existed in that community before the mine was set up.
Then have a look at where we are now. It is a very dicey situation because the future of the mine rests in the hands of former Midnight Oil front man, now the federal Environment minister who, ultimately, has the choice to decide whether that mine continues. I hope and pray for the Territory, for the people out in the Borroloola region that Mr Midnight Oil can make the right decision and try to somehow revive the mine.
After all, we have something like 300 workers who have been stood down without pay, who are waiting to find out whether they are going to have a job. We have a whole community which has come to rely on the benefits of the Community Benefits Fund, and we have a whole range of businesses, both mainstream and, in particular, Indigenous businesses, in that community which rely on that mine for work.
Probably the most notable one is the barge service which takes the processed ore from the Bing Bong port to the ship. That barge is 35% owned by the local Indigenous people. All are now up in the air as to what the future holds. It breaks my heart - having been out there a week-and-a-half or two weeks ago with the member for Katherine, talking to local traditional owners, local business people, and looking at the mine - to see what will be lost to the Territory if things do not happen.
What happened with the mine? It was a good mine; it was a nice Territory mine. But the mine found a couple of years ago that, in order to maximise the benefit of the mine to the community and to guarantee its life into the future, the mine needed to expand and, at the same time, divert 5 km to 6 km of the McArthur River in order to make an open cut pit which would have turned that nice, local mine, to some extent, into a world-class mining asset. That is what it is now. There are 50 years life in that mine, which makes it an extremely important mine in global terms and what it could do for the Territory.
I believe that when that decision was made, things started to go bad for Xstrata, the operator of the McArthur River Mine. That is when the Northern Land Council saw an opportunity that they could finally get an agreement with the mine by trying to stifle the river diversion. By opposing the expansion they thought they would get an agreement.
When I talk about an agreement, many mines in the Territory on Aboriginal land have to go through a process to get approval and they have to have an agreement with the relevant land council. When those agreements are made, inevitably, there is a flow of royalty equivalent to affected land councils, Indigenous people locally, and also to the Aboriginal Benefits Account. The way that is split up is 40% of the royalty equivalents go to the land council; 30% of the royalty equivalents go directly to the local people who are affected by the mining or the venture, and the other 30% goes into the Aboriginal Benefits Account.
An agreement had been made with local traditional owners. I am reliably informed that the monies that were paid into the Community Benefits Account, which was set up by Xstrata and the local community, were about the equivalent of what would be paid in royalties to Indigenous organisations. Last year, I understand, it was around $1.35m. That Community Benefits Account invests in things right around the Borroloola region for the benefit of the Borroloola people - 100% of that money goes into the Borroloola community in some way, shape or form.
This is what it is about for the NLC, because the NLC see that 100% of the money is going into the Borroloola community. However, if they can strike an agreement over royalties, 40% of the royalties will go to the NLC, 30% of them will go into the Aboriginal Benefit Account - of which the NLC has quite a major say in how that money is expended - and only 30% of the money will remain in the Borroloola community. That is what is driving the NLC through this whole sordid story: the fact that they want their slice, they are not happy with 100% of the money going into the Borroloola community.
That is what started the NLC court action. When they started to lobby local people, in particular, the Aboriginal aristocracy in the area and around the Territory, they all seemed to fall in line. That is when this whole thing turned into a complete debacle because they recruited, as I say, some fairly high profile members of the Indigenous community to their cause - most notably, the member for Arnhem, who has never visited the mine and who, I am reliably informed, has never been out to see the river diversion or done a tour of the mine. I am reliably informed that a vast majority of members on the other side of this Chamber have never got out and actually had a look at the McArthur River Mine or the river diversion. However, they fell into line.
The court case was started, and the Environment minister at the time, and her department, were found to have erred in their decision. The Northern Territory government, led by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, decided to ratify that mine into Territory government legislation. I support that decision, because that is what needed to be done. Interestingly enough, this just tore the government apart. We saw three members of the government cross the floor. We saw the minister, who was responsible for the stuff-up in the first place, absent herself from the vote …
Members interjecting.
Ms Scrymgour: Look at your federal colleague, you dipstick!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: She has already withdrawn, member for Katherine.
Mr TOLLNER: The Environment minister had disappeared; it had torn the Labor Party apart so much that it was the single biggest factor in why the Chief Minister was knifing shortly after.
Another little aside about this was that the person who drafted the legislation at the time was the then Solicitor-General, Tom Pauling, who did a great job in drafting that legislation and having it available for the parliament. He was, I believe, justly rewarded, and I support his appointment as the Administrator ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is an outrageous assertion by the member for Fong Lim, and asserts corruption on the part of the appointment of the Administrator. I demand that he withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Member for Fong Lim, I think that is a very extreme …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw and also to apologise to the House. It is a very extreme comment, thank you.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw and to apologise to the House.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, to keep you happy. I am sorry to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: I support the appointment of Tom Pauling as the Administrator of the Northern Territory ...
A member: That is all he said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, that whole debacle has left a sour taste in the mouths of all Labor politicians in the Territory. They ran to an election after that. They were convincingly walloped, barely managing to hang on to government, all stemming from the fact that they decided to knife the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, over this horrendous case of falling into line with some misguided loyalty, for some of the friends that they have in the Northern Land Council.
Whilst the Territory government did the right thing, they had the mine ratified into the legislation. The Commonwealth did not. The Commonwealth picked up what the Territory government had sent through, it followed the same processes, but failed to ratify the mine into legislation. The court case then took on a different angle. The NLC was pushing the federal government, by taking the federal government to court and, ultimately, winning that case. That happened on 15 December last year - absolutely appalling. From the time that the Chief Minister had the knife stuck in her back, the Territory Labor government turned its back on the McArthur River Mine.
So much to the point that the Opposition Leader asked a question of the Chief Minister, on 21 October last year, about royalty payments that were paid to the NT government and the government being asked to refund them because there had been no power at the mine site for some time because of a lack of support from Power and Water and the Territory government. The Chief Minister at the time, bearing in mind that this is a mine that counts for some 4% to 6% of the Territory’s gross state product, said that he did not have a clue what the Opposition Leader was talking about, that he would need further advice, and sat down.
Following that particular Question Time, I wrote a letter to the mine’s General Manager, Mr Ettienne Moller, asking him to clarify the arrangements that they have with Power and Water and what impact the lack of power supply was having on the mine. I will table that letter, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you need to seek leave to table a letter.
Mr TOLLNER: I have a couple of letters. Can I seek to table this letter?
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: In response, Madam Speaker, I received a letter from the General Manager, who advised me exactly what the impacts were. I will quote a little from it, but I seek leave to table this letter as well.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: He said:
He then went on to outline some of the costs to the mine, most notable of which is the $6m of lost sales revenue and several million dollars in costs for hiring generators and trucking diesel out to Borroloola.
It has been disgusting the way the Territory government has acted through this whole fiasco. It is a shame that I am out of time because I have quite a bit more to say on this particular matter. I believe it is disgusting; the Territory government should hang its head in shame. They have bought this whole situation on themselves, and on Territorians, and they have done nothing to support the case for the McArthur River Mine and its continued operation into the future.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I speak to the matter of public importance. I believe it is important that the public realises what a lot of rubbish the member for Fong Lim just said: how many untruths, assumptions and assertions he made; and how he tried to link, somehow, the drafting of legislation to the appointing of the Administrator, which is extraordinary. Not only that, he has total ignorance of how the system works, how things happen, and how things like energy are provided in the McArthur River Mine ...
A member interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: It took him a while to discover the McArthur River Mine. I went there about four years ago. I went underground 800 m when it was still operating as an underground mine. I have visited the mine, I walked through the mine because I have a strong interest in the mine.
We all know how important McArthur River Mine is. It is one of the biggest zinc ore bodies in the world - lead and silver deposits - and commenced mining operations in 1995. We know that the mine is significant to the Territory and the Australian economies. In the Territory it provides $175m to our gross state product per annum. The prediction is that when the mine is fully operational it will generate $329m per annum for the Territory and $503m a year for the Australian economy. We understand the importance of the mine for the Territory economy, and I know that the Commonwealth government understands the importance of the mine on the national economy.
On the other hand, there are differences of opinion. We know that traditional owners, well before any court case was taken - I recall watching some programs on television - opposed the diversion of the river on their own cultural grounds ...
A member: Rubbish.
Mr VATSKALIS: I can also say that both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments know the importance of proper process and complying with legislative requirements. Obviously, the member for Fong Lim may have little understanding of proper process or the importance of complying with legislation, but we take those responsibilities seriously.
There is a controversy surrounding the mine, which has arisen because of problems in the process that led to the Commonwealth approving the mine expansion. That is the process undertaken by the member for Fong Lim’s former colleagues in the Coalition government.
I take the opportunity to run past the House the facts surrounding the successful challenge to the former federal minister’s approval of the mine’s open-cut expansion. I believe it is worth noting that the legal challenge first commenced around two years ago, in February 2007. The legal challenge was based on the premise that during the federal minister’s deliberation on whether or not to approve the change from underground to open-cut activities, the federal minister - that is, the Orange Bellied parrot, Ian Campbell - failed to take into account relevant material as part of his decision-making process.
Even Peter Murphy tried to excuse it, because I recall he said that it was not Ian Campbell’s fault. Someone in the bureaucracy photocopied one side of a double-sided page and gave it to the poor minister. If a person gets a book and reads it and does not realise something is missing, that person is a dill - and Ian Campbell was a dill. He approved the expansion, albeit without realising that half of the report was missing. On reading: ‘There is something different here. This sentence does not seem to make sense, but it must be all right; I will approve it’. That was the quality of the Coalition minister ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: I hope he is not your mate; it would be really embarrassing to call him your mate. If Peter Murphy is right, Ian Campbell is not standing on very solid ground.
The legal action started to overturn the federal minister’s approval of the mine extension granted under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, which allowed for a section of the McArthur River Mine to be diverted. On 13 June 2008, just months before the Federal Court found that, whilst the federal minister’s department had not provided him with all the required material – half the pages missing – this did not invalidate the minister’s decision to approve the open-cut project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.
The decision was then appealed by the Northern Land Council. It should be also noted that Justice Mansfield, in his judgment, found that an environmental report prepared by the Northern Territory assessment report 51, relied upon by the federal minister, was, indeed, a valid report. The report provided by the Northern Territory government to the federal minister was a valid report. Pity the minister did not realise that half of his department’s report had not been photocopied. Pity.
On 17 December 2008, the full Federal Court handed down its decision on this matter, finding 2:1 in favour of the Northern Land Council. This meant that the mine would be operating without federal government approval and, as a result, all mining operations were halted. The court ordered the federal minister to remake his decision, this time in accordance with the law.
I stress that this legal action was between the NLC, the federal government, and the mine operator. There was no involvement or nothing against the Northern Territory government. The McArthur River Mine was, and continued to be, approved under the Northern Territory legislation. The Northern Territory government followed due process.
I, and other Northern Territory government ministers, wrote to federal minister Garrett pointing out the importance of the mine to the economies of both the Territory and Australia. Further, my office continues to be in regular contact with the Commonwealth on this highly important matter. On 14 January 2009, minister Garrett travelled to Borroloola, met with the native title claimants, the Northern Land Council, and the mine operator as part of his decision-making process. He stated that he wanted to see the situation for himself and talk to the parties involved.
On 27 January 2009, minister Garrett announced his draft decision to approve the mine’s open-cut process but, under the act, he has to follow certain processes. It required a 10-day circulation period to all ministers that have administrative responsibility, and that period finished last Friday, 6 February 2009.
That was Friday. We had Saturday, nobody works, the 7th, the 8th was Sunday. It was three days after he got back on Monday, that he received the response from the ministers, so it is probably about two days from that time. We now await an announcement by the federal minister of his final decision and we expect this shortly. This will remove uncertainty for the mine operator, the mine workers, the community of Borroloola, and the Northern Territory.
As a parallel process, on 19 January 2009, the mine operator lodged with my department an amendment to its mine management plan, seeking a northward expansion completely away from the existing McArthur River. On the same day, the company also lodged a referral to proposed action notice with the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. Under the Commonwealth legislation, a company needs to seek approval prior to them taking any new activity that could, potentially, affect certain species. That referral - guess what? - immediately triggers a 10-day public notification process which expired on the 4 February and a decision on this matter is expected from the Commonwealth on or before 16 February 2009.
There are certain processes put in place by legislation that have to be followed. You cannot just walk in and say: ‘Here is my application, give me your approval’. The act specifically says how long it will take to notify people to get the referral. We cannot blame the Territory government and some of it on the Commonwealth minister because they acted in accordance with the legislation - something that the previous minister, Ian Campbell, failed to do.
It is worth noting the company could have lodged its amended mine management plan with my department, and its referral of the proposed action with the Commonwealth anytime over the last few months, if it wished to. Instead, lodgement occurred on 19 January, with the company saying that, unless approval was given by 26 January, workers would be stood down and the mine would be placed in care and maintenance: ‘We put it in an application on 19 January and tell you that if you do not approve it after seven days, we are going to close the mine down’. Hello! You have lawyers, you pay them. Did they advise you it would take at least 10 days to circulate and seek that information from the people? I suggest that if they did not tell you, you better get some new lawyers who will advise you how the legal process has to be followed. You throw your money in the wind if you pay lawyers and you get this kind of advice.
The fact is that this problem we face today is a direct result …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been talking to the company …
Mr Bohlin: Did you go and see them?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been talking to the company many times. The company people were in my office, and we discussed all the issues, and we explained to the company the problems they have. I spoke to some people from the company, and the company has been kept fully informed by my department about all the problems within the region.
The final issue is the reason the McArthur River Mine does not operate today is because Ian Campbell stuffed up big time. The reason the McArthur River Mine does not operate is because the Commonwealth minister failed to do what was required to be done by the legislation. The reason for what happened, according to Peter Murphy, was that the minister was a dill and did not realise there was only one page photocopied and the other was not.
It is very interesting to hear about the association of the Community Benefit Fund [inaudible]. Rubbish! The Community Benefit Account was put in place by an agreement between the Northern Territory government and the McArthur River Mine. We demanded that the money stay in Borroloola, and that $1.35m be put in every year for eight years and, then, from then on until the life of the whole life of the mine - $1.25m put into a trust account that can be utilised by people in the Borroloola region by proposing worthwhile projects. I am very pleased to say that a number of projects today have been approved, such as the construction of a crche in Borroloola, the purchase of a concrete batching plant and a concrete mixer by the Robinson River community and many other communities.
Finally, I suggest you better go and find out what the real situation is with the power. I know that the then CLP government obliged the Power and Water Corporation to pay for power that would be generated by private contractor to distribute the power to the mines, to borrow money and to construct a pipeline to convey gas to the private company that would produce the power, and to sell heavily subsidised power to the mine. Under the agreement, Power and Water had no authority or power to instruct or demand the private generating company to maintain their generators - which they did not in the past few months and the mine was left without power. It was not Power and Water’s fault, but the company that generated the power - the company that the CLP government had forced Power and Water to sign an agreement with - failed to fulfil their duty.
Before you stand up and start making all sorts of allegations, I strongly suggest you get your facts together, find out what is really happening, and then stand up and tell us that it is a matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance because the mine is important, but it is also important that the public know that the situation we have today is because of a stuff-up with your mate, Ian Campbell.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this matter of public importance. It is a bit of shame that, so far, the members opposite have completely missed the point that we are trying to get across. It is not surprising to hear in the 10 or so minutes that the member for Casuarina was on his feet, he spent nearly half of that sticking it to the previous federal Environment minister. We can all take cheap shots at previous governments …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: This government is famous for doing it – over the few months that I have been sitting in this House …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: However, I will move along. The member for Fong Lim did expose the reality of this awful situation, and it continues to this day, in relation to the woeful performance of this government and the federal Labor government in dealing with the McArthur River Mine. Much of what was said has created quite a reaction over there. It must have been like sandpaper rasping over their eardrums, and I am sure that when the federal minister, Mr Garrett, hears of this he will also be feeling a little uncomfortable.
Most of what was said today, and the remainder of what I am going to say, are they type of things that the people of the Northern Territory need to hear about. They need to understand some of the background that has kept McArthur River closed for two months now.
The matter of the diversion of the river and expansion of the mine at McArthur River has a long history, although probably not a terribly long history in the mining industry. I am going to address a little of that history. On 4 March 2003, a delegate of the federal minister for Environment deemed it necessary to gain approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the expansion of the mine. That is a detailed process, and I am not going to go into that today, but suffice it to say that the approval was granted by the federal minister on 20 October 2006.
Members opposite are too quick to point out that the decision was made by a minister of the previous federal government; that is, a Coalition government under former Prime Minister, John Howard, and they take swipes at us and we see it ad nauseam in this House, when they refer to the previous CLP government prior to 2001. Unfortunately, in the process of making the decision, there were some administrative bungles which rendered the decision by the then minister to be invalid. To put it into perspective - and I heard what the member for Casuarina had to say about this - it was largely a case of an advisor mucking up some photocopies.
It is easy to go on and revisit this, but we are talking about what is happening at the mine today, and there is probably not a great deal of point dwelling for half my time on what happened in the previous ministry of the federal government. It is important to note that the bungle had nothing to do with environmental issues. Reading the decision by the Federal Court, the environmental issues did not even feature at all in the reasons for making their determination in respect of the appeal.
As a result of all this, the new Environment minister, Peter Garrett, gets to redo the process. The process is basically all done, and all the minister needs to do is to consider, in reality, missing pages from documents that were mucked up previously. However, let us move on from that.
As a result of the Federal Court decision on 17 December 2008, approval of the diversion of the mine is invalid. After more than two years of operation to divert the river and expand the mine, Xstrata finds itself in the position of having to stop mining; they had to stop pulling ore out of the ground. All of a sudden, there are 200 miners out of work as a result of that - simple. At this stage, that is bad, but all is not lost. It is important to point out though, at this point, that because of falling zinc prices and the overall state of the global economy, Xstrata had already been in the process of cutting back the mine’s operations. This was a financial and operational decision that was taken by Xstrata in order to keep the mine operational and viable under the prevailing circumstances. There has been some speculation that Xstrata had intended to fully close the mine and cease operations, and would use the court decision and the Environment minister’s handling of this matter as excuses to do just that. I am advised that this is not the case and that Xstrata had contingency plans in place to cope with the reduced operations of the mine in the current global situation. Any suggestion that Xstrata intended this underhanded deception is a slur on the good reputation of the company and is completely mischievous.
In respect to the operations of the mine after the cessation of mining, there was a stockpile of ore that had already been pulled from the ground. This was capable of maintaining the processing plant for about five or six weeks, albeit that the ore was of a lower grade than normal. This stockpile of ore saved around 100 jobs at the time. Rightly so, Xstrata would have expected the federal minister to make a new decision in a timely fashion. After all, he only had to correct an administrative error.
One would have expected that he could have dealt with this matter in the space of a few short weeks. But now, we wait and wait for the minister’s decision - and we are still waiting nine weeks - and still no word from the Environment minister, Peter Garrett, other than his intention to approve the mine. Unfortunately, the intention to approve the mine does not allow for the mine to continue or start operating again.
I will provide a time line for you. On 17 December was the High Court decision. On 18 December, the member for Arnhem rejoiced over the decision of the courts. This beggars belief. How can a minister of the Crown, a minister of this Northern Territory government, come to a position that severely and negatively impacts on the economy of the Northern Territory? It is reprehensible behaviour - and I know the Chief Minister used that word earlier today – truly is reprehensible behaviour.
On 6 January, I issued a media release calling for the Henderson government to tell Mr Garrett about the importance of the mine. On 7 January, the NT Resources minister, in an interview with the ABC news, said:
The decision will be very, very soon.
That was on 7 January; that is five-and-a-half weeks or so ago. You can take that as you like but, at this stage, Mr Garrett had not even visited the mine. There was some other correspondence over the next week or two. On 14 January, Mr Garrett visited the mine, spoke to traditional owners and the mine operators. I wrote to him again and, as I would have expected from a man of that character, I received no reply whatsoever to any of my correspondence; he could not even afford me the common decency of a reply.
From around that point on, we cannot accuse the NT government of doing anything wrong because, basically, they did nothing. I know the answers to the following questions, so I pose them as rhetorical questions. Since the closure of the mine, since the decision of the High Court, has the NT Resources minister visited the mine? No. Has the Chief Minister visited the mine? No. Has the Environment minister visited the mine? No. Not once, since the court decision, has one NT minister gone to the mine, gone to Borroloola, and given their support and said: ‘Look, we understand the situation, we are doing what we can’. Those people are living in the dark - they are mushrooms - kept in the dark by this government. No one has gone to tell them anything.
In light of that fact, I and the member for Fong Lim decided to make a trip down to Borroloola and to McArthur River. We ended up with a tour of the mine, a briefing. We had a look over the mine site, and we flew over the diversion. We were able to put everything into perspective. We were given a good briefing on how the mine’s operations were travelling. At that stage, there were something like 76 people employed and, by now, which is 10 or 12 weeks later, it would be down to about 35, because the federal minister for Environment has not bothered to make a decision yet.
While we were there we spoke with traditional owners. I want to enter the names of these traditional owners into the Parliamentary Record, and I will explain why. Their names are Billy Coolibah, Ronnie Raggett and Bruce Joy. The reason I am mentioning these names is that these are the top traditional owners of the area. When we talk about areas, we need to talk about the geographical location that these people look after. These men carry the ceremony in that area. These men are happy for the mine to go ahead, they are happy about the diversion, and they are happy for the whole thing to proceed. These men are the men who own the traditional land upon which the mine sits. These are not people from other family groups or clan groups in other parts of the Borroloola region. These are the guys on the ground. These are very important men and it would seem as though the Northern Land Council, in their assertions that traditional owners do not want the mine, have not truly represented the traditional owners who matter; that is, those three people who own the land upon which the mine sits.
While we were there we spoke to a number of Borroloola business people as well. They are extremely concerned about the fact that the mine is not going ahead, had closed down or slowed down. Businesses are losing money every day. There is a transport company that used to have two services out of Katherine a week that provided for the mine and also for local produce, food and other goods to be brought into Borroloola. That service is now halved, simply because the mine’s operations do not allow to make the second service viable for them.
The interesting point that came out of this, in talking to the traditional owners who, of course, are Indigenous gentlemen, and the business owners, who are largely non-Indigenous, was that they all had a common theme, which was that they were annoyed and upset that Indigenous employment was being so heavily impacted in Borroloola as a result of this closure.
McArthur River had run at about 20% Indigenous employment. If you are taking 200 jobs away from the mine, that is 40 Indigenous people who do not have jobs. They all mentioned that on the streets of Borroloola there are now more itinerant people wandering around with nothing to do - ex-mine employees who are now at least, temporarily, unemployed.
The mine is now down to a skeleton staff in maintenance mode and we are still waiting for Mr Garrett to make his decision. It seems to me, and it became quite apparent, as the member for Fong Lim has mentioned, that the reason that the NT government has done little to nothing for the people of Borroloola and for the miners at McArthur River, is because it would rather be in bed with the Northern Land Council than with the miners and the people of that part of the Northern Territory. There are, obviously, political reasons for it doing that. The member for Fong Lim alluded to some of those before. With high-level people being recruited to the cause for the Labor Party, it seems as though the Territory government’s attitude is that it has simply discarded McArthur River like last year’s Christmas present; a new Christmas present has come along.
It seems to me that the failure of the Northern Territory government in this regard has shown, once again, that it has little or no consideration for the people of regional Northern Territory. Even though it spouts on about economic stimulus and job loss and all the rest of it; it is not really concerned. It is paying lip service. It holds an opportunity here to push the federal minister for Environment so it could save up to 300 jobs at McArthur River, and it failed to do anything at all.
This is a typical example of what we are seeing out of the current NT government. It needs to pull its socks up and start considering the Northern Territory as a large land mass and not just a portion somewhere between the coast and Palmerston.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance regarding the McArthur River Mine is a matter of public importance - enormous importance to both the Northern Territory and Australia.
It is important because there are 300 jobs at stake. There are 300 families directly affected by the shutdown of the mine. It is important because of the multiplier effect of the indirect jobs of one to two. That means another 300 jobs could potentially be lost. It is important because there is a loss of $120m to $150m per year that is put into the Northern Territory economy with the procurement of goods and services. It is important as there is a huge loss of jobs and services to the Borroloola and Robinson River communities. Air services to the region have almost stopped. It is important, as it would take out approximately 3% from our gross state product. It is important, as almost 400 Territory businesses are affected by the shutdown. It is important as the commercial benefits that flow to the four main clan groups in the area will stop through the shutdown of the barge operations. The barge operation is a cooperative between the MAWA, an Indigenous business enterprise that owns 33% share in the Carpentaria Shipping Service, the barge service that takes the concentrate from wharf to ships waiting offshore. That will go, and I am sure the loss and closure of the barge joint venture is of high importance to the Aboriginal people involved in that business.
If I take members back in time, it was the previous Country Liberal government that kicked-started this project, and it was that government, with Barry Coulter as the Mines minister, I believe at the time, who pushed the company into action and a final commitment to develop when the project was owned by Mt Isa Mines. However, this mine has had more than the support of the Northern Territory government of the day; it had the support of the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who wanted the project to proceed and had it fast-tracked. Labor wanted the project to proceed, Labor supported the project. At that time, the diversion of the river was known and acknowledged as a way that would need to be trodden in the future to ensure the longevity of the mine. Prime Minister Keating wanted that project and he fast-tracked it. Moreover, the Prime Minister of a federal Labor government pushed a deal with the Northern Territory government to get the project to go ahead, so that he could have a big deal project on his curriculum vitae, and to kick-start the recession that he said we had to have.
I would now like to explain a little more in detail. I quote from an article by journalist Peter Boyle:
Keating pulls a fast one on land rights
How about that? Labor Prime Minister Keating wanted the project. Prime Minister Keating wanted to get around native title issues - and would you believe? - Prime Minister Keating opened the mine when it finally started. Yet, we have this Labor government at odds with its fallen hero. They have never supported this project from the beginning, and continue to not support the project. They mucked up the environmental approval process for the expansion. We had the then Mines minister - sad state of affairs - being bailed out by the Chief Minister, and now we have the current Mines minister not going in to bat for this project.
Now we wait for the federal Environment minister to give his approval. He says he has given approvals, but there will be extra requirements in regard to that approval. The track record of this federal Environment minister is that, given his dealings with the Gunns’ case in Tasmania, these requirements could be extensive and they could actually stop this project proceeding. For example, some of the requirements that the federal Environment minister might put on this project are: the company must undertake further studies to assess silt loads in water courses along the haul roads, which may result from corridor disturbance and road maintenance; and silt loads are to be studied for at least five years of the project, with the review on a yearly basis. That would involve consultants and extra costs.
Perhaps the federal Environment minister might say that the company should develop a contingency plan to deal with risks to wildlife. The plan will detail how wildlife will be prevented from accessing pond waters or tailings dams - that will require extra costs, perhaps more consultants, products, and materials. Perhaps the Environment minister might want the company to undertake studies in regard to migratory bird species that go into that area. Perhaps the Environment minister might ask the company that they should carry out further tests to determine the relevant characteristics of tailings, for use in determining the best practice technology for tailings retention for other industry people to use - again, extensive cost, research, and study.
I am not saying that any of these things is necessarily bad or should not be carried out by a company anywhere. However, we do not know exactly what this federal Environment minister is going to put on his approval. Perhaps he might ask that the company should ensure that all drivers are fully educated on the potential for fauna road kills, and a record of any significant fauna road deaths should be kept on-site and included in the company’s annual report to government. The Environment minister might also ask that the company has some kind of monitoring for rock sites in the area surrounding the project area, and they should include monitoring to detect the impact from vehicle exhausts. That would not be an unrealistic expectation or request, you might say. It has been asked of companies before. Companies in the past in the Northern Territory have had up to 80 requirements put on them before they can proceed to development, and some of them have not proceeded because of the requirements and the costs associated - perhaps some of them were not realistic.
It is a shame on this government that they have not come out and supported this project and what it brings to the Northern Territory. I strongly suggest and ask that the Mines minister, if not the Chief Minister, write to every 300 dumped mine workers and tell them exactly why he and his government do not support their employment and the project.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, if I had a little more time to prepare for this MPI, I might have spoken in more detail. I remember the passionate debates that were held during the last sittings of this parliament. I have travelled to McArthur River on two occasions, because I was certainly interested in the changes that the company was making to its mining operations. I went there to find out what the company did, because I had not been to the mine before. It is far better to be able to speak about an important development in the Territory like McArthur River Mine if you have actually been and seen it for yourself, rather than what you hear on the radio or see on the TV.
I supported the changes to the McArthur River, not that I particularly like rivers being changed, but because I went and had a look and I saw what was being put forward as the proposal to realign the river. I had consultation with a professor at the University of Newcastle, who was the professor who eventually set out the guidelines that would allow McArthur River to realign the river in an environmentally friendly manner. Realigning any river, especially in the north, is no small task. It is something that I would be concerned about if it was not done properly. If not done properly, in its construction stage, it could cause major destruction to the environment.
We had the debate about the mines approval to operate under Northern Territory law. I remember that and the passion that was put into the debate. I remember the number of members on the government side who did not support the move at that time to pass that legislation. My understanding is - and others may say I am wrong - that the three members were not specifically arguing against the mine, but were arguing against the timing about moving legislation that their own government had placed in parliament, in relation to a funeral of one of the members’ relations at that time.
Many things have been said about whether the members who crossed the floor did not support the mine. I believe more of that came from some of the Green movement which wanted to use the purported non-support of the mine for their own political purposes. Of course, some of the media also took it up that way. However, I was sitting here when those speeches were made and my understanding was that those speakers did not say they did not support the mine, but that they did not support the timing of the legislation being put forward in parliament.
That legislation related to a very small issue; it related to a mine management plan. I am going on memory, because I have not had time to go back through all the Parliamentary Records and notes. It was based on an issue of when the mine decided to go to an open cut, it had to have approval from the department of Mines and Energy – whatever it was called at that stage - and it, therefore, had to put a new application in and a new mine management plan. The problem was it put the mine management plan for an underground mine as the mine management plan for the open-cut mine. That might be a simplistic story about what happened, but it was based on a technicality. I believe that, as all the environment matters had been covered, the real issue in this case was that surely we could have gone back and asked the mine to reapply, instead of going through a whole new process?
That is what worries me in this case. I know there are some issues in relation to the politics of the mine and that is fair enough, because we have some debate in relation to this MPI whether the government has done enough to ensure this mine kept operating. I want to see the mine keep operating. Many people in my electorate work at the mine. They are subcontractors or contractors and they depend on that mine. I have been to a few mines in the Territory. I try to get around to as many as I can. I went to Bootu Creek mine and the first door that I knocked on was a gentleman who lives about a 1 km away in my electorate and he said: ‘What are you doing here?’ ‘I have just come to visit’.
It was the same at McArthur River; I met quite a few people from my area. One of the gentlemen I play cricket with was the contract electrical worker there. There are many people from the Darwin region, and specifically the Darwin rural region, who are dependent on this mine operating. I am not happy with it closing. I believe the government could have a made bigger effort.
I worry about the role of the Northern Land Council at times. I do not mind them operating on behalf of Aboriginal people, although I have my opinions about whether it should be compulsory. We are probably getting slightly off the mark but, if Aboriginal people do not want to use the Northern Land Council to argue a case for something, I do not think they should have to use them. I believe it is a bit like a union; we pay our money to the union but there are times when we think we can do it ourselves without the union.
I believe the days of the Northern Land Council having to be involved in things should just about be gone. I believe they play an important role - they have played an important role, I am not knocking that – but, at times, we should be allowing Aboriginal people to make their own decisions about who comes on their land. I would not like someone else being the person I have to use as my representative to get that permission. I would like sometimes to deal directly. That is only an opinion, but I believe that sometimes the Northern Land Council can complicate matters.
It spends a lot of taxpayer’s money, I presume. I do not know who funds it to take these cases to court, but it worries me in a similar way to what happened in the Northern Territory parliament; there was a technicality. I know the laws have to be carried out but, sometimes with technicalities, surely common sense can prevail by saying: ‘Nothing has changed but we need to reapply and write it out correctly’. Nothing changed in the application to mine by McArthur River to the next application, because all they had to change was a word. But there was a big court case over it. It must have cost lots of money. I do not believe anything changed from A to B.
I have started trying to read the court case - anything that comes out of the Federal Court or the High Court you need to take your lunch and find a tree somewhere; it is not easy to read. They do not write in understandable language. They do not even have an executive summary; you have to try to work your way through it.
My understanding is - and I listened to the member for Katherine - that some of this was based on a technicality. It might have been that the federal minister did not check the right piece of paper or tick the right form but, surely, someone could have said: ‘Even though he did not do that and that is not right, let us look at it as if he did look at it and he had covered it all. Has that omission made any difference to the original application?’
There must have been thousands and thousands of dollars spent on this case. When you pick up what Mr Garrett, the federal minister, is saying; that, basically, he is going to approve it ...
Ms Purick: Yes, but with what conditions? What requirements?
Mr WOOD: That might be the case, but when you read some of the transcripts from the ABC he is giving the impression that there was not really anything remarkably wrong. Maybe he is putting conditions on to be seen to be doing something.
I know the member for Goyder was talking about silt studies. If you read the environmental requirements of the Northern Territory government, which are pretty stringent - I remember the then minister for the Environment, who put those extra requirements on the company - they were pretty severe requirements the company had to come up with and much of that was related to the diversion of the McArthur River.
Go and get the documents that the McArthur River Mine has to use as its guide for diverting the river. It makes you wonder why the federal minister has applied these extra things. They have to put rocks down; they have to put logs down. The channel has to be dug at different heights so there is ponding. There is a lagoon at the downstream end of the diversion and the river had to come in before it so that lagoon was not affected in any way. I wonder whether the minister has actually read some of the stuff that the company has to do.
My criticism of the government is that it should have said much earlier and with much more vigour to the federal government: ‘Look how many jobs depend on this mine’. If the reason that this mine had stopped was because of a technicality and, when all this has blown over, the mine will continue to operate with maybe only superficial changes, you have to query whether there is something wrong with the system. All it has done is cost taxpayers an awful lot of money, and we are really back to square one. The only problem is that many people have been laid off work. Notwithstanding that there has been a downturn in the world economy, the point is that there still would have been some people working there and they are not working today.
When I was coming up the track, I stopped at the Highway Inn and I met a gentleman who had come up from Borroloola. I believe he had something to do with the revegetation program. He said that they have all the trees ready to plant and a couple of people watering them, but there is no one employed to put them in. I could see this lovely weather - overcast, light rain - and this is the perfect time to be planting.
I say to the mine, even though I know there is a downturn and you have laid all the workers off at the present time, I hope that you are still intending to get your revegetation program going. Surely, you could get many of the local workers to do that kind or work. I would not want to see that stopped because of the downturn in the mine. The river is still going to be diverted whether the mine is operating or not, so I hope that is going to happen.
I will be going down to the mine, hopefully, at the end of the Wet Season, because I would like to keep an ongoing brief about the mine. For sure, mining has some problems, and one of the bigger issues, rather than the diversion of the mine, is the tailings dam. The tailings dam is the thing that we have to keep our focus on. Tailings dams are there long after the mine is closed. We know that from Mt Todd; they can cause problems. I believe that is the bigger issue, rather than the diversion. I want to keep a watching brief on it. It is an important mine for our community, one of the biggest mines in the world for zinc and lead; it is one of the biggest mines.
It was a mine that was promoted by a Labor government, I believe, as a mine of national interest or national importance. They were the ones that actually brought it forward. They did some shortcuts by fast-tracking the development of this mine. It goes back a long way. It was a federal Labor Party government that promoted it in the first place. Other governments have taken over in the meantime. Even though it has had its problems, as a parliament we should be supporting it, ensuring that it does operate correctly but, at the same time, remembering that so many people’s livelihoods depend on it. We should do our best to ensure that it does stay open, even through we are in these times when prices for our primary metals are not as good as they should be.
Madam Speaker, I hope that this whole episode comes to an end quickly and people can get back working at the mine.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to contributors in this matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance and I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing it forward. However, there has been a fair bit of hype and spin in much of what has been said on the other side in relation to this matter.
There have been opposing viewpoints in the history of this mine, and most people would agree that there has been a difficult history, particularly over the last 12 to 18 months. It has caused a lot of worry and concern in sections of our community. There has been mention of traditional owners tonight, but I am aware that there are traditional owners for the McArthur River region who, whilst supporting mining, did not want to see the underground mining converted to an open-pit operation. That is on the public record as well.
However, as Business Minister, I recognise the economic importance of the mine for the Northern Territory as a whole, to local business in the Borroloola region, Darwin, and Katherine and, most importantly, the continuing employment in jobs. The member for Nelson mentioned people in his electorate who work at the McArthur River Mine. There are a number within my electorate who also worked at that mine. For a period of time my middle son worked at the McArthur River Mine also.
However, I would like to place on the record that this government has pledged its support for the mine in no uncertain terms. I was acting Mines minister when the court decision was handed down, and I was on to Peter Garrett immediately, the same day, and had a discussion with him on these issues. I made very plain to Peter Garrett the importance of this mine, economically and socially, for the Northern Territory. I also informed him that there were concerns, as I outlined, amongst traditional owners in the region about the mine and the river diversion. He pledged to me, in that telephone call, that he would take into account all these interests in making his decision. It is important to note that Peter Garrett visited the Borroloola region and consulted with the various parties that were interested.
I am informed that Ian Campbell did not ever visit the Borroloola mine - I may be wrong - but he did not visit the mine ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The McArthur River Mine. You can play smart things with words …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … member for Fong Lim. I believe you have an issue to contend with, member for Fong Lim, about your outrageous comments about the minister earlier today ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: I would be pulling my head in if I were you, because your comments underline the way that you are careless with people’s reputations and with words and political spin. I believe that you are yet to pay the price for the comments that you made tonight, impugning the integrity of our Administrator. My advice to you would be just to keep your head low for a little while, because that firestorm is yet to break.
Madam Speaker, I told you that I consulted with minister Garrett and put the case to him. The Mines minister has been on the case as well, and minister Garrett has announced his provisional decision. As the member for Casuarina said, there are statutory obligations around those decisions. The opposition might not take those things very seriously but, obviously, the way in which Campbell got himself into trouble was that he did not fulfil his statutory obligations. It is obvious to me that Peter Garrett and the current federal government will be very careful with the approval that he has already pledged; that everything is done according to the law and according to statute, so there cannot be a repeat court case or further challenges, as there was through what Ian Campbell omitted to do.
It is important for us all to acknowledge the deeply-held beliefs of many of the traditional owners in the region. We acknowledge that many people were unhappy with the decision of the government in relation to this mine. That is on the public record. We respect their views, in the same way we respect the views of all Territorians.
It was heartening to hear that the CLP members went to the mine - the members for Katherine and Fong Lim. They say that they spoke to a number of traditional owners, but those of us who have been around a while know that it is more complicated than three people; there are more people who are usually involved in that, in terms of traditional owners and decisions …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, you would not know.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: You would not know. The derogatory things you said about Aboriginal people on your radio show just shows enormous ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, which I have reminded you of many times. There are far too many interruptions. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister made an unparliamentary remark about the member for Greatorex, and I ask that he withdraw.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I made no such derogatory remark. He is the one who has made derogatory statements on his radio show and it is on the public record ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the minister has made another slur on the member for Greatorex and I ask you to ask the minister to withdraw those comments.
Dr BURNS: I am not aware of what the member for Fong Lim is saying. If there has been some offence taken by the member for …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Member for Greatorex, have you been offended by the comments by the minister?
Mr CONLAN: Yes. It is an unsubstantiated slur …
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Minister …
Mr CONLAN: … made against me and I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, please resume your seat. Minister, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: The Mines minister has talked about the approval and assessment processes. The Northern Territory government was satisfied that the mine management plans submitted by the operator addressed the range of environmental concerns that have arisen and, as part of the approval process, we negotiated a substantial community benefits package. As the minister pointed out, there is a statutory process involved in this. The federal government and its ministers are adhering to these processes.
I believe that the CLP, through this particular MPI, and the way they have approached it and the issue, have adopted a divisive approach. We are a government, along with the federal government, that wants to work with all parties to achieve a satisfactory result for all parties.
There seems to be a lack of understanding on the other side about the obligations of a minister of the Crown. I believe, once again, the minister has set that out clearly. I am very glad that the member for Nelson put to rest the fanciful history of what happened in this parliament when members crossed the floor. He said it on the record plainly and I advise the member for Fong Lim to read that.
I was very interested in the member for Goyder’s contribution. I was very heartened by it. I was worried when the member for Goyder suddenly became the warm and fuzzy independent EPA person at the beginning of this Assembly, but she has reverted to type and, basically, what she said on the Parliamentary Record today really puts that back into perspective.
The minister for Mines has outlined who was at the bottom of this latest fiasco. It was minister Campbell who did not adhere to the right processes. I assure members that we are very concerned about the uncertainty and are lobbying the federal government. We do not wish to see workers stood down or businesses suffer due to the suspension of activities at the mine.
We have heard a lot of huff and puff from the opposition about this. Most of them do not seem to understand the responsibilities that ministers of the Crown have, and they all think they are a sure thing at the next election in 2012. I ask them to consider this: there are 11 of them. The Leader of the Opposition said he will have a ministry of eight, so there will be three who are going to miss out. Who will the three be? We have had a few discussions on this side. I suppose the member for Brennan, an incredibly nice bloke, no mongrel in him, which he would need, given the dog-eat-dog attitude on the other side. The member for Sanderson, I have not seen much of him, so he is another candidate. The member for Braitling; he actually has it. I believe he has it, but he is a bit of a worry to others on that side because of his outspoken temperament and his deeply held views. Those are the three that we, on this side, are saying might miss out - but it could be others.
I said last week that politics and political life is full of change. It is definitely full of change and there are another three-and-half years to go to the next election. I am saying to members on the other side that there is a lot that can happen. A lot can happen in a week. A lot has happened in the last week – there is no doubt about that.
Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance is a vain attempt by the opposition to try to wedge the government; they have failed in that. They have exposed themselves because one of their own federal ministers is at the bottom of all of this. The member for Fong Lim is exposing himself as a grab for power with the Opposition Leader ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I please interrupt you. It is now 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41, business is now complete.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had concluded anyway.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, though.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is a point of order. Please jog my memory. I do not have the material in front of me and I could be wrong on this, but I was of the understanding that adjournment on a Wednesday was 10 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: It starts at 9 pm and goes until whenever.
Mr ELFERINK: 9 pm with no limit. Sorry, I misread it. It was a document I read a while ago, so I apologise. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks from last night in relation to Australia Day in my electorate of Daly. Australia Day is an opportunity to acknowledge and reward the hard work and dedication of our community and of many wonderful Territorians …
Mr Conlan: He cuts the nurses, he may as well cut me out too.
A member: Oh my dear, you really are a moron.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, here he is again. He is trying to verbal me. He is trying to abuse me and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There goes a clean cut out of the Parliamentary Record for my electors. Australia Day is a day of recognising the contribution that many Territorians put into their communities. I was pleased to be part of the Litchfield celebrations at the Freds Pass Reserve. I arrived a little late because I was coming from the breakfast at Coomalie, but it was well attended and I saw the member for Nelson. It was great to see the activities as they were rolling out, and the award recipients.
Wagait Beach had sports at the community sports ground and I also attended the reception at the Palmerston Council Chambers in honour of the 2009 Australia Day Ambassador, Glenn Wheeler.
The Wagait Beach celebrations were quite astonishing for me. There were a number of people from the community but also those who came over from Darwin, and they had celebrations. They had the Darwin Brass Band; helicopters doing some fire bombing, and a tug-of-war with the Navy cadets and the local community. It was a great day.
The rural area of my electorate has a number of Vietnamese families who have made the Territory their home and who contribute to the broader diverse community. 26 January was also the beginning of the lunar New Year and I was honoured to be invited to the Vietnamese community celebration of Tet and the beginning of the Year of the Buffalo.
The Australia Day awards presentations at Nauiyu, Daly River, were received by our own special Barak; that is, Barak Sambono, for Citizen of the Year. Tyson Leroy Daly was named Young Citizen of the Year. The Community Event was awarded to the Nauiyu Youth Depression Workshop. The Wooliana Student of the Year was awarded to David Liddy, and a Certificate of Appreciation went to Adam Sambono.
The Student Citizen Awards for the electorate went to the following primary school students: Berry Springs went to Jasmine Aitken; Douglas Daly went to Chloe Brannelly; Nemarluk Community School went to Faradiba Djawas; Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College at Wadeye went to Alex Lantjin; and Tipperary School went to Ivy Hegyi There were others that, unfortunately, I am not able to mention in detail, but I extend my congratulations to everyone who was either nominated or received Australia Day awards for 2009; you should all be very proud of your achievements.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to defend the honour and reputation of Senator Nigel Scullion, who was slurred in a most dreadful way by the Chief Minister today, when the Chief Minister saw fit to place into the mouth of Senator Scullion words that he had not uttered.
I listened to the answer to the question that the Chief Minister deigned to give this House in relation to the wedge politics that they have been running today - and good luck to them as far as that is concerned. However, there is incumbent upon us a duty to accurately report what people say, not only inside this place, but outside this place. I remind honourable members of Standing Order 62 in relation to how we conduct ourselves to other members of parliament who cannot be in this place to defend themselves.
The Chief Minister said this in his answer today in Parliament House, to a dorothy dixer:
I have checked Senator Nigel Scullion’s speech again since that assertion was made, and I was not at all surprised to discover something I already knew, which was evidenced by my own points of order saying that the Chief Minister had verballed Senator Nigel Scullion. At no stage in his speech did Nigel Scullion say he was not voting for jobs in the Northern Territory. To place those words into Senator Scullion’s mouth is reprehensible conduct on the part of this Chief Minister.
This House has more than enough business before it to keep it entertained and occupied with the truth. For the Chief Minister of this jurisdiction to verbal a Senator of our nation in such a disgraceful fashion, to me is dreadful conduct. I believe that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should apologise to Senator Nigel Scullion or repeat those words outside this place at his peril.
As far as I can see, there is nothing even close to such an utterance in the words of Senator Nigel Scullion in his speech to the Senate. I know that Senator Nigel Scullion would not make such an utterance, which made me even more confident to raise the point of order which I raised today. The inability of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to direct me and Territorians and this House to any such comment by the Senator, demonstrates how reckless and how full of abandon this Chief Minister is when he determines to attribute conduct to other people for the sake of scoring a mere political point.
As far as I am concerned, the Senator is vindicated by his own speech. Such disgraceful conduct as to verbal a Senator in such a puerile, facile, and easily rejected way, demonstrates how desperate this government is to drive a wedge and draw attention away from their own problems. We heard tonight another tired attempt by the Leader of Government Business to try to drive a wedge on this side. In the words of Shane Stone, being savaged by the Labor Party is a little like being savaged by a dead sheep.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, now we are back to work in 2009, I am looking forward to getting back out on the streets of my electorate and continuing to meet the people of Millner and Coconut Grove, who joined the electorate in August last year, as well as catching up with constituents in Jingili, Moil, and Wagaman.
I am also looking forward to catching up with schools in my electorate - Jingili, Millner, and Moil Primary Schools, as well as Casuarina Senior College, after the holiday break. There will be new school council committees, as well as an influx of new students. I note that Casuarina Senior College has 1226 students enrolled this semester, which is close to capacity. Casuarina Senior College deserves recognition once again for their fantastic Year 12 results at the end of 2008.
Congratulations to all the students, and especially to Tara Alexander, who scored a TER of 99.45, making her the top NTCE student. Tara is undertaking a 12-month apprenticeship with the Northern Territory public service and is currently working in my office and doing a great job. Congratulations also to Top End TCE Indigenous student, Candice Liddy.
Millner Primary School is leading the energy revolution by creating a sustainable assembly hall. Although it is not airconditioned, the hall has been designed to be incredibly cool, leading to massive energy and environmental savings. Bill Muirhead, the Sustainability and Energy Smart School Project Officer, has calculated the approximate savings for the year amount to $10 605, 221 526 mJ of energy, or 61 535 kW hours, and 46.3 tonnes of CO2 saved. This equates to the amount of energy required to run an average Darwin household for five years, or five households for one year. The students at Millner are now growing a garden outside the hall which will feed cool air into the hall. Well done, Millner.
At the end of the last school semester, I had the pleasure of presenting the Quiet Achiever prizes to Lucina Ludke and Gabrielle Wells-Kelly of Millner Primary School; Samuel Schofield-Flynn from Early Childhood; Shanise McDonald from the Middle Upper Jingili Primary School; Nikki Kalitsis, Year 2, and Kaibariki Tapera, Year 5 from Wagaman Primary School. Congratulations to these students who have been recognised by their teachers as quiet achievers.
Five other students who live in my electorate received 2009 Student Citizenship Awards at the Australia Day celebrations last month. They were Katherine Harbison of Casuarina Senior College; Rachel Harpur of Jingili Primary School; Monique Lemon of Millner Primary School; Jessica Fuller of Moil Primary School; and Sabrina Ciubal of Wagaman Primary School. Heartiest congratulations to these students who have been recognised by their school as a young person who contributes selflessly to their school and/or community. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
I recently had the enjoyment of celebrating the Chinese New Year at SKYCITY with members of the Hakka Association, and with the Chung Wah Society at the Chung Wah Society community hall last Saturday evening. They are fantastic events, well organised, well attended, and culturally fascinating. At the Hakka function, I had the great pleasure of talking with Jason Lee, and Mr Mao and Mr Ma from the Chinese Embassy in Canberra. The Chung Wah Society’s Donna Quong did a great job as MC and I congratulate Tina Griffiths for organising a great event. There was fantastic food supplied by Tasty House, and I enjoyed the opportunity of joining Darryl Chin and his family, who are great company. Overall, it was an extremely pleasant night.
Recently, I made the assertion that the member for Greatorex had made derogatory comments on the air on 8HA about Aboriginal people. I will let people make up their own mind about this comment he made on 30 October 2006 on 8HA:
That is what you said. I will let others make up their minds whether that was derogatory. And make me withdraw that, because I have the tape of it, mate. That is you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will add a comment in relation to the changes in standing orders as they relate to adjournment debates. Members’ ability to make contributions about various things that occur within their electorates and other important issues that affect the people of the Northern Territory has been severely curtailed by the changes to standing orders.
This is an example of a Territory government which continues in its arrogant approach to the majority of people in the Northern Territory. I have pointed this out to the House before and I will point it out again for the benefit of the government members. In the new makeup of the Legislative Assembly, almost half are Country Liberals and they represent half, or roughly half, of the population of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Giles: Half of that is forty votes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I believe it is reprehensible that the government should seek to silence 50% of the Northern Territory through their local members; the members sitting on this side of the House. It is typical of the arrogance that they have shown to people in the regions and continue to show to the people of the Northern Territory.
I will address the Australia Day celebrations in Katherine that were held recently. I was very pleased to be able to get along to those celebrations. The day started out with the ceremony held at the Katherine Town Council Chambers, and to the staff and elected members of the council, I thank them for their support.
I am pleased to announce that there were four new citizens added to the repertoire of Australians in Katherine at that ceremony. I will name them: Mrs Sathi Agalia Kunjan; Mr Tichafara Muvirimi; Mr Jagnarain Padaruth; and Miss Chido Chibvuri. I welcome those people to Australia. They have been here for some time but chose to take out Australian citizenship, and they should be given the accolade for making that decision.
At the same time, there some awards that were given out. I will read out the award winners and their awards. The student awards were bestowed upon Melissa Von Senden from Katherine High School; Amy Bates from Katherine High School; Lauren Dawes from Katherine South Primary School; Sheyenne Von Senden from MacFarlane Primary School; and Mason Clark from St Josephs College. Also, Kim Henderson, John Bolesworth, Elizabeth Everett, and Amy Harding received Student Citizen of the Year awards at their respective schools’ end-of-year celebrations.
I also congratulate Kate Festing for being the Young Citizen of the Year in Katherine. I congratulate the Katherine Tick Market as being the winner of the Community Event of the Year, and Mr Bob and Mrs Edith Mackie for having bestowed on them the honour of being Citizen of the Year in Katherine.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on an issue that I have in my electorate and point out the stupidity of the situation.
I have a street in my electorate, with three constituents who have come to me after the election on 9 August and raised the issue with me that they have regarding boundary fences in their street. It turns out that they have lived in their residences for a number of years and have carried out different developments on their properties, which have all been approved by the Department of Planning, DPI. It turns out that those planning approvals were all given, and the extensions of their houses on their properties are now all over the boundaries of the properties. In effect, their houses now encroach on to other people's properties.
These three residents, who all live next door to each other, came and saw me and described it as a problem. They have gone to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and raised this as a concern and asked if it can be fixed. It is just a general concern. They are not cranky. They do not have a gripe. They were advised by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure that the only way to rectify it is to put an application in for a subdivision, and try to realign the land. That will cost several thousands of dollars, as building inspectors and certifiers come out and do that.
That sounds a bit ridiculous to me because, when those people bought the land or the properties and the titles that they were given showed the boundaries on the property. However, the houses were sitting over the boundaries of the property. As they have gone to add further extensions to their property - this is unbeknown to these people – the Department of Planning and Infrastructure approved the development to go ahead. All the while, there were actually committing an offence by building over the boundary fences.
These things happen. Sometimes, there are mistakes in bureaucracies. I have seen all the documents, so I have written to the minister for Planning and asked if she would have a look at it and try to be a bit lenient to these people regarding the expense to get these things changed. They are all amicable, they do not want any money; they just want to get the boundaries realigned.
The second time I had to write to her, the minister for Planning sent me a response saying: ‘This is a matter for the Attorney-General, the then member for Johnston; so the member for Johnston will respond’. The member for Johnston sent me a letter back the other day - it is six months that this has been going on - saying: ‘I appreciate the problem, unfortunately, it is just bad luck and they will have to pay for this expense for having all the boundaries in the subdivision realigned’.
I find that pretty appalling, for people who have done the right thing, when the boundary fences were on the property when they bought that property. The boundary fences were not actually sitting on the boundaries. They had done extensions to their property, but the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has, obviously, had an oversight and approved the extensions of these buildings, over boundaries. It was the residents who identified this problem and, in good faith, went to DPI and asked them if they could just realign the boundaries. To now say to these people, ‘It is going to cost you several thousand dollars each to realign the boundary fences’, is an absolute joke. This is just bureaucracy gone mad! It is a clear indication that the ministers of this government are not even listening to what people on the ground see as a concern.
I appreciate this is a development application and, if you are looking to redevelop your block, there are charges that are incurred. However, this is surely a case where those charges can be swept aside to try to rectify a problem that was made by government. It is government that approved the development of these properties. Unbeknownst to the occupiers and owners of these properties, they approved it. These people, in pretty good faith, went and built their properties, all certified and, now, they have been told if they want to rectify the situation, they have to spend thousands of dollars each. I expect the next thing that will happen, now that I have made the government aware of it, is they are now put a charge on these people and ask them to demolish their buildings for constructing them in the first place. I can see that one coming.
The department of Planning still approved it. That is exactly what happened. Right now, these people are stuck in a situation where they have bought a property in the right location that was approved, and it clearly was not. Whatever the case might be, they need to get to the bottom of it, and government should show some heart and try to help those people.
If I was on a property and the same thing happened to me - we put our faith in people to do the right thing and it has not happened. We need to have some compassion shown by government for those people.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know we have been talking about the length of time for adjournment debates and it was very interesting seeing the member for Johnston give an accelerated version of an adjournment speech tonight. For those who have listened to adjournment debates, I thought it was one of the fastest adjournment speeches I have heard for many a year. It probably exemplifies the case of allowing us a little more time - come back to our 15 minutes so we can give our adjournment speeches with a little more time to think about what we are saying, rather than rattle it off as if we have become machines. I will attempt to give a little report on my trip to Alice Springs in the five minutes I have allocated.
I visited Alice Springs last week. I went there originally to find out more about work camps. I had some discussions with Tony Bohning, who was part of Correctional Services, in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and who had input into the setting up of work camps in the Northern Territory. Specifically, one was Beatrice Hill, and he also had input into the Gunn Point Prison Farm. He told an interesting story about Wildman River, which was the place the government closed down; that Alice Springs gaol built many of the buildings that were put up at Wildman River. The prisoners built the sheds in a kit form at Alice Springs gaol; they were all painted in the right colours to make sure they all got put together correctly, and that was transported to Wildman River. That is something I did not know.
Tony Bohning gave us a good understanding of what work camps were about, and the possibility of having mobile work camps, which can go out and work in various parts of the Territory - places like national parks. The funny thing was it was in the CLP days, in the mid-1990s, that the work camps were closed down. However, the work camps in Western Australia, which is what I have been promoting - if any one goes to Wyndham they will see one of those work camps in action – were actually set up by people like Tony Bohning. He spoke to the Western Australian government and they took on some of his ideas. They now have about six work camps in Western Australia.
I spoke to Jeremy Bigg from Coleman’s Printing and also to the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. We had discussions about the amount of crime that is occurring in the CBD of Alice Springs, especially concerning some businesses which have been repeatedly attacked, with windows broken day after day. I had some discussions about the possible solutions. I know that the members from Alice Springs had a meeting on the Wednesday of that week, discussing those particular issues.
I also drove out to Hamilton Downs work camp where I met the two caretakers, both named Chris. Hamilton Downs work camp is where the government is now sending juveniles at risk for a three-week program to try to get them back on the road. It is a fantastic place. It is out in some very beautiful country, about 75 km out of Alice Springs. It is in a place that you would have difficulty leaving if you did not have a car. There is some compulsion, mainly by geography, to stay there. It has a series of rooms that are part of the old homestead, which are just bunk houses. The young people stay there for three weeks, cook their own meals, and are also allowed to do some work which keeps them busy during the day and, by the time they get to bed, they are pretty well worn out. I also talked to Renton Kelly, who is involved in the management of the Hamilton Downs work camp, and has been for some time.
The last part of our trip was when I went out to the Barkly Highway to look at the damage that the recent floods have done to the highway. Until you go out there and have a look, you do not realise how much water actually came down there to take the entire road away. The Barkly looks magnificent. The Barkly looks like I would have expected in dairy farming country. It is green, it is beautiful, and the sunsets are just gorgeous. I believe we are in for a good year with the cattle this year, regardless of the floods. I do not believe I have ever seen the Barkly so green.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is my five minutes. I would have liked to have said a few more words, but that is it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on the record and welcome some new citizens to the Northern Territory and Australia who took the pledge and the oath at the Litchfield Shire Australia Day celebrations, which was a great day: Janie Andrews, Liezel Cotleanu, Ellen Johntson, and a family of three, Katherine Jane Palmer, the mother, Benjamin John Palmer and Emily Francine Palmer took the pledge to become Australian citizens. I welcomed them on the day to their new citizenship, to the rural area and to Australia.
On the same day, we had Australia Day award winners for the Litchfield Shire area. I congratulate and place on the record the Citizens of the Year. It was a joint award given to Greg and Lee Payne, who are St John Ambulance volunteers in the Humpty Doo area. They have done an enormous task over the years, with volunteer hours in the vicinity of 1000 hours in a short period of time, at any manner of sporting ventures and community events. Nikita Kruger was the Young Citizen of the Year. We had a joint award again for the Sportsperson of the Year, which went to Jamie Edwards and Glen Byrnes. Congratulations, they are both volunteers with an enormous capacity in giving to their respective clubs and their sports. Molly Bliss, was the Young Sportsperson of the Year; a young gymnast who did remarkably well in the National Titles. Given some hurdles to get fit, this young girl walked around her parent’s property any number of times so that she could maintain her fitness because she did not have a coach at the time. Congratulations to her.
The Coolalinga Rural Markets received the Community Event of the Year and they are great markets. I know many people in this Chamber go to those markets, and they are growing from strength to strength. Congratulations to the organisers and the committee that keep those markets going all year.
There were Achievement Awards, which were presented to about seven people. Some of them were to Michelle Leach, Rebecca Meyers, Janice Craddock, Jenny Hangan and Bryony Crowe - and I have a particular bias as she is one of my young nieces. All those young teenagers got their Achievement Awards for their work in the community, and their commitment in all their different involvements. They were pretty pleased with their certificates and their awards, as was everyone. I congratulate them and say well done to them, and hope that they go from strength to strength, and they enjoyed their day.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform parliament of the passing of Mrs Ajibak Goodman, a Senior Warray Elder who has worked extensively with my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, Arts and Sport. Ajibak’s family have given me approval to use her bush name and to briefly outline her life and her work with my department. I had the pleasure of spending the morning with Ajibak and some of her family only a few days ago, as I had been given the honour of writing a foreword for the book she had been working on for the last three years. I had wanted to meet and spend some time with her.
We talked about the forthcoming Warray plants and animals book, and the importance of passing on cultural knowledge to our future generations. Ajibak was proud of the role she had played in the book preparation and said how she enjoyed doing this sort of research with Parks and Wildlife staff. The book explains the detailed and ancient Warray knowledge of plants and animals that occur on Warray country. By a terribly sad coincidence, the final scientific details of the book had been completed only a few hours before her death.
Ajibak was born at Marrakai Station in 1940, where she was brought up by her mother, Polly Marrakai Nedey and her father, George Luwanbi, a Limilngan and traditional owner of the lower Adelaide and Mary River area. She was close to her brother, Tony Kenyon, who was also brought up on Marrakai with her. Her elder sisters, Doris White and Dolly Marpul, who were born at Adelaide River, and her elder brother, Roger Yates, all deceased, were all brought up as Warray by their father, Darwin Ganwaduk.
Ajibak married Ernest Goodman and had seven children: Denise, Selina, Jacqueline, Phillip, Harold, Dorothy and a recently deceased daughter. She has several grandchildren.
Ajibak was a claimant recognised in the Finniss River land claim and the Limilngan-Wulna land claim and is a recognised traditional owner of Djukbinj National Park on the Adelaide River. Ajibak lived most of her live at Marrakai and Humpty Doo Stations and, in later years, moved to the 15 Mile town camp near Howard Springs. It was there that Ajibak spent many hours recording her biological knowledge with staff from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
I am extremely proud of the fact that we have prepared this wonderful book together, combining traditional knowledge and western science. While Ajibak will not see the outcome of her work, she and her late brother and sisters, who also worked on the book, have made their wonderful biological knowledge available for future Warray generations.
Ajibak was a wonderful, happy and knowledgeable woman. I was deeply honoured to meet her and am saddened by her passing. Staff from my department have spoken of the respect they felt towards Ajibak and how they enjoyed working with her and her family.
I pass my sincere, heartfelt condolences to her family and friends on behalf of the Northern Territory government and me, and also on behalf of Glenn Wightman, who has committed so much to working with her and her family, to ensure that all the past knowledge is recorded and combined with scientific evidence in order for the future generation of Territorians to share, understanding that there are Aboriginal names, and incorporating the scientific evidence that bring the two together; like it brings people together.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I register my thanks to the Chung Wah Society of the Northern Territory. I was very fortunate to attend the Chinese New Year celebrations at the Chung Wah Hall last Saturday night, 7 February, to participate in the celebration of the Year of the Ox. It was also the opening of their new additions to that facility. They have extended the hall and, in true traditional Chinese community style, they have all worked hard and contributed and done a fantastic job of demonstrating the cultural diversity that exists in the Northern Territory. They have also done a fantastic job of restoring the temple that, unfortunately, suffered a fire some time ago. It is back to its original condition. Also, the Chung Wah Society Museum is a great centrepiece of the whole project in Woods Street.
The Chung Wah Society has existed since 1946. The whole Chinese situation started in the Territory 140 years ago. They have helped developed the Territory; in fact, they built most of the Darwin to Pine Creek railway, and they helped in the goldfields of Pine Creek. Most in those years spoke either the Hakka or the Sze Yup dialects.
Over the past 140 years, they have contributed in many ways - economically, socially, culturally, adding to cuisine of the Territory, and building the community capital. Having been at these functions over many years that I have been in Darwin, each year at this particular celebration, New Year, I am reminded that the Chinese community in the Northern Territory is still contributing in the same ways that they did so many years ago.
The event was run very well by Donna Quong, and contributing, obviously, was the president, Adam Lowe, assisted by Adam Chin and numerous other Chinese people who run a fantastic operation and contribute in so many ways. The Chinese Consul-General for Australia was present, on his third trip to Darwin, and he was present when the Lion Dancers performed all their blessings at this function. He was very vocal in his comments that they are the best that he has seen anywhere in Australia, which just goes to show that we are on top of some of those cultural events in the Northern Territory. I was very fortunate to have the Lion Dancers come to my office in the electorate of Sanderson in the Northlakes Shopping Centre on Saturday, 31 January, where they performed and blessed the office for the New Year. I am very grateful to the Lion Dancers for coming out and doing that.
I will try not to speak as fast as the member for Johnston who, obviously, needed to get many words out, and he got a little excited by speaking that fast. The last issue is that of a constituent who lives in the member for Johnston’s area, but I do not think he is quite familiar with this man’s history. He recently turned 90 on 5 January. He is a World War II veteran, a guy who spends an enormous amount of time giving to the community, manning the gates at the football, and doing many other community events.
I was very fortunate to be able to take him to the Scouts Centenary Dinner recently, where he was the oldest Scout there, having joined the Scout movement in 1925. I believe that floored a few of the younger Scouts there who probably think that that is very ancient history. But a fine citizen he is, and I would just like to congratulate John Moyle. He has chosen to live and retire here. He is one of those great Territorians who is contributing to the very social fabric of our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a lot more to say; however, the clock has just stopped me.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record my concern that the Northern Territory government is not immediately following the recommendations of the Coroner in relation to trimming trees on private school grounds.
A coronial inquest into the death of young Aiden Bott - and I should at the outset state that my children are in the same school; my oldest child was in the same year as Aiden Bott at St Mary’s School, so I have a personal interest in that case and am also very aware of the circumstances that led to the tragic death of that young boy, and all that occurred around it. I am familiar with it, and I did follow events as they unfolded.
The Coroner made a recommendation that all schools should be inspected regularly, but I understand a recent government report says that checks can only be made at government schools. I find that a terrible cop-out, and I urge the Northern Territory government to do more in this area.
When I was the federal member, I felt a complete frustration with the Territory government for their lack of support for private schools in the Northern Territory. I understood that there was a bit of a national campaign aimed at curbing federal government contributions to what I believe people referred to as silvertail private schools. However, in the Northern Territory, those types of schools - Kings College and Sydney Grammar and the like - do not exist. The private schools that we have in the Northern Territory meet very grassroots needs. For instance, there are no government schools providing boarding facilities for Indigenous students. The education of Indigenous students would be very much hampered if the private school movement was shown any less regard by the Northern Territory government.
In the case, a young boy was tragically killed by a falling tree branch and a Coroner made a recommendation that there should be regular checks. I go a bit further than the Coroner in saying that schools should be funded, not just to check trees, but to ensure that once those trees are checked, if there are any concerns, money should be provided to those schools to ensure that that those trees are trimmed. In the case with the Catholic primary school in question, the Coroner found that the tree had been checked, that the school was aware of the problem tree, but just did not have the financial resources to be able to do anything about it. That is an appalling situation, where we allow those sorts of tragedies to occur for a lack of funds.
This is some advice to Kevin Rudd: go and build a new school hall or something but, at the same time, let us try to concentrate on keeping our children safe at schools. I am glad to see the Chief Minister is here and I urge him to look at the idea of funding private schools to check trees and other safety hazards that might be on their grounds, and to also look at supporting those private schools that do need financial assistance to rectify those situations. It was a tragic situation that upset a whole community and, ultimately, it was something that was avoidable. I would hate to see it happen again.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make mention of the passing of Col Friel last month. Col Friel was - I think all of us here would agree - one of the Territory’s best-known characters. His fame and reputation came through the letters page of the Territory’s newspapers and beyond. He was completely unafraid of putting his views forward forthrightly - not for him the tag of ‘Name and address withheld’.
Col arrived in the Territory in the 1950s after a stint in the Navy, after a childhood around Mildura in Victoria and Pooncarie in NSW. The Territory was a life that suited him, as he worked through a number of jobs from work on the wharves to mining, truck driving, and a surveyor with the Water Resources Branch.
He married Judith, a woman who was part of the Stolen Generations, taken as a small child from the Katherine area. There were eight children and step-children, from what has been described to me as a strong and loving relationship; one that saw them through Cyclone Tracy, the family surviving that terrible event.
After a brief return to Mildura after Tracy, the family returned to the Territory. Col was largely self-taught but, indeed, became a man of letters, submitting hundreds if not thousands of letters to the editor. What is perhaps not so well known to Territorians is that his views were published beyond our borders, appearing also in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Green Left Weekly, as well as the NT News, The Centralian Advocate and The Katherine Times. Perhaps less well known is that he also made his views known to a number of parliamentary inquiries over the years. In these, he was just as happy taking on technical constitutional points as he was with arguments on the issues of human rights.
All papers have regular writers to the editor; but few have written so cogently on so many topics. For Col, his primary concern was for social justice and human rights, but ranged as well across environmental issues, Aboriginal affairs, education, justice, and international issues. His opposition to the war in Iraq was powerfully and passionately argued, and a tribute to his deep and committed humanitarianism and care for the oppressed and downtrodden.
That is what made Col different to many other writers. You can take or leave many correspondents’ views, but Col’s letters were always thought-provoking and worthy of a read. If he supported a view you held, it would be with an argument worth adding to your back pocket. If he opposed your position which, as a politician was more often than not, it was with an argument that you had to take note of and take into account. He never let politicians off lightly, but always put his views carefully and politely.
Col will be missed and I pass on my condolences to his large family. I say to them that his memory and his words will live on through the many letters he wrote, and they will be a source, for many years to come, for historians of the Territory. Vale Col Friel.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier tonight in a matter of public importance debate, the member for Fong Lim made an outrageous slur on one of the most respected people in the Territory - our Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC. Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC is one of the Territory’s most highly-respected and highly-regarded members of the legal profession. He is a former Solicitor-General. He has appeared representing the Northern Territory government in the High Court on numerous occasions.
Tonight, the member for Fong Lim disgustingly insinuated that the Administrator was politically rewarded for his role in advising the government on the drafting of legislation affecting the McArthur River Mine. A recording of his comments has him saying:
For the member for Fong Lim to claim that Tom Pauling’s appointment as Administrator was some sort of political reward is one of the most outrageous slurs we have witnessed in this House. He used what some refer to as Coward’s Castle, in breach of our standing orders, against the rules of this parliamentary debate, to make an outrageous slur against a highly-respected, highly-regarded man of impeccable character.
The member for Fong Lim must immediately issue a public written apology to Mr Pauling. Further, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that the member for Fong Lim is publicly disciplined for this outrageous slur against a fine Territorian, a man of impeccable character, our Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM – Death of
Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM – Death of
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death on 12 January 2009 of Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM, a former appointed member of the Legislative Council, former elected member of the Legislative Council and distinguished Territorian.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the family and friends of the late Mr Fisher. In particular, I acknowledge his widow, Mrs Eleanor Fisher - they were married for 68 years and it would have been 69 years in April; their sons and wives, Mr Rob and Mrs Trix Fisher, Mr John and Mrs Jenny Fisher, and Mr Greg and Mrs Sue Fisher. I understand that many of Mr Fisher’s 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren are also present this morning.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also acknowledge the presence of Mr Scott Perkins, the CEO of the Resources Council, and guests from the mining sector, as well as a group of 17 Rotarians recognising the very long association of Mr Fisher with Rotary. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM
Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly:
- (a) express its deep regret at the death of Mr William Joseph (Joe) Fisher AM, a former appointed member of the Legislative Council,
a former elected member of the Legislative Council and place on record its appreciation of his long and distinguished service to
the people of the Northern Territory; and
- (b) tender its profound sympathy to his family and friends.
Joe Fisher passed away last month at the age of 90, about 55 years to the day of his arrival in Darwin in January 1954. It was a life that witnessed remarkable changes in the Territory and, in many of those changes, Mr Fisher was an active participant as a member of the Legislative Council, as a commentator but, above all, as a key player in the Territory’s mining industry. Perhaps the size of that change can be measured by his first sight of Darwin Harbour, which was then still littered with shipwrecks from the bombing of Darwin. Apart from a few paved roads in the town centre and on the road out to Berrimah, ‘dirt roads were the order of the day’, he would write many years later.
Joe had already spent 17 years in the mining industry on Cape York and had arrived in Darwin to work for Northern Uranium Development which had exploration leases under the 1953 Atomic Energy Act in the upper South Alligator region - an area he would be linked with for the rest of his life. His work led to the establishment of El Sharana, a base camp for a number of small uranium deposits in the region, and Moline, a processing plant for the area.
It was a tough life, with equipment initially dropped in by chopper before the first airstrip was built. One of the first loads to be dropped in was a wheelbarrow and a shovel. During the same era, in the 1950s, Joe Fisher explored huge tracts of the Territory as well as the Kimberley, much of it by air with Ozzie Osgood, an early aviation pioneer whose name is commemorated nowadays by a road to Darwin Airport behind Bunnings.
It was hairy flying by all accounts, hundreds of hours with flyovers as little as 20 feet above the ground. According to Ozzie, and I quote: ‘We did not realise or did not care how dangerous it was’. On one occasion the pair landed in a clearing too short for both of them to take off. Joe Fisher extended another clearing, by hand, a few miles away, which allowed both of them to get out in one piece. However, this and other exploration work led to the ultimate finding of important gold, copper, and diamond deposits, amongst others.
Joe was to maintain a lifelong involvement with the mining industry in the Territory, and was recognised as a life member of what was the NT Minerals Council and the Darwin branch of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, on which he served as President in 1984. He was honoured with an AM for his services to the mining industry.
We pay particular tribute to Joe Fisher today for his service in the Legislative Council, on which he served from 1961 to 1974. These were the days of an appointed Legislative Council and, for his first eight years, that is how he served. But if anyone thought he would be a lapdog of Canberra, they could not be more wrong. He was a constant thorn in Canberra’s side, once daring the Commonwealth government to sack him for its refusal to assent to the Child Welfare Ordinance.
He also played a key role in the 1962 signing of a Grand Remonstrance to federal parliament in a protest against the lack of commitment to the Territory and its constitutional advancement. He did this, even though he was an appointed member of the Legislative Council. The original Grand Remonstrance led to the beheading of Charles I. The then Menzies’ government escaped this fate, at least in part, by refusing to accept the delivery of the document because its language was not ‘respectful, decorous or temperate’. I have to get a copy of it, Madam Speaker. The original of that document has now been returned to this parliament as a commemoration of the Territory’s constitutional development. That will have to be a ‘must see’ later today.
As well as being an appointed member of the Legislative Council from 1961 to 1969, he was one of its first elected members, serving in Fannie Bay after a 1969 by-election, and re-elected in 1971.
At this point, I pay tribute to Eleanor, Joe’s wife of 68 remarkable years. The role of Territory women in our development is underrated or ignored. Eleanor Fisher personified the strength of so many women who, like her, lived through very tough times, in very tough conditions, in raising families - in this case, three surviving sons, 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren. All in this Assembly can only admire her for her strength and her contribution to the Northern Territory as well as her devotion to her husband for nearly seven decades.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I should add a footnote here. Eleanor Fisher deserves a place in the Territory’s culinary hall of fame. In the 1960s, she won a national White Wings competition with her recipe for buffalo burgers. She may not have invented them but, certainly, must rank as the producer of one of the Territory’s first culinary exports to the rest of the nation.
Joe Fisher was an early proponent of what would finally become Kakadu and Keep River National Parks and served on the Northern Territory Reserves Board, the predecessor of today’s Parks and Wildlife, from 1965 to 1974. The bridge leading into Kakadu was named after him in 1993; an unusual honour for a living person.
As well as serving the mining industry, Joe Fisher was a man of firm opinions - and not just on mining. He held passionate views on government, Aboriginal affairs, statehood, the environment, and development. From 1978 to 1982, Joe Fisher had a regular opinion piece in the NT News. As Joe described it, it was, ‘a little column in the local rag’, but it provoked much debate and controversy - not least, I confess, from people on my side of politics.
Madam Speaker, last year we farewelled another pioneer of the Territory’s constitutional and economic development, Sam Calder. Today we bid adieu to another in Joe Fisher. Neither was from our side of politics, but that is not the point. Honouring the legacy of their work and their commitment to the Territory is something we do as a whole parliament, as a body that serves all of the Northern Territory and represents all Territorians - just as Joe Fisher tried to do over many years.
Our condolences go to his wife Eleanor, his extended family and his many friends, as we mark the passing of a long-time Territorian who did make a difference to this great Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this important motion to acknowledge the passing of a legend. The term ‘pioneer’ is widely used, and is even over-used. However, to describe William Joseph Fisher as a Northern Territory pioneer is an understatement. He was a miner, a conservationist, a politician, a champion of the uranium industry, a newspaper columnist, a recipient of the Order of Australia, an author, and Rotarian, and, to those who knew him, behind those twinkling, smiling eyes, a good bloke.
He arrived in Darwin in 1954 with his family from Cairns. His public service included being a non-official member of the Legislative Council from 1960, then as an elected member until 1974. But it is for his work outdoors, and not what he did as a legislator, that Joe is really remembered.
Life in the Territory in the 1960s was tough, but, rest assured, Joe was tougher. Compared to today, Australia was a rather primitive place, but in the Territory it was downright archaic.
Consider this story from 1966, within the time frame of most of us in this Chamber, when Joe had landed on the Cobourg Peninsula in a Bell G3 helicopter in search of bauxite deposits. After a successful trip, they prepared to leave, and when it was time to return:
- We climbed aboard and then, with a loud bang, the battery blew up as the pilot started the motor. An awkward situation, as no battery meant no radio and no self-starter.
It looked like an uncomfortable night ahead. The pilot suddenly cheered up and said: ‘Look, this is an old model and it might have a crank handle tied to the side trusses’.
It was there, we untied it and it was about six feet in length. I thought this would be great, watching the pilot using the crank handle. But it was not to be. The pilot had to be
in the cockpit. It was a two-handed crank handle and it was mighty hard to turn. The geologist and I took turns and when were nearly exhausted, the engine burst into life …
Joe finished this story in typical deadpan style:
- In the following years I do not recall any other similar machine carrying a crank handle.
Joe was a man of a thousand stories, and a fistful of strange facts. In his book, Trials and Triumphs, he tells how the Coronation Hill uranium deposit was so named because its mineral riches were discovered on the same day as Queen Elizabeth assumed the throne on 2 June 1953.
It was he, the champion of mining in Queensland and the Territory, who made the first formal proposal in the Legislative Council to turn the 2000 km2 parcel of Kakadu into a national park. By the same token, he was furious that, when the national park was finally declared, it was more than 10 times the size he originally recommended. To his death, he was scathing of the Commonwealth stewardship of the Northern Territory. In typical colourful fashion, proclaiming the policy of many federal governments since 1911 always reminded him, ‘of a large, powerful dog guarding a juicy bone that it was too full to eat, but did not intend to share’. Part of his frustration was his belief that Kakadu was a source of untold riches and home to hundreds of billions of dollars from potential mineral export earnings.
While he was undoubtedly a passionate, committed, pioneering Territorian, first and foremost, the legacy that lasts is his family. To be there at his farewell and to have seen the family in strength swells your heart with pride, and you realise what is really important. To see those boys over there - two of them sporting moustaches just like Dad, the three of them looking just like him - he is with us still in his family. That is the strongest testimony you can have to the quality of a man. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences to the family of Joe Fisher. It is beautiful to see you in parliament today, and also his friends, the many long-term Territorians who have known Joe and his family for so long.
My first memories of Joe were of when I was a five-year-old, at the old Legislative Council, where he was one of the characters who certainly stood out from the pack. As you have heard from the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he was a man of enormous passion for the Territory. He was not a follower, he was a leader. He earned that title of ‘pioneer’ in the mining sector with incredible feats of exploration that he undertook throughout the Territory and, as you have heard in the debate, he had passion for our country.
At the funeral, I was talking to Dave Lindner, who is a bit of a wild man of the Kakadu country area. Dave talked about all the memories he had of Joe and how Joe was, as he said, happiest when he was out in a bush camp, living rough and could take the rough aspects of the Territory bush better than most people.
He was a very strong man but, as often is the case, along with enormous toughness, steel, and strength, he had enormous compassion and love - and that compassion and love was for his family. He was a very proud man, but incredibly proud of his family. As we know, any successful person in life is successful because, generally, they have people around them to support them through their endeavours. Joe had a tremendous strength in his widow, Eleanor, and the love of his children, the love of his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, some of whom are here.
I acknowledge and pay tribute to the family who supported Joe through what must have been an incredible life of adventure with an incredible man as the patriarch of the family. I know that strength of his will be passed down through the generations, and it is great to see. I am quite excited about all the Fishers we have in the Territory still, and I am sure they are doing great feats in their own way. I have quite a few of the family living in my electorate of Karama where, ultimately, Eleanor and Joe settled to be closer to family.
As the Chief Minister said, he was not of this side of politics, but I have many fond memories and funny stories that my mother has told me. She was the woman in the middle of the political spectrum for all those years, as Gerry is now. She sat there as an Independent. As a child I saw both sides and I judged a person not on their politics but on their character, as children often do - you look at the person and he was a man of tremendous character. Joe was a fantastic person and a tremendous Territorian.
It would be good for Territory schools to have his book, Trials and Triumphs in their libraries - it is a phenomenal read. It tells so much of our history. I commend all members to encourage your school libraries to get copies of Joe’s books. It is a story of the Territory and a Territorian’s commitment and passion for the Territory, a passion which I am sure we all share.
We will pursue the legacy of Joe Fisher; that is, the strength and independence of the Territory. We will not stop the fight for our self-determination. We are still a Territory. We still are under the control of Canberra. That is a fight and a cudgel taken up by our member for Arnhem through Statehood. Men like Joe Fisher, Sam Calder, Dick Ward - our forebears in this parliament, in the Legislative Council and in the first elected Legislative Assemblies - require us to continue the fight in Canberra for absolute independence for our great Territory. It is a commitment we have. I commit myself to the memory of our great, strong leaders who preceded us in the Council. Joe Fisher stood out amongst a group of great leaders.
This is my simple condolence to the family of Joe. You knew him better than any of us could imagine and the love that I have seen, the embracing, is a fantastic legacy in itself. Trials and Triumphs gives us a glimpse of the enormous legacy he has left the Territory. Thank you for having shared him with the Territory through the decades.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the condolence motion for Joe Fisher. It is, indeed, a pleasure and a privilege to pay my respects today in this House to the Old Man of Territory Mining, Joe Fisher.
Joe Fisher was a true gentleman and a genuine pioneer of the exploration and mining industry in the Northern Territory. He was a staunch advocate for the development of the Territory at a time when not everyone saw the potential of the north. Joe’s contribution to the Territory was considerable, and he will be remembered for his love of a challenge, capacity for hard work, and good common sense.
Joe’s days of mining were when it was a pick and shovel affair. It must have been those days of hard yakka, sweat, and toil that gave Joe his health and longevity. His early days in the Territory were spent in the Top End, particularly around the Pine Creek and Alligator Rivers region. Joe was there when Coronation Hill was mined. He was there when the gold mines were popping up like daisies in the Pine Creek region; and he was walking across the back blocks of what is now called Kakadu. We have heard that Joe was involved in the naming of Kakadu and also setting the boundaries.
I am quite sure that he was a staunch supporter of conservationism, and it shows that, as was the case with Joe, mining and the protection of the environment can go hand-in-hand and co-exist. Joe was also into diamond exploration - although, if he did find them, I never got to see any of them - and did a lot of work in the Merlin area. He worked with the original company, Ashton Mining, which explored and made discoveries.
There was not a mineral that Joe did not know about, and there was not a mineral that he was not prepared to try to find in the Northern Territory. Perhaps it was from those days of working in the Alligator Rivers region that Joe became such a strong advocate for the uranium industry, even though most of Australia, at that time, would not say the word, let alone support the industry. This support never wavered, and it was about this time that I met Joe when I started work at the Minerals Council.
He was a champion like no other. He loved the Territory, its land, and its people. Joe gave the time of day to everyone, and I do not recall anyone having a bad word to say about him. He was polite, he was courteous - a true gentleman. He knew all about legislation, particularly mining, uranium and land rights. He gave no slack to any colour of politician at any level. If they did not recognise the wealth of the Territory and its development needs, then he was not sure that they should still be standing. He had a passion for the Gulf region and he wanted to see it develop and open up; perhaps one day soon it will develop the way he saw it.
We often had meetings with visiting southern politicians. I recall that they would walk into the room and see this slightly ageing fellow, with silver-grey hair, sitting there quietly. I am sure they thought to themselves: ‘Hmm, this will be a bit of a pushover’. And then Joe started to talk. They were left with no misunderstandings about how things should be done and what they were meant to do - that is, the federal politicians - and what they were, more importantly, doing wrong. Generally, the next time these people visited the Territory, they had the answers ready, and they were always pleased to talk with Joe.
Joe’s thirst for knowledge and his activity level never waned. Well into his 70s he started to write his first book and then went on to write his second book. I have signed copies of both books and I have read them. Joe wrote and organised the publishing himself. He would often come to the Minerals Council with scraps of paper, old maps and scripts. My then Office Manager, Sue Langmair, would patiently type them up and give them back to Joe. After the work had all been done, Joe would stroll back into the office and leave a bottle of champagne behind for Sue to say thank you. Joe was such a lovely man that he would bring two bottles of champagne into the office, unannounced, every Christmas, for Sue and me with the simple words: ’These are for you to enjoy’.
Joe was a Rotary man all his life and while I do not know much about this part of his life, we sure as hell knew when the Tomaris Sweep was on and obediently bought all the tickets that Joe brought into the office. We made sure that every book was sold on the day Joe said he was coming back to collect them. I recall when he used to help on the Rotary chocolate wheel; it was a brave person who tried to walk past Joe without buying a ticket - that is for sure.
Joe may have been a conservative person and a deeply religious man, but that did not mean he did not have fun. He loved his red wine and a party, and Eleanor was his main party organiser, both for milestone birthdays and marriage celebrations, complete with belly dancers - I was at that party, I believe it was his 70th or 80th, and it was a hoot.
In preparing for this today, I rang around a few of my crusty old miner mates, and asked them if they had some words or some thoughts and memories of Joe. One of the examples I was given – and mining people and exploration people would remember this and possibly the minister over there, who is chuckling – was when Joe would be at our functions, our lunches, our dinners, and a politician or a person would be the guest speaker. They would finish and it would be time for questions. Guaranteed, Joe Fisher was the first one with his hand up. He had a question and he asked the question. However, before he asked the question he had to have a little conversation with the guest speaker to show them, perhaps, where they were not quite going the right way. We could guarantee that Joe would always kick off the question times.
The other quirky thing was that Joe was one of the signatories on the Minerals Council’s cheque accounts. Sue Langmair would go around there with the documentation and ask him to co-sign the cheques. There was always a cheque written out for ‘representation’. Joe kept saying to Sue: ‘What is this representation?’ Sue said: ‘Joe, that is when the executive goes out to lunch’. ‘Oh, that is a good name for it’.
I have some words from one of Joe’s colleagues from the Minerals Council days, Grant Watt. Grant was President of the Minerals Council for many years, and also one of the early explorers in the uranium province. These are his words, for Joe’s wife, Eleanor, and family:
- It seems to be a bad year for my old mates. First, Joe Fisher passed away at the age of 90, then another, a mere spring chicken at 89, Peter Howson, former Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs, passed away last week.
Both taught me a lot. Joe about the history of the Territory, especially about the history of the Kakadu region and mining (or sometimes not mining) in the Territory.
Howson, founder of the Bennelong Society, taught me a lot about Aboriginal affairs and the politics of the Coalition from McMahon’s days, until a few days before he
passed away in Geelong.
When I was chairing meetings at the old Minerals Council, Joe was always first cab off the rank, whether it be land access, proposed amendments to the Land Rights
Act or more government legislation slowing down the exploration of mining in the Territory. When visiting politicians, federal or Territory, visited the council, Joe was
on to them before they had the chance to settle into their chairs and start their spiel, leaving some quite bemused but always better informed about the mining industry
in the Territory.
To say the least, Joe spoke at length at Executive meetings. Some of his fellow committee members often asked why I, as Chairman of the meetings, didn’t limit Joe’s
speaking time. When I suggested that they might like to intervene, they immediately went into reverse. Joe may have seemed to be slightly repetitive at times but
no one could dispute his facts and knowledge, nor deny his enthusiasm.
I always had a dark suspicion about Joe. Sometimes when he had finished talking someone would ask a question which Joe didn’t seem to hear. Sometimes I suspected
that, ever clever and wise Joe Fisher may just have turned down or even removed his hearing aid.
A true Territorian, he will be sadly missed by all who knew him.
From Grant and Carmen Watt.
- To me, Joe represented the exploration spirit of the Northern Territory. A true icon for the mining industry. I don’t believe many people up there truly appreciated his contribution.
He had strong views and was not afraid to stand up for them. He was a strong supporter and a proponent for the uranium industry, and if it wasn’t for him the industry and the NT
wouldn’t be where it is today. He stood firm and strong and dealt with criticism very effectively. He was, as we well know, a true gentleman and very much a family man. We were
privileged to have been welcomed into his family and it was a privilege to have known him.
Please pass on our best wishes and condolences to Eleanor and his family.
Ron and Patricia Matthews.
Vale, Joe Fisher!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and pay tribute to Joe Fisher AM, a pioneer explorer in the mining industry, a highly effective politician, a journalist, a family man, and a proud Territorian.
At 90 years of age, Joe passed away on 12 January 2009. He and his wife, Eleanor, had four children, 12 grandchildren and 20 great-grandchildren. He was born in Queensland. He went to primary school in Brisbane and won a scholarship to Brisbane Grammar School. His family moved north to the Batavia and Coen goldfields in Cape York in the 1930s.
Joe met his wife, Eleanor Roberts, a nurse at Cairns Base Hospital, whilst visiting a work colleague. Joe married Eleanor at St Michael’s Catholic Church in Gordonvale, Queensland, on 24 April 1940 - and I apologise if I disclose information here that I should not. The first son, Jef, was born in 1941 in Gordonvale, then John, was born in Brisbane in 1943.
The family then moved to Mt Morgan, where Joe worked at the Mt Morgan copper mine and commenced studying for a mining diploma at the Mt Morgan Technical College. As a student, Joe joined the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Joe’s third son, Robert, was born at Mt Morgan in 1946. The family returned to Cape York after the war and eventually settled into suitable accommodation at the Wenlock goldfields. Mining operations continued under extreme conditions until finally ceasing at the end of the 1952 Wet Season. The family then moved to Coen, and worked at his brother Norm’s transport business.
In 1954, the family moved to Cairns, where Joe soon accepted a position as field superintendent for a Melbourne-based syndicate, Northern Uranium Development, exploring for uranium. This syndicate held exploration areas in north Queensland and the Rum Jungle area of the Northern Territory. During this time, Joe spent a considerable amount of time exploring throughout the northern part of Australia, and at the company’s Melbourne headquarters. This was to be the start of a long association with the Northern Territory mining industry.
Joe’s fourth son, Gregory, was born in 1955 in Cairns, and the family moved to the Northern Territory in 1955. Joe was heavily involved in the discovery and mining of uranium, and later gold, silver, and lead in the South Alligator valley region, which was later to be declared Stage 3 of the Kakadu National Park, including El Sharana, Rockhole, Palette, Scinto, Coronation Hill, Sliesbeck, Moline, and the Evelyn Mine.
The El Sharana deposit, discovered by Joe and his team, was recognised as one of the richest uranium lodes in the world. El Sharana was named after the daughters of one of his field staff, Ellen, Sharon and Anna. In 1958, operations were moved to Moline, where uranium ore from the South Alligator valley was trucked to Moline, producing considerable gold from this ore as a by-product.
N & I Fisher, owned by Joe’s brother Norm, was the transport contractor using AEC body trucks and dog trailers. Operations were confined to the Dry Season only due to the non-existence of good roads and bridges.
Joe had been involved in many other exploration and mining ventures around the Territory, including the Maranboy tin field, Running Creek copper deposit, Mathison Creek barite, Mt Diamond copper mine, Goodall Mine, and Evelyn Mine.
Joe served as a non-official member of the old Legislative Council from 1960 and won a by-election for the seat of Fannie Bay in 1969 as an Independent. Joe later held the seat of Port Darwin until 1974. Joe became famous during this time for challenging the federal government to sack him after he slammed their refusal to assent to the Child Welfare Ordinance. Joe was a member of the Northern Territory Reserves Board from 1965 to 1974, which looked after national parks and reserves throughout the Northern Territory.
Joe also had a literary bent, writing a weekly column for the Northern Territory News from 1978 through to 1982, and publishing two books, Battlers in the Bush in 1998, and Trials and Triumphs in the Northern Territory and Northern Australia in 2002. I agree with the member for Karama, every school should have a copy of those books. My copy, given to me personally by Joe, stays firmly planted in my bookcase.
Joe wrote about his first encounter with the Territory in his second book. During a visit to the ‘war wrecked town’ of Darwin in 1954, he wrote:
- Darwin had mostly dirt roads but it was a cosmopolitan town where houses were never locked and rarely robbed.
In 1980, Joe commenced an extensive exploration program on Ringwood Station, south-east of Adelaide River, which led to the discovery of the Goodall Mine, which poured its first gold in 1988. In 1984, Joe became President of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Joe was instrumental in the discovery of the Merlin diamond pipes and the Argyle Diamond Mine in Western Australia.
Joe retired from active work in 1995, but continued to roam the countryside with a geology pick in hand. He spent his time with his large family and his relatives throughout the country. I know the Chief Minister and the member for Karama said he was not from our side of politics, and he certainly was not, but we never had a disagreement, especially when he discovered that I shared his view about uranium. We both believed that uranium mining exploration was acceptable and without danger, so that was the end of any political disagreement and argument I would have had with Joe. I was one of his kind; we believed the same thing.
In 2007, Joe was quoted as saying:
- Now it is realised that uranium, naturally occurring, is not going to harm anyone, I see the industry … as being a very viable one, because the people who are normally against
it on principle have now realised that the government is supporting it and have changed their principles. They have nothing to back their fears, and it is a very viable industry
with a long-term future.
That was in 2007. It took quite a while for people to change their minds and certain political parties to change their position. But Joe was certainly a visionary. May he rest in peace.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. To me, Joe Fisher was a lovely old man, a fellow I have known on and off for 15 years or so. Reference has been made today to Sam Calder, whose passing left a hole in the Territory because, as I said at the time, Sam Calder, like Joe Fisher, was that breed of person who sought to fight for the rights of Territorians to determine our own future. We, as parliamentarians, particularly in this place, owe a debt of gratitude to people like Sam Calder and Joe Fisher. Without those fellows, the world and the system we know in the Northern Territory would be very different.
It is very difficult to imagine what things were like. The member for Karama said she was a five-year-old watching the sittings of the Legislative Council. However, for most of us, it is very difficult to understand what the Territory was like in those days, and how poor we were in the eyes of some of our interstate counterparts.
Joe Fisher was one of those people who did a huge amount for the constitutional development of the Territory and it is something that we, as parliamentarians, should never forget.
Joe, as has also been mentioned, had a rich mining history, a rich conservation history, and a history of being a big supporter of the environment. These things do not always sit together in many people’s minds. I know the battles I had in Canberra with some of the people in the bureaucracies in the Northern Territory, who believed that any tourist or any mine was a blight on the environment. Joe was of the school that believed not only could mining, parks, tourism, and other ventures co-exist but they could all thrive and complement one another. To some extent, that is rather progressive thinking. Views like that are relatively accepted these days, but over the years have not always been so. Joe was a big supporter of preserving our natural environment and, at the same time, utilising some of the resources the environment provided to eke out a living for ourselves and continue to preserve the environment.
The member for Goyder mentioned the area of land rights. It seemed that Joe was an expert in so many things. In my time in the federal parliament, I would have a little query on something, and I would bump into Joe in the street and ask: ‘What do you think about this?’ or ‘What do you think about that?’ Joe always had a response. He always had a particular point of view on a particular issue you could ponder somewhere down the track. I found Joe an incredible resource, almost a living historian, and the wealth of knowledge he had about the development of the Territory and what was in the Territory, I found was unmatched by other people I have met. His knowledge was incredible.
For a bloke who had done so much throughout his life, he was an incredibly humble person. He did not try to put it over you or talk up his own achievements - far from it. He was an inherently decent bloke. For those reasons, I find his passing incredibly sad. He is from a generation of people who value decency, humbleness, and lack of hubris. I believe the Territory will miss Joe Fisher enormously.
I extend my condolences to Eleanor, the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren. You should feel proud, because Joe Fisher was a man who did so much for all of us and was a great Territorian. I am incredibly pleased to have had the opportunity to make these remarks.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we heard the Chief Minister and other members talk about the significant achievements of William Joseph Fisher, and they were many - from his work as a politician, as a journalist, in the mining industry and, perhaps most importantly, as an active member of the community.
I have always believed it is important, as members in this Chamber, that we remember and respect the work of those who have gone before us, especially when they are members who have served the same local community that we do. We follow in their footsteps and we build on their achievements. I believe the number of guests in the Chamber today is a measure of the man and of what Joe achieved.
Over the last few days I have spoken with a few people who were close to Joe, and it was clear that he was much loved and respected. I want to share a couple of their observations of Joe. The first thing anyone talked about when they talked about Joe was his family. He was very much a family man, with his wife, Eleanor, their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. He was honest, forthright, and proud to be a Territorian and, like most Territorians, he had a healthy sense of humour. I love his e-mail address: lostinspace@goodship.enterprise.com.
It was these character traits that formed his life in public service, a service that went beyond his years as a politician. He spent a large part of his life in charitable services; Joe was a Rotarian for a little over 40 years. The Darwin Rotary Club does much great work and Joe helped with club projects like Meals on Wheels, and the Christmas parties they organised for underprivileged children.
The member for Goyder talked about the chocolate wheel. I am sure we have all bought tickets in the chocolate wheel; I know that I have - I have not won anything but I always buy a ticket. The chocolate wheel raises about $25 000 a year, which is all given to charity. Rotary was also responsible for another Territory tradition, the Tomaris Sweep which, unfortunately, is not held any more. We can all remember the card table in the mall. It looked like a pretty hot job and I understand Joe and Eleanor would volunteer to man the stall. I believe it takes a pretty close couple to sit out in the sun, for several hours on end, selling raffle tickets. Mind you, back then there were probably a few more trees in the mall.
Rotary is not all hard work though. There are the odd social occasions with guest speakers, and the member for Goyder touched upon this with her mining lunches. We are all familiar, as a guest or a public speaker, with the awkward silence that can follow a speech when the question goes out: ‘Are there any questions for the guest speaker?’ This was not the case for the Darwin Rotary. The first question was always reserved for Joe; he always had a question. I understand sometimes it was more of a statement, but that is a privilege you can afford a former politician. At East Point, in Joe’s former stomping ground as local member for Fannie Bay, there is a sign dedicated to him at the Rotary Club of Darwin’s ‘Joe Fisher Exercise Site’. The plaque reads: ‘
- One of the pioneers who helped create the base for the modern Northern Territory economy. Geologist, explorer and bushman, Joe Fisher spent many years of his life in some of
the remotest areas of the Territory, yet, as an active member of the Rotary Club of Darwin for 40 years, Joe still found time to contribute to a host of club projects that have benefited
the Darwin community.
My thoughts are with Joe’s family and friends. All the best. God Bless.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I want to share a few words in relation to this condolence motion. At the outset I wish to pass on my condolences to Eleanor, his wife. Whilst we realise that Joe lived a full and long life - 90 years is what many people would describe as a good innings - the truth is that that in no way diminishes the loss that his widow, Eleanor, feels at this time. My heart goes out to her. To lose a partner of such a long time must be an extraordinary loss, and particularly to his widow, my deepest condolences.
I knew Joe Fisher more or less in passing. I never had a great deal to do with him, but I was sufficiently impressed by him that after the last election I sought out his photograph, as well as several other photographs of former members for Port Darwin. His photograph appears on my office wall, glowering over me with a view of expectation that I do the job that he did, well and effectively. I am mindful of the legacy that he has left and the duty that he has thrust upon my shoulders. It is for that reason that he joins the likes of Shane Stone and Tom Harris on my office wall; because of the work those men did, in their own times, to advance the Northern Territory.
What I did know of Joe Fisher makes me wonder if he would have really approved of this motion before the House, because this motion is about Joe Fisher, not about the things that he stood for. Whilst we appreciate that we want to put on the record our passion and our appreciation for the things that Joe Fisher stood for and did, I suspect that, if I read the man correctly, he would rather have us talking about the issues, even now, that were important to him.
Decency transcends politics, and Joe Fisher was a decent man. One of the other hallmarks of decency is that it is never really about ‘you’. If Joe Fisher was interested in an issue and he was out the front leading the charge on a particular issue, it is not because it was about Joe Fisher, and elevating Joe Fisher to some height in his own mind or in the public mind, it was because the issue that Joe Fisher believed in was important.
That is the thing that attracts me to people of his calibre. I have never been one to champion heroes, because heroes have noble ideas but, sometimes, step back from those noble ideas or tend to be more human than their ideas would have you believe. Take somebody like Martin Luther King, who was a passionate fighter for what he believed in. If you look into his character, he was actually very human. It is the principles and ideas those people carry forward which is what I value. That is not to diminish Joe Fisher. In fact, it elevates Joe Fisher because it is principle before personality that drove him.
Everything that I know about Joe Fisher is the essence of decency and the maintenance of those principles of decency. He was a Rotarian for 40 years - we have heard that in this place. And what are the principles that drive Rotarianism? They have a four-way test. Everything they do is run through this filter, and this test determines whether it is the right, proper and decent thing to do. Those are the things that Joe Fisher held as important - those principles that guide us through life, what is right and what is wrong, and staying true to those principles for the sake of being a decent person. That is what we should be remembering in this place: the principles that Joe believed in, principles such as the ability for Territorians to enjoy a place which is theirs.
When Joe Fisher came to the Northern Territory in 1954, it was administered like a public service department with no real local representation. So bad was the treatment of the Northern Territory and the people who lived here, after the 1911 hand back to the federal government, at one stage we were two Territories, cleaved in half in the mid-1930s because some bureaucrat in Canberra thought it was a good idea. Joe Fisher smelled, touched, and tasted the neglect of Canberra. It used to be rumoured at least – but I suspect there was some truth in it - that if you were an incompetent federal public servant, you were promoted and sent to Darwin to live out your days in the Siberia of the public service. It was probably a little harsh; I know there were a lot of dedicated people here. However, reading the experiences of those people who lived with the results of those decisions, there might have been an element of truth in that as well.
Joe realised that the Territory had to have its own representative body. It had to have its own structures in place, where we could determine, for better or for worse, our own destiny to a much greater degree.
If you read today’s Australian Constitution, you will find that there is a reference, towards the back, as to whether Western Australia chose to join the Federation of States. That is an indication of an inverse square law which applies to Australia in its relationship to Canberra. The inverse square law is that you are directly, proportionally, and inversely dissatisfied with the operation of Canberra relative to your distance from it. The further you are away, the less satisfied you are with Canberra’s conduct towards you. The Northern Territory and Western Australia - well, the Northern Territory from 1911 onwards - and Western Australia at the time of Federation, were the furthest flung outposts of Canberra’s reach, and both of those jurisdictions had expressed their dissatisfaction.
There were two Remonstrances from this jurisdiction - Joe was a signatory to one. What was the issue? Our right, as Territorians, to govern ourselves. Joe became a passionate federalist as far as the Territory was concerned. I continue to share his concerns about the erosion of the federal system, with a greater focus, in this nation as a whole, towards a centralised form of government. I suspect that Joe would not have been particularly approving of the High Court, which has consistently underwritten and undermined the federal intentions of our constitutional fathers. Those are the sorts of principles that Joe would have been concerned about, and would have like to have had talked about in his memory in this place, I suspect.
Joe was a man who believed in personal responsibility. It was the cornerstone, I believe, of his political world view. It is a cornerstone of my political world view. I believe that personal responsibility, above all else, is what we should try to achieve as people, and not try to find grounds to blame other people, or find comfort in being a victim, but getting on with it - rising above and getting on with it. Those are the principles and belief systems that Joe has left for me to study and to build upon, and that is what I wish to acknowledge Joe Fisher for in this House.
I believe Joe was a good and decent man, and there would be no one who would cross that opinion. For me, Joe Fisher leaves a legacy of principle - a principle that transcends life. I am grateful to Joe Fisher, not because he was a decent bloke, but because he left me with principles and beliefs, and things that I can build upon so that I might make his legacy worthwhile into the future. I am grateful to Joe for leaving me those ideas. I hope I can do it with the same sense of decency that he had, and with the same sense of belief and passion for the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of this motion. I endorse all the comments made by my colleagues. I would like to speak in the context of legends and leadership.
I came to the Territory the first time, which was 30 years ago, as a very young man. The reason I came back to the Territory was because I met people like Joe and Eleanor Fisher. They were the people who created the can do attitude in the Territory that so inspired me and, I assume, many others, to come to the Territory - and not only come here but to stay here. It was a lifestyle that had been created and demonstrated that you could survive here, do well and raise families. It is where my wife and I came to raise our family.
I did not know Joe Fisher well. I met him on numerous occasions, but was unfortunate to not actually have the time to sit and listen to some of the stories that have been relayed here today. However, I do know about his reputation, about the fine person that he was, and about his comments - I used to read the NT News when I first got up here, and a week would not go by when there would not be a letter to the editor from Joe, or his comments in the columns of the NT News.
He was a person I looked to, who I knew pushed the envelope and encouraged others to push the envelope. This is why we have that can do attitude and, perhaps, why the Territory is the place that it is today - because of those people who came before us and pushed the envelope. He was a leader in our community and as a student of leadership I studied present and past leaders. I was very fortunate to be able to look to people like Joe Fisher and be inspired by what he did, the way he did them, and the results he achieved.
His life will not only be an inspiration to his family, but it will be an inspiration to future Territorians and to future students of leadership. They will be able to study Joe Fisher’s life, his achievements, and his style of leadership within the community. Fortunately, I was able to talk to him in his lifetime, but others who come will be able to read his books, go back through the archives of the NT News, and read many other words that have been recorded in his name.
I extend my sincere condolences to Eleanor and his family on the passing of such a fine Territorian. He will be sadly missed.
Those members of our community who inspire others, not only in their lifetime but continue to inspire others after their passing, are known as legends. I firmly believe Joe Fisher will go into the Northern Territory history books as being one of our very own Northern Territory legends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was a little reluctant to contribute to this condolence motion because I did not know Joe that well, but as soon as someone mentioned he was an Independent politician I thought that it is a good opportunity.
I suppose I did know him – I knew more about him, rather than knew him personally. I have not even lived in the Territory for half the time he was alive; much of his life was before I was born. However, to me, he is up there with those people I remember such as Tiger Brennan, Dick Ward, Sam Calder and Bernie Kilgariff. They are all people I have not known particularly well, but as people who many of us hold in high respect. Joe Fisher is one of those people.
I also know Joe because his son, Greg, lives in my electorate. I believe that in every son, well, there is certainly going to be 50% of your father biologically, and I believe Greg has many of the characteristics of his father. Greg will certainly tell you what he thinks, and Greg has firm views on things. That is not a bad thing, because I believe that is why Joe was such a successful person in the Territory. He was determined in many of the things he did. He was determined as a miner. He struggled with the politics of mining. He was determined, as you could see, in his letter writing. I remember his letters. We have regular letter writers today. Unfortunately, one passed away recently – Col Friel. We have Howard Young. We had Joe Fisher. They were regular letter writers. I must admit the letters to the editor in our NT News are sometimes the most intelligent part to read – apologies to the NT News. It reflects what people really think without all the extras added in, and that is where I got to know him as well.
I also came to know him through the Church. I do not live in Darwin but I frequent St Mary’s Cathedral and I knew him because he came around with the collection plate. If he was anything like when you passed him at the Rotary wheel, he certainly would not let the collection plate go past without you putting something in it! I also say that because we need to reflect on him as a man who believed in his God - not in some airy-fairy way, not in a wishy-washy way. He went to Mass regularly with Eleanor. I saw them Sunday after Sunday when I attended. I felt he reflected the God that knew about the place we live. He would have come across that God many times when he went around the bush with his pick. It would be very hard for even the strongest atheist, to sit down in Kakadu or parts of the Territory when there is a beautiful sunset, to believe there is not something else out there that is the cause of this beauty we call the Northern Territory.
Also, his work in the community was a reflection of his beliefs. He worked with Rotary for 40 years. People do not just work for Rotary for the sake of working for Rotary. They have something deep inside them that says: ‘I wish to help the community’. That is a reflection, I believe, of his belief in God.
He, obviously, believed in parliament; he believed in improving the democratic processes in the Northern Territory. We would not be standing here today if it was not for Joe Fisher and people like him.
The most important thing - and it is something we forget - is that regardless of all the things he did in relation to parks and mining, the community and parliament, he left a family, and that family is a permanent legacy. They will pass the stories of Joe Fisher on and on. We have lost a Territorian; we have lost a part of our history; we have lost someone who reflects the Territory as I knew it when I first came. I probably could say, unfortunately - and some people may disagree - it is changing, and maybe it is changing to look like just another part of Australia. I hope that does not happen, but it does appear that way sometimes when you see the changes in Darwin city.
Yes, we have lost a very important part of our history, but we have lost a person who has left us, I believe, the greatest gift; that is, a family of sons, daughters, granddaughters, grandchildren, and they will be his living memory to the Territory. They will pass on his stories. We should be eternally grateful to Joe and Eleanor for that. To Eleanor and family, my condolences; and to Joe Fisher - may he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their contributions this morning. Before putting the motion, I extend my condolences to Mrs Fisher and extended family. I had the honour of attending Joe’s funeral at St Mary’s Cathedral. It was clear from the ceremony, celebrated by Bishop Ted Collins, that he was a very strong Catholic and a man of faith. It was very moving to see so many Territorians gathering to recognise the passing of this great Territorian.
Honourable members, I have received a number of apologies from people who wished to be present today, and I will put those names on the record: his brothers, Mr Stan Fisher and Mr Hugh Fisher and, particularly, the former Senator for the Northern Territory, Mr Bernie Kilgariff and Mrs Aileen Kilgariff. When I spoke to Bern last week, he was hoping to travel to Darwin for this condolence motion but, unfortunately, ill health - he has been in hospital for the last few days - has prevented him from doing so. He has asked if I would pass on the condolences of their family to yours.
Vale Joe Fisher, AM.
After I have put the motion, I will be asking members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members. There is morning tea being served in the main hall for those members who wish to join our guests on this special occasion.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Kenbi Land Claim
Kenbi Land Claim
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, on 30 January 2009, I announced, jointly with the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners, an agreement that we have reached in the way forward that can be taken to the Commonwealth government to finally resolve the Kenbi land claim.
The Kenbi land claim was first lodged in 1979 - the longest running claim in Australia – and was continually opposed by the CLP government. The first hearing of the Kenbi claim resulted in the finding that there were no traditional owners of the Cox Peninsula. Following an appeal and further hearings from 1995 to 1999, in December 2000, Justice Gray recommended the grant of a large part of the claimed area as Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In his finding, Justice Gray identified six people as being traditional owners for the purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, but he also noted that a grant under ALRA would benefit a larger group, including the broader Larrakia.
Since the election of the Labor government in 2001, there has been an agreement that the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth, and the Northern Land Council would seek to develop an agreed position on detriment issues arising from the land claim. Detailed negotiations between the NT government, the Commonwealth government, the NLC, and the traditional owners have been ongoing and are now at a point where there is agreement between the Territory, the Northern Land Council, and the traditional owners on a proposal that can be put to the Commonwealth minister for decision. The essence of the agreement is that the aspirations of traditional owners and the broader Larrakia for economic development opportunities, and aspirations of government for land to be available for residential and urban development, can best be met by a combination of the grant of Territory freehold and Aboriginal land under ALRA.
Importantly, the interests of other key interest groups, particularly commercial and recreational fishers, recreational users of the Darwin Harbour and its features, and existing land users, have all been accommodated in the agreement. This makes this agreement a shining example of the kind of win/win outcomes that can be developed when stakeholders sit down and work through their issues together. This is a strong contrast to the history of legal objection to the land claim and obfuscation that was characteristic of the previous government’s approach to this and other land rights claims before 2001.
The agreement announced on 30 January represents not only an end to a protracted and unnecessarily expensive Kenbi land claim, but also an end to the bad old days of enmity and opposition. Whilst the final boundaries for grant of ALRA and freehold titles needs to be settled with the Commonwealth, the agreement proposes that the recommended grant of land include 13 000 ha as Territory freehold held in a land trust for future developments, and 52 000 ha as Aboriginal land. Land becomes available for development, and Larrakia traditional owners will have the first option to develop the Territory freehold land held in trust.
I am pleased to say that a key feature of the proposed agreement is that the High Court Blue Mud Bay ruling will not apply to Darwin Harbour. All persons, whether commercial or recreational fishermen or other recreational users, will be able to not only access the inter-tidal zone without fee or permit, but also be able to access the beaches in the areas proposed for both ALRA grants and Territory freehold. The only exceptions to this are a number of known sacred sites, and an exclusion zone around an outstation near Ida Bay. Because of the high visitation to the Cox Peninsula by members of the public, a marine ranger unit comprising full-time employees will enable the Larrakia to participate in surveillance, monitoring, and natural and cultural resource management, including the protection of sacred sites.
I am also pleased to say that the proposed arrangements accommodate all of the existing uses of land at the Cox Peninsula, in most cases by way of a grant of a lease from the Aboriginal land trust to the affected persons. This includes Telstra facilities, the Charles Point Lighthouse, private interests including holiday shacks, a fishing base and a private airstrip, mining tenements, a pearling operation, and use of land by private organisations.
Understandably, the agreement has been received very positively by all parties. It clears the way for development of the Cox Peninsula and gives traditional owners an opportunity to participate in economic development and maintenance of their sacred sites. It removes uncertainty for commercial and recreational fishers and users in Darwin Harbour, and makes suitable arrangements for existing land users. The Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs has commended the NT government and the NLC for reaching a negotiated agreement, and is on the public record that she will now move to finalise outstanding issues in relation to the claim, including the status of Australian government facilities. In addition, a commitment will be sought from the Commonwealth for the cleanup of unexploded ordinances on the former bombing range on Quail and Bare Sand Islands. This agreement demonstrates that, with a commonsense approach, determination and goodwill, it is possible to resolve Indigenous land issues with outcomes that benefit all parties.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, whilst I would like to speak at length on this matter, of course, in this stifled parliament, I only have two minutes, so I will address one issue and one issue only; that is, this business about dressing up the CLP as this awful bunch of people who challenge land claims ...
Ms Lawrie: You did.
Mr ELFERINK: We did challenge land claims, but we did not buy full-page ads in the NT News saying what a great job we are doing fighting land claims, which this government has ...
Mr Henderson: You went to election after election on it.
Mr ELFERINK: If this government was as committed to the process of negotiation rather than litigation, then why would they argue in the Federal Court of this country that native title has been extinguished over Darwin by virtue of the fact that cultural genocide has been successful, because that is how you argue a native title case. This government has the audacity to walk into this place and suggest for one second that they are the wonderful communicators with Aboriginal people when, in fact, the CLP also, in its time, did come to negotiated outcomes with native title issues such as the area of Rosebery, as I understand it, in which the Larrakia Development Corporation got its start.
This business of dressing up one side of politics as being the evil ones because they had the audacity to challenge and, then, dress themselves up as the great and wonderful communicators with Aboriginal people, when they too happily go to the courts and actively resist claims against the Crown from Aboriginal people, is hypocrisy in its lowest form.
When I hear the Minister for Health - as he is at the moment, I do not know what he is going to be next week – say: ‘Oh, we are really just testing the case to ask the High Court for an opinion’, it is an opinion that would have had the effect of depriving Aboriginal people of their rights. They were also taking out full-page ads to say what a great job they were doing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, without getting into the long-running politics of this particular land claim, I am relieved that, eventually and at last, we appear to have come to a conclusion. In the case of the Kenbi land claim, there were good reasons at that time for the government to at least challenge it. When I say challenge, it is not saying they were challenging that people had a right to own that land. My understanding - and this is where the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan came from - was that the government felt that there should be some consideration to the growth of Darwin.
I suppose what this has highlighted is the fact that, if the legislation and the circumstances are right, many of the issues that we are concerned about can be dealt with by negotiation, as long as all parties are willing to deal honestly and fairly with those negotiations. The facts are that we live together, both black and white. The Kenbi land claim is close to Darwin and, if you are a town planner, you would ask where Darwin is going to grow, and the nearest place is either Adelaide River or Cox Peninsula. I believe that debate needed to happen. Whether it needed to happen over 25 years is probably the debateable point. Whether we could have solved these issues at less cost and without all this time going under the bridge - I believe we could have - that is over now and we have now achieved an agreement.
This will be good for Darwin, the broader Territory community and, also, for the Larrakia people who will be able to develop their own land as well. I believe we have achieved something that, perhaps, could have been achieved in a shorter time, but at last it has been done, and we should say, let us move on from here and develop the Territory.
Barkly and Victoria Highways – Closure Due to Flooding
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory suffered its own mini-disaster early this year due to flooding, which was severing the Barkly Highway to our east, and subsequent rains closing the Victoria Highway to our west.
While the Territory experiences heavy monsoons every Wet Season, which can see our roads flooded and closed for periods of time, the rainfall level that closed the Barkly was at least 1 m higher than the predicted 50-year flood levels. Following rain over a number of days, the Barkly Highway was closed on 5 January when a major breach washed away 70 m of the highway with water flowing at depths of up to 2 m. The embankment where the breach occurred is 3.5 m high.
In my first days back from leave, I visited the site to see firsthand the incredible level of damage. Workers were mobilised immediately to repair the damage and a working platform was established 7 km from the breach, on high ground, to stockpile and cart 2300 tonnes of rock to fill the breach. Our Construction Division, under the supervision of Glen Jones, Manager of Roads Projects at Tennant Creek, did a great job in difficult conditions, working around the clock to get the road reopened.
The reconstructed Barkly Highway was reopened to light traffic on 22 January and to heavy vehicles on 29 January. Initially, travel was restricted to daylight hours and one-way traffic. The road was reopened to 24-hour, two-way traffic on 25 February. Heavy vehicles are now able to carry 100% of their legal axle group loads. Roadworks will continue at the site for the next two weeks repairing the road shoulders. Post-repair inspections will be carried out on a regular basis to ensure that there is no settlement of the works. The repair bill across the Barkly region is estimated at $3.2m.
Heavy rains in the Victoria River region also caused road closures on the Victoria Highway. The water levels have now subsided and the Victoria River Bridge, 200 km west of Katherine, has been reopened to traffic.
In response to the damage caused by these heavy rains, the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements were activated. The NDRRA is a joint Territory and Commonwealth government program designed to share the costs of relief and assistance and help communities to re-establish following a natural disaster. The program particularly targets public assets and restoration such as schools, health centres, roads, power stations, and other government infrastructure. While the majority of the expenditure and recovery from the monsoonal trough will be met through the Territory’s own budget, the extent of the damage is such that the Territory will be able to call on the Commonwealth for some financial assistance.
Under the scheme, the Territory funds all disaster-related activities up to a threshold amount - we have spent $7.4m so far this financial year. The expenditure after that point can be reimbursed by the Commonwealth at a rate of 50%. Once expenditure exceeds a further threshold of $13m in 2008-09, the Territory can claim reimbursement of 75% of its disaster-related relief expenditure over that second threshold. In past years, the Territory has received considerable disaster recovery from the Commonwealth and we acknowledge its role in helping us to repair damaged infrastructure.
I sincerely thank the staff of the Roads Division. I know that with the significant road washouts we have seen at both the Barkly and the floods at the Vic, they had to mobilise very quickly. I also sincerely thank the contractors, particularly in Tennant Creek. They were coming off another road job so they were able to mobilise very quickly across the Barkly. They set up their work camp and we saw a heavy effort. As I said, they were working day and night to get the Barkly open again. The problem was the extent of the washout; we lost both shoulders, so were down to one lane leading up to the breach. That meant that it was very difficult for trucks to get in with the 2300 tonnes to fill the breach. Until we covered the breach they were reversing in to get the rock and the fill into that breach. They worked under difficult and precarious conditions. They worked around the clock. The gravel was coming in at a rapid rate, with trucks up and down the open section of the Barkly, and they did a great job.
I know we are suffering, of course, with closures on the Queensland side of the highway now. That is the nature of the issue of significantly heavy rains and floods that they have been experiencing in Queensland.
I am often on the record as saying that 23% of our road network unsealed creates difficulties, but monsoonal rains across highways and unseasonal and unpredicted floods will take out a highway regardless of what you do …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I also thank and congratulate the hard-working staff at DPI and the contractors and maintenance crews who have been trying to fix the Barkly Highway. I understand that the floods were beyond 50-year expected flooding, and that road going under put a great strain on the Northern Territory.
I am aware of many people in that area who have suffered, from Tennant Creek up to Darwin, through the passage of transport coming that way. There were many holidaymakers in Alice Springs who could not get through, and many people were affected by that. Our only hope is that we can get that highway back up to standard as quickly as possible, and pray that the rain does not again come down as hard as it has to cause these problems in the first place.
We need to also reflect on the impact flooding of places such as the Barkly Highway has on the Territory, the Territory’s economy, and the people in the Northern Territory. The inflationary pressures this puts on the prices of groceries and other materials that come to Darwin from interstate, especially from Queensland, and how we manage contingencies, so that when these disasters occur, they do not have such a negative impact on people in the Northern Territory. We are aware that people in Darwin and Palmerston already have over-inflated prices on their rent, mortgages, and groceries, and to see the Barkly Highway go down and put further impact on inflation in the Northern Territory, is a significant problem. We have to ensure that we have appropriate responses so that Territorians do not suffer.
The $200m black hole that the Northern Territory government has us in is already $20 500 on the head of every single Territorian – man, woman, and child. We are in a $200m black hole and, when we see the unfortunate incident happen on the Barkly Highway to put more inflationary pressures on people in Darwin and Palmerston, it is an absolute disgrace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I visited the Barkly Highway on 4 February, just before it was open to traffic both ways and, until you go there, you do not realise the extent of the disaster that hit the Barkly Highway. For about 600 m south of the Barkly, near the Rankin River, you can see 20 culverts, about 10 foot in diameter – enormous culverts – that have been completely washed out from the road and are now in the bush. There is also scarring of the landscape. I did not know that the people who live on Soudan Station, which is right on the Rankin, were surrounded by the floodwaters and were evacuated when the floodwaters nearly rose to the top of the roof; it was something that no one could have expected.
Contractors have done fantastic work to get the road open. The only thing that concerned me was the conditions of opening the road, which I believe were detrimental to some of the local industries, like Three Ways, that did not have the amount of traffic come through that was expected. They told me they had put off a couple of workers because the road was only open for a certain amount of time each day. It worries me that someone made a decision to close a road for nearly 18 hours of the day, if you came from the wrong direction. I do not know why the government did not look at putting sets of traffic lights on these areas and have them open 24 hours a day.
After all, our trucking industry does not sit around and wait at night - it can get through. For some reason, the entire road was blocked off all night and it was only open one way during certain hours. I ask the minister why we could not have used those portable traffic lights at those sections of the road which were being upgraded, so that people could have moved through? They might have had to wait 20 minutes or so, but they would not have had to wait the extraordinary amount of time they had to under those conditions.
I would like to congratulate all the people who got the road open - we need it open ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, The traffic management conditions on the Barkly Highway were put in place for safety reasons. We had the breach to fill and, once it was filled, we had the compacting of the surface and then sealing to do. We also had the shoulder damage still being fixed, and perhaps that provided the restrictions. It was not just the section where the breach had occurred; there were sections closer to the Queensland border that also had some significant shoulder damage. It was about the closeness to the edge of the drop-off of 3.5 m. If you went out there, member for Nelson, you would recognise that the highway is sitting quite high and, then, you have the black soil floodplains sitting below it. When the shoulders are washed away and you have one lane, you do have to be very careful with those big trucks coming through, particularly at night when visibility is very low because we do not have street lights sitting out in the middle of the highway.
The traffic management was put in place based on safety. They followed all normal traffic management procedures on that highway. We did recognise there was a bank-up of trucks wanting to get through. There were also the holidaymakers returning from Queensland to the Northern Territory, as well as the holidaymakers from the Territory going to Queensland. It was a particularly intensive time of the year for volumes of traffic on the Barkly. All traffic management actions where thought out very carefully by people whose technical expertise is put to use ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Central Australian Tourism Marketing Campaign
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the continued focus on tourism in Central Australia and, in particular, the latest marketing campaign for the region which builds on previous campaigns.
In September last year, we launched the first-ever global marketing campaign for the Red Centre, a $2m campaign with a simple message Get CeNTred - with a big NT right in the middle of the Centre - for Australia’s Red Centre, where people can rediscover themselves, get back to basics, and refocus on the important things through unforgettable experiences. A visit to the Red Centre will leave you looking at life differently.
The first global Red Centre campaign was an ambitious program for Tourism NT, as we sought to reposition the Red Centre as a favoured international destination. Key to this was educating would-be travellers about what there is to do and experience in the Red Centre, highlighting the value of this experience compared to others. This is an ongoing process.
We have had good success with our campaigns, but we need to continue to put in the hard yards. I am pleased to report we have just launched the latest marketing campaign for the Red Centre, the second phase of the government’s $2.2m Get CeNTred marketing campaign targeting Australians. More than $500 000 of this amount was invested by our national partners, AAT Kings, APT, Peregrine Adventures, Connections, Great Southern Rail, Flight Centre, Voyages, and Territory Discoveries. This campaign commenced on Sunday, 7 February, and will run into March-April 2009. It is marketed under the Share our Story branding and creates a compelling reason to travel to the Red Centre, a visit where you will experience something that is different, appealing and unique to the rest of Australia, but one that will leave you with unexpected benefit - after all, it is the real Australian outback.
The campaign kicked off with seven consecutive days of full-page broadsheet exposure showcasing the Centre, a deal negotiated with Fairfax’s Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. This campaign has also provided opportunities for our national trade partners to place product and price offers in support of the broadsheet spreads. Importantly, given the current economic climate, we have ensured that the offers link in with the federal government stimulus package by showing what you can do in the Red Centre for under $950.
The campaign is also supported by a new 15-second television commercial which will appear on the free-to-air and pay-TV networks in the first few weeks in March. Online advertising is also a component, through leading websites such as Yahoo, National Geographic, Fairfax Digital and Total Travel, as well as promoting special deals through Territory Discoveries. There will be advertisements in leading magazines such as The Weekend Australian, Good Weekend, delicious, and Sunday Life, which will run for five weeks, reaching over 1.9 million readers each week. Twenty large outdoor sites, displaying iconic images of the Red Centre, will be featured in CBD locations across Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide. One will be a new digital billboard on the corner of Swanston and Flinders Street in Melbourne - a first for us.
This phase of activity is timely, given the launch of Tiger Airways’ new Adelaide to Alice Springs service next month, opening up markets in south-eastern Australia. While there are challenging times ahead, the latest Roy Morgan Research Holiday Tracking and Campaign Tracking Surveys show awareness of the Northern Territory is increasing, with a highly differentiated brand compared to other Australian destinations, strengthening its appeal as a travel destination. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to have a strong presence in the Australian market, highlighting the range and depth of the Territory experience, and working with partners such as those I have mentioned in this report - partners that will work hard to convert consumer interest into holiday bookings.
The 2009 domestic Red Centre campaign is a key platform to launch our marketing program to strengthen the position of Central Australia as an appealing and highly rewarding holiday destination.
Madam Speaker, I thank the CEO of the agency, Maree Tetlow, and all her staff involved in putting this campaign together. They continue to push the boundaries. I commend this report to the house.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, is outside with the family of Joe Fisher, so as shadow minister for Central Australia, I will respond.
The member for Johnston has made a complete mess of Health; I do not know if it holds much help or hope for those in the Tourism industry. We can only hope that he can employ himself much better in the business of tourism than he has in Health; he has an absolute legacy of failure in that department.
He is right when he talked about a key destination and about the hard yards that have to be done. I believe law and order is a big issue. The member for Johnston, or the new minister for Tourism, needs to go to Alice Springs as soon as possible and have a look at some of the law and order issues, talk to people in the mall and the tourism business operators who are desperate for some sort of help. We have had a meeting, as you know, with the government MLAs in Central Australia on ways to address that. I hope that Cabinet will approve some of those initiatives that were raised at that meeting to address some of the law and order issues. It goes straight to the heart of tourism. If you have roller shutters and smashed windows, it does not augur well for tourists and tourism operators.
The minister needs to go to Central Australia more than he has on previous occasions in the vast number of portfolios he has held since he has been a minister, in parliament, since 2001. Let us hope that he can deliver better outcomes for tourism - Central Australia is relying on him - than he has in the area of Health.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it seems like the member for Greatorex is continually talking the town of Alice Springs down. Yesterday in this House, Madam Speaker, he was calling across the Chamber to me, ‘Burnsy, you are no match for me, mate’. He is displaying his shallowness of spirit. I have an old political adage for the member for Greatorex: ‘dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on’.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Federal Stimulus Package – Benefits to the Northern Territory
Federal Stimulus Package – Benefits to the Northern Territory
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this House:
1. acknowledges that the major deterioration in the world economy is having a serious effect on Australia’s economy and that of the Northern Territory;
Further, that this motion be immediately forwarded to the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, the National Party Leader, Hon Senator Nigel Scullion,
Hon Senator Trish Crossin, Hon Warren Snowden, MP, and Hon Damien Hale, MP.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, there is no question that 2009 will be a critical year for the Northern Territory and its economy. It will be a year of immense challenges, as the global financial crisis and the slowdown of the Australian national economy impacts, not only on the Territory’s economy, but Commonwealth revenues to the Territory government.
It will also be a year of opportunities for Territorians. It will be a year that will forge the direction of the Northern Territory well into the future as we challenge the global financial crisis and the impact that it will have on the Northern Territory. What we do this year will be fundamental in how we perform as an economy in future years. Over the course of this year, the Territory will be caught between the disintegrating international and national economy, the subsequent hit to our financial bottom line, the opportunities presented by a very significant population growth, and potential expansion of our industrial base. For the government’s part, we will be balancing major demands on our budget for infrastructure and expansion, at a time of shrinking revenue from the GST as a result of the failing and slowing national economy.
The combination of a weaker world economy, downward revisions to China’s growth, and sharp falls in commodity prices, increase the risk of Australia following the rest of the world into recession. The effect of this global recession on Australian economic growth is wide-reaching, with almost all sectors of the economy facing significant weakness over the forecast horizon. GDP growth in Australia is expected to be weaker, at 1% in 2008-09 and 0.75% in 2009-10. At this stage, however, Australia is one of the few OECD economies not forecast to record negative growth in 2009-10 years.
The world economy is expected to grow by 0.5% in 2009 - the slowest growth for the world economy going back over 50 years. In line with the significant slowdown in the domestic economy, unemployment across Australia is expected to rise through 2009. The national unemployment rate is expected to increase to 5.5% by June 2009 and 7% by June 2010. There has been a marked deterioration in the outlook for business investment within Australia. Total investment is now expected to fall by 15.5% in 2009-10, reflecting weaker global and domestic demand, weaker profits, tight credit conditions for business, and the high cost of equity funding.
The outlook for Australia’s export growth has been revised down sharply to just 0.5% in 2009-10. While some support will be provided by the depreciation of the Australian dollar, the broad-based and pervasive weakness in growth across the world economy means that demand for Australia’s exports are likely to be weak. There is also a significant drop in household consumption. It is expected to be some time before household confidence improves and consumption recovers to the levels of recent years. As a result, consumption growth is forecast to be 0.5% in 2009-10.
Key bulk commodity prices are expected to lose much of their gains of recent years – in fact, they already have – and prices are expected to remain under pressure until the global economy and China, in particular, begin to recover. On the positive side, inflation is expected to fall to 2% by June 2010 and the Reserve Bank has slashed interest rates four basis points since September.
The speed and magnitude at which the financial shock has fed through into the real economy has surprised economic forecasters around the world. Whilst conditions in financial markets remain fragile, the volatility has eased. This is mainly due to aggressive government interventions including interest rate reductions, massive liquidity injections, extended loan facilities, capital injections, and banking guarantees.
There is no question that the Territory economy is already being affected by this global meltdown and will be impacted upon into the future. Due to our small size and our commodity and tourism focus, it will be impossible for us to escape the effects. There have already been some mine closures and production cut backs, with a subsequent loss of jobs. As we all know, exploration activities across the Northern Territory have slowed dramatically as a result of those small exploration companies being unable to access finance. That leads on to all sorts of small companies across the Territory involved in the mining exploration sector.
Nevertheless, there are a number of world-class resource projects that could start up over the next two years, including the massive INPEX project that this government has fought so hard to achieve for the Territory. The Territory remains one of the most highly prospective areas in the world for uranium, an energy resource that will remain in high demand in coming years. Uranium prices have stood up well, as other commodity prices have plunged.
Despite the weakening dollar, the tourism industry will be impacted by this crisis. It was great to hear the new Tourism Minister talk about the government maintaining its effort in marketing, to ensure that we maintain our share. There is no doubt tourism will be impacted. There is no doubt there will be a downturn in the number of international tourists visiting Australia and the Northern Territory. We have to maintain our market share. We will fight hard to do that.
Tighter credit conditions are impacting on the construction projects, with some real risks to larger private sector residential buildings. But with a 4% decrease in interest rates and high levels of demand in the Territory, there is great potential for construction, and we will do everything we can to maintain those skills in the Northern Territory. Despite this buffeting, the Territory economy is still expected to grow over this year and the next financial year – a significant achievement in the current context. Both Treasury and Access Economics forecast growth, which is significant, given that every other jurisdiction in Australia is forecasting at least flatlining and most of the states going into negative economic growth.
Access Economics predict growth of 4.7% this year, slowing to 2.4% in 2009-10. Treasury is slightly more conservative, as it normally is, predicting 4.5% growth for the 2008-09 year. Importantly, key drivers such as private consumption, residential dwellings investments, and exports are expected to remain strong. Population growth is also expected to remain strong. Access Economics is predicting growth of 2.1% across the board, but the work done by our Territory Growth Planning Unit shows significant spiked growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston areas, and in key remote communities.
The real impact on our economy comes through the potential for significantly reduced GST collections. This is a reflection of the national economy, not the Territory economy. Downward revision of GST has already resulted in the government revising our cash position to a deficit of around $47m this year, announced in November in the mid-year review. We still expect the deficit to be in that order in 2008-09. The real downturn happens next financial year, when we expect the deficit to be up to $150m.
Both the Territory and the federal governments have been working hard to meet the challenges presented by this crisis and, the most important thing, to protect Territory jobs. On 14 October 2008, the Prime Minister announced a $10.4bn economic security strategy. Territorians benefited from the strategy that contains long-term pension reform, support payments for low- and middle-income families, investments in first homebuyers, and significant new training places.
On 3 February 2009, the Prime Minister made what may prove to be one of the most important statements of any Prime Minister since World War II. He announced a $42bn plan to stimulate Australia’s economy. In that statement, the Prime Minister committed his government and this country to an active role in fighting the world financial crisis by doing whatever it takes to prevent our national economy from sliding deeply into recession. It is a clarion call to action to protect the jobs of Australians.
The Prime Minister’s package includes $14.7bn for Building the Education Revolution. The Primary Schools for the 21st Century Initiative will receive around $140m for the Territory’s primary, combined, and special schools to build or refurbish school buildings such as libraries, assembly halls, and performing arts centres. The Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools Initiative will allow the Territory’s 25 middle and senior schools to apply for a share of $1bn to build up to 500 science or language centres across Australia.
The Renewing Australia’s Schools Initiative will provide up to $200 000 for every Territory school in repairs and maintenance. The Building Trade Training Centres Initiative means that $110m from the Trade Training Centres in Schools program will be spent a year earlier. There are 13 schools in the Territory interested in hosting a trade training centre.
Territorians will also benefit from the $6.6bn in Social and Defence Housing. In total, 20 000 new homes will be built across Australia, with 2500 upgrades to public and community housing. Even if we only achieved a per capita share of that funding - Housing is working hard on that particular package and what may come to the Territory - we would see at least $66m coming to the Northern Territory for new homes and upgraded housing, and we all know the Territory needs that money. It is also likely that we will receive 185 Defence houses – a great stimulus for the housing industry in Darwin.
Territorians will also benefit from $890m to be spent on black spot roads funding, boom gates, and repairing regional roads and community infrastructure projects. The Black Spot Program will be increased by $90m, providing $200m to undertake around 350 critical road safety projects. The Boom Gates for Rail Crossings Initiative will share $150m between the states and territories to install up to 200 boom gates. The Repairing Regional Roads Initiatives will share $150m between the states and territories. The Community Infrastructure Initiative will share $550m between local councils. With our shire reforms and the shires up and running, the capacity for those shires to receive significant capital funding for projects in our regions is very important. Territorians will also benefit from $2.7bn in the Energy Efficient Homes plan.
Small Territory businesses, in particular, will benefit from the tax investment allowance. We know that 90% of people employed in the Northern Territory are employed in small businesses. There are 12 795 businesses in the Northern Territory with a turnover of less than $2m. These businesses can now claim a 30% taxation deduction for capital items worth more than $1000 purchased between 30 December 2008 and 30 June 2009, and a 10% deduction for items purchased between 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009. 12 795 small businesses in the Northern Territory can claim a 30% taxation deduction for capital items - a very significant initiative for our hard-working small business community. Businesses with more than $2m in turnover can claim the same allowance for items greater the $10000.
The Rudd government is also making five separate payments, up to $950, available to individuals across the Northern Territory. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians will give a one-off payment of $950 to those earning less than $80 000 a year; $650 to those earning between $80 000 and $90 000; and $300 to those earning $90 000 to $100 000. This is money, and if there are 80 000 Territorians, Treasurer, eligible for this – I believe I did the sums right – that is about $76m available to go into the consumption side of our economy, supporting jobs in the Northern Territory.
The Single Income Family Bonus will give a one-off payment of $950 to families with one income earner. The Farmers’ Hardship Bonus will give a one-off payment of $950 to farmers and small business in rural areas that are in drought and facing exceptional circumstances. The Back to School Bonus will give a one-off payment to eligible families with school-aged children to help defray education costs. The Training and Learning Bonus will give a payment to students and social security recipients entering education or training to provide additional help with costs. These one-off payments will provide a significant boost to the economy by promoting consumption, whilst helping their recipients with these costs. This is a stimulus package that will reach every family in the Northern Territory; in one way or another, every Territorian is going to benefit from this package.
Unbelievably, these payments to the Territory and Territorians are opposed by the Liberals and the County Liberal Party. I have never seen anything like it. In response to this stimulus package, and following discussions with the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Premiers, and Chief Ministers, I have ordered an immediate response from the Northern Territory, before this Appropriation Bill has even passed through the Senate. On behalf of all Territorians, I hope it does. I have ordered work across the Northern Territory to ensure that we are ready to start …
Dr Burns: Spade ready.
Mr HENDERSON: … spade ready -absolutely, new Business Minister - getting this money out to Territory businesses and contractors.
Last Friday, I established a five-point plan to ensure the Territory receives as much of this money as it can and protect as many jobs as it can. By not supporting this package, and voting against it in the Senate, the CLP is voting for higher unemployment in the Northern Territory. They are voting for throwing Territorians out of a job – that is what the opposition is doing - for whatever bizarre political purpose they are following, regarding the federal Liberal Party leader, Malcolm Turnbull. They are voting for higher unemployment in the Territory if they do not support this package.
The five-point plan includes:
The Development Consent Authority will now meet every fortnight instead of every month and we will recruit five staff to start immediately.
Talk to any developer around the Northern Territory; this is part of speeding up the approvals processes to allow work to start.
Dedicated Stimulus Action Squads will be set up in government departments to ensure these projects are up and running as fast as possible.
Advertisements seeking expressions of interest from industry will be placed within two weeks.
you need to go to tender and involving contractors earlier in the process.
Despite the opposition from the Liberals and the Country Liberals - you can hardly distinguish the two these days - we will be strongly engaging with and implementing this package, to the benefit of all Territorians.
The Treasurer, the new Business Minister, and I have been calling industry leaders over the last couple of days to gauge support for this project. Every industry association we have spoken to in the Northern Territory supports this stimulus plan - every one of them.
I find it amazing that the Country Liberals would oppose upgrades for schools, tax breaks for small business, energy efficiency measures, and one-off payments directly helping those who need help. To oppose this package is quite amazing. They used to stand up for Territorians. In fact, it is more than amazing, it is outrageous. I do not think that I can recall, in my time of serving politics in the Northern Territory, that there has ever been an opposition that has not supported additional funding for the Northern Territory - until today. They have stood and said: ‘We do not want this for the Northern Territory, do not give it to us’. It is irresponsible. I find it outrageous that they can not support jobs in the Northern Territory, and vote for higher unemployment in the Northern Territory - it is outrageous.
It is not only the Territory and the federal governments that are calling on the Liberals and the Country Liberals to support this package. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Chief Executive, Peter Anderson, urged the package to be passed. Peter Anderson said the package ticks the boxes businesses advocated as a response to the economic downturn.
The great economists opposite, the shadow Treasurer, and Nigel Scullion - I have the Hansard of what he said in the House last night - obviously think they know much more about how Australia needs to ride through this global financial crisis than people like Peter Anderson, who heads up the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
There are other commentators, though. The Institute of Chartered Accountants called for the package to be passed as soon as possible. Tax Counsel, Yasser El-Ansary said that it is important that everyone gives it full support because it is a measure aimed at giving a stimulus to business in the immediate term. Somehow, members opposite think that the member for Port Darwin knows more than the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Support for quick passage also came from the Australian Trucking Industry and the Housing Industry Association. Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, was a real doyen of the previous Howard government as an industry commentator, and she has been a very passionate advocate for Australian industry. She is not normally a friend of the Labor Party, but she said:
- Aggressively targeting consumer spending is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects.
‘Absolutely critical’, said Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group. Yet, here we have the member for Port Darwin and Senator Nigel Scullion somehow thinking that they know more than these people, when the nation is looking at significant growth in unemployment.
Australians are being thrown out of work, Territorians are losing their jobs, and Heather Ridout said that:
- … consumer spending is absolutely critical to our near-term economic prospects.
Frank Lowy, one of the great business people of Australia, has also come out in support of the package. I could quote more industry people who support this package.
It is a real puzzle why the Liberals and the Country Liberals do not support this package. Why not? It is all about politics, that will, if this bill does not go through the House, lead to higher unemployment and people being thrown out of work - through no fault of their own and no fault of Australian governments, past or present.
Our banking system is probably one of the strongest in the world, but we live in a global economy. Australia is impacted by the economy of the world. We can see the turmoil that the world economy is in. The people opposite, in opposing the stimulus package, are voting for higher employment in the Northern Territory.
My government has decided that it must continue to spend in a focused way to stimulate the economy. Despite calls from the CLP, the government will not be cutting its expenditure, nor will it be cancelling projects or cutting jobs in the public service. Despite the call from the CLP, the government will not be slashing deficit at the cost of economic growth in the Northern Territory. I do not like going into a temporary deficit. I know the Treasurer does not like going into a temporary deficit. We have worked so hard to repair the budget position of the Northern Territory and the legacy of debt and deficit that we inherited from the CLP. We have worked hard to rebuild the financial position of the Northern Territory from the empty cupboard and the enormous debt and deficit that the CLP government left us, as their legacy, after 27 years on those benches.
We have worked hard. I do not like going into deficit, but I know what I fear even more: seeing good Territorians lose their jobs. It is appropriate for us to go into temporary deficit. The government will not be slashing the massive 700 jobs out of the public service that is the election commitment of our opponents. At the very time that unemployment presents a worrying spectre for Territorians, the CLP is telling public servants that their jobs will go ...
Mr Mills: That is a lie!
Mr HENDERSON: The Territory government has also been active in ensuring our economy as reported …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition has always used the little mumblings that he undertakes to accuse our Chief Minister of …
Mr MILLS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, if it troubles her, genuinely.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very simple motion. It is a motion to protect jobs in the Territory. I will be amazed if the opposition will not support it.
We remain the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small and medium business in Australia, a badge of pride that we have worn for some time. Those 12 795 small businesses in the Northern Territory pay less tax than they would if they were operating in any other jurisdiction in Australia. We wear that badge with pride. Over the last year, the government has continued with its program of tax cuts, including significant reductions in stamp duty for conveyancing on home purchases, not just for first homebuyers, but for all homebuyers.
We have introduced the Buildstart Grant program to support those building their own home and to build investment homes in the Northern Territory to put on the rental market; supporting jobs and housing in the Territory. We have reduced debt to its lowest level in more than a decade. We have grown services so that Territorians can access the services they deserve.
We are spending $1bn on improving Power and Water. With the Commonwealth, we will spend around $1bn over five years on housing across the Northern Territory. We are releasing land at around five times faster than average, and we have announced the site of the new city, as well as plans for medium- to longer-term development around the Cox Peninsula. We are working at all times to attract more projects to the Territory. I have recently travelled to China, Japan, and the United States, speaking to senior members of very important companies investing in the Northern Territory.
These are the things we are doing. This is what a Labor government does: it works to protect jobs. Where I stand as Chief Minister, and in the Labor Party, the economy is not about profits or business, it is about jobs. The economy is about jobs and people - and that is what we stand for.
What do the Country Liberals do? They oppose a major stimulus package that will deliver hundreds of millions of dollars and jobs to our community. I cannot hear a reason why they would do that, but they do because they are just bowing to Malcolm Turnbull, and I cannot believe it. Senator Scullion said, in the Hansard last night - it is an amazing speech - and I quote:
- I do not support, and the Coalition do not support, the passage of this package of bills.
- … I will not support a spending spree that is based on a political strategy rather than an economic one.
They are playing politics with it. That is not what Heather Ridout, Peter Anderson from the Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Industry Association, the chartered accountants, or Frank Lowy say. Yet, somehow Nigel Scullion has more economic insight and foresight than these people? It is unbelievable that they would play politics with this.
In the wrap-up of this amazing speech, he talked about the schools, and said:
- … $4.7bn for school halls. … It is a political strategy.
Tell that to every primary school principal, every chair of a school council of those primary schools around the Northern Territory that are going to get up to $3m for every primary school, that this is a political strategy. It is bizarre. He went on to say:
- But, if this is what people see as an economic investment in long-term infrastructure to ensure that we move into growth in this country, they are sadly misguided.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, he is trying to say that investment in our schools is not an investment in economic infrastructure. There is not a more important piece of economic infrastructure than a school; education for future Territorians to move into the workforce. if investment in a science laboratory or a language laboratory so our students can learn Asian languages - which I know the Leader of the Opposition is passionate about - is not a long-term economic investment for the Northern Territory and Australia, I do not know what is. Not to mention the immediate impact that it will have for many hundreds of businesses throughout the Northern Territory, that will secure packages of work, either directly or indirectly, as a result of this funding; and the many hundreds of Territorians who will have their jobs protected for a couple of years whilst they have this work rolled out, whilst we wait for the major investment from INPEX and, potentially, other resource investments in the Northern Territory.
If investment in capital infrastructure in schools is not seen by the Country Liberals as an investment in the long-term economic capacity of the Northern Territory, well, I do not know what is ...
Mr Mills: Read the speech.
Mr HENDERSON: I did read the speech, I read it this morning and it is quite bizarre. I was at the COAG meeting and I have had a couple of conversations with Colin Barnett. I know the Leader of the Opposition travels to Perth on a regular basis and has met with Colin Barnett. Of course, we are on the political divide. However, when you sit at COAG, you are there not only representing your state or territory, but also looking to the future of Australia. Listening to the presentations that are made to COAG by Ken Henry, a senior taxation policy person who worked for previous governments as well as the current government, and senior Commonwealth bureaucrats, senior people from the private sector, you have sit there and listen and then make decisions in the national interest, and also look after the Territory’s interests while you are there. That is what Colin Barnett has done and I take my hat off to him. It was a very uncomfortable press conference for him. The Canberra press gallery was there, with many cameras - there are about 50 down there; it is quite intimidating. They were trying to wedge him against the Prime Minister. He would not be wedged. He said:
- This is in the best interests of Australia, this is in the best interests of Western Australia and I support the package and have signed up to the package.
That is what leadership is. The Western Australia Premier did not say: ‘No, I am not going to take this. I am going to walk away from it and I do not want that Commonwealth funding for schools in Western Australia. I do not want that Commonwealth funding for Western Australians to help them spend in the economy and keep jobs in Western Australia’. He did not say: ‘No, I do not want any of your 20 000 houses that are so desperately needed’. He did not say no to the small business tax cuts and walk away from the table and say: ‘I am not going to sign the COAG document. I do not want this; I am walking away’. Colin Barnett’s signature was on all of the documents that I signed. He signed up to it. That is what leadership is.
I thought that the Leader of the Opposition and the Country Liberal Party - that used to stand up for the Northern Territory, not kowtow and bow to whatever problems Malcolm Turnbull is having in establishing his economic credibility, as he sits there nervously waiting for Peter Costello to make his comeback - would stand up for the Territory. He has a chance to say today: ‘I support this package. I am going to support this motion and I am going to exert my leadership and my authority’ - if he has any – ‘by insisting that when this package of bills comes before the Senate for a vote tomorrow or Friday, as the Leader of the Country Liberal Party, I am going to instruct Senator Scullion to vote and support this in the interests of the Northern Territory’. If he does not do that, he is not a leader, he is a follower. He is a follower of Malcolm Turnbull; he is not a leader of the alternative government here in the Northern Territory.
I know the Leader of the Opposition fairly well. He is a decent person - I mean that genuinely. I believe that if he was in my shoes last Thursday in Canberra, as the Chief Minister at COAG, he would have signed up for this package as Colin Barnett did. You would have. I cannot believe that you would have walked away from the table and said: ‘No, I am not signing up to this. I do not want this for the Northern Territory’. I do not believe you would have done it, because you are a decent person. You have the interests of Territorians at heart, and you would have signed up to the package, because you know it is in the best interests of the Territory as we move forward into a difficult time.
We are doing it better than anywhere else in the country. I could not meet with the bank managers the other day, but the Treasurer and the Business Minister did. There is cautious optimism in the Northern Territory. We are doing better; banks are still lending money ...
Ms Lawrie: The doors are open.
Mr HENDERSON: The doors are open, they are lending money - we are doing okay. But we are on a tightrope, and there is cautious, nervous confidence, as opposed to despair everywhere else in Australia - and that is where we need to keep it. We need consumption to be strong, we need Territorians spending money - 80% of our economy is the wage earners of the Territory spending money in our local economy. Once they are in fear of their jobs, once they stop spending money, it starts to spiral, and that is why this package is a vote for jobs. If you vote against it, you are voting for higher unemployment and all the social and economic consequences that will follow.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to support this motion. In asking him to support it, I genuinely ask him to consider that if he had been in my position last Thursday, as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, sitting around the table - sitting next to Colin Barnett as he signed up to this - you would have also signed up to it. If you would, you should support this motion, Leader of the Opposition, and get Nigel Scullion to do the right thing and vote for jobs in the Northern Territory.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Federal Stimulus Package – Benefits to the Northern Territory
Federal Stimulus Package – Benefits to the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have attempted to deal with serious matters in a serious way, and yesterday I believe we did that. We were complimented for showing leadership by attending to matters in the right way and recognising where our attention should be focused. Then, today I heard someone utter a phrase: ‘Our side is keen to let the hostilities commence’ which, once again, reinforces this notion that is held by some; that this is a game, some kind of activity or sport.
That was reinforced strongly, and I find it quite disappointing - embarrassing - to see this kind of activity consume the time of parliament. This mock concern about the position of the opposition, when it is quite plain - and I have been around for a little while and I believe anyone can tell, whether they have been here for a short time or a long time - that this is merely a political activity to try to extract a political point, when there really are very serious matters to attend to ...
Ms Lawrie: This is serious. It does not get much more serious than this.
Mr MILLS: Yes, well, I do not believe you. What betrayed the real intent and motive of this is that it was all cooked up; they were all ready to go. Then the Chief Minister jumped up, because he had no motion before the Chair, and you have these two delighted looking little characters over there thinking – ‘Oh, excellent, we have played a really good trick on the opposition. We will be able to wedge them and play some kind of game, put a media release out and run this hard so that the community knows’.
It is a political agenda that is being delivered and run with great gusto. It is as people have described this parliament and parliaments: theatre for the ugly. It is not necessarily how you look, it is how you behave and what your real motive and intent is. It is quite plain to see. It is a bit like some poor amateur magician who is really nervous coming up and performing a trick in front of everyone. Everyone can see that it is plainly not magic, or the illusion is just evaporated by their clumsy approach. This is very clumsy and I do not believe it serves the true interests of Territorians at all.
Let us get it clean and plain. Without a doubt, there is a problem; an economic crisis. Commentators, as we talked about yesterday, are in accord that there is a problem. It would be quite foolish to rush in - fools rush in where angels fear to tread - emboldened by the political opportunities that abound in times such as this. In times of uncertainty, the government rushed in to capitalise and maximise political benefit, as the members opposite have rushed in - as fools do - and denied their obligation, their duty to attend to detail and to ask the necessary question.
As you have seen into today’s media, you will stone the questioner but not attend to the question that is asked. When we really need to engage - not on an emotional level but more of an intellectual level at times such as this - think it through and consider the consequences. That is the only position that has been described by the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory - bottom line, what is in the best interests of Territorians and what is the best interests of this nation. We have every right - in fact, a duty - to ensure that the questions are asked and satisfactorily attended to regarding all that is involved in this. To come up with this cock-and-bull story about this feigned concern that we are going to deny all to Territorians. My gosh! It is going to make a great media release.
You said at the last election, of that damning result from Territorians, who saw through the spin and games that were played by the Labor government for eight years, you would change. Territorians said that they had had enough. And they get the same again. Some big stunt, a big clever game played by the smarty pants from upstairs thinking, ‘We have a good point here; we will be able to drive a wedge, we will achieve something’.
Come on! Territorians require more; they want better. The only position we have held is the obligation, requirement, and the duty for proper scrutiny. To accept it without any look behind the scenes, behind that blank cheque that says, ‘Sign here, you will get this’, would be an abdication of your responsibilities. I believe you need to check these things out. No one buys a house without checking things out. You carefully plan these things, you match your capacity, you do forward projections and you weigh it carefully and, then, you put it on the line.
People who run around with great enthusiasm about these things really do not have a value for money. You do not really value money. Why would you not value money? You have never had to earn money and never created wealth, so you do not really know the value of money. You bring that attitude to bear on a situation like this and you become enthusiastic about spending because you do not understand the value of it and how difficult it is to generate wealth. We have not had much consideration of what generates wealth. How is wealth created - the wealth that creates a surplus that can be used in times like this? The ideological blind spot that this Labor government has regarding a result or an outcome, with their enthusiasm for expenditure, clearly indicates they have no real value for money because they do not understand how wealth is generated. If you have missed that part of the equation, if you do not attend to that, you end up in the position that we have: where you are happy to run at this really narrow, little shallow level of game playing and try to create impressions, which is completely unsatisfying.
If anyone here has any learning - and I know the members opposite have done some tertiary studies - you have to find that you are actually satisfied by the exercise. I do not reckon, after a fair amount of time in this game, you would be satisfied with the approach that this Labor government has taken. Even the newer members of this Chamber could see through this, I hope. It is humility and honesty that will help you see through it. There is a requirement for an assessment of this.
Dear old Barack, who has caused hope to rise, has a massive obligation to deliver on that hope. Even in the good old USA they allowed a passage of time to pass with proper scrutiny and assessment of this very significant package. Even in that case, after a period of time, it was not completely passed through. There were some reservations that were allowed. Unlike the grand chairman here, where you have to push it through and, if you do not, you hate the country or you do not like people - or some weird shallow argument which is really governed by a political agenda.
If government is genuine about this and can demonstrate that they are actually interested and can dig a little deeper - because leadership is not about following the bouncing ball; leadership is about doing what is right. Here is an opportunity. What the chairman said is right, is it? Without question?
A member: Without question.
Mr MILLS: Without question? Swallow it, hook, line and sinker?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I will be showing leadership by saying: yes, we do agree that there is a major deterioration around the country and the world and it does require a response - without a doubt; no one disagrees. What type of response? We need to have a talk about that. However, it is time for action. The second one is …
Member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: You need to consider these matters - that there is a package sitting there. I have an obligation - as all members do - to look at these things and satisfy myself. It is difficult when it comes to point 2. However, we will continue on because if we can have the support of an amendment, I believe we could find our way through in the interest of dealing with this issue properly.
There needs to be a stimulus - that could be debated - but I say that there does need to be a stimulus. What kind of stimulus? We need to assess that so we are all in this together. I accept that. We accept and support that governments will need to continue to spend.
This is the tricky little one. Point 5 asks us to forget all that - swallow it, hook, line, and sinker - and you have to pass it immediately; let us all panic and pass it immediately. I propose a motion and an amendment to Point 5 and, if that is agreed to by honourable members - I am not trying to find a political point here - we would be able to move on together in the best interests of Territorians. If you are fair dinkum, if you are not engaged in a political agenda, but an economic one, then we would find our way through. You would find that there is much more that unites us on this than divides us. It is that we look to our duty and obligation for closer assessment, and ensure that we are not actually being dudded in the Territory. Have you ever considered that? Could it possibly be that we should be entitled to more? Have you looked at that? Have you assessed that, honourable Treasurer? Have you had a little look at that …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: … or is it that you, the chairman, said: ‘Yes, certainly. Let us go and play politics, it is a great game’. However, the people are the losers.
The Country Liberals are supportive of initiatives which are soberly considered and focused on projects that will continue to deliver benefits for all Australians in the years to come - wealth generation. There is no doubt that moving the budget into deficit is unavoidable in the short term, but consideration should be given, when planning any stimulus action, to how the projects that will put us in the red will pay back the debt in the future. Go back to your own household budget; you have to take that sober consideration.
Therefore, I request an amendment to Point 5. Madam Speaker, I move the deletion of Point 5 as circulated by the Chief Minister, and replace it with the following:
5. Urges the federal Senate to conduct proper scrutiny of the $42bn stimulus package in a timely manner and pass it without unnecessary delay,
subject to the condition the proposed stimulus package is the amount that is needed, going to where it is needed, to achieve the outcomes
that are needed to protect the Australian and Territory economy from the impact of the global financial crisis and position Australia and the
Territory economies for a speedy recovery.
That is the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please sign it.
Mr MILLS: Why would that be resisted? We will have to see, but I move that amendment, Madam Speaker.
It is important to have proper scrutiny of these matters. The Country Liberals are supportive of the intent of the stimulus, but we believe that this package is an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to a situation that has been brewing for the last 18 months. The Rudd government is planning to spend a whopping 5% of Australia’s GDP by, basically, writing a blank cheque without proper and detailed consideration of the long-term impact of the spending. Stimulus spending must benefit both physical and social infrastructure projects, to build a stable platform for private sector development as the economy picks up.
The major projects that will achieve these goals are not short-sighted advancement of projects that have been lurking in forward planning, but significant, inspiring, nation-building projects such as we have seen in the past with the Snowy Hydro-Electric Scheme, the Ord River Scheme - large projects such as that. In the Territory, that would be something like building a dam, a new rail link from the east - something significant that would lift the hopes of our community, that lifts the economy and the aspirations of Territorians, so that we can see with some hope that there is some future. We need those messages of hope at this time. Nation building is the means to do that. That could well be - and it must be - a part of this stimulus, because you need to stimulate hope with nation-building projects.
These are the sort of projects that will create jobs now and provide capacity for business growth. They also have the added benefit of contributing to repaying the debt - wealth generation - that would be needed for the project in the first place, through increased productivity and direct revenue. It took 10 long years for the former Liberal government to pay off the $100bn debt accrued by the Hawke and Keating government. After less than 15 months in government, Labor is going to put us back up to our eyeballs in debt, without providing any constructive plan to pay off that debt once the economy begins to recover. It is short term and we do not have the foundation stones of nation building being laid that we can build hope upon. They are the elements that are required, and that is a discussion that is needed. It is not short term, it is long term; it is visionary. It extends beyond the reach of your own political ambition. It is for the nation, not for you.
A house is the biggest single purchase the average Australian will consider in their lives. Many of us have been involved with that. We have younger ones who are considering it, and it is an awesome consideration for young people who have young families. It is a personal commitment - a real commitment. You actually put it on the line to enter into years of debt, but you do it because you have the hope of what lies ahead: your capacity to repay it. On average, a house in the Territory will consume 44% of a person’s annual wage. You need to have the resources and the capacity to be able to repay on that kind of income level. It is a big commitment.
You understand the value of that money because you have to earn it; not because someone else amassed it for you. The previous Coalition government had it worked out and put there, and you just waltz in and said: ‘There you go. We do not understand how this came to be, but it is good that it is there. Let us spend it’. We need that other element kicking in so that you actually understand the value of the money and the need for wealth generation.
You give the same consideration when you are going to buy a house. It is different paying rent for the rest of your lives -- money in, money out. Who cares about wealth generation, because you are not thinking about the next generation. It is only short term and it is quite selfish. You actually think beyond the scope of your own vision. The commitment of going into debt to purchase a house is not dissimilar to the situation we face with this stimulus package, and cannot be considered overnight. As much as you would like to score a political point, you simply cannot consider these things overnight. You do not do it with a house - not in these times - you consider these things.
Why should we not consider the structure of this package, and understand its purpose and intent and possible effectiveness, and look at the consequences: are we in fact delivering it in the right way? Ask those questions. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that, it is just that you are not really worried about that because you want to score a political point. That is really good fun, but it is quite dishonest and not worthy of the office that we hold: to craft policy in the best interests of, not of our political agenda, but what is right for the nation, the Territory, and families. We really have to dig deeper than to play these kinds of games. Territorians have had enough - they said that on 9 August.
If you are going in to the house business, you have to work out what type of house suits your needs – a flat, a townhouse, a house in suburbia or on acreage. You have to work that out before you make that investment. You have to work out what suburb you want to live in, then what type of house - number of bedrooms, bathrooms, carport, garage, single storey or split level. Move in - no more worries, or fix it up - if you want to fix it up, if you are a handyman. You have to weigh all those things up. It is not a simple matter; you do not consider it overnight. It is the same with a package such as this.
Once that is decided, you must determine a price bracket; what you can afford and how long you can afford to be paying it off. You pitch yourself at the right place. You have to match your capacity against the long-term debt that you will be saddling yourself with. Do you need income or life insurance in case you lose your jobs? You look at all those contingencies. You have to weigh it up. Once you have the type of house and price range, then you start looking at properties, in much the same way that we are requesting here; that there is a deeper consideration, an engagement. We are not asking for delays, we are asking for proper consideration. It takes as much time to panic as it does to plan and to react with some thought. The most common advice is not to fall in love with the first one you see, but keep on looking and comparing, and looking again.
It appears that because our grand political masters in Canberra have said this is good, they have all said it is good ...
Ms Lawrie: Access Economics said it was good too.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: If you are inclined to fall in love with the package you are allowing emotion to govern your decision-making, and that really is not the necessary or the required capacity you need to solve these problems. You need something more than that.
Then, when you have found your dream home - you never know, you might go back to the first one - you go through the building inspections and you check for termites and asbestos, and other problems that might be hiding out of sight, before you consider signing on the dotted line. This is a process you go through. This will take some time and, in some cases years, but there will be some peace of mind at the end of it, because it will be an investment that will retain its value and become an asset to be proud of in the future - not just for yourself, but for those who come after you. You have to that quality of thinking, and that is what we are asking for. That is what is required here. I do not think it is too great to ask.
The Rudd government wanted Australians to commit themselves to years and years of debt, with only 48 hours to consider the package - just 48 hours. Unbelievable! They did not do that in the US, but they did it here - 48 hours to consider. I really do not believe that is right. That shows a reaction. It does not show you are being proactive, it shows fear and panic. If you have that level of speed in a very serious decision, it does not engender hope in the community.
All that is required is the capacity to ask questions and have proper scrutiny, so that we are in it together, because it is our children who will be affected by the decisions that are made with 48 hours consideration. It is not on, and I will not stand for that. There needs to be proper consideration. That is all we ask by the amendment to Point 5, by removal of that paragraph which clearly betrays the real motive of this shallow Labor government that is more interested in a political stunt and the scoring of a political point on a political scoreboard, than doing what is right for Territorians.
Who knows? You may, in fact, find that you are being dudded. I, and members on this side, suspect you may well be. Results from the last $10bn cash handout before Christmas – now, come on, really think about this – are showing that the $1000-plus cash windfall has done little to increase business confidence and has had an negative impact with confidence dropping to record lows. Did it work – $10bn? Did it have the desired result? There is growing evidence that, rather than spending the windfall to enhance pre-Christmas retail sales and flow-on effect of job stability and growth, much of the money has been spent on alcohol, drugs, and gambling, exacerbating the antisocial effects in parts of our community the package was desired to help.
Did you have a look at that? Are you fine with that? I believe that warrants further investigation. Do you? It should be a case of once bitten twice shy when considering these cash handouts. Did we have the opportunity, did we have the care taken to ensure that this massive expenditure of billions of dollars – in that case it was $10bn - achieved the result …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: So once again, the comment across the Chamber …
Ms Lawrie: Bought some food. It made a difference.
Mr MILLS: Yes, look, without a doubt, a churlish one. Without a doubt there are those who may have spent the money on the things that you have described but …
Ms Lawrie: It made a big difference.
Mr MILLS: Yes, well, there is a big difference when you look at the whole picture; that is clear evidence. You would know it if your eyes were open to see, down at the Karama Tavern, how many people sat there in front of the pokies. Have a look at the figures yourself. Have a look yourself if you want to satisfy your own conscience on these matters.
Did that $10bn package deliver what was expected? Did it increase, did it boost the economy as was expected? That betrays the fact that you have no real sense of the value of money. You are happy to spend someone else’s money - to heck with the consequences of it.
Ms Lawrie: Look at the consumer. You look at the retail spend results.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: We are talking about one particular aspect that warrants scrutiny. It seems particularly hypocritical, when this Rudd government is profiting so nicely from the 70% tax increase on alcopops. You think about that for a second. They have benefited from that directly into their own revenue. That was an incentive to do what? They said it was one thing but it delivered something quite different. That warrants scrutiny. We ask a question and you are against something or other: ‘You are not to ask questions’. It is time to reason on these matters.
The definition of a windfall is this, and you should know it very well: money received which was not expected and not as a direct result of something a recipient did. There is a problem in that, because it erodes the value of the money. Of course, that is demonstrated by what we saw at Question Time. We talk about the results that are required, the value for money, producing a result. All we get is that lock-in position of ‘We have spent on this, that and the other. We have a record here, a record there’, but with a complete blind spot on the value that is meant to be created by that investment.
That is why there is concern. Clearly, you guys do not understand that point, or refuse to. I believe that, perhaps at a quiet moment, a couple of you may concede to it, but with great reluctance. However, you do not demonstrate an understanding of that point. It is just not good enough.
You have received a $1.2bn unexpected windfall – $1.2bn – and have nothing to show for it. Rather than paying off debt and stashing away some for a rainy day, we are now faced with a $200m black hole, before the introduction of any Territory growth and delivered projects to keep Territorians insulated from the worst of the global financial crisis. We are so badly positioned; you have not taken advantage of the times of plenty to prepare us for the lean times. You have spent it all, and still hold the position that spending is a result, spending is an achievement. It is not. You cannot run a business like that. You cannot run a government like that. Territorians out there are uncomfortable and in pain as a result of the way you have managed this economy, the way you have managed this windfall and spent it all and think you have achieved something. You have achieved no result to match it in education, health or law and order. Nor have you retired debt, nor have you enlarged our capacity. $1.2bn, all gone - and we are looking at a black hole.
This is after the Treasurer assured us, in her delivery of the mid-year financial report, that we would be back into surplus in the 2009-10 financial year and beyond. Not only has the Henderson government been short-sighted and wasteful in their handling of unprecedented windfalls, they have only just pulled their head out of the sand and admitted that we may be in trouble - only now. We have had assurances upon assurances ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the Opposition Leader be given an extension of time to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Not only has this government been very short-sighted and wasteful in its handling of the unprecedented windfalls, it has only just woken up and told a different story: that we could well be in some difficulty. If you had gone out there with your ears open and spoken honestly to people in the business sector - albeit there are things on the horizon, I will never take that away from you. The gap between where we are now and when they will start to generate wealth and income into the Territory is quite large and requires a firm hand and a clear-sighted view of the problem that we have. You need to be honest at times like this.
It might buy you some space here and now to say that everything is going to be fine - Access Economics says this. However, I will say that; I do not think they have factored in INPEX. In full sight of making that assertion, have they factored in McArthur River? You cannot have one or the other. We have had mining operations close one after the other and, yet, you only pick out one to suit an argument. But it is just not true. You have to be honest. The community is smarter than that, and they can see these stunts being pulled, and have had enough.
Some of the Territory’s largest export destinations are under pressure - that is a fact. You can make assertions, but have a look at it. There are some challenges lying ahead with China and with Japan, and we should be prepared for those things - an assertion is not adequate preparation.
This is also quite betraying of the intent and the seriousness of this government to actually manage in difficult times. There was the nation-building infrastructure planning. When that was first floated, we did not actually have any response from government until the last moment ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You are misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You should check the dates, because you are misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rescue me, please.
Here was an opportunity to engage in a constructive way, providing leadership and talk about the things that are required: the need to build infrastructure. People have gone past believing you guys. You say things because a focus group told you this, or you picked up a snippet of a conversation somewhere or other from some advisor or minder. It is plain as day: basic infrastructure needs to be strengthened in preparation for the difficult times that lie ahead. Check the record, that has been said in this Chamber for years. Be prepared with the roads, the bridges, the port development and expansion, the dams, the increase in power generation, and the release of land. We have had media releases, announcements, and assurances that have gone over the horizon and vanished into thin air with no result. There was an opportunity, but no leadership was shown. There was a reaction at a time; at the last moment there were a couple of announcements. They tried to make up a bit of space, because they are more aware of how they appear in the public for what they actually do, whether it is right or not ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Mills: You will have your chance to rebut these things in the best way you can.
Ms LAWRIE: You are misleading the parliament and you should not mislead the parliament. You are saying …
Mr Mills: Madam Speaker, this is not a point of order, it is nonsense.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: I am raising a point of order. You are saying the government only issued some media releases when we submitted an Infrastructure Australia Bid in June of 2008 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, what is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: He is misleading, saying that we did not submit a bid until the last minute. It was wrong. He is clearly wrong. If he accepts the date, it is wrong …
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish you can approach me about making a personal explanation. Leader of the Opposition, you may continue.
Mr MILLS: This is an inspiring Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, behaving in such a shallow and shameless way? Nonetheless, our community lies in wait for change, real direction, and some genuine approach to the issues that concern them. That is not about our political fortunes and how we look and sound; it is what we do - whether it is right. They are waiting for that response from those who aspire to lead us.
The government was alarmingly silent when the announcement was made and we found that the Territory had been short-changed quiet significantly. ‘Oh, there are troubles in New South Wales’, said the Labor government, ‘Let us make sure they get the lion’s share and let us short-change dear old Territory. They have had their election and we can look after them another day, or perhaps they are a lost cause because they are an embarrassment’. They gave you a very small dose and they shovelled it into New South Wales. Where was the Chief Minister standing up and fighting for the Territory and the basic infrastructure that is required; that nation-building stuff? Where was he then? It was his political master, so they stayed quiet on it because politics is more important than doing what is right for the Territory. You have been caught out by your inaction and your insincerity when it comes to real issues. You were dudded by New South Wales – it was plain to see. You were slow to get there to put your request in, slow to mount your case and, then, slow to defend. In fact, I do not recall your defence when you found that New South Wales got the lions share and we missed out.
It is the same with this. Where is the level of scrutiny when it comes to the quality of this package as it affects the Territory? Or do you just shallow it whole …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: Where is the level of scrutiny? Where is the honest assessment of where we are positioned now with this, Treasurer? We have had enough of breathy assertions, with that smug and snarling look into the camera: ‘Trust me, trust me’. You are saying that we are going to be okay into the air. Open the books and let us have a look. There are some smart, genuine people out there who want to know exactly where we are at, so that we can be properly positioned and take responsibility for the decisions that are made that are going to impact upon our children and our children’s children.
We had a condolence motion today and we had the children’s children sitting in here - and there will be children’s children affected by decisions that are made now. You are happy for it to go through without scrutiny. I urge members to accept the amendment because it provides for honest assessment to ensure that we do get what is required in the Northern Territory, to build this nation and to lay the foundations for wealth generation so that we have the capacity to repay the debt. If you do not support this, you are indicating clearly that you do not understand the value of money, do not know where it comes from, and do not know that money needs to be produced by the type of infrastructure that will generate an income. If you do not understand that, you are just happy to spend it - and blow tomorrow.
I cannot do that. I know the value of money. I have worked on the land and I have run my own businesses. I know what it is like, and I know people who struggle hard in the backblocks. They know the value of money. That is why I urge members to recognise the need for honest assessment and scrutiny without delay.
We do not deny that there is a difficult period of time; there needs to be scrutiny. However, there needs to be some respect shown to this debate – 48 hours is an obscene gesture and disrespectful to hard-working Territorians, and a slight on the future. I urge honourable members to recognise that need for proper scrutiny in the interests of doing what is right.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that all further speakers are speaking to the original motion and to the amendment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the global economic situation, as we know, is deteriorating further. The International Monetary Fund is calling on governments to spend to stimulate the economy, and I quote:
- Do too much rather than too little. Delays in financial packages have cost a lot already. Further rounds of debate will stoke uncertainty and make things worse.
The construct of the Leader of the Opposition’s response to this motion is to delay, to have further rounds of debate, in direct contrast to what the International Monetary Fund has said. I say that it is an economic body we could all agree with; it would know what it is talking about. The Leader of the Opposition, the CLP, would rather we do exactly what the International Monetary Fund is telling us not to do – delay, have another chat, a few more discussions, or a few more meetings. It is surprising they did not ask to set up some kind of a committee, like their federal mates wanted to do – do an inquiry, another committee, do a full-blown review. Meanwhile, we plummet into national economic turmoil ...
Mr Elferink: When does this money hit your bank account? June?
Ms LAWRIE: The rubber will hit the ground - if you had been listening in Question Time, shadow Treasurer - in April. Minor new works dollars will flow in April ...
Mr Elferink: April - February, March, April. Three months.
Ms LAWRIE: Minor new works. Yes, there are tight time lines to get those tenders ready ...
Mr Elferink: No time for scrutiny in three months.
Ms LAWRIE: If you are listening to the debate by the economists, the impact of the stimulus package occurs on how swift the stimulus can hit. It is too late to wait. The paradigm shift that we are now in as a result of the global financial crisis means it is too late to wait. The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that this government said: ‘Well, beauty, Kevin has announced $42bn. We will go down, sign up and we are not going to have a look at any of it’. What a lot of nonsense. What an absolute load of rubbish. The man simply does not understand government or how government works.
We have had teams of our best people, of our best officials, poring all over this stimulus package. The Chief Minister and I travelled to Canberra, poring through the detail. We had teams of Treasury officials poring through the package to see what the package could provide the Territory in economic stimulus. We did not go down to Canberra thinking: ‘Okay, let us just sign up and who cares what it is’. We need to know whether it will hit the mark. We need to know whether it ticks the boxes of what is going to help the economy through the tough times of 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. They are the tough times, the financial years where every economy is going to be hit by the global financial crisis to an extent that no one could have considered possible ...
Mr Elferink: Your Treasury warned you in every Budget Paper No 2 that the GST is vulnerable.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection ...
Mr Elferink: Warned you every year.
Ms LAWRIE: Every Blind Freddy in the Territory knows the Territory’s revenue is vulnerable because 67% of our revenue is GST. The GST is outside the control of the Territory government, therefore, the revenue base is vulnerable ...
Mr Elferink: But spending is not, and you have spent for seven years.
Ms LAWRIE: I am a Treasurer who takes that scenario very seriously. I have gone - as did the Treasurer prior to myself, Syd Stirling - after a more stable base of funding, which is the five-year agreements sitting within the Special Purpose Payment packages, in the core areas of service delivery – health, education, and training. We have spread our base. It looks better than it did before. We have a long way to go, because we have been increasing own source revenue in our time, something the CLP slams us for every chance they get: ‘Oh, you are raising taxes’. No, actually, we have been reducing tax rates, but we have been receiving greater tax revenue because we have improved the economy. We are in growth. We are not flatlining at 0%, as it was when the CLP had the reins on the Treasury.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan has been scrutinised by the Territory government. We have had teams of our smartest and best officials - the CEOs that the CLP would want to slash and sack under their latest plan - poring through the package as it landed, down into the detail because, as we have all learnt, the devil is always in the detail. It is the economic stimulus package that is going to help us through the tough three-year financial cycle we are facing. We are already into it; 2008-09 is the start of the tough times. Despite being well placed, and being the best place in this nation, the Territory has to ride through the tough times - they are tough times.
The International Monetary Fund is forecasting a deep global recession. Seven-year cycles are the type of cycles that we know exist. I disagree with the view that it will extend to the full seven years, which we will see in other economies. We will come through this, in my prediction, in a three-year period. My predictions are based on good advice of what we know is occurring - years better than most economies ...
Mr Elferink: Three years of deficits. Is that what you are saying?
Ms LAWRIE: My prediction.
Mr Elferink: Surplus after three?
Ms LAWRIE: Very clearly, the shadow Treasurer is interjecting because he wants to play little tricks on whether the National Partnership payments we pick up when it comes through will then boost up, and whether or not we get a surplus out of the SPPs and the NPs flowing through. Obviously, every bit of revenue that comes in will affect our bottom line.
I am giving and forecasting conservatives, in Treasurer’s comments about deficits – a $47m conservative deficit ...
Mr Elferink: Conservative deficit now? What is the non-conservative?
Ms LAWRIE: I have always been conservative in what I have said. The stimulus package deliberately aims to insulate the Australian economy from entering recession. This is done by achieving economic growth of 0.5% in 2008-09, and between 0.75% and 1% in 2009-10. We know that federal budget is also now forecast to move into deficit, forecast at $22.5bn. This is a global financial crisis.
On 23 January 2009, Australian shares reached a new five-year low. We have always said that the Territory is not immune and, while our own source revenue is holding, we will be affected by this crisis. My Treasurer’s Mid-year Report tabled in the last sittings forecast that due to our declining revenues and as the result of this global economic downturn, we will have a cash deficit of $47m this financial year. We have released public figures which demonstrate that, despite this continuing downturn, we will maintain that forecast for this financial year. Additionally, I have released a forecast of a deficit of about $150m next year. The government did not make the decision to go into a temporary deficit position lightly. However, we believe it is the right decision for Territorians.
The only other option was to slash spending or increase taxes, and now is not the time to do either. The CLP do not support going into deficit, so they must support slashing jobs, spending or tax increases. We do not, and neither does the International Monetary Fund.
This government has been busy talking to industry groups in the Territory and, to date, none of them have opposed our decision to maintain spending - quite the opposite; they have been urging us to maintain spending because they know the squeeze is on the private sector. When the squeeze is on the private sector, that is when they need government stepping up, not pulling back. After six budget surpluses in a row, the Territory is in a better debt position than when we came to government, and a temporary deficit in that context is affordable. It is a better debt position than ever ...
Mr Elferink: You were warned, you were warned about this coming.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is continually interjecting. I ask you to ask him to refrain.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please cease your interjecting. You have the call, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague.
The stimulus package ticks all the right boxes for the Territory, and we believe the CLP needs to support it and stand up for Territorians, rather than their mates in Canberra. The package is bold. It is targeted at supporting spending and delivering jobs while we build our nation. It provides those one-off spending payments and, importantly, tax benefits to individuals, families and businesses provide an immediate stimulus to the economy. It is the immediacy of a stimulus that is needed for the 2008-09 financial year. As we know, construction projects cannot hit the ground and be delivered within the final half of this financial year. It is an immediate injection of those payments - the $950 payments and the tax cut benefits - which will see that stimulus in the 2008-09 financial year.
The construct of this package is for the infrastructure spends and their drops to lift in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years. It is a very astute construct when you dive into the detail of the package, which is why organisations like Access Economics are supporting it. It provides for that fundamental public infrastructure that everyone needs: for schools, roads, housing, and halls that will become community centres in many of our communities. This will represent the single largest injection into infrastructure projects across the nation by an Australian government in one package. It is not saying ‘match us’, it is saying, ‘Do not replace your effort, do not pull back on your own efforts’. Our $870m investment in infrastructure this financial year has to be maintained and delivered, and they have tough sanctions. If we try to do the dodgy replacements - that would be a temptation, I am sure, to some of the southern jurisdictions who are cash strapped.
For the benefit of the members opposite who, with their federal mates in Canberra, do not support the payments, I will turn to some of the commentary that is occurring around the stimulus package at the national level. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the package is good for business:
We were seeking a major stimulus package in the order of 2% of GDP, and it is in that order.
- This package will encourage businesses to go out and invest and employ.
Over the last week, I have met with a number of our key industry representatives including the Territory Construction Association, the Housing Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, the Civil Contractors’ Federation, the Resources Council, the Cattlemen’s Association and bank managers across Darwin’s key banks - our lending institutions. This package has been welcomed by those groups. It ticks all the boxes in supporting business with tax breaks, and providing extensive and guaranteed work for our construction industry. On top of our own infrastructure spending, it is the construction pipeline we need to meet INPEX on the horizon. It will support jobs like brickies, painters, tilers, and plumbers in housing construction, and also our larger construction companies that will bid for the $3m infrastructure projects.
The package is good and will deliver for Territory families in jobs. Many will benefit directly in this stimulus payment and the boarder community will benefit through extra housing. We are estimating 200 public housing dwellings. Add that to 185 Defence houses - all landing in this window of two to three years. What a phenomenal improvement in housing opportunities, where we have such a tight market; decanting Defence into that new housing, freeing up the rental stock. We had the HIA on radio saying what a difference that will make. If you do not want to listen to this Treasurer, listen to the HIA. They are in the industry; they have the finger on the pulse and understand the importance.
Based on census data, it is estimated that 90 000 Territorians will be eligible for the up-front, lump-sum tax bonus. For a Territory family earning less than $100 000, including combined incomes or a single income that is less that $80 000, both working adults will receive a lump sum bonus of $950. If that same family has two children and is eligible for the Family Tax benefit, they will receive an extra $950 for each child, aged between four and 18 years. For this family it is a tax bonus of $3800. These payments mean Territorians will have the money to spend supporting our economy and jobs, particularly in those important sectors of retail and hospitality. I encourage all Territorians eligible for the one-off bonus payment to ensure they lodge their 2007-08 tax return to receive the payment. The package is great for families.
Regarding the infrastructure component, I am heartened by the Prime Minister’s words in announcing the package. He recognised the backlog of need in the area of regional roads in the Northern Territory. He singled us out, along with a couple of other jurisdictions. We are in the front running team there, folks.
With $200m in the construction, every primary school will be upgraded with new facilities in libraries, multipurpose halls or art centres and significant refurbishment works. There will be major investments in public housing with our estimated 200 new dwellings through new construction and refurbishment programs in urban centres.
This package is good because it contains a policy shift that will deliver for what we need right now in the Territory. You can buy off the plan. Governments can go in and purchase off the plan. That helps the private developers with apartment developments, because we can help them with the pre-sales, to get housing delivered quickly into the marketplace. It is also a stimulus in the private sector. It ticks every box worth ticking.
I have mentioned the 185 new Defence homes for Darwin. We are estimating approximately $9m for roads and road safety to address black spots, boom gates, rail crossings, regional roads and community infrastructure. They are estimates; we need the package to pass through the Senate to get more into the detail. The housing package will be a significant boost for our residential construction sector. Go out and talk to the home builders, CLP, if you do not think they want this money. Go and listen to them. As we know, we need that extra housing stock.
The roads package will help fast-track road improvements across the Territory. I met with Infrastructure Australia just a few days prior to this economic stimulus package being announced, and I said: ‘We have road projects ready to roll. When the dollars drop down, we have the crews out in the bush working on all our major arterial regional roads …
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the Treasurer to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We have crews out there. We can extend contracts. We can get new tenders and new contracts out there. We have the capacity in our industry to build those roads. That 23% of road network currently unsealed, folks, we will get out there, build it, and seal it. We are ready to go. We have increased industry capacity, with record upon record of roads budgets in the Territory, since Labor came to government, taking it from $80m under the CLP to $270m this year. That has put the civil contractor capacity out there. Go and talk to Kevin Williams from the Civil Contractors Federation if you want to hear what they think about the stimulus and the opportunity for roads in the Territory. I spoke to Kevin again this morning ...
A member: Which Kevin?
Ms LAWRIE: Kevin Williams. I caught up with him on the night the stimulus package was being announced, along with other key industry representatives, and I spoke to him again this morning. They are welcoming the initiative of the stimulus package, and they will work with the Territory government to look at its application, and the early timing and packaging, so that all levels of the industry can be included in the employment objectives and outcomes.
The community infrastructure element of this package represents the second round of infrastructure stimulus for local councils. We all know how much this will mean for our local shires and councils. Tell them to say no to $500m-worth of economic stimulus. We are looking at 162 primary, combined and special schools receiving an upgrade. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity brought about by a once-in-a-generation global financial crisis. Granted, it is a bad reason for it, but it is an enormous opportunity for the Territory.
The government is ready to roll. The most significant aspect that the Prime Minister wanted with the economic stimulus package was an assurance from the states and territories that they would move swiftly. The Chief Minister has pulled together the Stimulus Action Squad. It will develop the submissions for the education infrastructure funding, under the $1bn secondary schools package, and it will deliver the resources that are available to the 500 secondary schools across Australia.
We have estimated that there are approximately 12 000 businesses in the Territory that will be able to benefit from the tax breaks in this package. Small businesses in the Territory with a turnover of less than $2m a year can claim back 30% tax deduction for capital items - that is like manna from heaven for small businesses - worth more than $1000, bought between 13 December 2008 and 30 June 2009. To cite an example, we had a farmer ring Senator Crossin and ask: ‘The water grader that I bought on 18 December, can I claim that?’ Yes, 30% tax rebate off that water grader. Tell a farmer that is not a worthwhile investment in economic stimulus. Tell that farmer he does not deserve that. Examples of eligible assets will range from computers to earthmoving machinery. These tax incentives are significant. They will offset the cost of capital expenditure by Territory businesses, helping to support jobs.
The Cattlemen’s Association supports the package in broad terms. They welcome the tax breaks for their members. They also view the infrastructure component as a long-term shot in the arm for the Territory and support arguing for as much of that funding as we can get. We will do whatever it takes to fast-track this being delivered.
The rubber will hit the road in the Territory with our Stimulus Action Squads. We are fast-tracking our planning; the DCA will now meet fortnightly. We will streamline our procurement processes. I spoke with the Property Council this morning. We all know Allan Garraway. He does not mince his words:
- Any extra dollars into the Territory are certainly welcome.
Allan is a realist; the Property Council welcomes this investment.
The Leader of the Opposition is confused between this economic stimulus package and the nation-building funds, which are available through Infrastructure Australia. I want to point out that there is a distinct difference between the two, as indicated by the Prime Minister in the Infrastructure Australia announcement. I met with Sir Rod Eddington a week ago, to discuss the Territory’s bid. I was on my last round of lobbying efforts before reports were signed off. I know the reports are almost finalised by Infrastructure Australia; it was in the final stages of putting its report together for the federal government. We submitted in June 2008, amongst the earliest submissions, so I did get upset with the Leader of the Opposition misleading the House about that because we were one of the first jurisdictions in …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Treasurer is aware that if she wishes to accuse a member of misleading the House, the vehicle to do it is a substantive motion. No such motion is before the House, therefore, her words are unparliamentary.
Ms LAWRIE: For simplicity’s sake, I will withdraw, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing those remarks.
Ms LAWRIE: What I will say is this: the Hansard record shows that the Leader of the Opposition said that the Territory had put its bid in at the last minute. That is wrong. We worked very closely with GHD - a reputable local company - to put an early bid in. We have met the bid requirements every step of the way with Infrastructure Australia. We have not rested with that. I have actively lobbied at every level, even to the very top to the Chair, Sir Rod Eddington, and we had a very good meeting.
The nation-building funds through Infrastructure Australia are for the port, the $1.65bn in roads, the water and power supply - our essential services. That decision has not been made by federal Cabinet; Albanese has been working hard on it. I know that the Prime Minister is aware of its importance to all the states and territories. I am quietly confident about the veracity of our bid.
We will not know until maybe March. I hope not much later than March, because we are ready to go with our key infrastructure, particularly the port, but also our bush roads - no doubt about it. They are the arteries of our economy, and they will take the produce that we have. I have been working with the Cattlemen’s Association in the bush roads lobbying effort. It has been great and I thank Luke Bowen and Roy Chisholm. It is moving approximately 350 000 head of cattle across the port now. It believes it can double that figure, given the markets it knows it has in Asia. It says it needs that significant investment in bush beef roads, which are sitting at the heart of all our submissions to the federal government. It recognises that the billions involved in fixing our roads is not something that the Territory government can do alone. It acknowledges, just as the civil contractors and other industry groups have acknowledged, our focus on roads and roads funding within our infrastructure budget. We will keep doing it. I am focused on infrastructure spending as Treasurer; so is the Chief Minister. I have the great support of my Cabinet in that.
This economic stimulus package and the $200m in infrastructure it can deliver during the window of the toughest economic times, is critical to the Territory. The individual payments are a critical stimulus. The tax benefits are a critical stimulus. The opposition would have us believe that we did not scrutinise, but we did. We put our best minds to this package. They went through it, and we continue to pore through the detail of it. We will deliver it. We stand ready to deliver the most significant investment in the Territory by the Commonwealth in decades.
We inherited an infrastructure deficit and backlog when the Commonwealth provided self-government to the Territory. Successive governments, irrespective of political creed, have tackled that. It is not easy to meet that backlog on our own; many would acknowledge that it is impossible. I will take this economic stimulus - I will take the $200m - and deliver it, acquit it, and not rest on that. We will continue to spend Territory funds as well in the area of infrastructure - we must and we will.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her edifying, exciting, thrilling, and scintillating dissertation on the $42bn package that we are discussing.
Is it not interesting, that when a government is in disarray one of its first options that it exercises is to lash out at those around them? This is a government which has shuffled its Cabinet more often than my deck of cards at home. Because it knows it is under the pump in that particular area, it is motivated by the world’s view of it and its need to protect its image. What we have today is a government playing dress-ups and little more.
This is not a motion which will excite anyone, other than the people who delivered it, simply because most reasonably positioned people will see this motion for what it is, especially when you consider the context of the environment in which it is delivered by the government into this place. The cute little trick about no notice to the opposition – ‘We thought we would waltz in here and drop this motion on the table’ – is indicative of the attitude this government has been developing since the last Territory election, and stands as another example of the poor and contemptuous approach it has towards this House and, indirectly, towards the people who put us in this place.
This place is where we are supposed to discuss issues, hopefully, in an informed and effective way. Whilst both the Treasurer and I - and, I suspect, most of the frontbenchers on both sides - would have had some indication of the $42bn package, the truth is that not all members in this House would have been prepared for a motion of this nature. What was the intent of bringing in the motion, in an environment where it was not signalled this was going on to the other side of the House, or anyone else in the House? The intent was to create a stink, a stir, some excitement, a tizz, a little fizzer for the media to get all excited about. I notice that the corresponding media release has gone out, and I do not doubt that 58 zillion phone calls from the fifth floor are being made to the various journalists spruiking the government’s position. It is all about image and how it looks and those sorts of things; it is not about the stimulus package.
Furphy No 1 that we have to deal with is that the CLP does acknowledge that there may be a necessity, in these times, to engage in deficit spending. To say otherwise is incorrect. Of course, the government likes to trot out that line, because when do they can trot out all of their own furphies about public service numbers and such things. They are being blatantly dishonest in the way they are conducting themselves. That is what you would expect from a group of people who are under pressure and in disarray, and whose only response is to try to draw attention away from their own shortcomings and develop in other peoples’ minds what they perceive to be shortcomings in others, rather than themselves. That is what we have come to expect. It just goes to show how arrogant, tired, and lame this government has become in a very short time.
I will make some general observations about the economic philosophy underlying the stimulus package. Whilst the Treasurer can name many people who say that the economic stimulus package is a good idea, I can put on the table a list of 193 very well-positioned economists from the United States who say it is not a good idea. I am not necessarily agreeing with these economists from the United States but, for 193 of them who buy advertising space to disagree with their President on exactly the same type of package that has been proposed by Mr Rudd, in spite of a very fulsome scrutiny process of their package, gives me pause for thought.
The argument or the economic philosophy that underpins rescue packages was first described by a fellow by the name of John Maynard Keynes, who lent his name to this style of economics; called Keynesian Economics. It was born as a model before World War II. It was picked up by President Roosevelt in his new deal. The idea is that in the good times you squirrel money away so that in the bad times, you have some money to spend. It is called counter-cyclical spending.
One of the assumptions of counter-cyclical spending is that you save in the good times. That is why the Treasury, in every Budget Paper No 2 and, yet again, in the most recent mid-year report, say to the Treasurer: ‘Gee whiz, Treasurer, you are exposed in one very serious way. You are predominantly reliant on a source of income, the GST, that leaves you exposed because it can change. If it changes, it will be indicative of a change in the way that people are spending money, being a consumption-based tax. That is what you are vulnerable to’. What Treasury is saying in between those lines is: ‘Put some money away’.
The Treasurer says that they have lowered nett debt. Nett debt plus employee liabilities have ballooned. If you are talking about the general government sector, nett debt is going down. However, if you take in the non-financial government sector cash statement and track nett debt into the future - not cash statement; wash my mouth out - the non-financial sector balance sheet and track nett debt into the future, it is exploding. Why is it exploding? It is exploding because the government needs to borrow to underwrite our Power and Water infrastructure, because it is Power and Water that is raising this debt, not the government. Nett debt is tracking down on the general government sector balance sheet, but it is going up on the non-financial public sector balance sheet. Why? It is a public corporation that is carrying the debt, not the actual government. Nice sleight of hand - but that is how it is working.
The Treasurer can come in and say: ‘Yes, the government sector balance sheet is going down; nett debt is going down’. However, the whole-of-government, which includes PAWC - its corporation - is increasing debt. If you amplify that with an increasing employee liability situation, you have debt out of control. How much debt has been retired? Not much. How much debt could we have retired? A whole heap more.
One of the advantages that Kevin Rudd has enjoyed in running the argument for this particular package, which he wanted to shove through in 48 hours, was the fact that it was there. The money had been paid off; there had been some savings squirreled away. He was actually capable of touching an amount of money that was saved up during the good times. However, that frugality has not been replicated by the states - the Labor states. Why? Because they have a social program for every occasion - a program for this and a program for that. It is all important; we have to ramp up the spending - ramp it up and up. It is all about improving vital services, but the services do not actually improve, just the bureaucracies get bigger.
Therefore, you have a situation where this government now, realising that it cannot really touch its own sources of revenue because it is already pushing debt up way too much, is now saying, in almost gleeful desperation: ‘Oh, my goodness, look, the federal government has a bail-out package and we are going to be recipients of this magnificent amount of money; this wonderful bail-out package. We are going to get $200m. Our people have gone through it. We have looked at the deal that is offered to us and, goodness gracious, $200m’. That sounds like a lot of money, but let us put that $200m into the context of $42bn. I am using $42bn, not $42.8bn which is the actual figure. Let us have a look at this.
How did we break this money up around the country? You have the Kevin Rudd way of doing it, which is fairly specific and targeted in certain ways. The Kevin Rudd way, according to Kevin Rudd, means that you cannot have scrutiny. It has to be pushed through in 48 hours. That is about $25 000 a second, by the way. But it has to be pushed through in 48 hours and then we can go and do it. Then the Greens, Senator Fielding from Family First, Senator Xenophon, and Senator Scullion go in, and every other Senator, other than Labor Senators say: ‘No, we want to have a look at this; we want to take a moment to look at this. We do not just want to sign the cheque’. All of a sudden, anybody who is not signing up to this immediately, without slavish adherence to the Ruddian model, is immediately castigated as some sort of financial heretic; the fever pitch of the screeching of the critics has a hint of hysteria in it.
This money is not hitting the bank accounts until April or May, so what is the urgency? Why can we not spend a bit more time scrutinising this package? But, if we had, if this Treasurer had signed up to scrutinising this package a bit more carefully, she would have asked some questions. Question 1 – how is the money being divvied out? What is a fair share for the Northern Territory? Well, here is a quick calculation - $42bn, carved up by Australia’s population, means that we are eligible for around $400m in the Northern Territory; that is, per head of population, which is one way to do the calculation. Assuming that the $200m she is referring to does not include about $85m worth of payments - which is the $950 payments going into people’s pockets - Territorians will be on the receiving end of closer to $285m. If that is correct, if that is not included in the $200m, then we are still, per head of population, over $100m short-changed than the other jurisdictions. That is not particularly good at defending Territorians’ rights. I would like to see a little more scrutiny when we are defending those rights, to be quite honest because, if we are going to get a share, we might as well get our fair share.
Let us find another way to calculate this. Maybe we should do …
Mr Tollner: What is a fair way?
Mr ELFERINK: I am getting to that. That is fair enough. Let us look at it by another vehicle. Let us do it on land mass. We are 1/6th of Australia. Oh goodness - $42bn, we are 1/6th which is 20%, that is $7bn. I am not arguing for one second that Territorians would receive about $7bn out of a $42bn package. But, my goodness gracious me, that is a long way from the really cool deal of $200m.
There is another way by which we can calculate this, and we do it every single year. Do you know what we do every single year? We have a principle in this country – as Syd Stirling used to say: ‘the glue that holds the Federation together’ – and the adhesive that holds us together is horizontal fiscal equalisation. The Commonwealth Grants Review Committee sits down with a really complicated formula every year, and it calculates our disabilities on a whole raft of different areas and, in amongst that, it calculates a disability rate as applied to each jurisdiction. The Australian average is $1, so everybody gets $1, and then you have the upsies and downsies - land mass over population, need, etcetera - and out it spits a number. If the Australian average is $1, New South Wales and Victoria receive about 80 each. The Northern Territory receives in the order of $4.50 and, as a consequence, out of the GST pool of about $50bn, we get $2.3bn, which is one of the reasons we are so reliant on it.
If the pool of the federal government’s money is $42bn, or $42.8bn then, surely, using the very tried and tested, true to the history of this country’s system, of applying disabilities, we should be worth about $2bn out of that package - 10 times the amount that we are actually receiving. This government, that is so angst driven about its need to sign up to Kevin Rudd’s great package, has short-changed Territorians in its inability to negotiate an outcome. That is one of the reasons this bill needs to be scrutinised and that is the amendment we are proposing.
This is the amendment we are proposing to this particular motion, so that we get some decent scrutiny on behalf of Territorians and we do not slavishly adhere to what the messiah in Canberra says is a good deal for Territorians, because all the Treasurer would have been told by Treasury is: ‘You will receive about $200m out of the deal’. If this is a government which represents Territorians, and if Senator Crossin wanted to stand up for Territorians in the way that she should, then Senator Crossin should be voting against this package on the grounds that it short-changes Territorians by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is the great travesty of this is: that they are trying to sell us some sort of you beaut argument that this is the best thing since sliced bread when, in actual fact, we are being sold a pup - an absolute dud. Goodness gracious me, it is just astonishing what these people will sign up to. ‘Oh, Kevin said that. Pant pant pant pant’. For goodness sake, what are you guys doing over there? Get in there and fight for the Territory. Do not sit there and whinge about Nigel Scullion wanting to have more scrutiny of the package as some political stunt. Get real. Make the numbers work for the Territory. We have serious infrastructure problems. We know that; we always have had. We have had it since we had self-government and before then, because we were, and still are, a growing jurisdiction with many demands on our infrastructure. Go in and fight for it. Do not just sit there and say: ‘Oh, Kevin says this is a good amount’.
The other thing that I am really taken by is this little three-card trick that was played immediately prior to the last TAFR. This money is not hitting the accounts until April, with another lot coming in June. I bet you they sit on the cash on 30 June so, all of a sudden, the deficit disappears or becomes a whole lot less, so they have to start spending on 1 July, which they did last year - a little three-card trick here.
Kevin has become wise to the states on another issue. He has issued a warning saying: ‘Do not pull back from your expenditure and your commitments from your own budgets using this money to supplement it’. This government has history of doing that. If you look at the appropriation for last year’s budget for Health and the actual amount reported spent in TAFR, it is about $18m less. How did that happen? It is because the SPPs were being used to offset Territory government expenditure.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time to finish his comments, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: It is amazing to see that Kevin has become wise to the fact that if you give the SPPs the …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, could I please interrupt. In accordance with observing Madam Speaker yesterday, the member for Fong Lim was asked not to refer to members other than in accordance with the protocols of this Chamber. It is Prime Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That is fine, Madam Deputy Speaker, absolutely – His Holiness the Prime Minister. Gosh, I have lost my train of thought now.
The Prime Minister has become wise to what the states do with these SPPs. In an effort to keep the state expenditure close to surplus, or just slightly in deficit, you take the money that the federal government gives you through the SPPs or NPs, and start spending that on the areas that you were going to spend money in your own budget. You take that money out of the department and you put it back into your Treasury, or in this case the Central Holding Authority, which is what happened last year – and you hope nobody notices. The fact is that it did get noticed, and I really urge this government to be honest, because I still cannot figure out how, and by what mechanism, it thinks that it is going to return a $47m deficit, which is based on its last November figures, when all of the other drivers have changed and they have gone south.
The government must be anticipating some other source of income to continually run that argument. However, I do notice that the language has changed. The Treasurer has the capacity to change language slightly over time; she does not change her position - her positions evolve - and now the $47m deficit, which it was standing by, has become the conservative estimation. That tells me that, whoops, the language is about to change, and in the next few months it will become the very conservative estimation, or the ‘November last year’ estimation, or something like that, as we cruise to a deficit which is much greater than the government is currently ‘fessing up to.
This government has also been caught out. A bare deficit this year would have been a lot worse if it was not for the minimum guarantee of $2.313bn, which was attached as part of the GST deal back in 2000 - the IGA, I should say. But that dries up at the end of this year, that is why we are heading towards a $150m deficit next year, because the GST pool is going to shrink and there is not a minimum payment. We have to take our slice of the trunk and pull, so that is also problematic.
I will make one other observation about these sorts of packages, and it is purely a general observation and something that is generated by my own thought processes: I am concerned in one respect about stimulus packages dealing with crises. Everything we are experiencing, both nationally and internationally, is a product of people's confidence, and you hear the words all the time - confidence in the marketplace. The idea of a stimulus package is to make people feel more confident in the marketplace, because there is more money floating around. Is it possible or conceivable - I do not know if the question has been asked anywhere - that if, through the processes of applying stimulus packages of this nature in this way, people see improvements in their bottom lines but gain no more confidence because they think it is government charity? The residual effect is that there is a continuing lack of confidence - in spite of the bottom lines improving. In some ways, these sorts of packages can amplify or exacerbate a lack of confidence because people do not believe the figures in their own accounts. Gosh, I hope not.
The assertion that the CLP is inherently anti-spending during bad times cannot be sustained in this building, and I will tell you why. We have gone through cyclical problems of financial difficulties in the past and one of those periods, during the recession that we had to have, if I recall, very badly impacted upon local businesses. The CLP government of the day decided to do some borrowing, and they borrowed for a building. When this building was constructed - Multiplex had part of the deal - there was some toing and froing about how the deal was put together.
I used to work in town and, as I drove around the back of the building, there were all these tilers’ utes out the back. It was not one big tiling company, there were about 30 utes belonging to all these blokes who work out of the back of their utes – tilers, plumbers, chippies, and sparkies. None of them got rich working on this building - the Parliament House we are standing in. None of them got rich, but they got food on the table through a tough time. That is what Keynesian economics seeks to achieve. It is not about making people wealthy and those sorts of things, it is about building a safety net of sorts. The CLP understood it then as we understand it now. This building was built in exactly those sorts of times, for those sorts of reasons, and I still …
Mr Knight: A bit over budget.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Mr Knight: A bit over budget.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it went over budget and the CLP still supported it. To run the argument that the Treasurer is running, that the CLP is anti-investment or anti-borrowing for investment, is errant nonsense. It is a fib. It is something that is fabricated. That is why this Treasurer has no credibility.
The other problem is that they have been in charge now for eight years, or nigh on eight years. When are they going to realise that they are now responsible, not only for the future and the present, but they actually carry responsibility for the past and what has happened in the last eight years? Yet, they seem incapable of turning their attention to that period, and they still seem stuck on the economic and budgetary environment that existed eight years ago, to labour their points.
This government is committed to not, in any way, curtail its expenditure. It has already said that it is going to produce a deficit of $150m next year. Okay, that is their choice. It is a choice that they can still revisit, because Budget Cabinet has not met yet, as far as I am aware. If Budget Cabinet has not met, then they will still be able to have a look through their various departments, and there might be areas where they can find savings. I hope that they do that. However, to announce, automatically and slavishly, that because there is a drop in GST revenue there has to be a corresponding deficit, without consideration to the Budget Cabinet process, indicates to me two things: first, that the Treasurer has an utterly cavalier approach to budgetary management; and second, the ministers are actually not in control of their own budgets and have no power in Cabinet to exert authority over the proposals of the Treasurer, who simply makes announcements on their behalf.
To announce at the outset that there is going to be $150m black hole in next year’s budget, without consulting with other ministers, is a surprising thing for a Treasurer to do, at this part of the budgetary cycle, considering its remoteness from the beginning of next financial year. I am curious to see how they actually organise their Cabinet meetings. I am curious to hear how Cabinet ministers defend or argue their positions in Budget Cabinet, and if these carte blanch statements are made without any reference to the Cabinet ministers themselves.
If Budget Cabinet has not been held, then what is happening on the other side of the House is nothing shy of cavalier. It may be that they have to form a bigger black hole because own source revenues are not sustained. If you believe Access Economics’ tracking out in the next couple of years, then we are going into negative territory. That still does not factor in the loss of revenue that we know will occur with things like McArthur River Mine, Browns, Compass, and the other mining companies which are contracting or shrinking their operations during these tough times.
Madam Deputy Speaker, all I am asking for is scrutiny. Let us go and have a proper look and test this package; see how much more we can get out of it for Territorians. Do not blindly sign up to it. Yes, $200m does not sound like bad money. However, compare it to what we should be getting and what are not getting, and I believe we might be being short-changed. Here is a suggestion. Go back to Canberra, tell them that we want our $400m, based on per head of population, and tell them that we want it as complete discretionary spending. See how you go with that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was thinking about the budget stimulus package, believe it or not, when I was driving up the track last week. I thought what a great opportunity for this parliament, which is only a single House parliament, for all sides to get together and see if we could work together in these times of economic hardship. I must have woken myself up and realised I was having a dream. When I got this motion before me today, I said: ‘There is no chance of that happening’.
Whilst this is a matter of great importance for our country, I do think it is sneaky - if I can put it that way - to ask us, all of a sudden, to move this motion which includes the $42bn stimulus package, as if we, as local members, have sat down and actually scrutinised it ourselves. Some people might say: ‘Oh well, you should do that’. I am a member of this parliament and I do take some notice of what is going on in the federal arena but, to some extent, what this is saying is that I, just like members of the federal parliament, should have sat down and looked at this properly. Surely, it would be foolish of me to say I agree with this, when I have only had this since about 11.30 am today. I find that I am uncomfortable with that. It is not saying that I should know some of the details of this stimulus package but, when it comes to actually moving a motion that says I support everything that is in the $42bn stimulus package, I would be derelict in my duty if I just said, ‘Yes, great idea’, and had not really looked at the details of that particular package.
The matter that really concerns me is that, when I first read it, it appeared to be totally political. Forget the issue of whether Liberals are opposing this in the Senate, members of the Greens have concerns; there is the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Senator Fielding, who have some concerns. Surely, that does not make them all anti-Territory or anti-Australian; what it does is make them do their job. What it shows me is that they are not willing to look at $47bn as if it was chicken feed. They are saying to the Australian public that this needs a reasonable analysis before they pass it. The Senate, I believe, has had two Standing Committees to look at this. From the media release I saw today, those reports will only come down in the Upper House tonight and, then, the Senate will have to make a decision by midnight on Thursday.
The package being put forward today by the Chief Minister may not be the package that is agreed to by the government after it has does some toing and froing with the Greens, the Independent and the Senator from Family First. What will we be agreeing on? We are agreeing on the initial package that Mr Rudd put forward, but that may not be the package that actually ends up being approved by the Senate and, then, approved by the House of Representatives. To some extent, it is presumptuous that we are debating this until we know what the final package will be.
There has been much discussion today about various people supporting the package, as if they are the only people who have spoken on this issue. For the sake of keeping a balanced debate about whether this stimulus package needs some scrutiny, I will quote from the ACTU. Jeff Lawrence, who is the ACTU Secretary, repeated calls for the government to hold a job summit with employers and unions to examine issues around retraining, skills development, the preservation of entitlements, and flexible working arrangements. He said:
- We need to see policies that deter employers from laying off workers. It is not good enough to give new tax breaks or taxpayer support to business with no strings attached.
I have some concerns about the number of people unemployed. The member for Port Darwin was talking about the Keynesian model; I believe he is referring to being able to keep people employed. I believe it is better to spend money on making sure that those people employed presently do not lose their jobs because, if we can keep people working, it means they can keep paying their mortgages. In America, if people start to fall behind with their mortgages, then we are in real trouble. One of the key things we should be doing is making sure those small businesses can retain those employees, and whether it would be better to give a one-off payment or put some of that money into a pool which would enable companies to hang on to their workers in these harder economic times. It is something that should be debated.
Another person, well known to this House, Clare Martin, representing the Australian Council of Social Service, said the package will help create jobs in housing but does nothing to help those on the lowest income. She said the government’s package should have increased the unemployment benefit by $30 per week, and I quote:
- It is only fair that people who are unable to find work get adequate assistance and support.
The Australian Health Care and Hospitals Association said that by ignoring the Health sector in the package, the government had missed an opportunity to support one of the most crucial areas of the economy, and I quote the Association’s Executive Director, Prue Power:
- Health and Community Services contribute to the overall strength of our economy in a number of ways and should have been a key focus of this stimulus package.
I will give you another reason why I believe it needs scrutiny. The Treasurer mentioned the pre-Christmas money that was given out, I believe, under the Building the Nation program. It was called the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. It was a $250m allocation fund for councils. This is why we need to ensure that we are, as the member for Port Darwin said, getting our fair share. I highlight one little community in Victoria called Ararat, which is a rural council. I believe its population is around 7000 to 8000. It received $484 000 under its allocations from the federal government. Litchfield Shire Council, which is a rural council as well, with a population of at least 17 000 people, received $152 000. Who was scrutinising that? Who made sure that we got our fair share of local government funds under this program? I do not think there was enough scrutiny. That is why it is important that this particular package is scrutinised.
It is strange, from my point of view, that this was announced on 3 February, and we are now at 11 February - that is eight days, take out the weekend and the problem with the bushfires - and the Senate is being asked to approve a huge package of money of $42bn. This motion is saying, regardless of all that, we should just approve this because it is so great for the country. I am not saying it is not necessarily great for the country. The issue is whether we should check it out and make sure everything is hunky-dory. Surely, the people in the Territory and people in Australia generally would expect our politicians to ensure that this money is well spent.
What concerns me is that in the excitement, the government has decided to speed things up. The Development Consent Authority is going to meet every fortnight instead of every month. We will increase employment there because it says that the recruitment of five more staff will start immediately - I suppose that is a stimulus straightaway - and we will have a summit of construction industry leaders. I remember this building being used for those sorts of things before. We will see what happens.
Then we had this great acronym, the Dedicated Stimulus Action Squads. Who dreamt up that? The SAS. I can see them going around to the department with their AK-47s strapped over their shoulders, and they will be ensuring, as it is quoted here, Chief Minister:
- … these projects up-and-running as fast as possible.
And does that not sound like ‘or else’? Then:
- We will make it even easier for local companies …
I know the military well, Chief Minister:
- … to get local projects - we lead the country but we will strive to become even better.
There will be:
- A short and sharp review of procurement to streamline development process and cut red tape - including raising the threshold before you need to go to
tender and getting contractors involved earlier in the processes.
I have actually heard that before, especially in the planning area. I remember the minister for Planning say that she was going to put more staff on the front counter. What happened? Before that happened - before the charges came in for planning - everyone rushed in the front door to escape those, and it took a long time for the bottleneck to get out of the way. What concerns me with this is that the government is getting all excited over the money they will receive from the federal government. However, let us ensure the processes do not go skewwhiff, otherwise the Auditor-General’s report at the end of the year might be very thick. It is still money flowing to the community that we must make sure is correctly spent. I have seen these great projects before, where people are given a heap of money and it does not get spent with enough due thought.
Maybe I am wrong, but the Treasurer has been talking about the amount of money each school will receive. What would happen if we had a school that did not need the money? For example, a brand new school was built and finished last week and it got another $200 000. You would have to ask: is that money being well spent or should we be putting that $200 000 through a school that is in far more need? Is it just $200 000 for all schools regardless of whether they need it? Is there some way of ensuring that is what is needed? They did not give out the money to the councils like that. They did not say $200 000 for each council; they said ‘this council needs this much and this one is in a more popular state, like Victoria, so we will give it more’. They had some sort of formula, I presume, for giving out the money.
I support the amendment, and I do not support the motion. The motion is about the Labor government backing up the Labor government in Canberra. It is also about trying to create a division in this parliament by making it appear as though the opposition is not onside, and that is what disappoints me. Why could we not have had more unity in relation to this? We are going to go through tough times. Tell me how many mines are now open in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Bootu, Gove, Jabiru. That is three. Who has gone? Compass. How many gold mines have opened in Pine Creek recently? I asked them when I was down there. None! The only place open there is Frances Creek. McArthur River …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: We are in for tough times that are not really under our control. We can pretend that we can do things, and we probably can do some things. Surely, when times are tough, we need to ensure that people can still pay their mortgages and get a job. We should be working together to do that. We are only 200 000 people.
I must admit, if one thing gives me the gripes, it is the Westminster system, because it is somehow meant to be a boxing match all the time. This is a government for a small – as someone called it yesterday, a province – area like the Territory, in population, and there should be more times when we work together and be less stuck on our political party loyalties. However, that is the system we have. We have been given the Westminster system, but there are times when I believe we should bury that system and work together.
Territorians would have much more respect for us if we said: ‘Righto, let us work together to get through these tough times. Let us ensure as many people who need a job, have a job’. I believe that we will find our way through this. I admit that the Territory, as the Chief Minister said, is probably the best place in Australia to get through these economic times, because people will need energy, LNG, and uranium - the Territory has these in abundance. We have things that other countries need. Unfortunately, with the downturn in China – unless we buy more Chinese goods, which I am not sure is the way to go at the moment – I believe that the Chinese market will come back. We have iron ore, bauxite, and manganese. Perhaps, Compass Resources or someone else can look at taking them over, although there are some issues. The member for Brennan sent me an e-mail yesterday about who would take them over.
I believe we are well placed to come out of this economic crisis because of the resources we have. We would be far better putting our energies into working through these problems as a Territory. The member for Port Darwin made a good point regarding scrutiny. The scrutiny I am talking about is whether these particular packages that the government is putting forward are any good – and some of them are good packages. I have here a media release from the National Farmers’ Association saying how they support most of the package; they think it is good.
I am not here to say that the package is necessarily bad. I do have concerns about handing out money to people because, as the member for Port Darwin said, we should have scrutinised that to see whether it actually did what it was meant to do. There is no harm in doing that. If there was a better way of doing it; if we knew some of that money was wasted, perhaps there is a better way of giving that money to people. I do not want people to spend it on gambling. I hope people would put it, as the government said, into buying things to put a bit of consumer confidence back into our economy.
It is not saying that the package itself is not something that is not worthwhile; it is ensuring that it will work and, as the member for Port Darwin said, ensuring that we are receiving our fair share. Surely, there is nothing wrong with that. I am interested to hear, in the comments from the Chief Minister, whether anyone looked at what our fair share should be? We know the other states are pretty powerful, and I have heard that people from New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria knock how much money the Territory receives. That has been a common thing, saying that we get too much money. Have they influenced the decision about how much the Territory receives in this case?
Madam Speaker, I support the amendment. I do not support the motion. I believe we should be scrutinising the $42m and when it has been scrutinised; maybe I will give it support …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: We have two questions before the House. The first is the …
Mr Mills: The amendment.
Dr Burns: We know the amendment comes first.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are two questions before the Chair. We put the amendment first, as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and then we will put the original or an amended motion.
The question is that the amendment, as moved by the Leader of the Opposition, be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as moved by the Chief Minister, be now agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Adopt Revised Sitting Dates for 2009
Adopt Revised Sitting Dates for 2009
Continued from 25 November 2008.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, you tabled these sitting dates for 2009 in November last year. The government supports what was tabled and urges the House to support the sitting dates for 2009, as well as elements of the motion that relate to the Register of Members’ Interests ...
Madam SPEAKER: You do the first motion first please, Leader of Government Business. Have you finished speaking to the first motion?
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for too long on this motion. However, once again, this exemplifies the situation we find ourselves in, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, where a fundamental mistake is being made. For some reason, it has formed in the mind of this Chief Minister and his minions that the principles of responsible government are that, somehow, parliament is responsible to the government of the day. Political Science 101 in any university degree will tell you that the principles of responsible government mean that the government is responsible to the parliament of the day.
Whilst these sitting days have now been well publicised, the truth of the matter is that they should not have been until this House resolved that this was a decision of this House. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where government, glibly and without recourse to this House, feels that it is necessary to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory how they expect that they have no recourse to this House.
Madam Speaker, I realise that these dates came from your office when they were publicised and, with all due respect to your Chair, the point that I made last year, and I return to on this occasion, is that there was no motion by this House to support those dates and only now is the motion before the House.
Madam Speaker, I ask that both you and the government turn your attention to the order in which things should occur so that Territorians can have at least faith, to some degree, that their representatives have some meaning for them. With the numerous motions we have, If we continue along the line that we just had of another gag motion - mind you, in the government’s defence we were given advice of that one where the motion had to be put because they did not want the debate to go on too long. The fact that they do give notice of motions nowadays and use gag debates and shut down adjournment debates just shows the level of contempt that the Australian Labor Party and its Northern Territory Branch have for the parliamentary process.
I find the reprehensible processes that we are seeing are far in excess of anything that the CLP was ever accused of, when it was accused of being so anti-democratic back in the dark ages. If they were the dark ages, it is just downright charcoal coloured now.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am speaking in support of the motion from the Leader of Government Business. I want to point out that I was the former Leader of Government Business who should have moved this motion, as is customary on the last day of the sittings year of 2008. Unfortunately, I had to be in Canberra for a meeting of Treasurers to finalise the SPP arrangements, which have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the Northern Territory.
It was an oversight because, as Leader of Government Business, I was in Canberra with the other Treasurers, negotiating the Territory’s fair share of the Commonwealth funding.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Committee of Members’ Interests - Establishment
Committee of Members’ Interests - Establishment
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, as the Treasurer has indicated, there has been quite a lot of work done within the Standing Orders Committee over a number of issues including this one; it has been a long time in the pipeline. I believe it is a worthwhile reform to make the pecuniary and other interests that members have more transparent. In this age of accountability, the public want to see that and it does bring us in line, as I understand it, with other jurisdictions.
It has been before the Standing Orders Committee for some time. The Assembly has been asked:
1. to assign the Standing Orders Committee to act as the Committee of Members’ Interests for the purposes of the act;
of Registrable Interests, and specify the required information for members’ registrable interests - that will be the work of
the Standing Orders Committee;
with section 5 of the act; and
guidelines for inspection of the Register of Members’ Interests recommended by the Committee of Members' Interests.
There is some work to be done, but I believe this motion gives a process for the way forward. Madam Speaker, I commend it to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, before you sit down, I am just a bit concerned that you did not actually move the motion and read it first.
Dr BURNS: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You could say, as printed in the Notice Paper to cover that if you wish.
Dr BURNS: I move, in accordance with the Notice Paper, the four points that I have been through, Madam Speaker, and I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the newness of the Leader of Government Business. I am sure he will get used to the position soon enough, regarding the technicalities of …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I am sure that he will get used to the position soon enough and these little teething problems will go away.
There are a couple of things that I would like to flag in relation to this issue. First, I ask the committee to turn its attention to the level of detail that is required in what is declared. Whilst I have no problem going into intimate details in my own situation, some other people like to be more private about their financial arrangements, and that is fine. I believe I nominated, at a certain time last year, not only my share portfolios but also the exact amounts of the share portfolios, which is probably more than is reasonably required, considering what a register of interest is intending to do. Regarding the value of share portfolios, I ask that reasonableness be applied with a declaration of the names of the company and those sorts of things, rather than the actual values. I urge the committee to consider an element of balance when they approach these particular deliberations.
Similarly, if a street address - in my case 17 Narrows Road - is sufficient to identify a block, I hope I do not have to put in lot numbers, easements, and other details like that which will not achieve anything, just simply a descriptor of the property involved.
The other thing I would like the committee to turn its mind to, a procedure which I believe occurs in other parliaments, is that when a Register of Interests is checked by a journalist, a third party such as a fifth floor advisor, a fourth floor advisor as the case will be here, or whatever, that the member is advised that the register has been checked, and by whom, and why that register was checked. The reason could be as simple as: ‘I was mildly curious as a member of the public’. However, I believe it is a matter of courtesy if someone has a look into your personal financial and property arrangements, that you are at least advised that it occurred. As I understand it, that is not an immediate requirement of the current system.
I also wish to absolutely and clearly put on the record that, whilst this is a reference to the Standing Orders Committee to look at how the system operates, it is not a reference to the Standing Orders Committee to deal with breaches of the reporting requirements of the Declaration of Interest, and that any such breaches naturally would still, in every instance, go to the Privileges Committee for consideration, rather than Standing Orders Committee. Whilst it is not implied in any way in these particular references, I cannot forebear but to mention that issue.
Motion agreed to.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
(Serial 30)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2009 be now read a second time.
As honourable members would be aware, under the First Home Owner Grant Act first homeowners who satisfy a number of criteria are entitled to the payment of a grant of $7000 from the Territory. The grant is intended to encourage and assist home ownership by first homebuyers.
On 14 October 2008, the Prime Minister announced a fiscal stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis. Part of that package is a temporary extension to the First Home Owners Grant scheme called the First Home Owners Boost. This boost scheme is aimed at providing a short-term stimulus to the housing industry. The bill provides legislation to facilitate the boost scheme, which the Territory has agreed to administer on behalf of the Commonwealth. The boost increases the existing Territory grant from $7000 to $14 000 for the purchase of existing homes, and to $21 000 for the building or purchase of a new home. It applies to contracts entered into or, in the case of an owner builder, where the construction starts between 14 October 2008 and 30 June 2009.
All the normal eligibility criteria of the Territory’s grant also apply and, as a general rule, construction of the home must be completed within 18 months. The bill provides for a retrospective commencement date of 14 October 2009, to coincide with the Prime Minister’s announcement. As such, all payments of the additional grant, made under the current administrative arrangements, will be taken to have been paid under the amendments provided by this bill.
Finally, this bill includes the ability to amend the amount of the grant and the date on which the grant ends by regulations under the act. This has been inserted to facilitate any extension or variation to the scheme that might be required by the Commonwealth. This measure has provided a timely boost to new homebuyers and the construction industry.
The Henderson government also announced Buildstart, its own financial stimulus package that complements the boost scheme and fills in the gaps in the Commonwealth package, by providing a $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers and investors to buy or build new homes. This will provide further support for the local construction industry and will increase the stock of housing in the Territory, which should assist renters and homebuyers alike.
The existing first homebuyer stamp duty concession of up to $15 515 or principal place of residence rebate of $2500 will continue to be available for Territory homebuyers, in addition to the first homeowner or Buildstart grant. This will allow total assistance to eligible first homeowners of up to $36 515 and assistance of up to $16 500 for other homebuyers buying or building a new home.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE LEGISLATION (AUTHORISED PERSONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 27)
(Serial 27)
Bill presented and read a first time.
____________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass Bill Through All Stages
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass Bill Through All Stages
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Evidence Legislation (Authorised Persons) Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 27) passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
____________________
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to clarify and expand the classes of person authorised to take recorded statements from vulnerable witnesses. These statements are admissible in court as the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses.
In 2004, this government reformed the procedural law for the prosecution of sexual offences. The aim of the reform was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and to improve the quality of the evidence of the witnesses.
Further reforms were made in August 2007 through the Evidence of Children Amendment Act 2007. This act clarified the operation of the 2000 reforms and also increased the options available for vulnerable witnesses in the delivery of their evidence. The 2007 amendments provided that the recorded statement of a vulnerable witness could be admissible as their evidence-in-chief provided that the statements were taken by an ‘authorised person’. ‘Authorised person’ was defined in the act as classes of ‘authorised person’ as declared in regulations.
The regulations setting out the classes of ‘authorised person’ were made in October 2007, being the Evidence Amendment (Authorised Persons) Regulations (the Regulations). Regulation 4 provided that: ‘all police officers approved by the Commissioner of Police as suitable’ and ‘all employees of the relevant agency (at the time the Department of Health and Community Services, [DHCS], now the Department of Health and Families, [DHF]) approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the agency as suitable’ were authorised persons.
The Commissioner of Police signed an instrument approving all police officers of the rank of constable or above as authorised persons; while the Chief Executive Officer of DHCS signed an instrument approving, in effect, employees appointed as social workers with Family and Children Services as authorised persons.
Over recent months the NT Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Solicitor General identified several issues with the instrument signed by the Commissioner of Police:
the Supreme Court queried whether the commissioner validly exercised his power. This question was not determined by the court
and remains a cloud over the admissibility of the 500 recorded statements taken from vulnerable witnesses since October 2007.
a number of Australian Federal Police officers and some interstate police officers have been deployed in the Northern Territory as
part of Task Force Themis, and the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Emergency Response, either at Themis bush stations or
as part of the Child Abuse Task Force. These officers were sworn in as special constables under the Police Administration Act.
They have taken a number of recorded statements from vulnerable witnesses; in particular from children allegedly victims of sexual
offences.
- The AFP officers are not approved by the instrument signed by the Commissioner of Police as ‘special constables’, are not part of the hierarchy of ‘rank of constable or above’. The statements are, therefore, without amendment by this bill, inadmissible and would require children to give their evidence-in-chief again at the trial.
sometimes it is necessary to obtain a recorded statement from a vulnerable witness residing interstate. This can arise, for example,
if a vulnerable witness attends an interstate police station to make a complaint about a sexual or serious violence offence which
occurred in the Northern Territory.
- Without amendment by this bill, such evidence is not admissible in a trial in the Northern Territory, as the interstate police officer, no matter how experienced in his/her own jurisdiction, is not an ‘authorised person’. The statement would need to be taken by an NT police officer travelling interstate or the witness travelling to the NT to give the statement.
These problems need to be rectified. The consequences for vulnerable witnesses and for the proper prosecution of sexual offences and serious violence offences in the NT are significant.
Additionally, witnesses may withdraw their complaint rather than go through the ordeal of recounting their statement again before the court; inconsistent statements might be obtained; and evidence may become tainted due to the passage of time since the first interview.
Requiring vulnerable witnesses to recount their statements again is contrary to legislative intent of the 2004 and 2007 reforms. The overriding intent was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and to improve the quality of the evidence of those witnesses.
We have considered other options, such as having the Commissioner of Police sign a new instrument or making new regulations, but these options would not ‘save’ those recorded statements already taken since October 2007. Statements taken by the Australian Federal Police members deployed as part of Task Force Themis could not be used as the instrument or new regulations cannot operate retrospectively. Additionally, there is the continuing risk that a challenge to a statement before the court could see the commissioner’s approval ruled invalid. This would have the effect of making all recorded statements taken since October 2007 inadmissible. The only practical solution is to amend the parent act - the Evidence Act - and that is what we have done in the bill before this House.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement. The bill is intended to pass through on the final day of sittings.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, before adjourning, I would like to point something out, given that this matter has come on urgently. I refer the minister to Part 2, Clause 4(1)(d), which is an ‘authorised person’ amendment. ‘Authorized’ in subclause (d) is spelled with a ‘z’, ‘authorised’ in subclause (e) is spelt with an ‘s’. I much prefer the English version, Madam Speaker. I am not sure what the minister prefers, but I believe that we might have the proper English spelling in the legislation in any parliament in this country, and I suggest that the minister may wish to turn her attention to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you may wish to seek leave to continue your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 21)
(Serial 21)
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this has been an extraordinary long run up to this day. We can see the bar that was set a long time ago, which raised the expectations of Territorians in 2001. Now, we have the jump, and many of us will give a round of applause. We are pleased to see this day occur.
Interestingly, however, there has been much comment on this matter in recent times. One looks at New South Wales and thinks: ‘Oh, gee whiz, do we want to have fixed parliamentary terms’? What happens if you get a situation where you do not like the government and you really need to get rid of them, it is: ‘No, you are stuck with us; you cannot get rid of us’ ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: No, not at all, but it seems that we need to make a comment on this. It appears to be an inconsistent argument anyway, the assumption being if we do not have fixed parliamentary terms, we have the situation that we have here; that you still have some mechanism to get rid of a government that is completely corrupt or inept. It is not quite the case.
We need to put that aside. There are some very good reasons why there should be fixed parliamentary terms. The fact that this was not in place, though promised, has probably saved the skin of this government, some would suggest, by going 11 months early. The only reason for going 11 months early was to create a political certainty for government in managing political risk. That should really be out of the equation ...
Mr Wood: Do not forget INPEX.
Mr MILLS: Yes, there was INPEX. It really should not be corrupted by the influence and the use by government of those levers to their own political advantage. It is simply wrong. It is a welcome day and I am pleased to see this. We have had a look at the legislation. It is an effective tool to establish that which has been promised, and we welcome this day.
I put on the table another topic for consideration, while stating that we support this. It is the issue that is linked to the matter I raised before: how do citizens effect change in a situation where a government holds onto those levers of power and will not do the right thing in the interests of people, and hold on? In an extreme case, you could have increased social disorder if a government just hangs on, as we have seen in other places. I should not mention them because I do not want to make any parallels. However, in the worse case scenario - these matters are crafted to deal with worse case scenarios - that is what constitutions, law and all that is about: we should consider a means whereby the citizens, in extreme circumstances, have the capacity to bring on an early general election.
I refer to a citizen’s initiated referendum. I put this on the table for consideration by honourable members. It comes into the category of the foreshadowed electoral reforms that will flow after the passage of this bill. I draw members’ attention - particularly those who are members of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee - that this is a topic that has been discussed by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee a number of times. So much fine work has been done in constitutional development in the Northern Territory by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. One of the booklets, which was published in August 1991, was Discussion Paper No 3 – Citizens’ Initiated Referendum. I draw members’ attention to this and put it on the table for consideration. In future times, there may be the circumstance where we need to provide our good citizens with the capacity to protect their interests, through a means to change or to put a question before the community, by means of a citizens’ initiated referendum.
There are a range of models that could be considered, and there has been much work done on tools that would allow citizens to bring before the parliament the requirement for an early general election. I raise that as a topic for consideration. I believe that it is a necessary topic to consider if we are genuine about electoral reform. I know that some members in my own team have an ongoing interest in this, as members who have gone before us have as well. We have had discussions about this, member for Fong Lim, and I am sure other members have been approached about these sorts of topics. I do not think we should exclude ourselves from the possibility of doing something that would strengthen democracy and the will of the people as expressed through this parliament. Ultimately, it would, hopefully, never ever be used. However, in thinking ahead, to avert the possibility of civil unrest, there may be the need for crafting something which gives that capacity to citizens; to know that their will can be done.
I put that issue on the agenda and, I believe, it will be continued. I understand too, in the Statehood Steering Committee, that the matter of a citizens’ initiated referendum will be considered as a topic of discussion even with the current committee.
Madam Speaker, we support this bill and we are pleased that we have come to this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take up the comments the Leader of the Opposition made about citizens’ initiated referendums. I am fairly sure that those types of referendums were in the Local Government Act, although I do not recall whether they are in the new Local Government Act. However, I know in the Litchfield Shire there was a clause that if so many people signed a document they could hold some form of referendum. It was not binding, but it was at least a way of allowing those appeals for the community to be at least heard. Yes, this has been around probably in a minor form.
In relation to civil unrest, there is one question I asked during the briefing. My understanding is that under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, if there was, for instance, a major earthquake or tidal wave or something that brings havoc to the Territory, I am not sure whether the Administrator has power to re-form a government or to allow for a government to be dissolved and a new election to take place. This is only in the case of pretty serious times, I believe, like natural, extraordinary circumstances, which we had in 1974. That was not an earthquake. I digress.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. My notes here say it is a long time coming. I remember it in the Labor Party’s platform, and when I raised it occasionally I was given all the excuses in the world as to why it was not the right thing to do, when we had the three-year permanent section of the term, and the government had the choice of when it wanted to call an election in the last term.
I know we are looking at changing the Electoral Act and I wrote down here a couple of notes. I raised one of these in public before Christmas. Now, local government has set terms throughout the Territory. Even though municipalities and shires do not quite line up with their dates, they do have set periods. It is worth the debate to see whether we hold all the elections on the one day. I have had some preliminary discussions - and they have only been informal discussions; they could not be regarded as official. Some of the issues that we might come across if we did that have been put to me by someone from the Electoral Office. They were not making an opinion, but they were putting forward some of the issues that may be against having them all on the same day, as against the advantages of having all the elections on the same date.
I note that if you pulled out a sheet of newspaper from the United States on the day that President Obama was elected - I know this because I was sent a copy of the Columbus Press, I believe it is called, which is the main paper for Columbus, which is the capital of Ohio - you would see the state elections as well as the federal elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also had small elections in their counties and small referendums and little things such as people were able to vote whether the pub or a bar in that little town could extend their licence. You saw all these little referendums in little towns throughout Ohio that were all put on that day. They also vote for their magistrates, as you know, in the United States, so that was there as well.
I am only talking about having two elections on the one day. In the United States, they have many other things to take into account. This is probably not the right country to compare the Territory with, but I remember when President Mugabe had his last election in Zimbabwe …
Mr Henderson: This is very unfair, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, sorry. Well, you were talking about the SAS in a previous motion, minister. What I am saying is that they had elections for the president, their state parliament, and their local government, all held on the one day. I am not saying their elections are …
Mr Henderson: Is it any better though, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: No, but I am saying that they held them on the one day. I am not saying that there is a good government there. That is the last thing I am saying. However, that is the system they have had, probably before Mr Mugabe was around. They just decided to have all their elections on the one day. I am just saying that is something that could be debated when the Electoral Act is looked at.
The other issue of having a fixed time for your election, is whether the government would consider setting a date from which no government advertising can continue, except for things like tenders or advertising for jobs. We will know the date and when the writs are declared. The government would know the criticism that they came in for when they brought out a glossy brochure on INPEX about a week before the election was declared. One of the things we should be looking at is a moratorium - maybe a month or two months - when there is none of that extra type of government advertising allowed, so the accusation that this advertising is political could be void; we would avoid that controversy.
These particular changes raise some other issues which we can deal with when the Electoral Act is being reviewed. As the Leader of the Opposition said, when he was talking about citizens’ initiated referendums, there are many issues that we can discuss in more detail when we get to those changes.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support for this bill. In the evolution of self-government in the Northern Territory and the of our democratic system, it is another step, but it is a very big step. It has taken 30 years to get to this particular point and …
Mr Mills: Whose platform was it in?
Mr HENDERSON: Hey?
Mr Mills: It was in your platform.
Mr HENDERSON: You embraced it. It is interesting that the opposition embraced the concept after 26 or 27 years in government. However, this is an evolution. I acknowledge, with the Leader of the Opposition, that there has been that debate in New South Wales. I believe if Western Australia follows on and introduces fixed parliamentary terms that will mean 80% of all electors in Australia will be voting in state elections with fixed parliamentary terms. It is a long way.
When we did come to government in 2001, we had a significant reform agenda regarding our electoral system in the Northern Territory. We established the Office of the Electoral Commissioner as an independent statutory office, rather than a division of the Department of Chief Minister. We introduced a minimum of three-year terms with a maximum of four and, now, we have moved to fixed four-year terms.
Regarding the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on citizens’ initiated referenda, I encourage all Territorians to continue the debate on parliamentary reform. Anything that we can do to stimulate debate about the workings of our democracy is a healthy thing. I have not done a great deal of study on citizens’ initiated referenda. I can see the political, populous appeal, but the practicalities of it, and being hijacked by vested interest groups, would be a concern, and no other state in Australia has gone down that path. However, why not have a debate about it?
Member for Nelson mentioned shire and Northern Territory government elections being held on the same day, and talked about the recent US Presidential elections. That is something to have a debate about. I believe the big challenge that we face with the local government elections, as we move forward, is stimulating public debate in those elections to try to create some interest in them, with all due respect. If you went into any of our urban electorates and conducted a street poll, and asked people who their local aldermen were, most people would not know. I am sure that would be the same case with our shires and the newer elections in the shires. If you are trying to attract more attention and debate around local government issues, one thing that may occur by having the elections at the same time as the Northern Territory election is that it may dilute focus even further - that is something I can see. However, I am open for a debate on those things.
If you look at the US system where they do not have compulsory voting – and I have not seen the final numbers from the latest US Presidential election - normally only 40% to 50% of eligible people actually vote in the United States. If the object of the debate is to increase participation, understanding, and debate about the big issues as well as the smaller issues that face citizens, the fact that they have their Presidential, Senate, county and referenda voting all on the same day, lumping them all in together, I am not convinced actually raises awareness of those issues. Let us have a debate on those things.
I can see the pros and cons of a debate on government advertising and putting time frames around that but, at the end of the day, I believe our democratic system serves us well. My observation of our democracy is that if governments abuse their capacity and overstep the mark in that area, they are normally punished. People are not silly, and if they see governments abusing that particular privilege, I believe, normally, the Australian public and Territorians will see through that and take it out against the government of the day in the ballot box. However, again, in our evolution of our democracy, let us have a debate on it.
I thank everyone in the House today. This is another significant step forward in the evolution of our democracy. Once this bill passes, we all know that the next Territory election will be on Saturday, 25 August 2012. Terry; sitting here at the beginning of 2009 it seems a long way away, and who knows what water is going to go under the bridge, politically, in the Northern Territory between now and then. I know that all of us who have had the privilege of being elected to this House to represent our constituents will do the very best we can to serve the people of the Northern Territory; to serve our electorates between now and 25 August 2012, God willing.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their support for this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
OMBUDSMAN BILL
(Serial 25)
(Serial 25)
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition has spent a fair amount of time assessing the intent and the capacity of this bill to do what has been described by government for the course the government has embarked upon. After that assessment, it is our intention to support this bill. Notwithstanding, there have been a number of issues that were, perhaps, contentious in such a complex matter as this. In the balance, and having consulted with stakeholders, we felt that we should allow this amendment bill to proceed with its intent.
It is an interesting word. Some of us who have been here for a while know that there was a former member for Brennan who had great difficulties in saying this word. He must have dreaded every time this was raised in debate in parliament. Even thinking about it now, I feel that I am going to say it the same way. ‘Ombudsman’ is a Swedish word which means protector of citizens. That is the purpose, the intent therein. How does an individual find redress against wrong - perceived or otherwise - of government? That is the role and the purpose. Then there is the question: who watches the watchers; who governs the government? It is a question asked in many debates throughout history. To prevent the abuse of power, absolute power is shared between the executive, legislative, and judicial arms to provide checks, balances, and oversights of each other. That is a good thing!
Looking back in history there was a role. The Romans had the Office of Censor, where every five years two magistrates were elected, for a period of around 18 months, to examine and investigate the conduct and decisions of officials over the previous five years and to hear public complaints. You can see that nothing has changed. We move to develop systems to ensure that the system itself is protected, and that the purpose and the intent of those systems are honoured; that is, to deliver good for the citizens. Even the Chinese, during the early Han Dynasty, had a counsel who heard complaints and petitions against the administrators. The earliest modern example of the role of Ombudsman exists in the Swedish constitution of 1809, to observe the application of laws and statues by courts, public bodies, and their employees. The Ombudsman can initiate investigations, comment on procedures, and commence disciplinary actions. The underlying principles of the Swedish Ombudsman have been taken up by many countries, particularly the Westminster-based system throughout the 20th century.
You can see that it is a very important role, and the office, the one who bears the title of Ombudsman, bears a great responsibility as a defender of the citizenry. Our consultation involved speaking to the current Ombudsman, and I pay my compliments to the way in which the Ombudsman has fulfilled her role. It is probably a difficult role and, perhaps, made even more so by the need to be very careful about your weighing and measuring of issues, and to recognise that you will sometimes be stepping into a position where you will earn the wrath of the government. That is the very point; the nub. That is the issue that needs to be recognised in all of this, so that we have the appropriate cross-tensioning to ensure that the rights of citizens are defended. Our Ombudsman has done a sterling job and I commend her.
There are other Ombudsman offices in other states - slightly different - and also police watchdogs in different places. They are always worried about these sorts of things and it is always very difficult to get the right balance. You have to ensure that you are not going to establish a system that goes across the line and creates a sense of fear, uncertainty, or mistrust of the institutions that are there to defend the citizens. For example, with the police, if we feed a culture of mistrust of our police we actually work against the very purpose of that agency to defend law and order within our community.
There is a very fine balance and we have to ensure that we are guided by good principle in establishing the mechanics whereby proper scrutiny of matters of concern, raised by citizens, can be addressed without going across that line and feeding mistrust of the agencies that are there to protect us. There is a danger in modern times to go across that line because popular culture ingenerates a mistrust of authority. Recognising that, politically, the leaders of power can feed that and do something which is popular but, maybe, irresponsible.
There have been some challenges in the developing of that notion and the drawing of those lines but, after meetings with representatives of the Police Association, they recognise that this will proceed and they accept, with some reservations, certain aspects. Nonetheless, the passage of this bill will occur. During the consultation process, we ensured that we had those discussions and we, in the opposition, are satisfied that we do not find sufficient concern to mount a spirited defence of certain fine aspects of this; in the balance of things, I believe, we offer our support.
At this point, I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes and thank the government for making briefings available to us; the quality of those briefings is appreciated. However, I must say that the opposition will be watching very carefully to see how this proceeds, how it works in application and to ensure that those lines are not crossed; that we do strengthen our institutions and that we preserve the sense of justice for citizens and increase freedom, basically. We will watch this as it progresses. We acknowledge that this is the government’s plan; they said that they were going to do this and they have implemented it. I respect that the government has been elected and this is something they have been embarked upon and we will not oppose, but we will watch carefully to ensure that there is the right balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those words, and also with recognition that there are some amendments, I hope that we are able to find time to assess these and to hear those discussions. We provide our recognition of this bill and we will not be opposing it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. First, I thank the government for allowing a briefing; we had a fairly long briefing. I believe that this is one of the most important bills that has come before parliament.
The Ombudsman is the umpire that we need. The Ombudsman protects the citizen from excesses, you might say, within government - whether it is the Territory government, local government or the police - and I believe it is a really important role.
I also thank my research officer. She has only just started in the job. I have been to Alice Springs and back. She was down there because of an illness in the family, and she came back with me. We read this act from cover to cover all the way back ...
A member: You are a very sad man.
Mr WOOD: I know. We did some Kenny Rogers and Garth Brooks when it got dark. We found that the best way to get through this. It is a complicated bill and we took it slowly and got to understand the way the bill was made up, and the differences between this bill and the previous bill. I thank her for having the patience. It is not easy to go through something like this. I do not find it easy and, for someone who has just started the job, she must have wondered what she struck when we had to read our way through this. We made the effort because it is a very important bill.
I also thank the Ombudsman for allowing us to have some time to discuss her concerns about the bill. I came to the conclusion that, except for some relatively minor amendments - I am not sure whether the government will agree and maybe they could come back at another time if the government believes it should have more time - overall, it is a very strong bill. The difference between this bill and the previous bill is that it is far more prescriptive, especially when it relates to complaints against the police. I gather the reason is that there has been this ongoing uneasiness between the police and the Ombudsman. That reached its peak with the previous Ombudsman. There were public statements made between various members on both sides. With the relatively new Ombudsman, those things have certainly improved since that time.
I find it funny; I have just picked up the Ombudsman’s 30th Annual Report. It is 30 years since the Ombudsman came into being. It is 30 years, since 1 July 1978 when self-government was announced. The first Ombudsman is the one I know the best - Harry Giese. He was one of those people - I am not sure I would put him quite in the same bracket as Joe Fisher, Bernie Kilgariff, and Dick Ward - who was a character. He certainly belonged to the Territory. He was involved in Aboriginal affairs for many years. The kids at Daly River used to laugh at him when he would turn up because he was one of those who always wore his belt just about round where his navel is. They laughed at that. They had a saying - I do not whether Hansard is going to be able to write this down - ‘high gunder’ as against ‘low gunder’ when you wore your trousers down lower. Mr Giese would turn up at Daly River and get off the plane and the kids would all have a laugh because of the way he was dressed. However, he was a person who was very much involved in the administration of the Northern Territory and it is no surprise to me that he was the first Ombudsman because of his experience in the Northern Territory.
I have some amendments coming, but I need to say a few things in relation to some of the broader aspects. There is a concern - and I notice that there are two papers that write about the Ombudsman. One is the budget papers and one is the Ombudsman’s report. In the budget, it talks about responsibilities of the Ombudsman on page 23 of the 2008-09 Budget. Referring to the normal responsibilities of the Ombudsman and the Health and Community Service Complaints Commission, it says:
- In addition to these responsibilities, under the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act, the Ombudsman is required to inspect,
audit and report on the Northern Territory Police (NT Police) exercising its powers under the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception
and Access) Act and the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.
I did not know whether the section I just read out, in relation to the powers of the Ombudsman in the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act, would be some of the Ombudsman’s functions. I am not moving an amendment in that way, it is something that arose when I was reading minister Vatskalis’ speech.
Overall, I believe it is a very well put together document. As you work through it, you get an understanding of the complexity of what the Ombudsman has to do. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate all matters, pretty much. My concern - and you will see that when we talk about the amendments - is that, when there is a disagreement between particular authorities or the commissioner, it can end up basically a stalemate, which then goes to the minister, who reports directly to the Legislative Assembly. I have some concerns about where that finishes.
There is a section that I know the Ombudsman is not too happy with, and it relates to Part 7. I noticed in the second reading, the minister said some commentators are of the view that police investigating police will never give a fair outcome. It says in the scheme established by this bill, at any time, and at the Ombudsman’s own volition, the Ombudsman can audit an Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act investigation being undertaken by police. My understanding is that there is some disagreement in this area; it may be philosophical or it may be a legal disagreement. Not being a lawyer, I found that a little difficult to understand when we had a briefing from the Ombudsman, but there were some issues related to what evidence could be cited in the case of some investigations.
I know it is mentioned here, and it is also mentioned in minister Vatskalis’ response to the annual report. He said:
- The Ombudsman appears to be under the misapprehension that the consequential amendment to the Information Act is acting to exempt from
disclosure information obtained during all police investigations. The Ombudsman is incorrect. Investigation undertaken by Northern Territory
Police through their normal disciplinary processes, and any information obtained, will still be subject to the Information Act.
I find that a fairly difficult area to work my way through. I am willing to see how this act works out with time, and see whether some of those issues that the Ombudsman has concerns with are real concerns or, as minister Vatskalis said, the Ombudsman has misapprehension about. They are some of the issues that were raised in the discussions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, overall, it is an important bill. It is one that should have support from all members of parliament, because it is a bill to set out the guidelines for one of the most important people in our democracy; that is, the Ombudsman. I will keep my further comments until we deal with the amendments.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. This government is committed to providing the highest possible level of service to the people of the Northern Territory, across all areas of government. That is why we believe it is essential to establish a best practice modern scheme for the operation of the Ombudsman. It is certainly not before time. The existing Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act is 30 years old and no longer reflects contemporary practice.
The Ombudsman Bill represents the first major reform at modernisation of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act since commencement on self-government in 1978. I reflect a little on what the member for Nelson spoke of regarding democracy. We are very passionate, as politicians, not only in this parliament but across our country, that we are a country that prides itself on its democratic process - an effective democracy; a democracy where transparency is clearly a value of all Australians.
The primary purpose of the Ombudsman Bill is to establish a transparent, modern, best practice and, comprehensive scheme for the ongoing operation of the Ombudsman in the Territory. The Henderson government commissioned the review as part of our commitment to strengthening the role of the Ombudsman. The review examined all aspects of the existing framework to ensure that Territorians have in place an accessible and comprehensive scheme for resolving complaints about administrative actions taken by public authorities and, as we have heard, the conduct of police officers.
The review considered the Ombudsman’s powers, existing practices and procedures, the use of conciliation and mediation as an alternate resolution mechanism, and involvement with the police complaints process with particular regard to best practice and the delivery of a more open and transparent complaints handling process. We believe it is not only essential that the Ombudsman has that capacity to deal effectively with complaints against government agencies and police, but Territorians make such complaints confident in the knowledge that they will be handled in an expeditious and efficient manner.
We all know of stories where people feel they would like to put forward complaints at various stages in either their personal or professional life. They need to know that there are avenues for such complaints to be heard. Our government is committed to see that the process of the Ombudsman is a clear and efficient one. Territorians also need to know if they wish to make such complaints, they will not face the prospect of having obstructions placed in their way. They also need to be confident they can lodge a complaint without fear of reprisal. They need to be sure that information they give to the Ombudsman will be dealt with confidentially.
Territorians need to be confident that the Ombudsman has the power to take action in relation to their complaint. This is equally important, if not more so, than a person having the belief that they need to confide about something. They also need to know that when they do confide, the Ombudsman has the power to do something about it. The Ombudsman Bill before the Legislative Assembly provides that clarity and certainty for Territorians.
I will look at some examples, especially in my portfolio of Families and Children, in the area of Aged and Disability Services. The Ombudsman has an important role to play in several of those areas. For example, in the area of Aged and Disability Services or Mental Health Services, if a family is dissatisfied with the treatment that is provided to one of their loved ones, they can always ask questions and make a complaint to that service provider, whether it be the Aged Care Service, Disability Support Service, or the Mental Health Service. However, if the family feels too uncomfortable to make that approach, or they make an approach and feel unhappy with the response that they receive, then they can complain to the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission, and they can be sure that the matter will be investigated.
For the family this can be a way of double checking that everything has been done properly and that their loved one is getting the care that they deserve, and it may allow the family who makes the complaint to be confident that the matter is investigated and, the next time they take their loved one to their treatment or service, they can have trust in that service.
It can also be a way of bringing serious issues to the Ombudsman’s attention, acknowledging that a mistake has occurred and making sure that the same mistake does not happen again. I believe that is the crucial point in all of this, not only for our government but for this parliament. When you strengthen laws to provide this kind of clarity, you are doing it because you want to learn from what has happened before, and you want to ensure that it does not happen again if there are mistakes. From my point of view, as the minister responsible for departments and services that fall within the areas of the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, I welcome all recommendations of the Ombudsman or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner that suggest changes to the ways that we do things so that we can learn from the mistakes we make.
I share some examples in the area of Power and Water. The Ombudsman can also help out in relation to other areas such as power and water supply. There was a case where a person who owned a unit in a residential duplex had a problem which was successfully resolved by the Ombudsman. There was one water meter which was shared between the two units in a duplex. Power and Water billed both unit owners separately for their water and, when Power and Water records showed that one of the unit owners had not paid their bills on time, Power and Water said that they would restrict the water flow to the entire property. This was unfair to the person who had paid their bill. That person complained to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman was able to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman can also help out in relation to education. As a parent, we all know situations where children complain that they are not treated fairly or properly by their teacher and, in usual cases, it might be regarding normal homework or the school socks and shoes, or not getting to school on time. In more serious matters - we would never want anything to happen to our children while they are at school - when our children do complain of something serious and we need to raise the issue with the school, if things continue and our parental concerns are not properly addressed, then we can complain to the Ombudsman and, where appropriate, they will investigate the matter.
Similarly, parents of young adults starting out in apprenticeships hope that all things go smoothly but, if there are problems along the way that cannot be sorted out with the provider, the Ombudsman is a point of call.
The Ombudsman Bill substantially improves and builds on the processes set out under the current Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. The bill provides more clarity about the role of the Ombudsman and procedures that will be followed by the Ombudsman in relation to complaints. In particular, the procedures for the handling of complaints against members of the police are more clearly set out in this bill than under the current act. Under the bill, the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations about the administrative practices and procedures of government agencies and to require government agencies to report back to the Ombudsman about steps the agency has taken to give effect to the recommendation.
When I think about my constituents in Arnhem and the many communities across Arnhem Land, I have had, on very rare occasions, not as often as I would like, a fair few questions about the role of the Ombudsman and the ability for those people in remote areas to have access to better understand what the Office of the Ombudsman is all about. I would like to see, in major reforms in local government with the use of the shires, the education process of the Ombudsman carried out throughout our shire councils. I am absolutely sure, because of the limited requests I have had about this particular office, that people are unaware in the regions and in the remote communities, in particular, of their rights regarding access to the Ombudsman’s Office. I know with the major events that go on, or the major visits that occur in communities by departments, at both a Territory and Commonwealth level, that the relationship that people on communities have with departmental officers is part of everyday life.
I know for sure that people on communities would like to have better access and understanding of that particular role. We will be working on that from this side of the House. It is something that the Office of the Ombudsman would be aware of as well, as they are with the use of interpreters. The Aboriginal Interpreter Service is available - and this is a good thing - but it is about informing people in the regions that they can access somewhere to find out some information on the issues and concerns that they may have with departmental officers.
It is not only Territorians who need to be confident about their capacity to make complaints to the Ombudsman; it is equally important that the Office of the Ombudsman should be confident in its capacity to operate in an impartial and independent manner. Just as importantly, the Ombudsman should be seen to be functioning free of government interference. That independence is assured under Part 3 of the bill, which provides that the Ombudsman must act independently, impartially, and in the public interest. Further, the decision to bring the term of the Ombudsman’s tenure into line with that of the Auditor-General and make the tenure a single seven-year term provides added assurance of this independence.
It is also worth noting that certain penalties under the bill are significantly higher than those in other Australian jurisdictions. These penalties include possible penalties of imprisonment for preventing or obstructing a person from making a complaint to the Ombudsman, or disclosing information obtained in the course of an Ombudsman’s investigation.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are very robust mechanisms for ensuring accountability of government in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman Bill will further strengthen these mechanisms by clarifying and modernising the role, functions, and powers of the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on this bill and wish to touch particularly on the point that the minister closed upon; that is, the seven-year tenure of the Ombudsman. Although not everybody in this House was here the short time ago when the Ombudsman Bill was last reviewed, the tenure was changed then, from another tenure arrangement.
The assertion by the member for Arnhem in relation to this matter, as well as the assertion in the second reading speech, that the seven-year single tenure will improve the independence of the Ombudsman is unsupported by anything real. Whilst I accept - and I presume that the implied argument in that position is that if a person knows they are there for a seven-year tenure only, there is no pressure that can be brought to bear upon them, in remuneration into the future, because their contract winds up, whether they like it or not, after a seven-year period.
This replaces the current arrangement, which is a five with an option to renew for five more tenure system, which replaced another system which was actually based loosely on the way that we deal with judges in the judiciary. Whilst I accept, to a degree, the argument that a seven-year tenure has the effect of unshackling the Ombudsman of the expectation of a repeated tenure, therefore, making them feel more at liberty to point out the shortcomings of government, it is a repair job on a five-and-five tenure system, where there was an option to renew.
However, when the five-and-five tenure system was put into place, it was put into place because it had the natural effect of getting rid of an Ombudsman. That Ombudsman was Peter Boyce. Peter Boyce was an Ombudsman who brought down a negative report against government. This was Toyotagate - the great Toyota giveaway - that hit the table in 2005 - was it? I remember Toyotagate particularly well, because it was Thursday afternoon, the last day of the Alice Springs sittings, when this report hit the table and, goodness gracious, the government was hoping that no one would notice. What was the allegation in that particular matter? The allegation was that a Toyota had been given by the department to a community at Belyuen, and the minister at the time, Jack Ah Kit, was so quick to blame the department and the public servants responsible.
It did not take a great deal of reading of that report to realise that the Ombudsman was trying to do what he could not lawfully do; that was, to criticise a minister of the Crown directly. It is one of the shortcomings of the Ombudsman. It is not actually a shortcoming if you look at the structure of how government works, but one of the limitations on an Ombudsman is that they cannot directly criticise a minister. When Peter Boyce became aware of these particular issues, he did the next best thing and traced the trail all the way to the minister’s door and, then basically, said to the reader of that report: ‘You decide. You decide whether or not the minister had a hand in dishing out that Toyota’.
The response from government: ‘Oh, we need a new Ombudsman act, we better get rid of this one’. They got rid of that one, and got the new Ombudsman, who has proven to be, in my opinion, an excellent Ombudsman in her forthrightness and courage in her position. Who can forget that crowning moment of that Estimates Committee, when the new Ombudsman was sitting next to the new Chief Minister, and the Chief Minister was assuring Territorians that the Ombudsman was well funded, and then the new Ombudsman said: ‘Well, actually no, I am not, and it is going to take $150 000 to clear the decks on the backlog of cases I have’. For those of us who witnessed it, you could have cut the air with a knife. ‘Oh my God, we got rid of the critical Ombudsman and what did we get back, a critical Ombudsman’.
The new Ombudsman has proven to be courageous in the work that she does. Even most recently as late last year, we got to see the courage of her work. Whilst I confess to raising my eyebrows at her use of adjectives in the particular report I refer to - the matter of the security in the paediatrics unit - the language was quite un-Ombudsman-like but, nevertheless, it was probably a measure of her exasperation with what was going on.
One of the shortcomings, I still believe, of the system that we have here in the Northern Territory is that we seem to forget that the Ombudsman is an officer of the Northern Territory parliament, not an officer of the government. Why an Ombudsman’s negative report still has to be forwarded directly to a minister of the Crown is quite beyond me. Whilst I appreciate that there should be fair warning of a negative report, or any report for a minister of the Crown, I would prefer, in the future, to see a system where the Ombudsman’s report goes directly to you, Madam Speaker, and that the minister of the Crown is also advised. The minister of the Crown has certain legislative capacity to sit on the report for as long as it suits them, within a particular time frame. Whilst the minister who received that last Ombudsman’s report was at pains to point out that he chose not to hold it over until after the Christmas period, he certainly waited until the Thursday - if memory serves me, I could be corrected - of those sittings to table that report, after having sat on it for four days. He gets the heads up before anyone else. How does that work when the Ombudsman is an officer of the parliament?
This dates back, by the way, to the former government; this arrangement is not new. I have some concerns about that because, as far as I can see, there should be a capacity for the Ombudsman to at least not be vetted, stopped, or delayed in reporting to this House by dint of a legislative instrument because it suits the government of the day, whichever that may be.
I will return quickly to the issue of tenure - I have strayed a little. The issue of tenure is that we still have a capacity for a government to truncate, if you like, an Ombudsman’s tenure. Our Ombudsman has been on board for three or four years, so she has only has a few years to run and then she is gone, under these arrangements. Under the old arrangements that predate the ‘let us get rid of Peter Boyce arrangements’, there was another approach. The Ombudsman was an officer of the parliament, and their tenure was until they retired. The only way that you could get rid of an Ombudsman, under the original arrangements, was for the government, the Chief Minister, or a member of this House to come in and justify to the House why an Ombudsman’s tenure should be stopped. That gave a real security to the Ombudsman because it would have to be done publicly. There is no way to avoid a motion of this House being done in the public arena and, consequently, a minister or government seeking to get rid of an Ombudsman would have to state the reasons why.
This is the same mechanism by which you get rid of a High Court judge at the federal level. There are very good reasons to get rid of a person from a High Court before their tenure is up. They may go mad or be incapacitated by some other problem. There might be any number of issues when the removal of such a person would be justified. But the removal would have to be done by the majority of the House, locked in step behind the decision to remove that individual.
I prefer that system. Whilst it is not reflected in the current legislative instrument before this House, it is something that I would like to see revisited at some point in the future. If we truly want to demonstrate to Territorians that we have an open, honest, and accountable system - something often promised but little performed by this government - then, I believe, a vehicle of that nature would be a whole lot more confidence inspiring than a government which is prepared to change the rule of tenure-ship quickly, with the passage of a few years. If the government chooses to be really grumpy at an Ombudsman, they might find another reason to reintroduce a new tenure system. There is no comfort in that. The argument will come from government, ‘Well, it is fixed in legislation’. Well, the government changes legislation when it sees fit.
Why not have a system by which tenure is a matter for this House to consider, not a matter for the executive arm of government to determine on a day-to-day basis?
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will address some of the comments that members have made.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for this bill, and a very considered contribution in the second reading debate. This bill has been a long time in development and, as he said, it has been a real and genuine attempt to strike a balance between the requirement for the Ombudsman to have significant powers regarding the capacity to investigate complaints, not only in delivery of services and decisions by government agencies, but also in complaints against police.
As this bill has been developed, it has seen a significant amount of toing and froing within government and between police and the Department of the Chief Minister, which had oversight in putting this bill together over some years. I believe that, finally, the right balance has been struck. I have been Police minister for quite a few years on and off and, as Police minister, have been a part of this internal toing and froing.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition regarding the powers of the Ombudsman to scrutinise complaints and run investigations on complaints against the police. It is a fine line between demonstrating confidence from the parliament and the government in our police force and demonstrating that to the men and women who serve in our police force; vis--vis the ability for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against the police. There are some fine technical issues around that. It is a debate that has been long and significantly debated. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition; I have also met with the Police Association on several occasions about this and, obviously, the commissioner and his executive team; and there is a general agreement now that this is a significant improvement to the process.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support and his acknowledgement that this has been a genuine effect, in not only updating, modernising, and bringing into place contemporary legislation that will better meet the needs of Territorians; it is also one of balance. Not everyone got what they wanted out of this, but I believe we have found the right fulcrum.
Member for Nelson, I thank you for your support for the bill. I know he did receive a very detailed briefing on the bill and there were many questions. I agree with the member for Nelson that this is very important legislation. It is about protecting the interests of Territory citizens regarding the actions of, and decisions made by, government agencies and the behaviour of the Northern Territory Police who enforce the law of the Northern Territory.
It is a very important bill. I know the member for Nelson has a number of committee stage amendments that I look forward to working through with him. He raised some issues that will be raised in more detail in the committee stage.
The issues the Ombudsman identified in her annual report regarding complaints against police are picked up in this legislation, I believe. The Ombudsman now has complete oversight and supervisory authority over the conduct of an investigation and can request that an investigation be conducted in a particular way; previously, she did not have complete oversight and supervisory authority. This oversight and supervisory authority means the Ombudsman can request, at any time, that the Commissioner of Police provide an update on the progress of an investigation or inspect any documents in the possession or the control of police that are relevant to the investigation. At the end of the day, in the response to the investigation, it is up to the Ombudsman to determine what documents are released and what reports are released. I believe the concerns have been picked up in the drafting of this bill.
Minister for Families and Children, I acknowledge that this legislation has not been significantly overhauled since self-government in 1978, and we have endeavoured to craft legislation that is best practice and reflects contemporary practice. It does not give every power that the Ombudsman was seeking, but I believe it effects the right balance.
The minister talked about the outcomes that we are seeking in this legislation as legislators in the Northern Territory. It is not only a grievance mechanism, an investigation and a complaints process; it is about leading to improvements of treatment of Territorians in services that government agencies provide, and also ensuring that when mistakes are made - and they are made; we have any number of Question Times in here in regard to the health system and, in any health system where complex medical and clinical care is provided and treatment is provided to individuals, there are going to be mistakes made - they are investigated and we learn from them. That is a critical role of the Ombudsman and that is strengthened in this legislation.
In regard to the Ombudsman being more widely understood in the services that are provided, there is an opportunity now, with the shire structures in place, for the Office of the Ombudsman to provide education through the shires on what the Ombudsman does and how it can be accessed. We support that aspiration to work through the shires to get the message out there that the Ombudsman is there to receive complaints from all Territorians.
Then, in waltzed the member for Port Darwin. I thought that the opposition was supporting this legislation. The member for Port Darwin said he does not support the seven-year tenure. He did outline, quite appropriately, the argument for a seven-year tenure. I am not going to repeat it, but it is the policy intent that a fixed one-off seven-year appointment will remove any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political influence. The Ombudsman is coming up to a five-year clock and the interest rates have gone up and the mortgage is getting a bit tough, ‘I might have to run soft on the government so I can get that renewed appointment’. A one-off seven-year appointment removes any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political influence. Why the member for Port Darwin would not support it is quite bizarre.
He then went on to talk about the Ombudsman maybe having a lifetime appointment. I believe that, in every area of public office, it is important from time to time to turn people over. If you have the same person in the job for 20 years - well, goodness gracious me, I do not know that I would like to live in a world where we have people who have ultimate and supreme independence and authority, for 20 or 30 years in the same job. I do not believe that brings any new clarity, thinking, or objectivity to the powers that people have …
Mr Elferink: Justice Thomas is on the way out according to you. Justice Thomas has no objectivity, is that what you are suggesting?
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin just cannot help himself. I listened to him in silence, Madam Speaker. I listened to him in silence; I expect the same respect.
There is a totally different set of circumstances for the judiciary than for the Ombudsman. However, I am not going to engage in those debates. If you look around Australia, regarding the terms of appointments of Ombudsmen, there is a range. To bring this into line with the Auditor-General - both are statutory appointments by the parliament, which report to the parliament - and to bring those terms into sync, seems to make common sense, and removes any perception that the Ombudsman could be subject to political interference. The member for Port Darwin acknowledged that, but then went and spoke against it in a totally contradictory manner.
I thank honourable members for their support. I also acknowledge many people, over quite some years now, including current public service officials who have worked very hard on this bill. It has been a long process that has led us to this point, where we are in this parliament with very important legislation that protects the interests of Territorians. To have arrived at this point and achieved contemporary practice legislation has been a very significant body of work. I thank everyone involved and all honourable members for their support of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Ombudsman Bill 2008 (Serial 25).
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, may I raise a matter before we get into the business of this? First, it is to acknowledge two things: (1) is the amount of work that has gone into the project we have before us; and (2) the amount of work that the member for Nelson has put into the amendments. In order to finish this off well, I believe we need a little more time to consider these amendments, as they were only brought before us today.
Some of them may not comply as they have not been through Parliamentary Counsel. I am requesting that we give support for a motion to postpone the consideration of committee stages of this bill until a later hour, so that we can give proper consideration to the important matters that the member for Nelson is bringing before us, and we can ensure that we have closed the door on this and completed the job. It has been a long process. I am only asking for a little longer, so that it can go through Parliamentary Counsel, then we can give it our consideration.
I seek leave to move a motion to postpone our consideration of committee stages of this bill until a later hour.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted?
Mr HENDERSON: May I speak in responding ‘no’, just before we get into the committee stages?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! The vote has been taken. You cannot speak when a vote has already been taken on a motion.
Ms Lawrie: No, you can speak at the start of committee stage, if you want to be so precious. Do you want to gag the Chief Minister?
Mr ELFERINK: No. There is no question before the Chair at the moment. The question has been put, the vote has been taken, and he is on his feet.
Madam CHAIR: I have not ruled on the vote, member for Port Darwin. The noes have it.
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. For my call, I would have expected there would have been a ruling from the Chair if the call was asked for.
Madam CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as whole?
Mr WOOD: No, do not take it as whole.
Mr HENDERSON: Do you want to move through it clause by clause?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I apologise that these amendments came in late, but I might have been worn out from reading the bill. I put these amendments forward as sensible amendments. The first two amendments will, hopefully, not be too difficult for people to understand. The other ones may be a little harder.
In relation to clause 10, when you read the budget papers, in page 23 of this 2008-09 Budget Paper, it talks about the objectives of the Ombudsman and the commission. One of those objectives is to promote access to and awareness of the roles of the Ombudsman and the commission.
That role is also mentioned in the Ombudsman’s 2007-08 Report on page 11, where the Ombudsman talked about the number of access and awareness visits. I believe it was also raised at the Estimates Committee. It seems to me that if you do not put that in the act, under the functions and powers, you are leaving out a very important role and function of the Ombudsman.
I have said that, to ensure this important role is put into the legislation so there is no misunderstanding of the role of the Ombudsman, we insert after (e):
(ea) to promote the role of the Ombudsman throughout the Northern Territory
I move that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, for the public record, even if the member for Port Darwin did not want to hear the reason, other people will be reading the Parliamentary Record of this debate. The reason that the government did not support the proposed motion to defer this committee stage debate to further consider the amendments as moved by the member for Nelson is as follows.
It was not out of any churlish attempt to not give more consideration, but the amendments proposed by the member for Nelson do not give rise to any significant issues in the bill, they do not go to any of the policy intent of the legislation, and they are mostly around administrative process and timing issues. The amendments the member has prepared are clearly written and are understandable; therefore, the government sees that it is important to continue with this bill today. The advice that I have is that Parliamentary Counsel would not be adding any more value to the amendments that have been proposed by the member for Nelson.
I just wanted to clear up why the government did not agree to the motion to defer the committee stage. We think they can and should be dealt with this evening, and, for the public record, that was the reason.
In regards to the proposed amendment to clause 10 of the bill, I understand the intent of what the member for Nelson is proposing. The Office of the Ombudsman, as opposed to the Ombudsman as an entity in itself, does have a role in promoting the services of the Ombudsman to the community of the Northern Territory, and there has been an expanded effort in that area over recent years. I am aware that the Ombudsman is keen to see that role expand.
This particular clause talks about the function of the Ombudsman, as an entity in itself; that is, to investigate and deal with complaints about administrative actions of public authorities and to consider the administrative practices and procedures of public authorities that are being investigated or dealt with on complaint, and so on.
This part of the act goes to the powers and the functions of the entity which is the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, which is the agency which supports that, has the responsibility for promoting the role of the Ombudsman. On advice, it is not really appropriate to have that particular responsibility as part of the entity of the Ombudsman in itself. It is acknowledged that it is part of the role of the office to get out there and promote it, and there have been increased efforts over the last few years to that effect. There was no reference to the Ombudsman as an entity having a responsibility for promoting the role of Ombudsman in the previous legislation.
I am not trying to be difficult, member for Nelson, but it is just the way the legislation has been crafted; that responsibility lies with the office to do that. It is implicit. It is part of the budget process every year, regarding that agency having budget line items for promotion, and that will continue into the future.
Motion negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 46, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 47:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I hope that all MLAs support this one, because in the previous act, the Ombudsman would notify the local MLA in relation to a matter, I believe, in their electorate. This has been removed in the new act and I have not been really given any substantial reason. There does not appear to be much said about it when the bill was introduced, just that it was removed. I believe there are times when it is important that the local MLA is at least notified that there is an investigation in his electorate.
I know that does add a little more burden to the role of the Ombudsman, but I believe it is also important that local members are aware of any issues in their electorate, whether it is relating to the police, the local council or a department that perhaps has been operating in that area. I feel there was an oversight, or perhaps it was deliberately removed, but I believe it is something that should be put back into this new bill.
As I have it, inserting an extra clause 47(d) is in relation to the Ombudsman giving notice to the local member of the Legislative Assembly, if the complaint is related to a matter within the member’s electorate.
I hope that one will get some support because we are all MLAs and it was something that was, at times, beneficial in the old act.
Mr HENDERSON: It was really interesting when I saw your amendments come around, member for Nelson. It took me back to my induction briefing, when I was elected as an MLA in 1999, and part of that induction was a briefing on the roles and powers of the Ombudsman. It was highlighted in the briefing that the Ombudsman was required to notify the local member in regard to any investigation they may be conducting on behalf of a complaint by someone in your electorate. I was not aware of that, obviously, as when you come to this job you are not aware of many things it entails.
When your proposed amendment came around, I remembered that clause in the old bill. For nine years of being a local member, I have never had anything referred to me by the Ombudsman in relation to the clause in the existing bill. On one occasion, a constituent come to me with a complaint that had been forwarded to the Ombudsman, and was also very keen, when the Ombudsman had completed the complaint, to come back and bring me the results of that - to see, if the complaint was not upheld, whether there was anywhere else, as a local member and as a minister in government, I could take that particular issue. It was around the procurement process.
At that time, I had questions for the Ombudsman in regard to the results of the investigation; the report that was presented to my constituent, and had an opportunity to talk to the Ombudsman about how she came to her conclusions and to discuss that. There was a full and frank discussion because the approval and authorisation of the constituent was given. The issue was not resolved to the constituent’s ultimate satisfaction, but he understood why the decision was made. That did not come to me from the Ombudsman; it came to me from the constituent.
In responding this evening, the advice I have, that seems to make sense, is that this position differs in every jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions require notice of an investigation to be provided to the principal officer of the public authority or department, and the responsible minister. In other jurisdictions, there is no requirement to notify the responsible minister. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction that required the Ombudsman to notify the MLA in whose electorate the complainant resided about the intention to conduct an investigation. We were out there on our own.
I have not done a poll of my colleagues. The provision may have been in the bill; however, I do not believe that, in nine years of being the member for Wanguri, none of my constituents have made a complaint to the Ombudsman, because I know quite a number have. It was a provision that was not, in practice, put into place for whatever reason. Ultimately, the Ombudsman is responsible to the parliament, not to us as members individually - responsible to the parliament. Through the provision of the Ombudsman’s ability to report to this parliament, all of us, as members of parliament, have access to those reports, not just individuals.
In essence, we were, even with 30-year-old legislation, out of step with every other jurisdiction. I do not believe it was a provision that, for whatever reason, was complied with - not only with the current Ombudsman but previous Ombudsmen. Ultimately, the policy intent is that the Ombudsman is responsible to this parliament, not to us individually as MLAs. I understand the intent of the amendment, to keep in place in this legislation what was in the previous legislation but, on consideration, the previous legislation was not, for whatever reason, providing us, as MLAs, with copies of every investigation that the Ombudsman made on behalf of constituents. Parliament is the supreme and ultimate authority, and the Ombudsman is free to put any report into this parliament that they see fit.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, just because we are the only ones who have it, does not mean we should not have it; we are more advanced.
My amendment did not say every matter that related to a person in an electorate should be notified to the local member, but only if it related to a matter within the member’s electorate. I tried to narrow it. You might have lots of people with complaints to the Ombudsman, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the electorate. That is why I tried to hone that down. It could be issues about Power and Water in your electorate. It could be issues about Darwin City Council or the Litchfield Shire in your electorate. That is what I was getting at.
I have been notified about an issue that was related to my electorate, but it also dealt with a bigger issue. I know there is probably nothing stopping the Ombudsman writing to an MLA, regardless of whether it is in the bill, to let you know that there is an investigation; simply for your own information. However, as you know, we live in fairly small electorates, and many of these things come back to us in some form or another. I did not see any reason for it being taken out in the first place. Even though it may not be used very often, I thought it was a handy thing to have there, to let the local MLA know what is going on. Obviously, if government does not support that, I will live with that, but I am sad that it has been taken out of this bill.
Mr HENDERSON: In concluding debate on this particular issue, the other point here would be one of privacy. I can think of all sorts of issues that our constituents may want referred to the Ombudsman for investigation but, for whatever reason, would not want referred to the local member of parliament. To have a provision in the legislation that requires the Ombudsman to do that would be contradictory to the privacy principles. At the end of the day, I understand where you are coming from. I do not believe it was working in practice in the old bill, and there is no reason that, even if it was retained in the new bill, we would see any practical implementation. It is the privacy issues, where members of the community would want to go to the Ombudsman, knowing that the issues being raised are totally confidential.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 54, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 55:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my comments here will probably relate to the other clauses I have, clauses 55, 63, and 104. I do have a query on clause 172. In dealing with clause 55, to save me repeating myself three times, because it is the same argument for each one, I will now put the arguments for these amendments.
When I read clause 55, it is headed:
Ombudsman may issue direction in relation to administrative action
It says that, basically, a public authority, if it does not want to comply with that direction that has been issued, can do so. It says in clause 55(5)(a):
- the principal officer of the authority must, at the request of the Ombudsman, report to the Ombudsman (within a stated reasonable period) on the
reasons for the authority’s non-compliance with the direction;
And then, in (b):
if, on receipt of the principal officer’s report, the Ombudsman is satisfied the authority’s non-compliance with the direction was unjustified or
unreasonable, the Ombudsman may give a report on the matter to the responsible Minister for tabling in the Legislative Assembly.
Clauses 63 and 104 are similar, except clause 63 refers to an action by the authority, and clause 104 refers to the commissioner.
My feeling, having read that, is where does that leave us? The answer I received in the briefing was that the minister would table a report that the Ombudsman would give to the minister which would highlight this particular fact. The minister would have to table it and you would hope that someone would pick up that there was a disagreement between the authority and the Ombudsman.
When I was reading minister Vatskalis’ report on the Ombudsman’s report for 2007-08, he said that, during 2007-08, the Ombudsman also undertook inspection of the Northern Territory police records to report on the compliance with the legislation protecting the rights of citizens when surveillance devices are used and when telephone communications are intercepted. A report was provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 18 September 2008. The report identified that the Northern Territory Police were not complying with some aspects of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. I have not heard any debate about that, I must admit. Perhaps we have not finished with the Ombudsman’s report. That report would have been tabled and, in theory, we should have picked that up and there should have been a question. What is happening? I feel that someone has to make a decision and the person at the top of the pile, you might say, is the minister.
In this case, clause 55(5)(b), the minister basically tables it. My amendments add to this as follows:
(c) in relation to (b) the minister must, when tabling the report, make a decision as to whether he or she will require the principal officer to
either comply or not comply with the Ombudsman’s request.
And then (d):
(d) in relation to (c) the minister must state his or her reasons for the decision.
Madam Chair, in this, I am saying that there is a dispute between the Ombudsman and either the public authority or the commissioner and it has reached a stalemate. I thought that to bring this process to a conclusion, it would be better for the minister to say whether he agrees with the public authority, and require the public authority to do what the Ombudsman has directed - and the same for the commissioner. I do not know what happens then. Is it a matter of public pressure on the minister to require the public authority to comply with the Ombudsman or does it just die, so nothing comes from that?
I am looking to these amendments to find a practical solution to an impasse between either the public authority and the Ombudsman or the commissioner and the Ombudsman.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I know that these three clauses have been put together in terms of similar amendments; clause 55(5), clause 63 and clause 104(3).
Regarding the issue of transparency and ministerial accountability, I understand where the member is coming from. The fact that the Ombudsman is accountable to the parliament, and any report made by the Ombudsman is required to be tabled in the parliament, gives that report parliamentary scrutiny. In parliamentary scrutiny, there is the opportunity for any member of parliament to ask questions about the issues raised in that report, during Question Time processes, procedural motions in the House, questions on notice, or by seeking a briefing from the minister regarding a response to any report before the House that has recommendations.
Whilst the bill does not expressly state that a responsible minister is required to specify a time frame for action to commence or provide reasons for making a decision in relation to recommendations and findings made in the report, the minister is, ultimately, accountable for following through, with the chief executive of the departments, the recommendations and findings in the report. We have seen in this House, even under the existing legislation - which is must less transparent and precise than the legislation we are currently debating - that when the Ombudsman’s reports come to this parliament they do receive significant parliamentary scrutiny and, on occasion, are the subject of intense debate. I can recall any number of occasions when that has occurred. I understand where the member is trying to get to, but I argue that the minister is accountable, under the legislation as it stands, to respond to the parliament, if the parliament seeks a response from the minister. The fact is that the information is publicly available, and the minister is ultimately accountable.
Member for Nelson, picking up on the issues regarding the Ombudsman’s oversight of the powers that police have in telecommunications intercept, that report was tabled in the House and I can say, because you are asking a question, ipso facto, that I did direct the Police Commissioner to implement the recommendations. I did not really have to direct him because he was doing so, anyway. I do not see there is a requirement to have an express provision in the legislation, as drafted by the member for Nelson, that requires the minister - from reading the proposed amendments, that the minister must - when tabling the report, make a decision as to whether he or she will require the principal officer to either comply or not comply with the Ombudsman’s request.
The time between the minister receiving the report and the requirements under the act to table it in the House may be a few short days. It may be a very complex issue that has been raised by the Ombudsman that will take some time to work through for an ultimate decision; and requiring there and then the minister to direct either comply or not comply, may not be practical, feasible or desirable, given the gravity and the complexity of the report that comes to the House.
I understand what you are trying to do, member for Nelson. However, I do believe that it is unnecessary, because the fact that the report has been tabled means that the minister is available for scrutiny and for questioning on the actions of the minister in ensuring that the recommendations are either implemented or not implemented and the reasons for non-implementation. I also point out that, in updating and upgrading this legislation which has been through an intense process to bring forward contemporary legislation, all Ombudsman’s acts around Australia were looked at and this legislation has been benchmarked against other Ombudsman’s acts, and this is very much contemporary legislation. This express provision for the minister to respond at the time of tabling is not in any other legislation around Australia.
I understand what you are trying to achieve, but I argue that the fact that the report is tabled in the House for everybody to see means that the minister is, ultimately, accountable for decisions as to the implementation of those recommendations or not.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister, I appreciate that explanation. I accept that there could be problems, as you say, with complicated legislation. I am trying to get rid of what appears to be a stalemate with the Ombudsman’s authority or when the Ombudsman and the commissioner simply do not agree.
I highlight that I will have to wait and see if a case does occur to see how the process works, and I am happy to do that. It was important to highlight this issue because, in some way, you say the Ombudsman has the power but, in these three cases, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make the final decision. I will wait and see how the act goes, and if there is a case where there are issues relating to clauses 55(5), 63 or 104(3) which come back to the Legislative Assembly. Hopefully, I see it. We will see how it works in practice. I accept what you are saying, Chief Minister, and I will not be commenting on the next two clauses. However, I have a small problem with clause 172, Madam Chair.
Mr HENDERSON: To conclude these three separate amendments, I will also look at this moving forward. I pick up the point about a stalemate between the chief executive of a department and the Ombudsman regarding a particular issue, recommendation, or point of difference. Ultimately, the minister does have to make a decision in the direction that the minister may choose to make. It will be interesting to see, as report comes forward, how often there is a stalemate. I cannot recall that there has been; it happens on very few occasions. Most times, when the Ombudsman’s report comes around, agencies say what they have done to rectify those issues.
I pick up on a comment that you made, member for Nelson, about the Ombudsman having the power to make the decisions. Ultimately, decisions rest with ministers. The Ombudsman can make recommendations and can conduct an investigation in an independent and transparent way. However, the Ombudsman cannot require certain things to be done and can only make recommendations because, in the Westminster system, ultimately, the government of the day and ministers are accountable. If stalemates do come to the table, ultimately, the minister is accountable to try to resolve those. We will keep an eye on it. If this issue is highlighted in the future, then I will be open to an amendment as you suggest. It has been an interesting position that you have put forward and we will keep a close eye on it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I accept what you are saying, Chief Minister. The Ombudsman gives a direction or makes a recommendation hoping the authority or the police take them up. The problem is when they do not take the direction and they do not take up the recommendation. That is when you reach a stalemate.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 55 to 104 agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you had question on clause 172.
Mr WOOD: I have a query in relation to clause 172. Do you want to move to that point first?
Clauses 104 to 171, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 172:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, this clause says, and this is a technical comment:
Before Part 4, Division 3
insert
49C
referring to the Information Act. When I turn to the Information Act, there is section 49A, there is no section 49B. Maybe there is something missing there, but section 49C is inserted when there is no section 49B.
Mr Henderson: Member for Nelson, can you go through that again, sorry?
Mr WOOD: In clause 172, and it is referring to the Information Act, it says:
Before Part 4, Division 3
insert
49C
When I go to the Information Act I find there is section 49A, there is no section 49B, but we are aiming to insert section 49C. I do not know whether there needs to be a change there. Can someone tell me where section 49B is?
Mr HENDERSON: This is a technical issue in drafting of legislation, and I wish that the officer in the box could stand and answer the question, member for Nelson. This is how this legislation intertwines with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the whistleblower’s legislation which comes into effect and operation on 1 July, and its integration with the Information Commissioner’s legislation. The advice I have is that section 49B, which is currently missing from that act, will be inserted as a result of the commencement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act on 1 July, which will then allow this section 49C to operate. That is the best I can do. Did I get that right?
Mr WOOD: I thought I was going to get one amendment through, and I did not know it was going to be such a complicated answer to beat me. I accept that explanation, Chief Minister. Anyone reading that would say that something has gone wrong but, obviously, there is an explanation to everything when it comes to parliamentary drafting of legislation. I will leave it at that.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
McArthur Rive Mine – Failure by Labor Party to Support
McArthur Rive Mine – Failure by Labor Party to Support
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim and I have give my approval to this definite matter of public importance.
- Madam Speaker
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance:
The loss of jobs, economic prosperity and community services as a result of the failure of Labor at both Territory and federal levels to support the McArthur River Mine.
David Tollner
Member for Fong Lim.
Is the matter of public importance supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this definite matter of public importance.
We have heard yesterday and today much talk about the global financial crisis; what it means for Australia and some of the areas that we might look at to address some of the impacts that will occur in the Northern Territory and around Australia. The Chief Minister and the Prime Minister have made much of this and they have said that they will, if I get this right, turn every stone to save every single job that they possibly can. I have a chuckle to myself at times and I have often said that you should not listen to what they say; you should look at what they do.
That is a case in point in relation to the McArthur River Mine. There has been a reprehensible lack of support from this government to see the McArthur River Mine operation continue. It has been an absolute shambles of a story involving the neglect of jobs, community services, the rights of traditional owners, and basic infrastructure. All the way through, in recent months at least, this debacle the Territory government has buried its head in the sand and said ‘nothing to do with us’.
I provide a little history, Madam Speaker. The McArthur River Mine, in some ways, could be described as one of those great Labor achievements. The McArthur River Mine, in many ways, is the baby of former Prime Minister Paul Keating and his Parliamentary Secretary at the time, Laurie Brereton. They were very much instrumental in getting that mine started, along with Territory politicians Barry Coulter and Eric Poole; to see that mine kick off and start operating. It held great promise and, for a long time, that mine was one of the great mining jewels in the crown of the Northern Territory.
It has been estimated that the mine contributed somewhere between 4% and 6% of gross state product at times. It has employed hundreds of workers. It has put millions of dollars to local contractors and businesses. They contribute millions of dollars into a community benefits account. It was really starting to look like a jewel in the crown of the Territory mining industry.
Last year, the McArthur River Mine won the National Mine of the Year Award, and it won the country’s highest metallurgy award that could be offered. That mine provided hope, aspirations, and opportunities that had never existed in that community before the mine was set up.
Then have a look at where we are now. It is a very dicey situation because the future of the mine rests in the hands of former Midnight Oil front man, now the federal Environment minister who, ultimately, has the choice to decide whether that mine continues. I hope and pray for the Territory, for the people out in the Borroloola region that Mr Midnight Oil can make the right decision and try to somehow revive the mine.
After all, we have something like 300 workers who have been stood down without pay, who are waiting to find out whether they are going to have a job. We have a whole community which has come to rely on the benefits of the Community Benefits Fund, and we have a whole range of businesses, both mainstream and, in particular, Indigenous businesses, in that community which rely on that mine for work.
Probably the most notable one is the barge service which takes the processed ore from the Bing Bong port to the ship. That barge is 35% owned by the local Indigenous people. All are now up in the air as to what the future holds. It breaks my heart - having been out there a week-and-a-half or two weeks ago with the member for Katherine, talking to local traditional owners, local business people, and looking at the mine - to see what will be lost to the Territory if things do not happen.
What happened with the mine? It was a good mine; it was a nice Territory mine. But the mine found a couple of years ago that, in order to maximise the benefit of the mine to the community and to guarantee its life into the future, the mine needed to expand and, at the same time, divert 5 km to 6 km of the McArthur River in order to make an open cut pit which would have turned that nice, local mine, to some extent, into a world-class mining asset. That is what it is now. There are 50 years life in that mine, which makes it an extremely important mine in global terms and what it could do for the Territory.
I believe that when that decision was made, things started to go bad for Xstrata, the operator of the McArthur River Mine. That is when the Northern Land Council saw an opportunity that they could finally get an agreement with the mine by trying to stifle the river diversion. By opposing the expansion they thought they would get an agreement.
When I talk about an agreement, many mines in the Territory on Aboriginal land have to go through a process to get approval and they have to have an agreement with the relevant land council. When those agreements are made, inevitably, there is a flow of royalty equivalent to affected land councils, Indigenous people locally, and also to the Aboriginal Benefits Account. The way that is split up is 40% of the royalty equivalents go to the land council; 30% of the royalty equivalents go directly to the local people who are affected by the mining or the venture, and the other 30% goes into the Aboriginal Benefits Account.
An agreement had been made with local traditional owners. I am reliably informed that the monies that were paid into the Community Benefits Account, which was set up by Xstrata and the local community, were about the equivalent of what would be paid in royalties to Indigenous organisations. Last year, I understand, it was around $1.35m. That Community Benefits Account invests in things right around the Borroloola region for the benefit of the Borroloola people - 100% of that money goes into the Borroloola community in some way, shape or form.
This is what it is about for the NLC, because the NLC see that 100% of the money is going into the Borroloola community. However, if they can strike an agreement over royalties, 40% of the royalties will go to the NLC, 30% of them will go into the Aboriginal Benefit Account - of which the NLC has quite a major say in how that money is expended - and only 30% of the money will remain in the Borroloola community. That is what is driving the NLC through this whole sordid story: the fact that they want their slice, they are not happy with 100% of the money going into the Borroloola community.
That is what started the NLC court action. When they started to lobby local people, in particular, the Aboriginal aristocracy in the area and around the Territory, they all seemed to fall in line. That is when this whole thing turned into a complete debacle because they recruited, as I say, some fairly high profile members of the Indigenous community to their cause - most notably, the member for Arnhem, who has never visited the mine and who, I am reliably informed, has never been out to see the river diversion or done a tour of the mine. I am reliably informed that a vast majority of members on the other side of this Chamber have never got out and actually had a look at the McArthur River Mine or the river diversion. However, they fell into line.
The court case was started, and the Environment minister at the time, and her department, were found to have erred in their decision. The Northern Territory government, led by the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, decided to ratify that mine into Territory government legislation. I support that decision, because that is what needed to be done. Interestingly enough, this just tore the government apart. We saw three members of the government cross the floor. We saw the minister, who was responsible for the stuff-up in the first place, absent herself from the vote …
Members interjecting.
Ms Scrymgour: Look at your federal colleague, you dipstick!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: She has already withdrawn, member for Katherine.
Mr TOLLNER: The Environment minister had disappeared; it had torn the Labor Party apart so much that it was the single biggest factor in why the Chief Minister was knifing shortly after.
Another little aside about this was that the person who drafted the legislation at the time was the then Solicitor-General, Tom Pauling, who did a great job in drafting that legislation and having it available for the parliament. He was, I believe, justly rewarded, and I support his appointment as the Administrator ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is an outrageous assertion by the member for Fong Lim, and asserts corruption on the part of the appointment of the Administrator. I demand that he withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Member for Fong Lim, I think that is a very extreme …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw and also to apologise to the House. It is a very extreme comment, thank you.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw and to apologise to the House.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, to keep you happy. I am sorry to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: I support the appointment of Tom Pauling as the Administrator of the Northern Territory ...
A member: That is all he said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, that whole debacle has left a sour taste in the mouths of all Labor politicians in the Territory. They ran to an election after that. They were convincingly walloped, barely managing to hang on to government, all stemming from the fact that they decided to knife the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, over this horrendous case of falling into line with some misguided loyalty, for some of the friends that they have in the Northern Land Council.
Whilst the Territory government did the right thing, they had the mine ratified into the legislation. The Commonwealth did not. The Commonwealth picked up what the Territory government had sent through, it followed the same processes, but failed to ratify the mine into legislation. The court case then took on a different angle. The NLC was pushing the federal government, by taking the federal government to court and, ultimately, winning that case. That happened on 15 December last year - absolutely appalling. From the time that the Chief Minister had the knife stuck in her back, the Territory Labor government turned its back on the McArthur River Mine.
So much to the point that the Opposition Leader asked a question of the Chief Minister, on 21 October last year, about royalty payments that were paid to the NT government and the government being asked to refund them because there had been no power at the mine site for some time because of a lack of support from Power and Water and the Territory government. The Chief Minister at the time, bearing in mind that this is a mine that counts for some 4% to 6% of the Territory’s gross state product, said that he did not have a clue what the Opposition Leader was talking about, that he would need further advice, and sat down.
Following that particular Question Time, I wrote a letter to the mine’s General Manager, Mr Ettienne Moller, asking him to clarify the arrangements that they have with Power and Water and what impact the lack of power supply was having on the mine. I will table that letter, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you need to seek leave to table a letter.
Mr TOLLNER: I have a couple of letters. Can I seek to table this letter?
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: In response, Madam Speaker, I received a letter from the General Manager, who advised me exactly what the impacts were. I will quote a little from it, but I seek leave to table this letter as well.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: He said:
- Very little maintenance of the PAWA on-site power station has been undertaken by PAWA during the period of the contract. This has led to a shared
understanding by the employee’s of the McArthur River Mining operation that the PAWA approach to the provision of this critical infrastructure is based
on a ‘run to fail’ methodology.
He then went on to outline some of the costs to the mine, most notable of which is the $6m of lost sales revenue and several million dollars in costs for hiring generators and trucking diesel out to Borroloola.
It has been disgusting the way the Territory government has acted through this whole fiasco. It is a shame that I am out of time because I have quite a bit more to say on this particular matter. I believe it is disgusting; the Territory government should hang its head in shame. They have bought this whole situation on themselves, and on Territorians, and they have done nothing to support the case for the McArthur River Mine and its continued operation into the future.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I speak to the matter of public importance. I believe it is important that the public realises what a lot of rubbish the member for Fong Lim just said: how many untruths, assumptions and assertions he made; and how he tried to link, somehow, the drafting of legislation to the appointing of the Administrator, which is extraordinary. Not only that, he has total ignorance of how the system works, how things happen, and how things like energy are provided in the McArthur River Mine ...
A member interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: It took him a while to discover the McArthur River Mine. I went there about four years ago. I went underground 800 m when it was still operating as an underground mine. I have visited the mine, I walked through the mine because I have a strong interest in the mine.
We all know how important McArthur River Mine is. It is one of the biggest zinc ore bodies in the world - lead and silver deposits - and commenced mining operations in 1995. We know that the mine is significant to the Territory and the Australian economies. In the Territory it provides $175m to our gross state product per annum. The prediction is that when the mine is fully operational it will generate $329m per annum for the Territory and $503m a year for the Australian economy. We understand the importance of the mine for the Territory economy, and I know that the Commonwealth government understands the importance of the mine on the national economy.
On the other hand, there are differences of opinion. We know that traditional owners, well before any court case was taken - I recall watching some programs on television - opposed the diversion of the river on their own cultural grounds ...
A member: Rubbish.
Mr VATSKALIS: I can also say that both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments know the importance of proper process and complying with legislative requirements. Obviously, the member for Fong Lim may have little understanding of proper process or the importance of complying with legislation, but we take those responsibilities seriously.
There is a controversy surrounding the mine, which has arisen because of problems in the process that led to the Commonwealth approving the mine expansion. That is the process undertaken by the member for Fong Lim’s former colleagues in the Coalition government.
I take the opportunity to run past the House the facts surrounding the successful challenge to the former federal minister’s approval of the mine’s open-cut expansion. I believe it is worth noting that the legal challenge first commenced around two years ago, in February 2007. The legal challenge was based on the premise that during the federal minister’s deliberation on whether or not to approve the change from underground to open-cut activities, the federal minister - that is, the Orange Bellied parrot, Ian Campbell - failed to take into account relevant material as part of his decision-making process.
Even Peter Murphy tried to excuse it, because I recall he said that it was not Ian Campbell’s fault. Someone in the bureaucracy photocopied one side of a double-sided page and gave it to the poor minister. If a person gets a book and reads it and does not realise something is missing, that person is a dill - and Ian Campbell was a dill. He approved the expansion, albeit without realising that half of the report was missing. On reading: ‘There is something different here. This sentence does not seem to make sense, but it must be all right; I will approve it’. That was the quality of the Coalition minister ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: I hope he is not your mate; it would be really embarrassing to call him your mate. If Peter Murphy is right, Ian Campbell is not standing on very solid ground.
The legal action started to overturn the federal minister’s approval of the mine extension granted under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act, which allowed for a section of the McArthur River Mine to be diverted. On 13 June 2008, just months before the Federal Court found that, whilst the federal minister’s department had not provided him with all the required material – half the pages missing – this did not invalidate the minister’s decision to approve the open-cut project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.
The decision was then appealed by the Northern Land Council. It should be also noted that Justice Mansfield, in his judgment, found that an environmental report prepared by the Northern Territory assessment report 51, relied upon by the federal minister, was, indeed, a valid report. The report provided by the Northern Territory government to the federal minister was a valid report. Pity the minister did not realise that half of his department’s report had not been photocopied. Pity.
On 17 December 2008, the full Federal Court handed down its decision on this matter, finding 2:1 in favour of the Northern Land Council. This meant that the mine would be operating without federal government approval and, as a result, all mining operations were halted. The court ordered the federal minister to remake his decision, this time in accordance with the law.
I stress that this legal action was between the NLC, the federal government, and the mine operator. There was no involvement or nothing against the Northern Territory government. The McArthur River Mine was, and continued to be, approved under the Northern Territory legislation. The Northern Territory government followed due process.
I, and other Northern Territory government ministers, wrote to federal minister Garrett pointing out the importance of the mine to the economies of both the Territory and Australia. Further, my office continues to be in regular contact with the Commonwealth on this highly important matter. On 14 January 2009, minister Garrett travelled to Borroloola, met with the native title claimants, the Northern Land Council, and the mine operator as part of his decision-making process. He stated that he wanted to see the situation for himself and talk to the parties involved.
On 27 January 2009, minister Garrett announced his draft decision to approve the mine’s open-cut process but, under the act, he has to follow certain processes. It required a 10-day circulation period to all ministers that have administrative responsibility, and that period finished last Friday, 6 February 2009.
That was Friday. We had Saturday, nobody works, the 7th, the 8th was Sunday. It was three days after he got back on Monday, that he received the response from the ministers, so it is probably about two days from that time. We now await an announcement by the federal minister of his final decision and we expect this shortly. This will remove uncertainty for the mine operator, the mine workers, the community of Borroloola, and the Northern Territory.
As a parallel process, on 19 January 2009, the mine operator lodged with my department an amendment to its mine management plan, seeking a northward expansion completely away from the existing McArthur River. On the same day, the company also lodged a referral to proposed action notice with the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. Under the Commonwealth legislation, a company needs to seek approval prior to them taking any new activity that could, potentially, affect certain species. That referral - guess what? - immediately triggers a 10-day public notification process which expired on the 4 February and a decision on this matter is expected from the Commonwealth on or before 16 February 2009.
There are certain processes put in place by legislation that have to be followed. You cannot just walk in and say: ‘Here is my application, give me your approval’. The act specifically says how long it will take to notify people to get the referral. We cannot blame the Territory government and some of it on the Commonwealth minister because they acted in accordance with the legislation - something that the previous minister, Ian Campbell, failed to do.
It is worth noting the company could have lodged its amended mine management plan with my department, and its referral of the proposed action with the Commonwealth anytime over the last few months, if it wished to. Instead, lodgement occurred on 19 January, with the company saying that, unless approval was given by 26 January, workers would be stood down and the mine would be placed in care and maintenance: ‘We put it in an application on 19 January and tell you that if you do not approve it after seven days, we are going to close the mine down’. Hello! You have lawyers, you pay them. Did they advise you it would take at least 10 days to circulate and seek that information from the people? I suggest that if they did not tell you, you better get some new lawyers who will advise you how the legal process has to be followed. You throw your money in the wind if you pay lawyers and you get this kind of advice.
The fact is that this problem we face today is a direct result …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been talking to the company …
Mr Bohlin: Did you go and see them?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been talking to the company many times. The company people were in my office, and we discussed all the issues, and we explained to the company the problems they have. I spoke to some people from the company, and the company has been kept fully informed by my department about all the problems within the region.
The final issue is the reason the McArthur River Mine does not operate today is because Ian Campbell stuffed up big time. The reason the McArthur River Mine does not operate is because the Commonwealth minister failed to do what was required to be done by the legislation. The reason for what happened, according to Peter Murphy, was that the minister was a dill and did not realise there was only one page photocopied and the other was not.
It is very interesting to hear about the association of the Community Benefit Fund [inaudible]. Rubbish! The Community Benefit Account was put in place by an agreement between the Northern Territory government and the McArthur River Mine. We demanded that the money stay in Borroloola, and that $1.35m be put in every year for eight years and, then, from then on until the life of the whole life of the mine - $1.25m put into a trust account that can be utilised by people in the Borroloola region by proposing worthwhile projects. I am very pleased to say that a number of projects today have been approved, such as the construction of a crche in Borroloola, the purchase of a concrete batching plant and a concrete mixer by the Robinson River community and many other communities.
Finally, I suggest you better go and find out what the real situation is with the power. I know that the then CLP government obliged the Power and Water Corporation to pay for power that would be generated by private contractor to distribute the power to the mines, to borrow money and to construct a pipeline to convey gas to the private company that would produce the power, and to sell heavily subsidised power to the mine. Under the agreement, Power and Water had no authority or power to instruct or demand the private generating company to maintain their generators - which they did not in the past few months and the mine was left without power. It was not Power and Water’s fault, but the company that generated the power - the company that the CLP government had forced Power and Water to sign an agreement with - failed to fulfil their duty.
Before you stand up and start making all sorts of allegations, I strongly suggest you get your facts together, find out what is really happening, and then stand up and tell us that it is a matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance because the mine is important, but it is also important that the public know that the situation we have today is because of a stuff-up with your mate, Ian Campbell.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this matter of public importance. It is a bit of shame that, so far, the members opposite have completely missed the point that we are trying to get across. It is not surprising to hear in the 10 or so minutes that the member for Casuarina was on his feet, he spent nearly half of that sticking it to the previous federal Environment minister. We can all take cheap shots at previous governments …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: This government is famous for doing it – over the few months that I have been sitting in this House …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: However, I will move along. The member for Fong Lim did expose the reality of this awful situation, and it continues to this day, in relation to the woeful performance of this government and the federal Labor government in dealing with the McArthur River Mine. Much of what was said has created quite a reaction over there. It must have been like sandpaper rasping over their eardrums, and I am sure that when the federal minister, Mr Garrett, hears of this he will also be feeling a little uncomfortable.
Most of what was said today, and the remainder of what I am going to say, are they type of things that the people of the Northern Territory need to hear about. They need to understand some of the background that has kept McArthur River closed for two months now.
The matter of the diversion of the river and expansion of the mine at McArthur River has a long history, although probably not a terribly long history in the mining industry. I am going to address a little of that history. On 4 March 2003, a delegate of the federal minister for Environment deemed it necessary to gain approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the expansion of the mine. That is a detailed process, and I am not going to go into that today, but suffice it to say that the approval was granted by the federal minister on 20 October 2006.
Members opposite are too quick to point out that the decision was made by a minister of the previous federal government; that is, a Coalition government under former Prime Minister, John Howard, and they take swipes at us and we see it ad nauseam in this House, when they refer to the previous CLP government prior to 2001. Unfortunately, in the process of making the decision, there were some administrative bungles which rendered the decision by the then minister to be invalid. To put it into perspective - and I heard what the member for Casuarina had to say about this - it was largely a case of an advisor mucking up some photocopies.
It is easy to go on and revisit this, but we are talking about what is happening at the mine today, and there is probably not a great deal of point dwelling for half my time on what happened in the previous ministry of the federal government. It is important to note that the bungle had nothing to do with environmental issues. Reading the decision by the Federal Court, the environmental issues did not even feature at all in the reasons for making their determination in respect of the appeal.
As a result of all this, the new Environment minister, Peter Garrett, gets to redo the process. The process is basically all done, and all the minister needs to do is to consider, in reality, missing pages from documents that were mucked up previously. However, let us move on from that.
As a result of the Federal Court decision on 17 December 2008, approval of the diversion of the mine is invalid. After more than two years of operation to divert the river and expand the mine, Xstrata finds itself in the position of having to stop mining; they had to stop pulling ore out of the ground. All of a sudden, there are 200 miners out of work as a result of that - simple. At this stage, that is bad, but all is not lost. It is important to point out though, at this point, that because of falling zinc prices and the overall state of the global economy, Xstrata had already been in the process of cutting back the mine’s operations. This was a financial and operational decision that was taken by Xstrata in order to keep the mine operational and viable under the prevailing circumstances. There has been some speculation that Xstrata had intended to fully close the mine and cease operations, and would use the court decision and the Environment minister’s handling of this matter as excuses to do just that. I am advised that this is not the case and that Xstrata had contingency plans in place to cope with the reduced operations of the mine in the current global situation. Any suggestion that Xstrata intended this underhanded deception is a slur on the good reputation of the company and is completely mischievous.
In respect to the operations of the mine after the cessation of mining, there was a stockpile of ore that had already been pulled from the ground. This was capable of maintaining the processing plant for about five or six weeks, albeit that the ore was of a lower grade than normal. This stockpile of ore saved around 100 jobs at the time. Rightly so, Xstrata would have expected the federal minister to make a new decision in a timely fashion. After all, he only had to correct an administrative error.
One would have expected that he could have dealt with this matter in the space of a few short weeks. But now, we wait and wait for the minister’s decision - and we are still waiting nine weeks - and still no word from the Environment minister, Peter Garrett, other than his intention to approve the mine. Unfortunately, the intention to approve the mine does not allow for the mine to continue or start operating again.
I will provide a time line for you. On 17 December was the High Court decision. On 18 December, the member for Arnhem rejoiced over the decision of the courts. This beggars belief. How can a minister of the Crown, a minister of this Northern Territory government, come to a position that severely and negatively impacts on the economy of the Northern Territory? It is reprehensible behaviour - and I know the Chief Minister used that word earlier today – truly is reprehensible behaviour.
On 6 January, I issued a media release calling for the Henderson government to tell Mr Garrett about the importance of the mine. On 7 January, the NT Resources minister, in an interview with the ABC news, said:
The decision will be very, very soon.
That was on 7 January; that is five-and-a-half weeks or so ago. You can take that as you like but, at this stage, Mr Garrett had not even visited the mine. There was some other correspondence over the next week or two. On 14 January, Mr Garrett visited the mine, spoke to traditional owners and the mine operators. I wrote to him again and, as I would have expected from a man of that character, I received no reply whatsoever to any of my correspondence; he could not even afford me the common decency of a reply.
From around that point on, we cannot accuse the NT government of doing anything wrong because, basically, they did nothing. I know the answers to the following questions, so I pose them as rhetorical questions. Since the closure of the mine, since the decision of the High Court, has the NT Resources minister visited the mine? No. Has the Chief Minister visited the mine? No. Has the Environment minister visited the mine? No. Not once, since the court decision, has one NT minister gone to the mine, gone to Borroloola, and given their support and said: ‘Look, we understand the situation, we are doing what we can’. Those people are living in the dark - they are mushrooms - kept in the dark by this government. No one has gone to tell them anything.
In light of that fact, I and the member for Fong Lim decided to make a trip down to Borroloola and to McArthur River. We ended up with a tour of the mine, a briefing. We had a look over the mine site, and we flew over the diversion. We were able to put everything into perspective. We were given a good briefing on how the mine’s operations were travelling. At that stage, there were something like 76 people employed and, by now, which is 10 or 12 weeks later, it would be down to about 35, because the federal minister for Environment has not bothered to make a decision yet.
While we were there we spoke with traditional owners. I want to enter the names of these traditional owners into the Parliamentary Record, and I will explain why. Their names are Billy Coolibah, Ronnie Raggett and Bruce Joy. The reason I am mentioning these names is that these are the top traditional owners of the area. When we talk about areas, we need to talk about the geographical location that these people look after. These men carry the ceremony in that area. These men are happy for the mine to go ahead, they are happy about the diversion, and they are happy for the whole thing to proceed. These men are the men who own the traditional land upon which the mine sits. These are not people from other family groups or clan groups in other parts of the Borroloola region. These are the guys on the ground. These are very important men and it would seem as though the Northern Land Council, in their assertions that traditional owners do not want the mine, have not truly represented the traditional owners who matter; that is, those three people who own the land upon which the mine sits.
While we were there we spoke to a number of Borroloola business people as well. They are extremely concerned about the fact that the mine is not going ahead, had closed down or slowed down. Businesses are losing money every day. There is a transport company that used to have two services out of Katherine a week that provided for the mine and also for local produce, food and other goods to be brought into Borroloola. That service is now halved, simply because the mine’s operations do not allow to make the second service viable for them.
The interesting point that came out of this, in talking to the traditional owners who, of course, are Indigenous gentlemen, and the business owners, who are largely non-Indigenous, was that they all had a common theme, which was that they were annoyed and upset that Indigenous employment was being so heavily impacted in Borroloola as a result of this closure.
McArthur River had run at about 20% Indigenous employment. If you are taking 200 jobs away from the mine, that is 40 Indigenous people who do not have jobs. They all mentioned that on the streets of Borroloola there are now more itinerant people wandering around with nothing to do - ex-mine employees who are now at least, temporarily, unemployed.
The mine is now down to a skeleton staff in maintenance mode and we are still waiting for Mr Garrett to make his decision. It seems to me, and it became quite apparent, as the member for Fong Lim has mentioned, that the reason that the NT government has done little to nothing for the people of Borroloola and for the miners at McArthur River, is because it would rather be in bed with the Northern Land Council than with the miners and the people of that part of the Northern Territory. There are, obviously, political reasons for it doing that. The member for Fong Lim alluded to some of those before. With high-level people being recruited to the cause for the Labor Party, it seems as though the Territory government’s attitude is that it has simply discarded McArthur River like last year’s Christmas present; a new Christmas present has come along.
It seems to me that the failure of the Northern Territory government in this regard has shown, once again, that it has little or no consideration for the people of regional Northern Territory. Even though it spouts on about economic stimulus and job loss and all the rest of it; it is not really concerned. It is paying lip service. It holds an opportunity here to push the federal minister for Environment so it could save up to 300 jobs at McArthur River, and it failed to do anything at all.
This is a typical example of what we are seeing out of the current NT government. It needs to pull its socks up and start considering the Northern Territory as a large land mass and not just a portion somewhere between the coast and Palmerston.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance regarding the McArthur River Mine is a matter of public importance - enormous importance to both the Northern Territory and Australia.
It is important because there are 300 jobs at stake. There are 300 families directly affected by the shutdown of the mine. It is important because of the multiplier effect of the indirect jobs of one to two. That means another 300 jobs could potentially be lost. It is important because there is a loss of $120m to $150m per year that is put into the Northern Territory economy with the procurement of goods and services. It is important as there is a huge loss of jobs and services to the Borroloola and Robinson River communities. Air services to the region have almost stopped. It is important, as it would take out approximately 3% from our gross state product. It is important, as almost 400 Territory businesses are affected by the shutdown. It is important as the commercial benefits that flow to the four main clan groups in the area will stop through the shutdown of the barge operations. The barge operation is a cooperative between the MAWA, an Indigenous business enterprise that owns 33% share in the Carpentaria Shipping Service, the barge service that takes the concentrate from wharf to ships waiting offshore. That will go, and I am sure the loss and closure of the barge joint venture is of high importance to the Aboriginal people involved in that business.
If I take members back in time, it was the previous Country Liberal government that kicked-started this project, and it was that government, with Barry Coulter as the Mines minister, I believe at the time, who pushed the company into action and a final commitment to develop when the project was owned by Mt Isa Mines. However, this mine has had more than the support of the Northern Territory government of the day; it had the support of the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who wanted the project to proceed and had it fast-tracked. Labor wanted the project to proceed, Labor supported the project. At that time, the diversion of the river was known and acknowledged as a way that would need to be trodden in the future to ensure the longevity of the mine. Prime Minister Keating wanted that project and he fast-tracked it. Moreover, the Prime Minister of a federal Labor government pushed a deal with the Northern Territory government to get the project to go ahead, so that he could have a big deal project on his curriculum vitae, and to kick-start the recession that he said we had to have.
I would now like to explain a little more in detail. I quote from an article by journalist Peter Boyle:
Keating pulls a fast one on land rights
- Aboriginal groups began negotiations with Prime Minister Paul Keating on April 27 about post-Mabo case arrangements. They had hopes that he was
sincere in his public promise to make a just settlement on land rights. But correspondence made public by the Northern Territory Chief Minister
Marshall Perron proves that Keating has also been urging state governments to legislate to limit the effect of the Mabo decision.
On the strength of written assurances from Keating and his special minister for State, Frank Walker, on May 27 the NT government introduced special
legislation to fast-track Mt Isa Mines (MIM) Holding’s McArthur River mining project (for the largest lead, zinc and silver mine in the world, estimated to
be worth $300m a year). The act overrides any possible Mabo-style claim to the land involved.
In a letter to Perron dated May 26, Walker wrote:
‘I believe we are now in substantial agreement … I request your government to proceed with legislation along the lines that have been discussed.
You have been provided with a copy of the advice of the Acting Commonwealth Solicitor-General that the Northern Territory has the power to
validate the McArthur River leases …’
‘In the event that unexpected difficulties concerning the validity of the legislation were to arise requiring Commonwealth intervention, the
Commonwealth government would take appropriate steps (including introduction of Commonwealth legislation, if necessary) to rectify those difficulties’.
‘In addition, the Commonwealth agrees to meet reasonable legal costs and expenses incurred by the Territory in defence of any challenge to validity
based on inconsistency with the RDA [Racial Discrimination Act] or the NT Self-Government Act or any act replacing either of these acts’.
Keating wrote to Perron on the same day, confirming the position outlined in Walker’s letter.
On the basis of these assurances, Perron introduced his legislation re-granting MIM’s mineral lease and exploration licence ‘notwithstanding any other law
in force in the Territory’.
How about that? Labor Prime Minister Keating wanted the project. Prime Minister Keating wanted to get around native title issues - and would you believe? - Prime Minister Keating opened the mine when it finally started. Yet, we have this Labor government at odds with its fallen hero. They have never supported this project from the beginning, and continue to not support the project. They mucked up the environmental approval process for the expansion. We had the then Mines minister - sad state of affairs - being bailed out by the Chief Minister, and now we have the current Mines minister not going in to bat for this project.
Now we wait for the federal Environment minister to give his approval. He says he has given approvals, but there will be extra requirements in regard to that approval. The track record of this federal Environment minister is that, given his dealings with the Gunns’ case in Tasmania, these requirements could be extensive and they could actually stop this project proceeding. For example, some of the requirements that the federal Environment minister might put on this project are: the company must undertake further studies to assess silt loads in water courses along the haul roads, which may result from corridor disturbance and road maintenance; and silt loads are to be studied for at least five years of the project, with the review on a yearly basis. That would involve consultants and extra costs.
Perhaps the federal Environment minister might say that the company should develop a contingency plan to deal with risks to wildlife. The plan will detail how wildlife will be prevented from accessing pond waters or tailings dams - that will require extra costs, perhaps more consultants, products, and materials. Perhaps the Environment minister might want the company to undertake studies in regard to migratory bird species that go into that area. Perhaps the Environment minister might ask the company that they should carry out further tests to determine the relevant characteristics of tailings, for use in determining the best practice technology for tailings retention for other industry people to use - again, extensive cost, research, and study.
I am not saying that any of these things is necessarily bad or should not be carried out by a company anywhere. However, we do not know exactly what this federal Environment minister is going to put on his approval. Perhaps he might ask that the company should ensure that all drivers are fully educated on the potential for fauna road kills, and a record of any significant fauna road deaths should be kept on-site and included in the company’s annual report to government. The Environment minister might also ask that the company has some kind of monitoring for rock sites in the area surrounding the project area, and they should include monitoring to detect the impact from vehicle exhausts. That would not be an unrealistic expectation or request, you might say. It has been asked of companies before. Companies in the past in the Northern Territory have had up to 80 requirements put on them before they can proceed to development, and some of them have not proceeded because of the requirements and the costs associated - perhaps some of them were not realistic.
It is a shame on this government that they have not come out and supported this project and what it brings to the Northern Territory. I strongly suggest and ask that the Mines minister, if not the Chief Minister, write to every 300 dumped mine workers and tell them exactly why he and his government do not support their employment and the project.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, if I had a little more time to prepare for this MPI, I might have spoken in more detail. I remember the passionate debates that were held during the last sittings of this parliament. I have travelled to McArthur River on two occasions, because I was certainly interested in the changes that the company was making to its mining operations. I went there to find out what the company did, because I had not been to the mine before. It is far better to be able to speak about an important development in the Territory like McArthur River Mine if you have actually been and seen it for yourself, rather than what you hear on the radio or see on the TV.
I supported the changes to the McArthur River, not that I particularly like rivers being changed, but because I went and had a look and I saw what was being put forward as the proposal to realign the river. I had consultation with a professor at the University of Newcastle, who was the professor who eventually set out the guidelines that would allow McArthur River to realign the river in an environmentally friendly manner. Realigning any river, especially in the north, is no small task. It is something that I would be concerned about if it was not done properly. If not done properly, in its construction stage, it could cause major destruction to the environment.
We had the debate about the mines approval to operate under Northern Territory law. I remember that and the passion that was put into the debate. I remember the number of members on the government side who did not support the move at that time to pass that legislation. My understanding is - and others may say I am wrong - that the three members were not specifically arguing against the mine, but were arguing against the timing about moving legislation that their own government had placed in parliament, in relation to a funeral of one of the members’ relations at that time.
Many things have been said about whether the members who crossed the floor did not support the mine. I believe more of that came from some of the Green movement which wanted to use the purported non-support of the mine for their own political purposes. Of course, some of the media also took it up that way. However, I was sitting here when those speeches were made and my understanding was that those speakers did not say they did not support the mine, but that they did not support the timing of the legislation being put forward in parliament.
That legislation related to a very small issue; it related to a mine management plan. I am going on memory, because I have not had time to go back through all the Parliamentary Records and notes. It was based on an issue of when the mine decided to go to an open cut, it had to have approval from the department of Mines and Energy – whatever it was called at that stage - and it, therefore, had to put a new application in and a new mine management plan. The problem was it put the mine management plan for an underground mine as the mine management plan for the open-cut mine. That might be a simplistic story about what happened, but it was based on a technicality. I believe that, as all the environment matters had been covered, the real issue in this case was that surely we could have gone back and asked the mine to reapply, instead of going through a whole new process?
That is what worries me in this case. I know there are some issues in relation to the politics of the mine and that is fair enough, because we have some debate in relation to this MPI whether the government has done enough to ensure this mine kept operating. I want to see the mine keep operating. Many people in my electorate work at the mine. They are subcontractors or contractors and they depend on that mine. I have been to a few mines in the Territory. I try to get around to as many as I can. I went to Bootu Creek mine and the first door that I knocked on was a gentleman who lives about a 1 km away in my electorate and he said: ‘What are you doing here?’ ‘I have just come to visit’.
It was the same at McArthur River; I met quite a few people from my area. One of the gentlemen I play cricket with was the contract electrical worker there. There are many people from the Darwin region, and specifically the Darwin rural region, who are dependent on this mine operating. I am not happy with it closing. I believe the government could have a made bigger effort.
I worry about the role of the Northern Land Council at times. I do not mind them operating on behalf of Aboriginal people, although I have my opinions about whether it should be compulsory. We are probably getting slightly off the mark but, if Aboriginal people do not want to use the Northern Land Council to argue a case for something, I do not think they should have to use them. I believe it is a bit like a union; we pay our money to the union but there are times when we think we can do it ourselves without the union.
I believe the days of the Northern Land Council having to be involved in things should just about be gone. I believe they play an important role - they have played an important role, I am not knocking that – but, at times, we should be allowing Aboriginal people to make their own decisions about who comes on their land. I would not like someone else being the person I have to use as my representative to get that permission. I would like sometimes to deal directly. That is only an opinion, but I believe that sometimes the Northern Land Council can complicate matters.
It spends a lot of taxpayer’s money, I presume. I do not know who funds it to take these cases to court, but it worries me in a similar way to what happened in the Northern Territory parliament; there was a technicality. I know the laws have to be carried out but, sometimes with technicalities, surely common sense can prevail by saying: ‘Nothing has changed but we need to reapply and write it out correctly’. Nothing changed in the application to mine by McArthur River to the next application, because all they had to change was a word. But there was a big court case over it. It must have cost lots of money. I do not believe anything changed from A to B.
I have started trying to read the court case - anything that comes out of the Federal Court or the High Court you need to take your lunch and find a tree somewhere; it is not easy to read. They do not write in understandable language. They do not even have an executive summary; you have to try to work your way through it.
My understanding is - and I listened to the member for Katherine - that some of this was based on a technicality. It might have been that the federal minister did not check the right piece of paper or tick the right form but, surely, someone could have said: ‘Even though he did not do that and that is not right, let us look at it as if he did look at it and he had covered it all. Has that omission made any difference to the original application?’
There must have been thousands and thousands of dollars spent on this case. When you pick up what Mr Garrett, the federal minister, is saying; that, basically, he is going to approve it ...
Ms Purick: Yes, but with what conditions? What requirements?
Mr WOOD: That might be the case, but when you read some of the transcripts from the ABC he is giving the impression that there was not really anything remarkably wrong. Maybe he is putting conditions on to be seen to be doing something.
I know the member for Goyder was talking about silt studies. If you read the environmental requirements of the Northern Territory government, which are pretty stringent - I remember the then minister for the Environment, who put those extra requirements on the company - they were pretty severe requirements the company had to come up with and much of that was related to the diversion of the McArthur River.
Go and get the documents that the McArthur River Mine has to use as its guide for diverting the river. It makes you wonder why the federal minister has applied these extra things. They have to put rocks down; they have to put logs down. The channel has to be dug at different heights so there is ponding. There is a lagoon at the downstream end of the diversion and the river had to come in before it so that lagoon was not affected in any way. I wonder whether the minister has actually read some of the stuff that the company has to do.
My criticism of the government is that it should have said much earlier and with much more vigour to the federal government: ‘Look how many jobs depend on this mine’. If the reason that this mine had stopped was because of a technicality and, when all this has blown over, the mine will continue to operate with maybe only superficial changes, you have to query whether there is something wrong with the system. All it has done is cost taxpayers an awful lot of money, and we are really back to square one. The only problem is that many people have been laid off work. Notwithstanding that there has been a downturn in the world economy, the point is that there still would have been some people working there and they are not working today.
When I was coming up the track, I stopped at the Highway Inn and I met a gentleman who had come up from Borroloola. I believe he had something to do with the revegetation program. He said that they have all the trees ready to plant and a couple of people watering them, but there is no one employed to put them in. I could see this lovely weather - overcast, light rain - and this is the perfect time to be planting.
I say to the mine, even though I know there is a downturn and you have laid all the workers off at the present time, I hope that you are still intending to get your revegetation program going. Surely, you could get many of the local workers to do that kind or work. I would not want to see that stopped because of the downturn in the mine. The river is still going to be diverted whether the mine is operating or not, so I hope that is going to happen.
I will be going down to the mine, hopefully, at the end of the Wet Season, because I would like to keep an ongoing brief about the mine. For sure, mining has some problems, and one of the bigger issues, rather than the diversion of the mine, is the tailings dam. The tailings dam is the thing that we have to keep our focus on. Tailings dams are there long after the mine is closed. We know that from Mt Todd; they can cause problems. I believe that is the bigger issue, rather than the diversion. I want to keep a watching brief on it. It is an important mine for our community, one of the biggest mines in the world for zinc and lead; it is one of the biggest mines.
It was a mine that was promoted by a Labor government, I believe, as a mine of national interest or national importance. They were the ones that actually brought it forward. They did some shortcuts by fast-tracking the development of this mine. It goes back a long way. It was a federal Labor Party government that promoted it in the first place. Other governments have taken over in the meantime. Even though it has had its problems, as a parliament we should be supporting it, ensuring that it does operate correctly but, at the same time, remembering that so many people’s livelihoods depend on it. We should do our best to ensure that it does stay open, even through we are in these times when prices for our primary metals are not as good as they should be.
Madam Speaker, I hope that this whole episode comes to an end quickly and people can get back working at the mine.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to contributors in this matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance and I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing it forward. However, there has been a fair bit of hype and spin in much of what has been said on the other side in relation to this matter.
There have been opposing viewpoints in the history of this mine, and most people would agree that there has been a difficult history, particularly over the last 12 to 18 months. It has caused a lot of worry and concern in sections of our community. There has been mention of traditional owners tonight, but I am aware that there are traditional owners for the McArthur River region who, whilst supporting mining, did not want to see the underground mining converted to an open-pit operation. That is on the public record as well.
However, as Business Minister, I recognise the economic importance of the mine for the Northern Territory as a whole, to local business in the Borroloola region, Darwin, and Katherine and, most importantly, the continuing employment in jobs. The member for Nelson mentioned people in his electorate who work at the McArthur River Mine. There are a number within my electorate who also worked at that mine. For a period of time my middle son worked at the McArthur River Mine also.
However, I would like to place on the record that this government has pledged its support for the mine in no uncertain terms. I was acting Mines minister when the court decision was handed down, and I was on to Peter Garrett immediately, the same day, and had a discussion with him on these issues. I made very plain to Peter Garrett the importance of this mine, economically and socially, for the Northern Territory. I also informed him that there were concerns, as I outlined, amongst traditional owners in the region about the mine and the river diversion. He pledged to me, in that telephone call, that he would take into account all these interests in making his decision. It is important to note that Peter Garrett visited the Borroloola region and consulted with the various parties that were interested.
I am informed that Ian Campbell did not ever visit the Borroloola mine - I may be wrong - but he did not visit the mine ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The McArthur River Mine. You can play smart things with words …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … member for Fong Lim. I believe you have an issue to contend with, member for Fong Lim, about your outrageous comments about the minister earlier today ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: I would be pulling my head in if I were you, because your comments underline the way that you are careless with people’s reputations and with words and political spin. I believe that you are yet to pay the price for the comments that you made tonight, impugning the integrity of our Administrator. My advice to you would be just to keep your head low for a little while, because that firestorm is yet to break.
Madam Speaker, I told you that I consulted with minister Garrett and put the case to him. The Mines minister has been on the case as well, and minister Garrett has announced his provisional decision. As the member for Casuarina said, there are statutory obligations around those decisions. The opposition might not take those things very seriously but, obviously, the way in which Campbell got himself into trouble was that he did not fulfil his statutory obligations. It is obvious to me that Peter Garrett and the current federal government will be very careful with the approval that he has already pledged; that everything is done according to the law and according to statute, so there cannot be a repeat court case or further challenges, as there was through what Ian Campbell omitted to do.
It is important for us all to acknowledge the deeply-held beliefs of many of the traditional owners in the region. We acknowledge that many people were unhappy with the decision of the government in relation to this mine. That is on the public record. We respect their views, in the same way we respect the views of all Territorians.
It was heartening to hear that the CLP members went to the mine - the members for Katherine and Fong Lim. They say that they spoke to a number of traditional owners, but those of us who have been around a while know that it is more complicated than three people; there are more people who are usually involved in that, in terms of traditional owners and decisions …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Well, you would not know.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: You would not know. The derogatory things you said about Aboriginal people on your radio show just shows enormous ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, which I have reminded you of many times. There are far too many interruptions. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister made an unparliamentary remark about the member for Greatorex, and I ask that he withdraw.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I made no such derogatory remark. He is the one who has made derogatory statements on his radio show and it is on the public record ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the minister has made another slur on the member for Greatorex and I ask you to ask the minister to withdraw those comments.
Dr BURNS: I am not aware of what the member for Fong Lim is saying. If there has been some offence taken by the member for …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Member for Greatorex, have you been offended by the comments by the minister?
Mr CONLAN: Yes. It is an unsubstantiated slur …
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. Minister …
Mr CONLAN: … made against me and I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, please resume your seat. Minister, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: The Mines minister has talked about the approval and assessment processes. The Northern Territory government was satisfied that the mine management plans submitted by the operator addressed the range of environmental concerns that have arisen and, as part of the approval process, we negotiated a substantial community benefits package. As the minister pointed out, there is a statutory process involved in this. The federal government and its ministers are adhering to these processes.
I believe that the CLP, through this particular MPI, and the way they have approached it and the issue, have adopted a divisive approach. We are a government, along with the federal government, that wants to work with all parties to achieve a satisfactory result for all parties.
There seems to be a lack of understanding on the other side about the obligations of a minister of the Crown. I believe, once again, the minister has set that out clearly. I am very glad that the member for Nelson put to rest the fanciful history of what happened in this parliament when members crossed the floor. He said it on the record plainly and I advise the member for Fong Lim to read that.
I was very interested in the member for Goyder’s contribution. I was very heartened by it. I was worried when the member for Goyder suddenly became the warm and fuzzy independent EPA person at the beginning of this Assembly, but she has reverted to type and, basically, what she said on the Parliamentary Record today really puts that back into perspective.
The minister for Mines has outlined who was at the bottom of this latest fiasco. It was minister Campbell who did not adhere to the right processes. I assure members that we are very concerned about the uncertainty and are lobbying the federal government. We do not wish to see workers stood down or businesses suffer due to the suspension of activities at the mine.
We have heard a lot of huff and puff from the opposition about this. Most of them do not seem to understand the responsibilities that ministers of the Crown have, and they all think they are a sure thing at the next election in 2012. I ask them to consider this: there are 11 of them. The Leader of the Opposition said he will have a ministry of eight, so there will be three who are going to miss out. Who will the three be? We have had a few discussions on this side. I suppose the member for Brennan, an incredibly nice bloke, no mongrel in him, which he would need, given the dog-eat-dog attitude on the other side. The member for Sanderson, I have not seen much of him, so he is another candidate. The member for Braitling; he actually has it. I believe he has it, but he is a bit of a worry to others on that side because of his outspoken temperament and his deeply held views. Those are the three that we, on this side, are saying might miss out - but it could be others.
I said last week that politics and political life is full of change. It is definitely full of change and there are another three-and-half years to go to the next election. I am saying to members on the other side that there is a lot that can happen. A lot can happen in a week. A lot has happened in the last week – there is no doubt about that.
Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance is a vain attempt by the opposition to try to wedge the government; they have failed in that. They have exposed themselves because one of their own federal ministers is at the bottom of all of this. The member for Fong Lim is exposing himself as a grab for power with the Opposition Leader ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I please interrupt you. It is now 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41, business is now complete.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had concluded anyway.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, though.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is a point of order. Please jog my memory. I do not have the material in front of me and I could be wrong on this, but I was of the understanding that adjournment on a Wednesday was 10 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: It starts at 9 pm and goes until whenever.
Mr ELFERINK: 9 pm with no limit. Sorry, I misread it. It was a document I read a while ago, so I apologise. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks from last night in relation to Australia Day in my electorate of Daly. Australia Day is an opportunity to acknowledge and reward the hard work and dedication of our community and of many wonderful Territorians …
Mr Conlan: He cuts the nurses, he may as well cut me out too.
A member: Oh my dear, you really are a moron.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, here he is again. He is trying to verbal me. He is trying to abuse me and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There goes a clean cut out of the Parliamentary Record for my electors. Australia Day is a day of recognising the contribution that many Territorians put into their communities. I was pleased to be part of the Litchfield celebrations at the Freds Pass Reserve. I arrived a little late because I was coming from the breakfast at Coomalie, but it was well attended and I saw the member for Nelson. It was great to see the activities as they were rolling out, and the award recipients.
Wagait Beach had sports at the community sports ground and I also attended the reception at the Palmerston Council Chambers in honour of the 2009 Australia Day Ambassador, Glenn Wheeler.
The Wagait Beach celebrations were quite astonishing for me. There were a number of people from the community but also those who came over from Darwin, and they had celebrations. They had the Darwin Brass Band; helicopters doing some fire bombing, and a tug-of-war with the Navy cadets and the local community. It was a great day.
The rural area of my electorate has a number of Vietnamese families who have made the Territory their home and who contribute to the broader diverse community. 26 January was also the beginning of the lunar New Year and I was honoured to be invited to the Vietnamese community celebration of Tet and the beginning of the Year of the Buffalo.
The Australia Day awards presentations at Nauiyu, Daly River, were received by our own special Barak; that is, Barak Sambono, for Citizen of the Year. Tyson Leroy Daly was named Young Citizen of the Year. The Community Event was awarded to the Nauiyu Youth Depression Workshop. The Wooliana Student of the Year was awarded to David Liddy, and a Certificate of Appreciation went to Adam Sambono.
The Student Citizen Awards for the electorate went to the following primary school students: Berry Springs went to Jasmine Aitken; Douglas Daly went to Chloe Brannelly; Nemarluk Community School went to Faradiba Djawas; Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College at Wadeye went to Alex Lantjin; and Tipperary School went to Ivy Hegyi There were others that, unfortunately, I am not able to mention in detail, but I extend my congratulations to everyone who was either nominated or received Australia Day awards for 2009; you should all be very proud of your achievements.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to defend the honour and reputation of Senator Nigel Scullion, who was slurred in a most dreadful way by the Chief Minister today, when the Chief Minister saw fit to place into the mouth of Senator Scullion words that he had not uttered.
I listened to the answer to the question that the Chief Minister deigned to give this House in relation to the wedge politics that they have been running today - and good luck to them as far as that is concerned. However, there is incumbent upon us a duty to accurately report what people say, not only inside this place, but outside this place. I remind honourable members of Standing Order 62 in relation to how we conduct ourselves to other members of parliament who cannot be in this place to defend themselves.
The Chief Minister said this in his answer today in Parliament House, to a dorothy dixer:
- The speech made by CLP Senator Nigel Scullion in the Senate last night was an absolute disgrace. He said he would not vote for this package and, therefore,
he was not voting for jobs in the Northern Territory.
I have checked Senator Nigel Scullion’s speech again since that assertion was made, and I was not at all surprised to discover something I already knew, which was evidenced by my own points of order saying that the Chief Minister had verballed Senator Nigel Scullion. At no stage in his speech did Nigel Scullion say he was not voting for jobs in the Northern Territory. To place those words into Senator Scullion’s mouth is reprehensible conduct on the part of this Chief Minister.
This House has more than enough business before it to keep it entertained and occupied with the truth. For the Chief Minister of this jurisdiction to verbal a Senator of our nation in such a disgraceful fashion, to me is dreadful conduct. I believe that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should apologise to Senator Nigel Scullion or repeat those words outside this place at his peril.
As far as I can see, there is nothing even close to such an utterance in the words of Senator Nigel Scullion in his speech to the Senate. I know that Senator Nigel Scullion would not make such an utterance, which made me even more confident to raise the point of order which I raised today. The inability of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to direct me and Territorians and this House to any such comment by the Senator, demonstrates how reckless and how full of abandon this Chief Minister is when he determines to attribute conduct to other people for the sake of scoring a mere political point.
As far as I am concerned, the Senator is vindicated by his own speech. Such disgraceful conduct as to verbal a Senator in such a puerile, facile, and easily rejected way, demonstrates how desperate this government is to drive a wedge and draw attention away from their own problems. We heard tonight another tired attempt by the Leader of Government Business to try to drive a wedge on this side. In the words of Shane Stone, being savaged by the Labor Party is a little like being savaged by a dead sheep.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, now we are back to work in 2009, I am looking forward to getting back out on the streets of my electorate and continuing to meet the people of Millner and Coconut Grove, who joined the electorate in August last year, as well as catching up with constituents in Jingili, Moil, and Wagaman.
I am also looking forward to catching up with schools in my electorate - Jingili, Millner, and Moil Primary Schools, as well as Casuarina Senior College, after the holiday break. There will be new school council committees, as well as an influx of new students. I note that Casuarina Senior College has 1226 students enrolled this semester, which is close to capacity. Casuarina Senior College deserves recognition once again for their fantastic Year 12 results at the end of 2008.
Congratulations to all the students, and especially to Tara Alexander, who scored a TER of 99.45, making her the top NTCE student. Tara is undertaking a 12-month apprenticeship with the Northern Territory public service and is currently working in my office and doing a great job. Congratulations also to Top End TCE Indigenous student, Candice Liddy.
Millner Primary School is leading the energy revolution by creating a sustainable assembly hall. Although it is not airconditioned, the hall has been designed to be incredibly cool, leading to massive energy and environmental savings. Bill Muirhead, the Sustainability and Energy Smart School Project Officer, has calculated the approximate savings for the year amount to $10 605, 221 526 mJ of energy, or 61 535 kW hours, and 46.3 tonnes of CO2 saved. This equates to the amount of energy required to run an average Darwin household for five years, or five households for one year. The students at Millner are now growing a garden outside the hall which will feed cool air into the hall. Well done, Millner.
At the end of the last school semester, I had the pleasure of presenting the Quiet Achiever prizes to Lucina Ludke and Gabrielle Wells-Kelly of Millner Primary School; Samuel Schofield-Flynn from Early Childhood; Shanise McDonald from the Middle Upper Jingili Primary School; Nikki Kalitsis, Year 2, and Kaibariki Tapera, Year 5 from Wagaman Primary School. Congratulations to these students who have been recognised by their teachers as quiet achievers.
Five other students who live in my electorate received 2009 Student Citizenship Awards at the Australia Day celebrations last month. They were Katherine Harbison of Casuarina Senior College; Rachel Harpur of Jingili Primary School; Monique Lemon of Millner Primary School; Jessica Fuller of Moil Primary School; and Sabrina Ciubal of Wagaman Primary School. Heartiest congratulations to these students who have been recognised by their school as a young person who contributes selflessly to their school and/or community. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
I recently had the enjoyment of celebrating the Chinese New Year at SKYCITY with members of the Hakka Association, and with the Chung Wah Society at the Chung Wah Society community hall last Saturday evening. They are fantastic events, well organised, well attended, and culturally fascinating. At the Hakka function, I had the great pleasure of talking with Jason Lee, and Mr Mao and Mr Ma from the Chinese Embassy in Canberra. The Chung Wah Society’s Donna Quong did a great job as MC and I congratulate Tina Griffiths for organising a great event. There was fantastic food supplied by Tasty House, and I enjoyed the opportunity of joining Darryl Chin and his family, who are great company. Overall, it was an extremely pleasant night.
Recently, I made the assertion that the member for Greatorex had made derogatory comments on the air on 8HA about Aboriginal people. I will let people make up their own mind about this comment he made on 30 October 2006 on 8HA:
- It is getting to a point where the only contribution the Aboriginal community are making to this town is adding to the crime stats.
That is what you said. I will let others make up their minds whether that was derogatory. And make me withdraw that, because I have the tape of it, mate. That is you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will add a comment in relation to the changes in standing orders as they relate to adjournment debates. Members’ ability to make contributions about various things that occur within their electorates and other important issues that affect the people of the Northern Territory has been severely curtailed by the changes to standing orders.
This is an example of a Territory government which continues in its arrogant approach to the majority of people in the Northern Territory. I have pointed this out to the House before and I will point it out again for the benefit of the government members. In the new makeup of the Legislative Assembly, almost half are Country Liberals and they represent half, or roughly half, of the population of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Giles: Half of that is forty votes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I believe it is reprehensible that the government should seek to silence 50% of the Northern Territory through their local members; the members sitting on this side of the House. It is typical of the arrogance that they have shown to people in the regions and continue to show to the people of the Northern Territory.
I will address the Australia Day celebrations in Katherine that were held recently. I was very pleased to be able to get along to those celebrations. The day started out with the ceremony held at the Katherine Town Council Chambers, and to the staff and elected members of the council, I thank them for their support.
I am pleased to announce that there were four new citizens added to the repertoire of Australians in Katherine at that ceremony. I will name them: Mrs Sathi Agalia Kunjan; Mr Tichafara Muvirimi; Mr Jagnarain Padaruth; and Miss Chido Chibvuri. I welcome those people to Australia. They have been here for some time but chose to take out Australian citizenship, and they should be given the accolade for making that decision.
At the same time, there some awards that were given out. I will read out the award winners and their awards. The student awards were bestowed upon Melissa Von Senden from Katherine High School; Amy Bates from Katherine High School; Lauren Dawes from Katherine South Primary School; Sheyenne Von Senden from MacFarlane Primary School; and Mason Clark from St Josephs College. Also, Kim Henderson, John Bolesworth, Elizabeth Everett, and Amy Harding received Student Citizen of the Year awards at their respective schools’ end-of-year celebrations.
I also congratulate Kate Festing for being the Young Citizen of the Year in Katherine. I congratulate the Katherine Tick Market as being the winner of the Community Event of the Year, and Mr Bob and Mrs Edith Mackie for having bestowed on them the honour of being Citizen of the Year in Katherine.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on an issue that I have in my electorate and point out the stupidity of the situation.
I have a street in my electorate, with three constituents who have come to me after the election on 9 August and raised the issue with me that they have regarding boundary fences in their street. It turns out that they have lived in their residences for a number of years and have carried out different developments on their properties, which have all been approved by the Department of Planning, DPI. It turns out that those planning approvals were all given, and the extensions of their houses on their properties are now all over the boundaries of the properties. In effect, their houses now encroach on to other people's properties.
These three residents, who all live next door to each other, came and saw me and described it as a problem. They have gone to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and raised this as a concern and asked if it can be fixed. It is just a general concern. They are not cranky. They do not have a gripe. They were advised by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure that the only way to rectify it is to put an application in for a subdivision, and try to realign the land. That will cost several thousands of dollars, as building inspectors and certifiers come out and do that.
That sounds a bit ridiculous to me because, when those people bought the land or the properties and the titles that they were given showed the boundaries on the property. However, the houses were sitting over the boundaries of the property. As they have gone to add further extensions to their property - this is unbeknown to these people – the Department of Planning and Infrastructure approved the development to go ahead. All the while, there were actually committing an offence by building over the boundary fences.
These things happen. Sometimes, there are mistakes in bureaucracies. I have seen all the documents, so I have written to the minister for Planning and asked if she would have a look at it and try to be a bit lenient to these people regarding the expense to get these things changed. They are all amicable, they do not want any money; they just want to get the boundaries realigned.
The second time I had to write to her, the minister for Planning sent me a response saying: ‘This is a matter for the Attorney-General, the then member for Johnston; so the member for Johnston will respond’. The member for Johnston sent me a letter back the other day - it is six months that this has been going on - saying: ‘I appreciate the problem, unfortunately, it is just bad luck and they will have to pay for this expense for having all the boundaries in the subdivision realigned’.
I find that pretty appalling, for people who have done the right thing, when the boundary fences were on the property when they bought that property. The boundary fences were not actually sitting on the boundaries. They had done extensions to their property, but the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has, obviously, had an oversight and approved the extensions of these buildings, over boundaries. It was the residents who identified this problem and, in good faith, went to DPI and asked them if they could just realign the boundaries. To now say to these people, ‘It is going to cost you several thousand dollars each to realign the boundary fences’, is an absolute joke. This is just bureaucracy gone mad! It is a clear indication that the ministers of this government are not even listening to what people on the ground see as a concern.
I appreciate this is a development application and, if you are looking to redevelop your block, there are charges that are incurred. However, this is surely a case where those charges can be swept aside to try to rectify a problem that was made by government. It is government that approved the development of these properties. Unbeknownst to the occupiers and owners of these properties, they approved it. These people, in pretty good faith, went and built their properties, all certified and, now, they have been told if they want to rectify the situation, they have to spend thousands of dollars each. I expect the next thing that will happen, now that I have made the government aware of it, is they are now put a charge on these people and ask them to demolish their buildings for constructing them in the first place. I can see that one coming.
The department of Planning still approved it. That is exactly what happened. Right now, these people are stuck in a situation where they have bought a property in the right location that was approved, and it clearly was not. Whatever the case might be, they need to get to the bottom of it, and government should show some heart and try to help those people.
If I was on a property and the same thing happened to me - we put our faith in people to do the right thing and it has not happened. We need to have some compassion shown by government for those people.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I know we have been talking about the length of time for adjournment debates and it was very interesting seeing the member for Johnston give an accelerated version of an adjournment speech tonight. For those who have listened to adjournment debates, I thought it was one of the fastest adjournment speeches I have heard for many a year. It probably exemplifies the case of allowing us a little more time - come back to our 15 minutes so we can give our adjournment speeches with a little more time to think about what we are saying, rather than rattle it off as if we have become machines. I will attempt to give a little report on my trip to Alice Springs in the five minutes I have allocated.
I visited Alice Springs last week. I went there originally to find out more about work camps. I had some discussions with Tony Bohning, who was part of Correctional Services, in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and who had input into the setting up of work camps in the Northern Territory. Specifically, one was Beatrice Hill, and he also had input into the Gunn Point Prison Farm. He told an interesting story about Wildman River, which was the place the government closed down; that Alice Springs gaol built many of the buildings that were put up at Wildman River. The prisoners built the sheds in a kit form at Alice Springs gaol; they were all painted in the right colours to make sure they all got put together correctly, and that was transported to Wildman River. That is something I did not know.
Tony Bohning gave us a good understanding of what work camps were about, and the possibility of having mobile work camps, which can go out and work in various parts of the Territory - places like national parks. The funny thing was it was in the CLP days, in the mid-1990s, that the work camps were closed down. However, the work camps in Western Australia, which is what I have been promoting - if any one goes to Wyndham they will see one of those work camps in action – were actually set up by people like Tony Bohning. He spoke to the Western Australian government and they took on some of his ideas. They now have about six work camps in Western Australia.
I spoke to Jeremy Bigg from Coleman’s Printing and also to the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. We had discussions about the amount of crime that is occurring in the CBD of Alice Springs, especially concerning some businesses which have been repeatedly attacked, with windows broken day after day. I had some discussions about the possible solutions. I know that the members from Alice Springs had a meeting on the Wednesday of that week, discussing those particular issues.
I also drove out to Hamilton Downs work camp where I met the two caretakers, both named Chris. Hamilton Downs work camp is where the government is now sending juveniles at risk for a three-week program to try to get them back on the road. It is a fantastic place. It is out in some very beautiful country, about 75 km out of Alice Springs. It is in a place that you would have difficulty leaving if you did not have a car. There is some compulsion, mainly by geography, to stay there. It has a series of rooms that are part of the old homestead, which are just bunk houses. The young people stay there for three weeks, cook their own meals, and are also allowed to do some work which keeps them busy during the day and, by the time they get to bed, they are pretty well worn out. I also talked to Renton Kelly, who is involved in the management of the Hamilton Downs work camp, and has been for some time.
The last part of our trip was when I went out to the Barkly Highway to look at the damage that the recent floods have done to the highway. Until you go out there and have a look, you do not realise how much water actually came down there to take the entire road away. The Barkly looks magnificent. The Barkly looks like I would have expected in dairy farming country. It is green, it is beautiful, and the sunsets are just gorgeous. I believe we are in for a good year with the cattle this year, regardless of the floods. I do not believe I have ever seen the Barkly so green.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is my five minutes. I would have liked to have said a few more words, but that is it.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on the record and welcome some new citizens to the Northern Territory and Australia who took the pledge and the oath at the Litchfield Shire Australia Day celebrations, which was a great day: Janie Andrews, Liezel Cotleanu, Ellen Johntson, and a family of three, Katherine Jane Palmer, the mother, Benjamin John Palmer and Emily Francine Palmer took the pledge to become Australian citizens. I welcomed them on the day to their new citizenship, to the rural area and to Australia.
On the same day, we had Australia Day award winners for the Litchfield Shire area. I congratulate and place on the record the Citizens of the Year. It was a joint award given to Greg and Lee Payne, who are St John Ambulance volunteers in the Humpty Doo area. They have done an enormous task over the years, with volunteer hours in the vicinity of 1000 hours in a short period of time, at any manner of sporting ventures and community events. Nikita Kruger was the Young Citizen of the Year. We had a joint award again for the Sportsperson of the Year, which went to Jamie Edwards and Glen Byrnes. Congratulations, they are both volunteers with an enormous capacity in giving to their respective clubs and their sports. Molly Bliss, was the Young Sportsperson of the Year; a young gymnast who did remarkably well in the National Titles. Given some hurdles to get fit, this young girl walked around her parent’s property any number of times so that she could maintain her fitness because she did not have a coach at the time. Congratulations to her.
The Coolalinga Rural Markets received the Community Event of the Year and they are great markets. I know many people in this Chamber go to those markets, and they are growing from strength to strength. Congratulations to the organisers and the committee that keep those markets going all year.
There were Achievement Awards, which were presented to about seven people. Some of them were to Michelle Leach, Rebecca Meyers, Janice Craddock, Jenny Hangan and Bryony Crowe - and I have a particular bias as she is one of my young nieces. All those young teenagers got their Achievement Awards for their work in the community, and their commitment in all their different involvements. They were pretty pleased with their certificates and their awards, as was everyone. I congratulate them and say well done to them, and hope that they go from strength to strength, and they enjoyed their day.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform parliament of the passing of Mrs Ajibak Goodman, a Senior Warray Elder who has worked extensively with my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, Arts and Sport. Ajibak’s family have given me approval to use her bush name and to briefly outline her life and her work with my department. I had the pleasure of spending the morning with Ajibak and some of her family only a few days ago, as I had been given the honour of writing a foreword for the book she had been working on for the last three years. I had wanted to meet and spend some time with her.
We talked about the forthcoming Warray plants and animals book, and the importance of passing on cultural knowledge to our future generations. Ajibak was proud of the role she had played in the book preparation and said how she enjoyed doing this sort of research with Parks and Wildlife staff. The book explains the detailed and ancient Warray knowledge of plants and animals that occur on Warray country. By a terribly sad coincidence, the final scientific details of the book had been completed only a few hours before her death.
Ajibak was born at Marrakai Station in 1940, where she was brought up by her mother, Polly Marrakai Nedey and her father, George Luwanbi, a Limilngan and traditional owner of the lower Adelaide and Mary River area. She was close to her brother, Tony Kenyon, who was also brought up on Marrakai with her. Her elder sisters, Doris White and Dolly Marpul, who were born at Adelaide River, and her elder brother, Roger Yates, all deceased, were all brought up as Warray by their father, Darwin Ganwaduk.
Ajibak married Ernest Goodman and had seven children: Denise, Selina, Jacqueline, Phillip, Harold, Dorothy and a recently deceased daughter. She has several grandchildren.
Ajibak was a claimant recognised in the Finniss River land claim and the Limilngan-Wulna land claim and is a recognised traditional owner of Djukbinj National Park on the Adelaide River. Ajibak lived most of her live at Marrakai and Humpty Doo Stations and, in later years, moved to the 15 Mile town camp near Howard Springs. It was there that Ajibak spent many hours recording her biological knowledge with staff from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
I am extremely proud of the fact that we have prepared this wonderful book together, combining traditional knowledge and western science. While Ajibak will not see the outcome of her work, she and her late brother and sisters, who also worked on the book, have made their wonderful biological knowledge available for future Warray generations.
Ajibak was a wonderful, happy and knowledgeable woman. I was deeply honoured to meet her and am saddened by her passing. Staff from my department have spoken of the respect they felt towards Ajibak and how they enjoyed working with her and her family.
I pass my sincere, heartfelt condolences to her family and friends on behalf of the Northern Territory government and me, and also on behalf of Glenn Wightman, who has committed so much to working with her and her family, to ensure that all the past knowledge is recorded and combined with scientific evidence in order for the future generation of Territorians to share, understanding that there are Aboriginal names, and incorporating the scientific evidence that bring the two together; like it brings people together.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I register my thanks to the Chung Wah Society of the Northern Territory. I was very fortunate to attend the Chinese New Year celebrations at the Chung Wah Hall last Saturday night, 7 February, to participate in the celebration of the Year of the Ox. It was also the opening of their new additions to that facility. They have extended the hall and, in true traditional Chinese community style, they have all worked hard and contributed and done a fantastic job of demonstrating the cultural diversity that exists in the Northern Territory. They have also done a fantastic job of restoring the temple that, unfortunately, suffered a fire some time ago. It is back to its original condition. Also, the Chung Wah Society Museum is a great centrepiece of the whole project in Woods Street.
The Chung Wah Society has existed since 1946. The whole Chinese situation started in the Territory 140 years ago. They have helped developed the Territory; in fact, they built most of the Darwin to Pine Creek railway, and they helped in the goldfields of Pine Creek. Most in those years spoke either the Hakka or the Sze Yup dialects.
Over the past 140 years, they have contributed in many ways - economically, socially, culturally, adding to cuisine of the Territory, and building the community capital. Having been at these functions over many years that I have been in Darwin, each year at this particular celebration, New Year, I am reminded that the Chinese community in the Northern Territory is still contributing in the same ways that they did so many years ago.
The event was run very well by Donna Quong, and contributing, obviously, was the president, Adam Lowe, assisted by Adam Chin and numerous other Chinese people who run a fantastic operation and contribute in so many ways. The Chinese Consul-General for Australia was present, on his third trip to Darwin, and he was present when the Lion Dancers performed all their blessings at this function. He was very vocal in his comments that they are the best that he has seen anywhere in Australia, which just goes to show that we are on top of some of those cultural events in the Northern Territory. I was very fortunate to have the Lion Dancers come to my office in the electorate of Sanderson in the Northlakes Shopping Centre on Saturday, 31 January, where they performed and blessed the office for the New Year. I am very grateful to the Lion Dancers for coming out and doing that.
I will try not to speak as fast as the member for Johnston who, obviously, needed to get many words out, and he got a little excited by speaking that fast. The last issue is that of a constituent who lives in the member for Johnston’s area, but I do not think he is quite familiar with this man’s history. He recently turned 90 on 5 January. He is a World War II veteran, a guy who spends an enormous amount of time giving to the community, manning the gates at the football, and doing many other community events.
I was very fortunate to be able to take him to the Scouts Centenary Dinner recently, where he was the oldest Scout there, having joined the Scout movement in 1925. I believe that floored a few of the younger Scouts there who probably think that that is very ancient history. But a fine citizen he is, and I would just like to congratulate John Moyle. He has chosen to live and retire here. He is one of those great Territorians who is contributing to the very social fabric of our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a lot more to say; however, the clock has just stopped me.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record my concern that the Northern Territory government is not immediately following the recommendations of the Coroner in relation to trimming trees on private school grounds.
A coronial inquest into the death of young Aiden Bott - and I should at the outset state that my children are in the same school; my oldest child was in the same year as Aiden Bott at St Mary’s School, so I have a personal interest in that case and am also very aware of the circumstances that led to the tragic death of that young boy, and all that occurred around it. I am familiar with it, and I did follow events as they unfolded.
The Coroner made a recommendation that all schools should be inspected regularly, but I understand a recent government report says that checks can only be made at government schools. I find that a terrible cop-out, and I urge the Northern Territory government to do more in this area.
When I was the federal member, I felt a complete frustration with the Territory government for their lack of support for private schools in the Northern Territory. I understood that there was a bit of a national campaign aimed at curbing federal government contributions to what I believe people referred to as silvertail private schools. However, in the Northern Territory, those types of schools - Kings College and Sydney Grammar and the like - do not exist. The private schools that we have in the Northern Territory meet very grassroots needs. For instance, there are no government schools providing boarding facilities for Indigenous students. The education of Indigenous students would be very much hampered if the private school movement was shown any less regard by the Northern Territory government.
In the case, a young boy was tragically killed by a falling tree branch and a Coroner made a recommendation that there should be regular checks. I go a bit further than the Coroner in saying that schools should be funded, not just to check trees, but to ensure that once those trees are checked, if there are any concerns, money should be provided to those schools to ensure that that those trees are trimmed. In the case with the Catholic primary school in question, the Coroner found that the tree had been checked, that the school was aware of the problem tree, but just did not have the financial resources to be able to do anything about it. That is an appalling situation, where we allow those sorts of tragedies to occur for a lack of funds.
This is some advice to Kevin Rudd: go and build a new school hall or something but, at the same time, let us try to concentrate on keeping our children safe at schools. I am glad to see the Chief Minister is here and I urge him to look at the idea of funding private schools to check trees and other safety hazards that might be on their grounds, and to also look at supporting those private schools that do need financial assistance to rectify those situations. It was a tragic situation that upset a whole community and, ultimately, it was something that was avoidable. I would hate to see it happen again.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make mention of the passing of Col Friel last month. Col Friel was - I think all of us here would agree - one of the Territory’s best-known characters. His fame and reputation came through the letters page of the Territory’s newspapers and beyond. He was completely unafraid of putting his views forward forthrightly - not for him the tag of ‘Name and address withheld’.
Col arrived in the Territory in the 1950s after a stint in the Navy, after a childhood around Mildura in Victoria and Pooncarie in NSW. The Territory was a life that suited him, as he worked through a number of jobs from work on the wharves to mining, truck driving, and a surveyor with the Water Resources Branch.
He married Judith, a woman who was part of the Stolen Generations, taken as a small child from the Katherine area. There were eight children and step-children, from what has been described to me as a strong and loving relationship; one that saw them through Cyclone Tracy, the family surviving that terrible event.
After a brief return to Mildura after Tracy, the family returned to the Territory. Col was largely self-taught but, indeed, became a man of letters, submitting hundreds if not thousands of letters to the editor. What is perhaps not so well known to Territorians is that his views were published beyond our borders, appearing also in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Green Left Weekly, as well as the NT News, The Centralian Advocate and The Katherine Times. Perhaps less well known is that he also made his views known to a number of parliamentary inquiries over the years. In these, he was just as happy taking on technical constitutional points as he was with arguments on the issues of human rights.
All papers have regular writers to the editor; but few have written so cogently on so many topics. For Col, his primary concern was for social justice and human rights, but ranged as well across environmental issues, Aboriginal affairs, education, justice, and international issues. His opposition to the war in Iraq was powerfully and passionately argued, and a tribute to his deep and committed humanitarianism and care for the oppressed and downtrodden.
That is what made Col different to many other writers. You can take or leave many correspondents’ views, but Col’s letters were always thought-provoking and worthy of a read. If he supported a view you held, it would be with an argument worth adding to your back pocket. If he opposed your position which, as a politician was more often than not, it was with an argument that you had to take note of and take into account. He never let politicians off lightly, but always put his views carefully and politely.
Col will be missed and I pass on my condolences to his large family. I say to them that his memory and his words will live on through the many letters he wrote, and they will be a source, for many years to come, for historians of the Territory. Vale Col Friel.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier tonight in a matter of public importance debate, the member for Fong Lim made an outrageous slur on one of the most respected people in the Territory - our Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC. Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC is one of the Territory’s most highly-respected and highly-regarded members of the legal profession. He is a former Solicitor-General. He has appeared representing the Northern Territory government in the High Court on numerous occasions.
Tonight, the member for Fong Lim disgustingly insinuated that the Administrator was politically rewarded for his role in advising the government on the drafting of legislation affecting the McArthur River Mine. A recording of his comments has him saying:
… the person who drafted the legislation at the time was the then Solicitor-General, Tom Pauling, who did a great job in drafting that legislation and having
it available for the parliament. He was, I believe, justly rewarded, and I support his appointment as Administrator ...
For the member for Fong Lim to claim that Tom Pauling’s appointment as Administrator was some sort of political reward is one of the most outrageous slurs we have witnessed in this House. He used what some refer to as Coward’s Castle, in breach of our standing orders, against the rules of this parliamentary debate, to make an outrageous slur against a highly-respected, highly-regarded man of impeccable character.
The member for Fong Lim must immediately issue a public written apology to Mr Pauling. Further, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that the member for Fong Lim is publicly disciplined for this outrageous slur against a fine Territorian, a man of impeccable character, our Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016