2010-08-11
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Grade 7 Minyerri Community School students, accompanied by Mrs Petrina Doyle, Mr Grant Allgood, Ms Isobelle Hume and Mrs Melva Hodgson. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act to provide that individuals and corporations who donate food and grocery products receive immunity from civil liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption and/or use of those goods.
In late 2009, Woolworths Limited approached the Northern Territory government with a request that an amendment of this nature be made to the act as the absence of such legislation in the Territory operates as a disincentive to the donation of food and grocery products to charitable organisations. Woolworths expressed an interest in making donations to the Food 4 Life program established by Baptist Care Northern Territory in conjunction with Foodbank Australia.
The program involves Baptist Care Northern Territory sourcing food and grocery products form donors which it then supplies to disadvantaged individuals and families through existing emergency relief agencies and charities. Baptist Care Northern Territory also distributes donated items direct to the public through warehouses. This food is safe for human consumption but not suitable for retail sale. There are similar programs in all other jurisdictions.
While Woolworths had commenced donating non-perishable items, it was reluctant to donate perishable items until this legislation has commenced. Other organisations such as SecondBite, which operates in Victoria and Tasmania, have also indicated an interest in establishing operations in the Territory.
This legislation encourages donations. By encouraging donations without exposure to liability for civil claims, charitable organisations will be able to provide a more comprehensive and reliable source of food and grocery products to pass on to those in need. We have listened to the community. All other jurisdictions have similar legislation which has been operating well. For example, Victoria introduced similar legislation in 2002. By 2006, it is understood food donations in Victoria had increased threefold.
In the technical operation of the bill, and to ensure appropriate checks and balances in the donation of food, the immunity will operate only if:
1. the goods were donated in good faith for a charitable or benevolent purpose with the intention that the consumer will not have to pay for them; and
Donors will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of any relevant handling requirements in relation to the goods, such as where the food needs to be refrigerated. If the food is only safe to consume for a particular period of time, the donor will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of the relevant time limit. However, once a distributing organisation such as Baptist Care Northern Territory receives donated food, it will be responsible for the safe handling and storage of that food in accordance with existing food safety laws. The distributor will not be protected from liability by the legislation.
It is important to note the bill will not add to existing processes and procedures regarding the safe handling and storage of food for donors or distributors. However, the bill will provide a level of comfort to donors so, if food fit for human consumption when it was donated becomes contaminated at some other point, they will not be liable for any harm the food might have caused. It is strongly believed this fact alone will encourage an increase in food donation.
Every year, Territorians throw out about 30 000 tonnes of food and grocery items which could be redistributed to needy Territorians. This legislation is an important step which will benefit Territorians. Individual Territorians and companies will be able to confidently donate food in the knowledge they are now protected from liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption of food. These new laws will encourage Territorians to donate food and grocery items that would otherwise be wasted.
This government understands many individuals and organisations want to do the right thing, and want to support charities to help less fortunate Territorians. This legislation will not only make it easier to donate food, but we hope will encourage other charities to set up operations in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent a bill titled Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 120) passing through all stages on 19 August 2010.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit interference with Parks and Wildlife crocodile traps. This bill is before members today to resolve a legislative gap which limits the ability to prosecute the worrying and increasing trend of members of the public interfering with crocodile traps. The intention of this bill is to enable Parks and Wildlife rangers to either refer serious interferences with crocodile traps for prosecution, or to issue infringement notices for minor interferences. This sends a strong message to the public, and members of the House would agree discouraging this type of behaviour is in the best interests of both the offenders and the broader Northern Territory community.
This bill will establish an offence under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which prohibits touching, standing on, entering, moving or otherwise disturbing a crocodile trap regardless of whether the trap is in use or not, and irrespective of its location on or off parks and reserves. The offence will be a regulatory one and will be included in the penalty infringement notice scheme to allow for prompt treatment by way of an infringement notice with a penalty of three penalty units, which is equal to a fine of $399 for the least serious cases. Rangers will still have discretion to refer more serious breaches to be prosecuted through the courts. If the offence is proven it will carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, equivalent to $6650 or six months imprisonment.
Unfortunately, the offenders in most instances are shown to be young Territorians and information suggests they are urged on by the desire to go one better than the last example seen in the media. This issue came to a head late last year when three young Territory men appeared on the front cover of the Northern Territory News, with two of the three photographed inside the trap. I can easily imagine the distress and concern this image would cause for parents of teenagers throughout the Northern Territory.
Saltwater crocodiles are without exception one of the most dangerous animals in Australia. As recent and tragic events have shown, they can be indiscriminate killers should the opportunity arise. Human fatalities can cause immense distress to families, and the public, and place a great strain on rangers and police involved in the recovery and subsequent coronial inquests.
I take this opportunity today to inform the House of the significant efforts and work which goes towards the management of saltwater crocodiles in the Northern Territory. In doing so I will highlight for members the value and importance of crocodile traps, and why rangers must be provided with the necessary tools to protect the public.
The Northern Territory has some of the most extensive saltwater crocodile habitat in the world. Crocodiles are a common part of life in the Top End, and through our enjoyment of the great outdoor lifestyle we are often in close proximity to their natural habitats. The government has, over many decades, combined significant resources to reduce the risk to the public posed by these large and formidable creatures.
In the last 12 months this government has provided funding for an additional 20 crocodile traps as well as a new harpoon boat for crocodile removal. Areas such as Darwin Harbour, the rural area, and the Katherine River area are managed intensively to minimise the number of crocodiles present. However, this management will always be limited by the surrounding environments which continue to provide a source of new animals and therefore pose an ongoing safety risk.
Parks and Wildlife has more than 60 traps in operation throughout the known range of the saltwater crocodile. These traps are concentrated in areas of human population and are baited and checked by rangers on a regular basis. Over 200 saltwater crocodiles are removed from these traps each year. Every time a trap is damaged, set off deliberately, or stolen there is an increased risk in that area of a crocodile being at large with no trap available to catch the animal.
In many instances trapped animals are released before rangers can remove them. To think a member of the public would release a trapped crocodile believing they are doing some public good is clearly of concern, as the crocodile learns to be wary of traps and becomes even more difficult to locate and remove. Management alone cannot protect Territorians, and for this reason the government has undertaken an extensive public awareness campaign called Croc Wise. In 2009-10, the government committed $140 000 towards developing a safety campaign to alert Territorians and visitors alike that saltwater crocodiles can be present in any of our northern waterways.
The government has committed ongoing funding of $75 000 per annum to ensure the message continues to be publicised and spread throughout multiple forms of communication. My department is also currently developing an integrated curriculum-based crocodile awareness program for use in schools throughout the Northern Territory. Educating our children and demonstrating appropriate Croc Wise behaviours around our waterways will play a significant part in reducing the likelihood of further human fatalities.
Ultimately, we must co-exist with these animals. To do so we require an ongoing management program, coupled with public awareness and enabling legislation, to support the principles of public safety and the rangers engaged in this dangerous work. For these reasons, the passage of this bill ensures the Croc Wise messages are unequivocal: interfering with crocodile traps is not only reckless and dangerous, it is considered an offence by our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill was to be debated yesterday, however, as a result of issues I identified with the Attorney-General and her staff, it was not. It is brought on today with those issues not remedied. The issues are not catastrophic and no side of politics will be issuing a flurry of media releases about the bill, nor should they, however, a series of legislative principles are at stake and in my capacity as shadow Attorney-General are appropriate to raise.
The issues I identified have not been addressed and in my view should be. Whilst I have never defended the member for Karama, on this occasion I extend some level of sympathy to her. An Attorney-General should not be placed in a position where he or she introduces a bill into parliament which is half done. I would not like it if I were Attorney-General. I do not know her views, however, I knew Syd Stirling and Peter Toyne well enough to know they would be displeased.
I will outline some of the issues. In order to do so, I need to reflect on the Attorney-General’s second reading speech on 9 June this year. She said:
This bill, as a Statute Law Revision Bill normally does, makes amendments to a series of Northern Territory acts. I am concerned about not finishing the job in relation to one act, the Aboriginal Land Act, for reasons which will become obvious shortly. In the minister’s second reading speech she said:
For instance, section 9(c) of the Aboriginal Land Act refers to the words ‘he’ and ‘himself’; section 10 uses the word ‘his’; section 12 uses the word ‘him’; section 13 uses the word ‘he’; section 14 in its heading refers to the word ‘etcetera’ and refers to the word ‘he’; and section 16 uses the word ‘his’ on two occasions. In section 18, the words ‘his’ and ‘he’ remain; in section 21 the words ‘he’ and ‘his’ remain; in section 22 the words ‘him’ and ‘his’ remain, as does the word ‘his’ in section 22(2). Similarly, in section 23, the word ‘etcetera’ remains in the heading and in the contents of the section the words ‘his’ ‘his’ and ‘his’ are repeated.
Why would you tinker with legislation that is, to use the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, designed to reflect current drafting practices and amend gender-biased terminology when you only do it in two sections and leave close to a dozen other sections unamended? It is bizarre; it is extraordinary.
This issue is not going to keep people awake at night, but why waste the parliament’s time? Why would you waste the Attorney-General’s time by presenting a bill which proposes amendments to a number of pieces of legislation, and does not complete the job in respect of the sections referred to? I would hate members to think I was awake all night on this, however, yesterday I found a document called Legislative Instruments Handbook. I have mislaid the front cover; I am sure it was from the federal Attorney-General’s Department. It provides guidelines in legislative drafting. I looked for the section regarding gender-specific language. The document is several years old but I am sure it has not changed; I am happy to table it if members want. I quote:
There is a useful discussion of the issue on the University of Southern Queensland website, which I am sure members will be enthusiastic to see. I will provide members with the address if they want.
I also found a document called Drafting Practice Guide from the Parliamentary Counsel’s office in the Australian Capital Territory, dated February 2009. It says, under the not unsurprising subheading, ‘He or she’:
I can assure members it is mildly interesting, however important in getting legislation right. The Northern Territory is one of two jurisdictions whose Interpretation Act has a provision where the use of the masculine term exists in legislation, and then it is deemed the feminine is included. In other words, the Northern Territory parliament at some stage has said in legislation: if you see the word ‘he’ also read it as though it included ‘she’. If that was case, why is the Attorney-General placed in a position of - notwithstanding the Territory’s Interpretation Act - saying the Statue Law Revision Bill (Serial 111) provides a number of amendments which, inter alia, reflect current drafting practices and amends gender-biased terminology? I am sure the Attorney-General has better things to do than undo things generally provided in legislation, as is the case with our Interpretation Act. The government’s view is: we are going to change gender-biased terminology.
This leads me to a document which refers to past instances where government policy has been referred to by various members of the Labor government insofar as correcting gender-biased wording in legislation. Here are some of them. In 2004, the member for Johnston, when he was Lands and Planning minister debating the Place Names Act said:
His colleague, now the Chief Minister, said in relation to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, in 2002:
The now Chief Minister repeated that in the Petroleum Amendment Bill, again in 2002, where he said:
In a debate on the Places of Public Entertainment Amendment Bill in 2003, former minister, Jack Ah Kit said:
It is this government’s policy to remove gender specific language, and government ministers have rightly said so over the years.
We have before us today a bill which, according to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, seeks inter alia to amend gender-biased terminology. The bill itself corrects gender-biased terminology in sections 7 and 17, but not sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22 and 23, some of which have multiple references to the words ‘his’, ‘he’ or ‘him’. With great respect to those who drafted the legislation, it is really dumb to put the Territory’s first law officer in a position where she says: ‘We are correcting two out of 12 provisions in accordance with government policy’. Does government policy not extend to the other 10 provisions? Clearly not!
I am grateful for the interest of the Attorney-General and her staff in this matter, and that they did not pursue the bill yesterday as a result of issues I raised, however this bill should be remedied. Why are we talking about it when it is not even half done? I would like to think the government might, in due course, look more carefully at its legislation to ensure in line with its policy, gender-specific language is corrected in all legislation. I cannot pursue the matter further.
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding those reservations and observations, we support the bill. I am not aware of a statute law revision bill not supported by any opposition. I hope the government will be more rigorous in the legislation it presents to the House in the future.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will not be speaking for long in relation to this issue, however, it reiterates eloquently the point I made last night. I have some sympathy with the argument put forward by the member for Araluen: the Attorney-General is extremely busy and should not have to cast her mind to the level of detail the member for Araluen has exercised.
I made some comments in relation to the bill before the House last night regarding shopping trolleys left at the waterfront attracting a $13 000 fine. It is concerning ministers will allow these regulations to pass into law, but it is the quality of support surrounding those ministers which sometimes needs to be looked also. As ministers and parliamentarians, whilst I appreciate public servants are very hard-working and dedicated people, it remains incumbent upon us to cast a critical eye upon the information presented to us. Sometimes we do that in a hurry, and make mistakes when we do not pay attention to the issues.
Last night I made some comments in relation to those by-laws. One of my remarks was not entirely accurate because of the time frames involved in commenting. I will be correcting the record in relation to warrants.
Madam Speaker, the process of passing legislation is the core and fundamental issue of this House in its purest sense, and the level of vigilance displayed by the member for Araluen should become the benchmark for us all.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Araluen and Port Darwin for their contribution to debate. I also thank them for their support of the Statute Law Revision Bill which deals with sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act. I will come back to that; it is the most contentious part of the debate this morning. It also deals with section 110 of the Building Act, which is repealed and substituted with a new section restructured to read more clearly. The Electrical Workers and Contractors Act is amended to remove a small number of references to the Electricity Act. This has all been based on consultation with relevant departments. The Firearms Act and Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act were also amended. They referred to the old National Exchange of Police Information Scheme, which is no longer the information system in use. CrimTrac is now in use, so an update of the act has occurred.
There is some fixing of a very minor nature, which is essentially what statute law revision bills are about; they contemporise and update legislation which sit on the books where something has changed -- you alter other pieces of legislation. It is the role of an Attorney-General to deal with statue law revisions across a range of acts they do not necessarily have carriage of.
With the Aboriginal Land Act - the one attracting most debate in the Chamber this morning - we dealt with sections 7 and 17 because a sentence was wrongfully omitted. Whilst there, a decision was made to remove the gender-specific language in those two sections of the act. Whilst they were dealing with those two sections, they removed the gender-specific language in accordance with government policy and put in the non-gender specific language, using ‘his’ or ‘her’, etcetera.
I have a great deal of empathy with what the member for Araluen, supported by the member for Port Darwin, is saying. Why change part of something; why not update and change the entire act, particularly in relation to implementing government policy? Government policy is very clear, and the member for Araluen has done her research and quoted very senior members of this government on debates which talk about the government policy of non-gender specific language.
Historically, the masculine is deemed to be read as the feminine under the Interpretation Act governing interpretation of the laws of the Territory. However, it is the Northern Territory government’s policy to remove gender-specific language and, when we go through a statute law review process as we have done for sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act, it would have been an opportunity to remove gender-specific language from the entire act.
Having had discussions with the member for Araluen it is a point we agree on. I did not want to hold up other contemporary changes in the statute law review where the work has been done by lawyers in Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Justice. They have done the work which is the Statute Law Reform Bill before us, and I was not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. I was going to allow the work those good, hard-working lawyers have done proceed.
It is an instructive debate in the Chamber this morning which I will be ensuring all levels, from Parliamentary Counsel through to people in legal policy of the Department of Justice, turn their attention to. We are lawmakers in this Chamber and the government has policies. People employed to bring the laws of the Territory before us ought to pay heed to government policies and take the opportunities, when they arise, to do the whole job, paint the whole room, clean the brushes afterwards, give them a rinse out, pack them away ready to go to the next task, having completed the previous task.
There is no disagreement in the Chamber about government policy of removing gender-specific language; it is a good thing to do. It is a contemporary practice we should be embarking upon when the opportunity arises, and the opportunity arose in the statute law revision.
I understand why people involved in drafting, and lawyers in the Department of Justice, decided to focus on sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act in relation to the SLR because of the omission of a sentence. The opportunity was there to capture the gender-specific language in the remaining 10 sections. It would not have been too difficult a task, too much work, or taken too much time, however the opportunity was not taken. That is disappointing.
I find this debate instructive. I welcome it, and will ensure it is given to all officers who undertake those duties so in future debates the question of the removal of gender-specific language does not need to be raised because it is occurring as a matter of course.
I thank members opposite for their contribution to the debate. I sincerely thank the member for Araluen for the effort she has taken to research this matter and put her views on the record; views, as Attorney-General, I agree with.
I commend this bill to members of the Chamber because it appropriately deals with the sections of the legislation it intended to. In the Aboriginal Land Act the net was not cast wider than sections 7 and 17 because there was a focus and purpose. They focused on two sections and did not look at other sections of the act to remove gender specific-language.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to ensuring government policy around the removal of gender-specific language is thoroughly pursued through all levels of the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel. I recognise they are currently doing much work for government in the making of law. We have a very heavy agenda so officers of my department, and, Parliamentary Counsel, are working very hard. I recognise that, however when opportunities arise let us do the full job.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(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 9 June 2010.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have carriage of this legislation from this side of the Chamber. Although the bill is titled ‘Transport of Dangerous Goods’, this is a new area for me. I thank the minister for allowing her staff to provide a briefing.
I often reflect on the role of federal parliament and how they analyse legislation with the two Houses. For us, only having one House, moving to committee stage and having a full grasp on what is happening with the model legislation is difficult. I understand this bill comes as reforms which occurred under model regulations from the United Nations and were adopted under the previous federal government in 2005, seeking to move from the ADG6 to ADG7. I understand we were supposed to adopt model legislation between 1 January and 31 December 2008, and that has been delayed for some time.
I have some amendments which were sent across on Monday; you should have received those. One is about increasing penalty units for certain offences from 60 to 80 penalty units, and the other is about re-inserting an offence contained in the current act, and in the model legislation, but omitted from this bill. The omitted provision created a separate offence for a person failing to comply with the act and ought reasonably to have known the failure would put the safety of a person, property or environment at risk. They are the amendments we are putting forward today.
It is my intention to go into committee stage and ask many questions about this legislation, and its history, so I have a full understanding of it before I provide support. I accept it is model legislation, and I believe all but Tasmania and the Northern Territory have come on board to date. However, as legislators, we need to have a full understanding of it.
Madam Speaker, I will not go any further; I will reserve questions and comments for the committee stage and my final reading.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill. I also thank the minister for the briefing. We are looking at bringing our laws in line with other states. I always question whether the upgrades in much our legislation are necessary. Australian Standards are being changed all the time. For instance, nowadays every electrical cord has to be tagged every 12 months. When you buy brand new equipment you expect it to be up to standard automatically. Someone has made much money tagging computers in schools because someone decided the standards should change. About five years ago, you did not have to do it.
This is similar. A body of people say standards should change for various reasons. I do not believe changes should not be challenged; with change sometimes comes expense. We need to debate whether those changes are justified based on real risk, or whether it is theoretic risk. It is a general philosophy I am concerned about in relation to bodies we do not have much say in. The Australian Standards is a group of people who produce new regulations and, if you want a copy of those regulations, you have to subscribe. They are not something the public can access, debate, question, and query.
Looking at this bill I had that in mind. However, after the briefing I realised this is not going to make major changes to Northern Territory trucking companies because most companies coming from interstate are already under the new guideline, ADG7, and the Northern Territory is currently ADG6. Some trucking companies are automatically working under the new national guidelines, and these changes will make it sensible. If you came in from Queensland with an ADG7 placard on a vehicle, you would have to change it to a lower standard by putting an ADG6 sign on, which does not make sense. If this means we have a seamless set of rules for the cartage of dangerous goods that is important.
We should not confuse this with the carrying of ordinary goods. The Territory has, for a long time, relied on trucks bigger than allowed in other states because of the distance and cost required to bring goods and materials to the Northern Territory. Triple road-trains and now triple road-trains with an extra half are permitted. I would like to debate road-trains at another time. We have had some accidents recently, however that is not the issue we are discussing today. We have distinct areas which have to be recognised by other states. When bringing in national guidelines, not so much in relation to dangerous goods - general cartage of goods - we need to look at the Northern Territory as not a separate case, but take into account our geographical isolation from the rest of Australia and the long distances required to cart materials.
I support the legislation. I know the opposition has amendments; I am happy to listen to the debate. I am concerned a catch-all type phrase might cover everything when there are already penalty units in the act. I query two sets of penalties for the one act: one which catches everything, and one which is already specific for each clause. I would rather see how this legislation goes. It is a point of view the member for Braitling is putting forward; whether it makes a large difference in practice - perhaps we look at the legislation as it operates.
The government has been discussing its bill, without amendments, with the trucking industry; that is important. If the trucking industry has not seen the amendments, or had adequate consultation, bringing this on now might be premature. I am not saying the amendments do not have merit. From my briefing, there has had quite some consultation with the trucking industry. The penalties in this legislation have been seen by the trucking industry and I have not had any feedback to say it objects. I am happy to support the legislation as it is. I am willing, though, in time, to see whether the penalties are sufficient and what feedback we receive as the legislation moves forward.
It appears to make good sense we are part of Australia all connected by road and rail, and having such legislation is important.
The briefing also explained what happens when we transport dangerous goods by sea. We move into areas within the jurisdiction of the states and territories, and then move into the Commonwealth. Again, it is an area which needs looking at. If you are transporting goods from one side of Australia to the other, is there a single authority responsible for the cartage of goods by sea? We have a national approach saying states are all connected by road and rail. Is there an opportunity for uniformity in the cartage of dangerous goods by sea? If you have a barge from Darwin loaded with ammonium nitrate, or a dangerous good, how far out to sea do you travel before it is not the responsibility of the Northern Territory government? When does it become a matter for the Commonwealth? It may be an area worthy of discussion. I am sure I am not the only person who has looked at this.
When you deliver goods to Gove you are under the Commonwealth. Gove and Alyangula are both secure ports. They come under the Maritime Security Act - a different set of rules. I discovered that when I visited Groote Eylandt. I was told I could not take photographs, and they had cameras everywhere. If they see you with your camera they are out to get you. I found it strange I could not take a photo at a port of loading manganese, but when I went to Nhulunbuy several weeks later it was exactly the same thing.
Madam Speaker, at the briefing we discussed national guidelines for road and rail and whether there is an issue in relation to the transport of goods. Transport of goods by barge in the Northern Territory is quite common; there may need to be discussion about uniform guidelines for the cartage of goods by sea. I support this legislation.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before us today. There is always an element of risk when transporting dangerous goods involving heavy vehicles on Territory road or rail networks. The majority of heavy vehicles and trains carrying dangerous goods do so without incident. This is due to the safety requirements in place, licensing, and the professional operators who work in this field.
However, from time to time mistakes or accidents occur, with a recent example in the Barkly electorate a fortnight ago. On 30 July 2010, two trailers of a road-train hauling copper sulphate, rolled over on the Barkly Highway. Something obviously went wrong. It is a timely reminder of the need to take action to reduce such risks. This bill is a good example of that. The copper sulphate had been loaded at Darwin Port and was destined for Mount Isa Mines. Fortunately, while the accident was significant, no one was injured. The copper sulphate may be described as mildly toxic after acute exposure. The estimated 58 tonnes of product which spilled resulted in the Barkly Highway being closed until emergency services personnel from Tennant Creek, as well as the cleanup crew from Mount Isa Mines, attended. Their work ensured the spill was contained and cleaned-up. I am aware NT WorkSafe immediately began inquiries into the incident due to the potential environmental hazard. The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport was also contacted.
The area where the accident occurred represents the headwaters of the Lake Eyre Basin and the connection of an eco-corridor which travels through the centre of Australia into our great Lake Eyre. It is also in the middle of prime cattle country which represents the Territory on a global scale; our beef is prized and exported around the world. It also occurred in a spot where people live and work on cattle stations, not to mention the tourists. It highlights the importance of this legislation, it relates to a national perspective, and definitely highlights some interesting connections, both eco-social and cultural, between the Territory and the rest of Australia.
Transporting dangerous goods on Territory roads or rail occurs on a daily basis and, in the vast majority of cases, is done professionally and safely. This government has a great plan for the future: as Australia’s link with Asia, the Northern Territory has natural, strategic advantages based on location and on our plan to become a vibrant transport hub. The Territory 2030 strategic plan is the government’s road map for the future and, under this plan, we will continue to grow the Territory economy.
We will support the continued contribution of the resources sector, expand the manufacturing industry, increase shipping movements in the Territory, and establish Darwin as a key centre for the oil and gas operations, maintenance and workforce.
The Labor government is moving forward, and in a booming Territory we will see an increase in the amount of freight, including dangerous goods, being transported on our road and rail networks. We have heard introducing the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 is to upgrade Northern Territory laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods. The object of the bill is to regulate the transport of dangerous goods on land, to promote public safety, and protect property and the environment.
As was the case with the recent incident on the Barkly Highway, it is not uncommon for dangerous goods to be transported into or out of the Territory, and it is essential our dangerous goods transport requirements fit in, as seamlessly as possible, with those interstate or even overseas for that matter, and reflect world’s best practice in both efficiency and safety.
This bill puts the framework in place to achieve this by adopting the Commonwealth’s package of model legislation. The inclusion of significant penalties for failing to comply with the direction of an authorised officer, or for obstructing an authorised officer, also sends a firm and clear message to industry.
As Transport minister, I meet regularly with national transport operators and one of the key issues raised is cross-border regulations. Work is under way to reduce the regulatory burden on transport operators which can be required to comply with differing and complex regulations across the states.
Part of the Commonwealth’s package of model legislation is the act we are debating today, with the regulations, and the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, 7th edition, or ADG7 as it is more commonly referred to. ADG7 adopts the structure, format, definitions and concepts of the United Nations recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods model regulation, whilst retaining Australian-specific provisions.
The main benefits associated with harmonisation with international, intermodal regulations are consistency, a more frequent revision cycle for the code, a single set of laws governing the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, and additional concessions for the transport of smaller quantities of these substances.
The laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods regulate the transport of flammable, toxic, corrosive, gaseous, infectious and dangerous goods and substances which pose a significant risk to human life, property, or the environment when they are transported. Adoption of AGD7 will ensure the transport of dangerous goods in the Territory can be carried out seamlessly across state borders, and allows Territory transport businesses to participate effectively in a uniform, national scheme.
Whilst transport operators who cross borders will already be aware of, and must comply with ADG7 interstate, I welcome the advice the competent authority, NT WorkSafe, will provide education and information to smaller NT operators about the new compliance requirements to ensure they are fully aware of their new obligations.
I also welcome the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General’s comments regulations made under this bill will provide for licences issued under current arrangements to be valid after this bill commences, thereby reducing the immediate impact of the new laws; industry and business is not disadvantaged when the switch is flicked.
Such legislation as that before us requires adequate auditing and enforcement to be most effective. Broadening the powers of authorised officers, including the power to stop and search vehicles; give directions to rail operators; inspect and search premises; seize and remove documentation, equipment and records; obtain search warrants where it is suspected an offence or dangerous situation may occur are important for the effectiveness of the legislation. The provision for reciprocal powers of authorised officers in different jurisdictions is also a positive step and, where applied, may result in improved use of existing resources and enable more effective and efficient investigation of more complex matters which occur within two or more jurisdictions.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is important to the Territory. I thank the Attorney-General for this legislation, and I commend the bill to honourable members.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for his support; he understands the issues. They were debated in detail at the transport ministerial council known as the Australian Transport Council. I was the Transport minister when ADG7 was hotly debated at the transport ministerial council. I do not propose to go back over the comprehensive analysis of the legislation - how it applies, and to what goods - as the Minister for Transport has. Instead, I will go directly to the comments made by members opposite.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support. He took the opportunity to have a detailed briefing from officers of my agency and my staff. He understands it is in the Territory’s interest - particularly our transport providers, and the broader public and the environment - that we participate in the consistent national laws as the ADG7 applies. He understands the proof is in the pudding; you allow operation of a relatively new system to apply for some time then look at how it is operating.
Importantly, for any of us involved in understanding rules and regulations applying to transport, you can only do that with the industry. If you are not engaging thoroughly and effectively with the industry to understand the practical application of your laws, you are missing the point. My question to the member for Braitling, in the committee stage will be: what consultation have you undertaken with the industry in the amendments you have brought before the House? I will be interested to hear your response.
We have ensured at every step in the development of the ADG7 - which is a comprehensive set of tasks, requirements, laws and regulations for the transport of dangerous goods, as people living in a society would expect. Transport ministers from across the nation, their officers and authorities such as NT WorkSafe, have engaged with industry to test and understand how this will apply and whether it will create significant impediments to transportation of dangerous goods, which is part of the productivity of our nation.
Why are dangerous goods transported? Orica is transporting backwards and forwards from the ERA mine in Kakadu. Part of our nation’s productivity is the transport of dangerous goods. In the Territory, it is particularly applicable because we have so many mines; we are a resource-rich jurisdiction. We do not want to create regulatory impediments and barriers to the transport of dangerous goods. We want to ensure we apply world’s best practice and national consistent practice to the Territory. That is what we are doing in the legislation before the Chamber today.
We went through, in fine detail, which of the provisions within the model legislation we would apply. Because the Territory is a resource state and, by its nature will require the transport of dangerous goods on a far more frequent basis than you may well see in a non-resource rich state, we decided, rather than the catch-all provisions being proposed by the member for Braitling, on specific provisions for specific breaches so industry knew what they should be doing, how they should be doing it, and what specific penalties would apply.
We did not go down the catch-all path; a rather lazy path: we can pull you up and, if you do not comply by failing to provide some information, catch-all - 400 penalty units, off to gaol for two years it is. That is proposed by the opposition today - the lazy catch-all. We deliberately wanted specific penalties for specific breaches because this is a real and engaged industry transporting dangerous goods across the Territory to support our productivity.
The other aspect being proposed in committee stage amendments by the opposition relates to penalties. Quite deliberately, our government decided that because there is a matrix of different penalties which apply across the jurisdictions and, as is our jurisdictional right when dealing with model legislation to pick where we land in the penalty provisions, to be in the middle. We are not the highest, and not the lowest; we will be in the middle to be fair to our industry. We will not be dragging our feet; they are tough penalty provisions. However, we are not going to be at the more extreme end because we recognise these penalties will be applied. People may be in breach of ADG7 and the penalties will apply. This is not a theoretical debate; this is real, live. There is a result; there are trucking companies to which these penalties could, ultimately, apply; this is not theoretical. This is not something we take lightly.
The member for Braitling, who is the shadow Transport spokesperson, chose to pursue a briefing of legislation which has been sitting on the books for several months, last Friday. He went to the wrong office - reasonable mistake to go to the Minister for Transport’s office, even though the legislation was introduced into parliament by the Attorney-General - a reasonable and understandable mistake. He finally received a briefing on Monday and, at 5 pm on Monday afternoon, e-mailed committee stage amendments.
If that is not last minute, what is? If you were genuine in wanting to engage government on consistent laws in the transport of dangerous goods, you would not leave it to the last minute. It looks rushed and somewhat rash. I will question you in the committee stage on how much consultation you have had with industry. The Northern Territory government has stepped through what it signed up to do at the National Transport Commission and the Australian Transport Council. We signed up to embark on this process in 2007. The amended Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail package came out when we went into caretaker government.
In relation to why we did not meet the time frame in August 2008, quite appropriately asked by the member for Braitling, the package of legislation comprising the model legislation, the regulations, was approved at the ATC in August 2008. For some in this Chamber that date might ring a bell. The decision committed the states and territories to introduce model legislation by 31 December 2008 to allow for a 12-month transition period.
The Northern Territory government was in caretaker mode during the Australian Transport Council’s voting period for the adoption of ADG7. Anyone who understands caretaker mode knows you do not progress legislation. We came out of caretaker mode and proceeded with what the nation had signed up to do; the introduction of ADG7. We ensured not only the larger transporters of dangerous goods in the Territory such as Coles Wesfarmers, Orica and Vopak were consulted during the development and drafting of this bill - there is a raft of model legislation and you pick which elements apply to your jurisdiction for consistency and appropriateness to your jurisdictional needs - which is what we have done with this ADG7 application.
We engaged the large transporters, and informed smaller transporters in the Territory in the lead-up to this bill being introduced. We propose implementation of legislation for early 2011 so the fine details can be worked through and discussed with operators, large and small. It is the appropriate and responsible way to approach this legislation.
NT WorkSafe have consulted with Casey Haulage, DirectHaul, DGM Australia, Chemtrans, ConocoPhillips, Bevex Distribution, the Tanami which is the Newmont Mining Corporation, Crocodile Gold, Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Rio Tinto ERA, Pacific National Darwin, Perkins Shipping, GEMCO, Maxam Australia, Pioneer Road Services and the NT Branch of the Australian Trucking Association.
I question whether the opposition has consulted with those companies, and the peak NT branch of the ATA, in relation to the committee stage amendments brought before the Chamber. The Trucking Association has been informed of progress through this, as has NT WorkSafe’s transport and storage sub-committee. NT WorkSafe has kept the industry and unions informed through the Workplace Health and Safety Advisory Council. Consultation has taken place with the rail sector through the Department of Construction and Infrastructure Rail Safety Unit and the NT Rail Safety committee.
Other NT government departments informed of the proposed bill include: Department of Chief Minister; NT Treasury; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport; Department of Health and Families; Department of Lands and Planning; Department of Resources; and the Department of Business and Employment.
All jurisdictions have implemented ADG7 except Tasmania, and I am advised the legislation has been introduced in Tasmania. Although we went into caretaker mode when it was kicking off, we are by no means last. Regulations will be required to fully implement the model legislation to replace the current ADG6, and will be drafted following passage of the bill. We anticipate the bill will commence in early 2011 to allow drafting of the regulations, discussion of the regulations with the industry - the people who do the work - and through the WorkSafe and transport committees.
In relation to the query from the member for Nelson: it is good to have consistency with road and rail, what about marine? I am advised the Australian Maritime Safety Authority monitors compliance when it comes to marine. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code covers the transport of dangerous goods by sea; there is consistency.
I also advise COAG has gone through a laborious process which flowed from the Australian Transport Council, where all jurisdictions in Australia have signed up to a marine authority - we will cede the remaining existing marine regulatory environments each of us has to a national authority. That was an in-principle agreement at COAG. Negotiation is occurring across states and territories regarding the detail of that authority and the fees which will apply to local coastal shipping.
Whilst there is movement, a federal election is under way and the final detail and negotiations will happen post-federal election. Every jurisdiction has signed up to cede those marine obligations to the Commonwealth. It was not as critical for us; we are, however, lining up with some other small jurisdictions regarding how you would manage the fee and licence processes applying through a national authority. We do not want to see our local shipping companies disadvantaged in any way. The devil is always in the detail when you go to a single national authority. However, at COAG level, all jurisdictions have signed to go down that path.
We have the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code covering the transport of dangerous goods by sea, and the next step of a single regulatory authority for marine has been signed at COAG. Some of the smaller jurisdictions are arguing with the Commonwealth about costs applying to what are currently coastal shipping fees which vary across Australia, in and out of our ports, for example.
This is sensible legislation; this is tested, this is world’s best practice, this is national best practice, already occurring on our roads with the bulk of our national transporters applying ADG7; they cross state boundaries every day. We went into the specifics of the legislation and took the smaller Northern Territory-based haulage companies through it. This will affect them; they need to be prepared for it, and we are wary of applying a penalty regime that would be extraordinary. Adopting some regimes within the model would have been overly onerous to industry, so we quite deliberately decided to land in the middle. I make no apology for that; it is a reasonable approach for a new set of rules and regulations which will be strict, onerous and much welcomed by this government. We would not have signed up to it if we were not serious about ensuring the safety of our environment.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr GILES: I seek leave to change chairs, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Indeed. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Honourable members, the committee has before it the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 110), together with schedule of amendments No 43 circulated by the member for Braitling.
Clauses 1 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 84, by leave, taken together:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I have listened to the greatest load of waffle to waste time so we do not end up the same as yesterday, in a statement before lunch. All we have had for the last 30 minutes from the Attorney-General is the greatest load of diatribe. We are in parliament to debate these things; the timing of my briefing is not important to anyone. Who I consult with is none of your business; I can consult with whomever I like.
These amendments are very important. The Transport minister is talking about people going across jurisdictions; I have put in amendments which support other jurisdictions so when people come into the Territory they can have similar legislation. Your diatribe is absolutely ridiculous. I would like to ask: under AGC7, under the old legislation of 2003, how many people were penalised by WorkSafe for not complying under the old act?
Ms LAWRIE: I will respond to the assertions made by the shadow minister that clause 32(2), the penalty provision proposing the maximum penalty of 80 penalty units, is consistent with other jurisdictions.
I draw his attention to section 32. The proposed penalty in the Northern Territory legislation before us is 60 penalty units; in Queensland it is 90 penalty units; in Victoria 60 penalty units; and in the ACT it is 50 penalty units. The dollar amount of a penalty unit various across the jurisdictions. For example, in Queensland a penalty unit is $100, therefore the penalty, in a monetary sense, would be $9000; in Victoria with 60 penalty units, a unit equating to $116.82 would be $7009.20; in the ACT with their 50 penalty units, it would be $110 for an individual and $550 for a corporation so if you chose the individual that is $5500; in South Australia provision exists, however there is no penalty provided; and in Western Australia it is $10 000 for an individual.
The assertion by the shadow minister that he has brought forward a penalty unit which is consistent nationally is a furphy – it is not true! The facts are: in Queensland it is $9000; in Victoria it is $7009.20; in the ACT, $5500; Western Australia, $10 000; and we are in the middle at $7900. Your assertion that there is a consistent penalty unit is wrong, which is the point I made in my summing up. Penalties vary across jurisdictions, and we took the time and effort to look at them and arrive at a setting for the Territory which is fair, reasonable, and makes it middle of the pack.
Regarding the query on the number of prosecutions, WorkSafe is responding to that.
Mr GILES: I appreciate …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, if I could interrupt you there. As per the script prepared for you, you need to seek leave to move the amendments you are putting forward; you have not done that.
Mr GILES: I seek leave to move amendments 43.1 to 43.16 together.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: I would appreciate, Attorney-General, getting those figures before the end of the committee stage. You are changing the penalty system from the previous act to this new act. You spoke about different penalties in other jurisdictions. However, under section 22 of the 2003 act: Offence to fail or comply with direction - and I will read this out:
What your bill proposes is not $10 000; you are proposing 60 penalty units at $133. My maths comes to $7900, I believe …
Ms Lawrie: $7980.
Mr GILES: $7980 - we are seeing a decrease in the fine. Regarding uniformity or continuation, the reason for 80 penalty points is to keep it in line with the previous penalty. To say it is absurd to come up with 80 penalty units - it is already in the current legislation. How many people have been fined for doing the wrong thing under this criterion, and why do you want to drop the fine?
Usually we have CPI, inflation, fines going up all over the place; we do not always agree with them. We are talking about the transport of dangerous goods and you want to drop the fine.
Last night we saw the tabling of by-laws for the Waterfront Corporation. People will be fined $13 000 for leaving a shopping trolley at the waterfront, and you are dropping a fine from $10 000 to $7900 for not complying with transport of dangerous goods legislation. I need some justification to support what you are talking about.
Ms LAWRIE: We will agree to disagree at the end of this debate. You do not want to take on board what the government is saying. I will repeat: we have chosen the penalties based on the middle of the pack. We are introducing consistent legislation, model legislation, ADG7, so the rules of ADG7 will apply for a truck leaving a depot at Melbourne and delivering dangerous goods to the Port of Darwin. We could say: ‘What was it in the Territory?’, or we could look at the penalties applying across our nation and say: ‘Where do we sit in the context of our nation?’ These goods cross state boundaries? We could say: ‘What were we previously?’ which has no relationship to the transport of these goods across our boundaries. We looked at the nation, at landing in the middle, and have gone from $10 000, in some instances, to $7980.
We have also taken out potential gaol where it does not apply across the penalties in other jurisdictions. We have said: ‘If you face a gaol penalty in another jurisdiction, you will face a gaol penalty in the Territory’. We are in the middle of where penalties apply in other jurisdictions. That is how we have applied the penalty provisions.
We have articulated that; the industry knows it. Does the industry know you are proposing to ratchet it up today? Answer that question.
Mr GILES: How many people have been sent to gaol under the previous legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: Answer the question. You have not answered the question. Have you consulted industry with your amendments?
Mr GILES: Get used to it; we are used to it. I am …
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Have you consulted industry about these committee stage amendments?
Mr GILES: I am asking questions in an attempt to support your legislation. You can be smart; I am trying to support legislation coming through the new model put out under the previous Coalition. We are trying to reach agreement here. You have legislation from 2003 which I am seeking to realign.
The Minister for Transport said he wants to - and I am paraphrasing - send a firm and clear message to industry to comply with the directions of officers and prevent obstruction of officers as they carry out their duties. By reducing the maximum penalty by $2000 for failing to comply with a direction, and reducing the penalty for obstruction by $3400-odd, is this sending a clear and firm message to the industry?
Ms LAWRIE: We are debating the opposition’s committee stage amendments. You have to prosecute an argument which convinces the government we should adopt your committee stage amendments. So far, all I am hearing from you is: ‘We have looked at what the penalties used to be in the Territory and that is where we want to be, thereabouts’. That is the essence of your argument. If you seriously want government to consider adopting your committee stage amendments, answer this: have you consulted with industry?
Mr GILES: We are not here debating my amendments.
Dr Burns: We are!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: They are part of bringing the bill into this Chamber - you are trying to get a new bill through. I put amendments to your bill, and we will talk to these amendments, however you are trying to get your bill through the Chamber. You need to justify reducing the fines. How many people have been fined, how many people have been gaoled? There is intent for legislation; you do not legislate without reason. Has anyone been prosecuted? This is not a political witch hunt; I want justification for reducing the fines. Has anyone been prosecuted, fined, sent to gaol? We see chemical spills in the Territory, they are dangerous and hazardous.
I understand the intent of the legislation. I appreciate the model regulations under the United Nations. I understand why the ATC has brought this model into Australia. I understand why the bill is before us. I want some justification for why we are changing things. You can be smart and have a political argument. I have not consulted every single transport company or person you mentioned, however, I have consulted.
Ms Lawrie: Name one.
Mr GILES: That is what is important. No, I am not telling you who I consult with.
Dr Burns: What about the peak body, have you spoken to them?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: It is not important; it is none of your business who I consult with. You want to get a bill through this Chamber, you have to justify why you want to reduce fines. Again, how many people have been prosecuted, what were the fines, and how many were sent to gaol?
Ms LAWRIE: Whether the shadow minister for Transport likes it or not, we are in committee stage debating amendments led by him. We are debating your amendments now. If you want government to seriously consider your amendments to the penalty provisions and the subsequent catch-all amendment, which you have not yet put, who have you consulted with? Have you at least consulted with the Australian Trucking Association, Northern Territory Branch?
Mr GILES: Who I consult with is none of your business. Why have you dropped your fine regime? The Minister for Transport spoke of normality across jurisdictional boundaries; I support the same concept. Why are you looking at reducing the penalty regime?
Ms LAWRIE: I will take you through it again and will choose, for simplicity’s sake, clause 31: Failing to comply with direction to stop road vehicle. That is a pretty simple one. Previously in the NT a person faced a fine of $10 000, the body corporate faced a fine of $50 000, and the individual also potentially faced six months’ imprisonment. In relation to the ADG7 and how penalties apply across all jurisdictions of the nation, I will read the penalties.
First and foremost, nowhere else in Australia did the individual face gaol. For consistency, we stripped out the potential penalty of gaol – gone - because nowhere else in Australia failing to comply with a direction to stop was an individual facing gaol. We said: if you are not going to face gaol in South Australia, once you cross the border you are still not going to face gaol.
We then looked at the monetary payments across all the jurisdictions. In Queensland it is $9000. New South Wales did not enact direction provisions; it enabled authorised officers under the Occupational Health and Safety legislation to issue notices under the act. In Victoria, for a natural person it is sitting at $7000 - about $1000 less than the NT. The ACT is $5500 - a couple of thousand dollars less than us, and in South Australia the provision exists but no penalty was provided. In Western Australia it is $10 000. I repeat: we chose our penalty provisions to be middle of the pack; we are not as high as Western Australia and not as low as the ACT. We are not $10 000 like WA, and not $5500 like the ACT. We are more than Victoria, less than Queensland. We are much more than ACT, less than WA. We are middle of the pack.
In my summation I said we deliberately chose the penalty ratings which will apply to the ADG7 because it is consistent, model legislation - we would sit middle of the pack. If you do not face gaol somewhere else in Australia for a breach, you do not face gaol here. If you face gaol somewhere else in Australia for a breach, you face gaol here. Middle of the pack in relation to penalty provisions!
Mr GILES: You gave an example of clause 31 - we did not seek to amend clause 31. I am trying to understand why, where we had $10 000, you dropped to $7000-odd. Queensland has a $9000 fine, Western Australia has $10 000, and you say you are middle-of-the-road. I do know if you can judge the ACT and Victoria as part of that balance. I want a simple explanation as to why you have dropped it by so much, because it is not middle-of-the-road as it crosses with Western Australian and Queensland. It might be if you were driving through the ACT. It is not middle-of-the-road; it does not provide for consistency, and it is model legislation. I want to understand why you have chosen the sit-on-the-fence, middle-of-the-road position, rather than the position of Queensland or Western Australia, and why it has reduced so much?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not reduced much at all. In an industry - ask them the difference between $10 000 and $7980; that is not a significant change for the industry. When you look at the monetary amounts involved in the haulage of dangerous goods, it is not much. Industry would not see that as a significant change; have that conversation with them. I do not expect you to understand what I am telling you today. Talk to the industry; you will find it informative and useful.
We are going over old ground. I repeat: we made a decision consistent with policy decisions we make when we set penalties across a raft of other legislation - we sit middle of the pack, particularly when bringing in a new regime. We looked at the penalties and how they applied across all the states, we will sit in the middle of the pack; we will see how it goes. I understand you do not agree, and I will let the ATA and all those companies know you wanted it at $10 000 - happy to do that; happy to inform them. You have yet to give me the name of anyone in the industry you have consulted with. You will not even confirm you have consulted with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch. At the very least you could confirm that. If you want us to take you seriously, have you consulted with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch?
Mr GILES: This is about protecting the environment and Territorians, and ensuring our legislation is correct. I ask again, has anyone been prosecuted under the previous legislation? How many people were fined, how many people were sent to gaol?
Ms LAWRIE: I have asked WorkSafe for that information. The information provided so far is there have been several consents to prosecute provided by NT WorkSafe to the Northern Territory Police, and prosecutions have occurred. That information is not with WorkSafe; they do the consent to prosecute which goes through to police, and the judicial system takes over. I have people searching the records.
Mr GILES: By several, can you me a rough number?
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is several. Again, did you at any stage consult with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch? A pretty simple question!
Mr GILES: We might move to the next amendment.
Dr Burns: Yes, we might.
Ms Lawrie: Why would you move on and not answer the question?
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 32 to 84 agreed to.
Clause 85:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendment 43.17. The purpose of this is to reinsert an offence contained in the current act, and also in the model legislation, omitted from this bill. Section 37(2) of the current act says:
Section 71(2) of the model legislation says:
Our purpose with this amendment is keeping with the 2003 act and the model legislation; reinserting what might be an oversight. Is there a reason it was taken out?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to give the reason, and I hope it is understood. Clause 85 of the bill contains a provision which makes it an offence to fail to ensure dangerous goods are transported safely. There is a defence if the defendant establishes he or she ensured the safe transport of the goods as far as reasonably practical. This would have a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment.
You propose inserting an additional provision into clause 85 which makes it an offence to contravene the act while being reckless if the contravention would endanger the safety of people, property, or the environment, and a similar penalty provision of 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment.
We decided not to pick up this catch-all offence; we wanted specific offences in this legislation. For example, our specific offences cover failing to comply with directions, failing to licence a vehicle or driver and failing to ensure safety. All our specific offences have the underlying aim of protecting persons, property, and the environment in light of the objects the bill, which states:
Importantly - and this is the crux of why we are not supporting you – a catch-all offence may create tension between other specific offences which have a lower penalty and, more particularly, offences in the Criminal Code which relate to causing harm to a person, damaging property, or environmental offences under other more appropriate regimes such as the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. There would be a tension between this catch-all and specific offences which sit within this and other legislation.
Mr GILES: Thank you. Could you explain to me how clause 85 is not a catch-all now?
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly. The concept we have in clause 85 is broadly around ensuring safety as far as is reasonably practical. Your proposed insertion is quite specific for different failures to comply, engaging conduct, endangering the safety, etcetera. We have put specific offences in those failures to comply. We have a broad offence in ensuring safety - the intent of this legislation – however, the specifics in failure to comply you are proposing as a catch-all, we have dealt with as specific offences.
Further, my office has contacted the Australian Trucking Association Northern Territory Branch, which advises that there has been no consultation between you, or anyone representing you, and the Association regarding these committee stage amendments.
Mr GILES: I do not believe you fully understood the reason I am asking these questions. It is not for political reasons; it is to ensure we have sound legislation. Often in the committee stages people do not fully understand what they are talking about. We have a Committee section on Level 3, and no one seems to know what they do. It is important for us, and me, to ensure we understand what we are doing.
I asked you a question; you finished it off with a very smart undertone. That is all well and good; I have broad shoulders. I do not understand - and I am happy for you to explain so I understand and support it - how your current clause 85 in the bill is not a catch-all as opposed to number 3? I want to know how it is not a catch-all. Could you explain it so any reasonable person can understand?
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 85 provides a catch-all to ensure the intent of the legislation, the transport of dangerous goods safely, occurs. It enshrines what this legislation is about. Your catch-all goes to failures to comply, not the broad transport goods safely and if you do not, you will cop this. The specific failures to comply, which your catch-all goes to, are contained within specific sanctions provided for in the bill, with specific penalties against them. If you apply a catch-all, as proposed by you in clause 85, there is tension between the specific failures to comply and the catch-all.
Some of the specific failures to comply, such as failure to comply with a direction to stop the vehicle, have a different penalty unit and provisions to what you are proposing. Your catch-all would capture a failure to comply with the direction to stop a vehicle. If we were to insert your proposed amendment, this catch-all would apply the 400 penalty units and the penalty of imprisonment for two years. Your catch-all would capture a failure to comply with the direction to stop the vehicle: 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment. However, there is a penalty around failure to comply to stop the vehicle in the legislation - we discussed it previously in debate. It has a penalty unit of 60 penalty units, and does not have a gaol provision.
If someone is driving a truck and they fail to comply with a direction to stop, what would you do? What call do you make if we were to adopt your proposed committee stage amendment? There is a tension between the legislation provision which says that 60 penalty units - which is in the ball park of what happens elsewhere in Australia - or your catch-all, which is 400 penalty units and potential two years’ gaol. There is a tension between the specific provisions within the legislation. Similarly, there is a tension between other penalties which could be applied under current legislation, such as waste management and pollution.
You come here as the shadow Transport minister proposing last minute committee stage amendments and you have not consulted the industry. You have not consulted with the peak body of the industry, the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch. That is a failure of duty on your behalf.
Mr GILES: Thank you for your wisdom. Under clause 85 of the bill, what happens if someone fails to stop a truck? What happens under this bill, as opposed to our amendments?
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 31, which is the failure to comply with the direction to stop a truck, would apply.
Mr GILES: Sixty penalty units for failing to stop a truck? Minister, our clause 85 amendment, the insertion of number (3), is from the model legislation. Does that mean your government believes the model legislation is wrong?
Ms LAWRIE: You obviously do not understand what happens in model legislation. Model legislation is created, and within the model legislation there are pathways jurisdictions choose to take for consistency - whichever aspect you take is consistent. We did not choose the lazy path, as some of the large jurisdictions did, saying: ‘We will not have specific provisions for specific failures to comply; we will have catch-alls. We will catch you for a broad range of things’. Because we are a very active transport of dangerous goods jurisdiction, we decided on specific penalties for specific breaches so we could engage industry in the detail saying if you do these things in the Territory these penalties apply, which is consistent with the ADG7, the model law.
What we have done is consistent with the model legislation and contained within it. We did not pick up the catch-alls because there was tension between our specific provisions contained within the model legislation, which we have led today.
Mr GILES: Minister, you raised two big, lazy jurisdictions. Who are those two big, lazy jurisdictions?
Ms LAWRIE: I am dealing with our legislation; you are proposing amendments you have not consulted with industry on. How embarrassing for you.
Mr GILES: Who are those two big, lazy jurisdictions? Have you told your Labor colleagues in those jurisdictions they are lazy?
Ms LAWRIE: You are assuming it does not include Western Australia.
Mr GILES: Who are those two lazy jurisdictions?
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Braitling has asked a question on the basis of material introduced by the Attorney-General. I ask you direct the Attorney-General to answer the question.
Ms LAWRIE: I am on my feet to answer so there is no direction required.
Madam CHAIR: If we could pause for a moment while I confer with the Clerk. With all due respect, the member for Braitling has asked the minister questions which have not been answered. The minister is about to address the issue.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a view on who is lazy and who is not; we are not lazy in the Territory. We go into the detail of the legislation, pull out the specific provisions, the penalties, the offences; we liaise with industry, small and large, the peak bodies, committees – you have done nothing.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, you will be aware the Attorney-General has not answered the question. She said there were two, big, lazy jurisdictions. I ask you to invite the Attorney-General to answer that question.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, it is not my role to direct the minister how to answer questions.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I have a question for the Attorney-General.
Given your comments there are two, big, lazy jurisdictions, and given Labor’s traditional, although not recent, disinclination to rat on mates, could you enlighten us by ruling out some jurisdictions. Was it Victoria and New South Wales, Attorney-General?
Ms LAWRIE: The debate by the member for Araluen is a nonsense. What has occurred in this Chamber is the opposition has been found wanting. It brought into debate committee stage amendments without going anywhere near the industry affected – sheer arrogance.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, one final question.
Madam CHAIR: One final question because it is midday, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, is your reluctance to name those big, lazy jurisdictions in any way related to not wanting to create a controversial headline during a federal election campaign?
Ms LAWRIE: You are wrong.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, being midday we will now suspend.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I ask we pass this legislation. We have concluded the committee stage debate; we can proceed with the legislation.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, do you have further questions?
Mr GILES: Yes, I do.
Madam CHAIR: In that case we will be suspending …
Ms LAWRIE: I seek clarification of what other questions you have. We have exhausted …
Ms CARNEY: That is out of order, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is my legislation; I am able to ask what other questions you have.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, could we have an indication of how many questions you have?
Mr GILES: No.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will be suspending committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE: Why would we not be dealing with the committee stage now? Do we have another 10 minutes, because we do go 10 minutes in?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair …
Madam CHAIR: Please pause. We have a Public Accounts Committee meeting scheduled, minister, which I am required to attend.
Ms CARNEY: If I could very briefly respond. The member for Braitling, in his capacity of scrutinising this bill, is allowed the advantage of considering the Attorney-General’s answers over the luncheon adjournment. There seems to be …
Ms Lawrie: So he can call ….
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms CARNEY: There seems to be some suggestion the member for Braitling should not be able to further pursue this matter. We resent that suggestion, and I make that comment in light of the Attorney-General’s comments …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! That is because the member for Braitling might want to call a few people and do a quick consultation.
Ms Carney: Ask them if they were the big, lazy Labor jurisdictions.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Honourable members, it is after midday, I am suspending committee; it will resume following Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move chairs?
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment we are proposing to clause 85 is no more than the current act, and no less than provided in section 71 of the model legislation. Minister, please give reasons why your government will not support an amendment which will provide greater protection to the environment, to property and to Territorians?
Ms LAWRIE: The entire bill is about greater protection to the environment, to Territorians and greater protection in the transport of dangerous goods.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, the definitions talk about some goods which are considered too dangerous to be transported by road. What kind of goods are these?
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is the goods will be defined either within the regulations or the code.
Ms PURICK: Assuming there are goods - there must be if it is referenced - if they are too dangerous to transport by road and the Territory needs these products, how will they be transported into and around the Territory?
Ms LAWRIE: Regulations and codes provide how dangerous goods would be transported. Rail is sometimes considered a more appropriate form of transport, when available, than road, depending on the goods. Any dangerous goods have a series of requirements as to how they are transported, including how they are marked, handled, and what sort of containers they are in. Those normal procedures would apply.
Ms PURICK: Thank you. Is it not true, when there was a cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway three or four years ago, no prosecutions were carried out because the office of WorkSafe bungled the investigation into the spill?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not true.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I beg to differ. What is the reason no prosecutions were pursued regarding that incident?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised transport of the goods did not breach the licensing requirements.
Ms PURICK: Minister, you may have been the minister at the time - I am not sure. A few years ago the government commissioned a study into what commodities considered hazardous and/or dangerous are transported into the Territory, and in what volumes. I do not recall a report being made public. Are you able to provide details - you may need to take this on notice - of exactly what dangerous and/or hazardous materials are transported into the Territory by road and rail, and in what quantities? For example, copper sulphate - the member for Barkly has trouble understanding the difference between that and copper sulphide - petroleum products; the range of chemicals used in the mining industry; the range of chemicals used at ConocoPhillips plant; the helium plant; petroleum products; lubricants and fuels. There are probably more than 50 products.
The government commissioned a research report. For Country Liberals’ members to fully explain the nature of this legislation to our electorates, albeit national uniformity, we need to highlight the kind of commodities which are brought into the Northern Territory. Are you able to give information on that report; will it be made public?
Ms LAWRIE: I am able to advise the list of goods too dangerous to be transported appears as Appendix A to ADG7. I have the full list and am happy to provide you with a copy.
Regarding investigations into incidences of dangerous goods spillages in the Territory - and there have been several, and they have been raised in debate - on every occasion reports have recommended the adoption of ADG7. We have that before us at the moment.
Ms PURICK: Clause 13(2)(a) says:
How do you define: apparently physically fit? How will the government apply ‘apparently mentally fit’? What does it mean? It is very subjective. Who is going to judge whether a driver is physically and mentally fit? If a government official deems they are not physically fit, what right of appeal does a driver or business have?
Ms LAWRIE: Clearly, ‘apparent’ is a subjective term. Argument on whether the person is physically or mentally fit could be led at the time. All companies which transport dangerous goods have checks within the system and if a transport inspector was concerned about the physical or mental fitness of a person transporting the goods, he would raise it and those arguments could be led.
Mr GILES: Minister, earlier in debate you referred to several lazy jurisdictions. I am wondering whether you had a chance to recollect which jurisdictions they were.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to reflect ad nauseum on how lazy you have been in not consulting.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, to question the minister again. I presume you mean Victoria because of the way they approached the legislation. Can you confirm that is what you were thinking? You have taken a middle-of-the-road approach and you took Victoria as being one of the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I call relevance on this one. We are debating very specific amendments to this legislation and the member has strayed far beyond that unless he can demonstrate relevance to the specific amendment we are discussing.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Braitling, can we focus on the amendments before us? It is my recollection you asked this question of the minister prior to the suspension. She is of the view she has answered your question.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. It was relevant because the minister brought it into the debate. Also, the minister did not answer the question. Perhaps you, as Chair …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, you have asked the question several times. The Attorney-General has addressed your question. I cannot direct her to give the answer you would like to hear; we seem to be at a stalemate. Do you wish to proceed with further questions?
Mr GILES: I would like to know if the government has a policy. It was mentioned several times they have a middle-of-the-road policy, not a lazy jurisdictional policy, and not a show-stopper policy. I would like to know the lazy jurisdictions. However, I will move on for the sake of these amendments, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: We are putting your motion. The question is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. The noes have it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I believe we need a division. One government minister said ‘aye’ and one said ‘no’; so we need a division.
Madam CHAIR: Is a division supported? A division is called. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: You are not allowed in here, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, standing orders …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House.
Mr TOLLNER: Standing orders …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House for a day. You are not allowed in committees or in the Chamber.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, you are suspended.
Dr Burns: Call the Serjeant-at-Arms.
Mrs AAGAARD: Member for Fong Lim, neither you nor the member for Port Darwin is allowed in the Chamber, or any of the galleries, or any committee meetings.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw! You are suspended from the Chamber. You are suspended from the Chamber, member for Fong Lim.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: You have been suspended.
The question is that the amendments as moved by the member for Braitling be agreed to.
The committee divided.
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Ms Carney Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any ministerial statements? Minister for Education and Training.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Did I miss my chance to speak? I was standing up for the third reading?
Madam SPEAKER: We have passed the bill, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: I was standing here for some time.
Madam SPEAKER: No one was standing when I looked around.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, education was neglected for decades under the CLP, especially when it came to infrastructure. In contrast Labor, the government since 2001, has invested heavily in school infrastructure. The Territory government has spent well over $500m on school infrastructure since 2001, and we have a long way to go to bring all schools up to a high standard. In remote communities we have built new schools, new secondary education facilities and teacher housing. We have also built new schools to meet the needs of our growing urban communities, and are continually upgrading schools and keeping others well maintained and in good repair. Our current program of works for 2008 to 2012 amounts to $246m, and is the Territory’s single largest school infrastructure program. We will deliver better facilities for our students and teachers across the Territory.
Despite these record spends we know we have much to do in order to provide excellent school facilities for all Territory children. That is why this government embraced the Australian government stimulus package, which included the Building the Education Revolution program. These programs have delivered $205m-worth of infrastructure to Northern Territory government school communities, and $65m for non-government schools. It defies belief that the CLP opposition, in keeping with the Liberal-National Party coalition, still maintains its position of opposing BER spending and their threat to curtail it if given the chance.
Apart from the great educational benefits which will be enjoyed by young Territorians for years to come, this funding has also supported Territory businesses during the biggest global downturn for 75 years. The Territory is fortunate to have in Damian Hale a strong champion of the national stimulus programs which have, in total, delivered $574m to the Territory.
The BER is an important core component of the national stimulus which will help build a sustainable future for the Territory. It will continue to support infrastructure, economic growth and jobs for Territorians for years to come.
In February 2009, the Australian government announced its $42bn national building jobs plan and stimulus package. Its strategic intent was to minimise expected decline in Australian economic growth due to the global financial crisis.
Funding to the Territory came through various national partnerships, including the Building the Education Revolution, which has provided a total of $205m for government schools in the Northern Territory and $64m for non-government schools. This infrastructure investment includes new and enhanced facilities at Northern Territory government schools, as well as new and refurbished school infrastructure for non-government schools.
According to the BER guidelines, the Australian government aims were to first, provide economic stimulus through the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure and, second, build learning environments to help children, families and communities participate in activities which will support achievement, develop learning potential, and bring communities together. To achieve these aims the Northern Territory government has aligned public sector resources, prioritised getting works out to the market, engaged with industry and streamlined processes to deliver schools infrastructure on a magnitude never imagined and never previously undertaken in our history of self-government.
Already, $135m has been delivered into our economy, and there is more to come as construction continues across Territory primary schools. Many builders have reported without this funding they would not have survived the global financial crisis.
The government school stimulus alone has provided work for 113 consultancies, engineers, project managers, architects, all valued at $14.5m. Already, 64 construction projects have been let valued at around $170m. More than 520 local companies have received benefit from debt stimulus, and 213 apprentices have been engaged, 58 of whom are Indigenous.
The volume of work to be coordinated concurrently across schools in the Northern Territory is unprecedented. There are currently 133 schools with projects under construction, 44 of which have reached practical completion and are being utilised by the schools. These projects have been delivered on time, in budget, and to the delight of teachers, children, and school communities. Some of these will be detailed in case studies later in this statement.
To begin to tell the BER story, there are three parts to the school stimulus package. The Northern Territory successfully attracted funding for all three. First, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, otherwise known as P21, designed to build or refurbish large scale infrastructure in primary schools, primary to Year 12 schools, and in special schools. This could include libraries, halls, indoor sporting centres, or other multipurpose facilities. The Northern Territory secured $173.05m for 134 government schools, and $50.1m for 30 non-government schools.
The second part is the Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools – SLC - a bid-based process to build science laboratories or language learning centres in secondary schools. This program has provided $15.76m for eight Territory government schools, and a further $9.3m for six non-government secondary schools.
The third part is the National School Pride, or NSP, to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor infrastructure in all schools. $15.77m was allocated to 150 government schools, and $4.475m for 36 non-government schools.
For our 186 government and non-government schools spread over 1.5 million km, the benefits have been extraordinary and the response from our building and construction industry commendable. The size and reach of the BER required good administrative and project management processes to effectively and efficiently manage a program of such scale, complexity, geographic distribution, and urgency. It required an enormous up-front effort from the mums and dads and brothers and sisters involved in helping design buildings. The commitment to deliver on the part of contractors, subcontractors, and apprentices has been extraordinary and is ongoing.
The magnitude of the undertaking and the time lines set down by the Australian government to ensure rapid economic stimulus have created a unique set of circumstances with challenges across every area of management. Some of the challenges include achieving the time lines to all Primary Schools for the 21st Century Round 1 projects mobilised in a very short time. This meant decisions being made quickly, including consideration of options by the school community.
Rounds 2 and 3 followed soon after. School communities and principals met the challenge and worked diligently through the choices and options for libraries, halls, indoor sporting centres, or other multipurpose facilities and refurbishments. The fast approaching Wet Season was an added challenge for the Territory to contend with, particularly in remote areas where gaining access would inevitably cause delays.
While the economic stimulus objective required the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure, school communities had no difficulty in choosing projects which would improve learning environments to help children, families, and communities. School communities were actively engaged in the process of determining priorities, with school leaders highly influential in the design outcome.
The success of the BER in the Territory is largely attributed to the principals’ and school councils’ effective decision-making which enabled the program to stay on track and achieve the economic stimulus objective. With industry, schools, and government working closely together many of the initial challenges and obstacles were able to be overcome, allowing the first tender for the P21 projects in government schools to be advertised and awarded in June 2009, just four months after the announcement of the BER program.
In addition to the major primary school projects, there were also small projects funded under the National School Pride category which were successfully managed by principals and school councils - and we are talking about mums and dads. The projects under this category are, for the most part, completed and used every day by children and teachers in our schools. The outcomes are many and varied and include landscaping, fencing, shade and recreation facilities, classroom enhancements, painting, plastering, concreting, signage, carpeting, security upgrades, and many general refurbishments for our schools.
The Territory was also successful in securing $25m for science and language centres for eight government schools and six non-government schools. The funding conditions for this category required states and territories to submit a competitive bid, and the result for the Northern Territory exceeded our expectations. This initiative will have a profound impact on the educational opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged students in the Northern Territory.
Every science and language centre project is a welcome addition to our schools infrastructure. Completed projects to date include: a new 21st century language centre at Centralian Middle School; the Territory’s first sports science centre at Katherine School; a recently opened science centre at Tennant Creek High School; and science centres in Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, and Milingimbi schools due for completion by December.
Value for money in BER has been the subject of comment in the context of a federal election. The Australian government responded by establishing a BER task force. Complaints to the task force related to only 2.7% of the 9000 BER projects being rolled out across the nation. It is worth noting in the Northern Territory, the task force received only two minor complaints for which they decided no further action was required. It would seem one of the few manifestations of complaint was from the member for Braitling. He has denied he specifically named Larrakeyah School in an article in The Australian on 16 June. I quote:
I have a question for the member for ‘Praitling’ I will call him: what school hall were you referring to, member for Braitling. You say you were not referring to Larrakeyah. Which one were you referring to? I expect you to substantiate your claim when you speak. I will be listening very carefully because the inference drawn by the journalist was it was Larrakeyah Primary School.
Larrakeyah Primary School is justly proud of the infrastructure built under BER. Not only has it been an extension of their school hall and a full fit-out of their canteen, five classrooms have been refurbished, with some additional classrooms. Covered structures throughout the school and fencing works have been completed with the several million dollars spent on that school. It is wrong for anyone, even if it was not the member for Braitling, to infer you can build a McDonalds for less - for $1m. We are talking chalk and cheese - a fast food outlet. We are talking about fitting out an educational institution. The opposition needs to substantiate which parts of the BER in the Northern Territory they do not support. That is the challenge.
I will skip some of my statement because it dealt specifically with Larrakeyah. The Prime Minister, when Education minister, said in relation to the Larrakeyah School BER as follows, and I quote:
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. It is a ministerial statement, I am sure it is important.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum; ring the bells, please. Thank you, we have a quorum. You have the call, minister.
Dr BURNS: Thank you. I will continue with the quote from the Prime Minister when she was Education minister:
I have a photo of the project at Larrakeyah, a lovely development. I will table the photo for the benefit of members. I will be interested in what the member for Port Darwin has to say on this - whether he is supports it. Is he a supporter of this great project in his electorate? It looks beautiful, and I am sure the kids, teachers and school community love it. One would hope the member for Port Darwin would be magnanimous enough to say he likes it.
I am also interested to hear what the member for Braitling has to say - there is more; there are three photos – and which school hall project in the Northern Territory was not value for money.
We believe we are achieving value for money by having an effective framework for assessing value for money. The BER remains true to its origin as an economic stimulus through the integral involvement of the private sector wherever possible. Private sector project managers have been engaged to manage the construction of Primary Schools for the 21st Century and some science and language centres projects in schools. Implementation includes the establishment of a system of governance, communication, consultation and project management to deliver the P21 and SLC’s project. Industry input and cooperation was crucial in the development and effective delivery of the works.
The Department of Education and Training is responsible for administration of the BER program on behalf of public schools in the Northern Territory, an internal BER infrastructure team partnered with the Department of Construction and Infrastructure to manage and drive the initiative. Furthermore, the Northern Territory government has utilised existing project procurement legislation, regulation and policy to ensure accountability, local participation, and value for money from government investment under the BER program. These procedures are widely recognised by both government and industry as being transparent and accountable processes which are tested through various internal and external audit means.
These include the Northern Territory Procurement Act 1995; Northern Territory Procurement Directions; selection methodology based on value for money assessment which included attributes such as past experience and expertise, timeliness, capacity, including local participation; and Indigenous employment and training; financial delegations; Northern Territory Procurement Review Board; contract and procurement services; contract document agency; panel contracts; hard money contracts, and design and construct contracts.
The Northern Territory procurement process ensured equitable competition for contractors and value for money approach in accordance with our procurement framework. Qualified, experienced and independent quantity surveyors were engaged to evaluate each project and provide estimates of project costs. Where DET and DCI are not satisfied that the tenders have demonstrated value for money, the tender has been withdrawn for reissue at a later date. Ultimately, the success of the program is measured by the children and teachers who are the beneficiaries of these buildings, which in the NT are not simply halls, classrooms and shade structures. They are exciting, modern, multipurpose teaching and learning environments, and some outdoor spaces for sports and play. Many are indoor, air-conditioned spaces fit for a range of activities from daycare to preschool to after-school care use.
The education story, the BER, is about Northern Territory schools and what has been achieved to increase teaching and learning facilities to enhance our schools.
There are some very special stories such as Millner Primary School, which happens to be in the electorate of Johnston. This school community has achieved quite a bit; here is a photo of the solar array. This school is interested in reducing greenhouse gases and providing sustainability. They had already undertaken a number of projects before I became member for the area; this is an extension of what they have been doing. The whole school is behind it; it is a learning exercise as well as an environmental exercise, and I commend the school. It received $2m funding for a multipurpose hall.
The multipurpose hall turned out to include the construction of a solar outdoor learning facility, including cover over the existing basketball court. The project involved installation of a 100.8 kW solar voltaic system. The solar outdoor learning facility will supply Millner school with 150 000 kW hours of renewable energy each year. This will reduce the school’s green house gas emissions - and I am sure the member for Brennan is interested in this - by 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Congratulations to Millner school for that very innovative program.
The project was designed to be a learning experience for the students attending the school, as well as providing an excursion opportunity for other students. Features to support learning include a viewing platform and interactive display, which will provide both static and graphic displays to tell the story of the solar array. The storyboard will provide information on the development and operation of the system as well as benefits to the school.
In closing, it is appropriate to acknowledge the Northern Territory has benefited enormously from the visionary thinking of the Australian government over the past few years. The federal and Territory opposition parties are on record as not supporting the national stimulus package and, consequently, the BER. I extend a challenge to each member of the opposition to consider the schools in their electorate - and I have a list of projects by electorate close by me - and I will be listening very carefully to the responses by members of the opposition. I ask them to consider the schools in their electorate, to consider the BER projects being completed or under way, and identify and make public those projects they believe should not have happened. The BER will be remembered for its vision and the benefits it has afforded Australian children.
One thing I omitted was the report tabled nationally on the BER which I mentioned briefly in the statement. I was interested to read the report on the Northern Territory, and was particularly pleased to see our administration costs on the program are the second lowest in the nation. I believe they were running at 9%, and the lowest in the nation was around 8%. We have pared our administration costs for this project right down. I commend all those officers, contractors and consultants involved in this project.
One aspect I mentioned earlier today was square metre costing for the Territory in remote areas; they are on the high side of the scale compared to other jurisdictions. It is difficult building in remote areas and those costs were quite acceptable; an average cost put there. Given the diversity of the Northern Territory, both geographically and climatically, and the difficulties in carrying out projects in remote areas, all projects represent value for money.
As well as providing a much needed stimulus to the economy which has saved businesses, jobs and strengthened our economic future, the targeting of education as a beneficiary of this investment has hailed a new era in education which will benefit all Territory schoolchildren for many years to come. The substantial investment in government infrastructure on the part of Territory Labor governments since 2001 has received a fantastic boost with the huge investment from the Australian Labor government.
I congratulate those involved in the successful implementation of this massive program, including principals, school councils and businesses alike. It is enough to say 40 000 Territory schoolchildren will now enjoy a bright future through learning experiences in wonderful new facilities provided by the BER and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for Education for bringing forward this statement today to discuss the Building the Education Revolution. The slogan is of real concern because it assumes this is about education when, in fact, it is about a building program, and education occurs within that infrastructure.
It is a cleverly crafted slogan to convey a message which can be placed on a billboard in front of a school to give people a good feeling. I visited 30-plus schools and, having worked in schools and been a principal for 10 years, if you were offered money to build something in your school you would be delighted. Every one of those school communities was delighted at the opportunity and it would be inconceivable to not recognise that.
The way it has worked in the Northern Territory compared to other states has been better. It is because of the closer relationship between the decision-maker, the administration through the department of Education and, most importantly, the connection between the principal and the school council. That has resulted in the program providing something for those schools which is pretty exciting. No adult, no child, will have a negative view about the opportunity to build something in the school; it is human nature. It is the easiest thing to do and receive immediate applause for.
While it has been called the Education Revolution, you have to dig a little deeper to ensure the things which occur within the school will improve standards, attendance, and so on.
Before going down that path, the program itself had significant flaws because it was founded on an idea which allowed a message to be put on a billboard at the front of schools; the reason being the global financial crisis. I believe the light went on: ‘That is a really good idea; we will give money to school communities’. As Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister, said when it came to benefits for senior citizens: ‘There is no point doing that because they do not vote for us’.
There might have been the reverse discussion behind the scenes: ‘What a great idea; they will vote for us because it so attractive. Not only that, we can put signs up which will stay for some time, and that is where most voting takes place. We will get them up early and create that impression. It is as though all the political planets have aligned and we have a pearler here’.
The current Prime Minister would have said: ‘That is a really good idea’, and away they went. It ticked all the boxes. Maybe they got political goose bumps and thought: ‘What a ripper! How fortunate the cupboard is full’. The cupboard was not bare because there had been a conservative government in power who knew how to save and clear debt. They had the money. They could withdraw from the bank because the money was there; they could spend it on schools, put those signs up, create the impression and be applauded because they were the goodies; they are spending money and the other guys were putting it aside for a rainy day - those nasty conservatives. The wonderful lefties can do all this and everyone is happy.
As a community leader, you have to tell the whole story. If I had said to my kids: ‘Let us sell all our assets; let us take all the money and have the best holiday ever’, the kids would have loved me for a short time. However, later, when they needed a deposit for their house, and I would say: ‘Remember when we went to Disneyland; that was your deposit’.
There is another element to this which needs attending to, and those comments reflect on the political nature and construct of the program itself. It is a point in time, however time continues. When those signs come down we want to know within those schools there was genuinely an education revolution which can be measured not in infrastructure, but in better spelling, reading, science aptitude and a whole range of things. Ultimately, their capacity to engage in the economic activity in the Northern Territory is where it will really be measured. I remember being at school when money was given for science labs all around the country, which was exciting. However, I do not remember much of what changed in the teaching of chemistry or physics. That is the point of the exercise, and we do not hear that in the minister’s statement. It talks about the program and the infrastructure. You cannot put a sign on a program; you can on a building. That is why this was so exciting for Education minister, Julia Gillard.
There is no unified system for gauging the existing resource level of our Northern Territory schools. Schools were given a range of options and could pick this, that or the other. What happens in a school is if you want one of those, three of those or two of these, you pick from whatever is on offer. This tells us there is no unified or deeper analysis of the existing resource level of our schools. That needs to occur. Sadly, if resourcing issues emerge in the future there will be no money to pay for them; it has already been spent. This leads to the question of whether we did get value for money.
The program was largely constructed through a political prism, and that is how it was viewed. It is seen as a political thing; any criticism is seen in a political context, however the truth is it was about education and if, in time to come, there needs to be a response in education, there will not be that capacity because it has been exhausted. This is because the question was not asked of the school community. Granted there was a good level of communication and coordination in the decision-making process at the school level in the Territory. However, the question needs to be asked: ‘What does this school community need in order to enhance and improve its educational performance?’ There is a fund to meet that need. They would then have some freedom to consider how they could invest in their school community to improve education outcomes.
If they were asked that question we could have had greater value for money. The real value coming in education standards and results, and the school community having its thinking centred around education rather than: will it be a shade structure; will it be air-conditioning; will it be a gym, a library? I visited schools which said: ‘We have a library and we have another library now. We are unsure what to do with the old library, however, we will make good use of the new one’.
Having spent time in Palmerston where we have experienced extraordinary growth in the schools, particularly Bakewell Primary School - I was at its opening – it has been full from the beginning; there has been no room for extra breakout areas. Much of the last 11 years has seen kids on the stage. When I go to the northern suburbs I see schools with space because the population has reduced and there is room everywhere. Yet, they were asked: ‘Do you need a library? Do you need a this or a that?’ The truth was: ‘Not really, however, since you are offering a brand new thing, we will have one of those, thank you very much’. If you ask those schools: ‘What do you need in order to improve your education outcomes?’, you would have a different question and a different process.
That is the point about value and I do not believe you can argue against it. You will argue and justify your position by saying: ‘It was a global financial crisis. We had to act swiftly. We could not go down that path’. Have that argument if you wish, however, if you are genuine you could have asked the other question and provided the flexibility if you had the autonomy in the Territory to ask questions of school communities and allow them to consider a different question.
There is an increasingly serious danger in the Northern Territory of having another generation of Indigenous kids divided from the mainstream because, from the ages of five to 17, they have not acquired the necessary education for a future of employment, pride and accomplishment and better than basic income. Before we climb on political horses this point needs a response. You have to ask: is the building of infrastructure, welcome though it is - particularly in some places - going to result in a change to the problem we see? Is it, or is it not?
I will be looking at not so much if the kids have a good feeling about using the new facilities, whether the staff enjoy the new space, whether it is good having an air-conditioned assembly or not – they are fine, they will all have a good feeling about it – the education results, the standards, are being achieved or not. Are more kids going to school? Are they learning? Are more kids going through VET training and being gainfully employed? They are the questions which need to be pursued if you are genuine about education, because this is a building program.
Did we get value for money? We can talk about whether these facilities were over-priced - probably. When you flood any system with this amount of money it may cause prices to rise; there is evidence of that. Was there rorting in the system? In the Territory, we do not know. A higher price was paid in a number of cases than normal if it were a one-off - in a normal marketplace. The market was overstimulated by a flood of cash which resulted in distortion to the normal flow of the marketplace. The question about the value for money is whether it is a building here or a building there. The real value is about education itself, and that is the question we have to ask.
Report 2 from the NT Coordinator-General, Mr Bob Beadman, states:
What has been quoted from Mr Beadman is where the hard stuff comes in. It is easy to build something, I know they enjoy it, and some of those schools needed improved facilities, however this is the hard stuff. How are you going to deal with that? It is easy to build something but hard to change people’s behaviour and attitude. This is a requirement we have as community leaders. If we are truly a minister for Education, or a government which takes education seriously, it is about changing behaviour, not the funding of programs, not the building of buildings; they are separate. We want real change which is measurable in people’s lives.
He makes a good point. That is what we need to reflect on. This does not stop with the early years. The report gives an example of the dire consequences from the Tiwi Islands Training and Employment Board. This is the real thing. We have a dedicated classroom, fully equipped with a network of computers, a lecturer, a Tiwi support officer who acts as an interpreter, and a Tiwi liaison officer to pick up students and take them home. We also provide breakfast and morning and afternoon tea, and we have a capacity to train 20 students.
If you put the full stop there it is fantastic; you could describe it as a really good program. You could make it the subject of a speech in parliament, or a dorothy dixer. Is that not fantastic? You have a support officer, an interpreter, a liaison officer, the kids are picked up from home, taken to the school, they are getting breakfast and afternoon tea and they have capacity for 20. Is that not great? Great program! So far this year we have had a maximum of five students. You funded the program, but there are only five students and attendance is spasmodic. Anyone who has worked in a school knows you need consistent attendance. It could be any one of those 20 turning up. You could have one turn up one day, and another the next; it is a complete churn and you have no chance of making effective inroads in to that kid’s education. They have to attend regularly. If they say five and it is spasmodic it could be any one on any day; not the same five. That is the challenge if you want to genuinely build an education revolution.
Mr Beadman goes on to say:
There is an option of doing nothing. I remember going to one of the communities - I will not name it - where they kept us in the office and told us what they needed in the community. When I turned the discussion to the school they said: if only they had a more interesting curriculum, better teachers, this kind of program running, they would have more kids go to school. The member for Macdonnell will know which school I am referring to. Whilst speaking to the police officer the bell rang. I said: ‘What is that?’ He said: ‘That is the school bell ringing. That is the first time I have heard it for a long time’. The bell was ringing because there was a parliamentary committee in town. I asked to look at the school; they were not comfortable with that because there were only a few kids wandering around a large well-appointed school.
Do I believe if we had better programs, more interesting teachers, and a more interesting curriculum, more kids would go to school? Bunkum! You cannot keep giving; you have to reach a point where there is a requirement and consequence for not sending your kid to school. That is the type of education revolution we need: a change of behaviour and a sanction for condoning child neglect. That is the hard stuff. I could have said: ‘Oh, you poor things, let us build something else’. There is much investment which would be the pride of a number of schools. It was not the facility; the attitude of the school community needs to be addressed - that is the hard stuff.
We have to get kids to school. One day we will have a serious commitment where you cannot put a big sign up and say: ‘We are serious about this’. You will see it on the roll books, in the results, and in the lives of kids. We are not talking about a handful of students in remote schools; up to 5000 kids are estimated to attend school irregularly. It is a serious issue even in some of our urban schools. Irregular attendance is not the same kids not turning up from time to time, it is churning through. If you have any consistent approach to your curriculum, you cannot deliver education if the kids miss out on chunks.
There is also the retention and turnover of teaching staff. Again, how useful is it to have bricks and mortar and an inability to retain a teacher? This is the core business. How are you going to inspire those teachers and hold them to invest in kids lives? That is the real challenge. We can say at least we have some infrastructure in place; that is the easy stuff. The harder part is what we should be attending to, and we need to see progress here. Of the teachers recruited in the Indigenous Education Agreement Program, 60% stayed in the financial year 2009-10. Only 60% of those recruited stayed; 40% did not.
We have already heard of the desperate need for a proper school library at Taminmin College, the biggest high school in the Northern Territory with 1240 kids. That question could have been answered if you asked the system: what do you need in order to improve your education outcomes. There is no point building a library without ensuring you have resourced, trained librarians. You have to put the capacity in the building. The building is not the education; education happens in the building. The Campaign for Quality School Librarians website makes the following point:
Is that a concern? Absolutely! It is a building, the building houses a library, and a library needs someone qualified to ensure the books help kids learn to read. You can say: ‘We have the library; is that not nice?’ That is not it; the books need to be read, the kids need to attend school to learn to read, they need to develop a love for reading. That is the investment in the teacher. You cannot put big signs up in front of school about that; you have to do something else. That is what is required and the real challenge is now.
We have had a big reshuffle in the Northern Territory. It was not called the Building the Education Revolution, it was middle schools. It was the biggest ever change in education in the Northern Territory. A ‘whole new era’ was probably the slogan. It was about education, however it was really about buses, buildings and reorganising how schools operate - what happens in the school. I remember the Education minister at the time, Syd Stirling, saying: ‘Yes, I know there is disruption, however, it will settle down and, mark my words, we are going to see the results improve. Bear with us, the results will improve’.
This is 2010 and we have seen no evidence. For all that disruption, all that change, all that movement, all that talk about curriculum, we have not seen results improve and, after all, that is what it is about. You can have motion, movement, different uniforms, different constructs, but if the curriculum and the capacity of teachers and kids attending school does not mean better results, what is it all for? It is not for much at all. They may have had any one of those three funding streams available to them. They may have built a new language centre, but is the language centre used to improve results?
When it comes to value for money, the tendered amount for a total of 16 schools was $17 431 099; the final cost came in at $20 486 566. The lefties would probably think: ‘That is not much’. Fortunately the conservatives were in power and had money put aside. ‘That is only a 17.5% increase. Anyway the kids loved it. It was really good’. You have to live within your budget; that is a blowout on the tendered cost by 17.5%. You need to explain it, and accept it as an increase not a decrease. This is not to say you did not get something in your school the kids liked and the teachers appreciated; there have been some significant improvement in schools. That is more of a question for a Treasurer to take seriously; we have blown that out by 17.5%. This is where excess profits could possibly have been made by builders because the tender may have been inaccurate in the first place. Variations have been added to the original brief which should not have been originally omitted. A strict approval process should have been in place for all variations. Why do you have a 17.5% increase?
Explanatory notes provided with details of completed projects include the comment:
There should have been a strict limit of no more than 5%, not 17.5%. That is an issue of management of the program which sits in the context of my earlier comment on the way it was operated in the Northern Territory.
I know our community is well connected. I know those who have been contracted to work in schools often have a relationship to the school community. However, the underlying issue is it is not an education revolution - it is a building program. It is a program which could have been crafted in a different way, which would have allowed the school community, which works well in the Territory, to ask a different question which could have resulted in a focusing of resource areas to improve results in children’s attendance, in their reading, in their maths and, particularly, literacy and numeracy.
That is where we need to see an education revolution, and that cannot commence until we remind parents they have an obligation to send their kids to school - it is not optional. They have to send their kids to school. Government has an obligation to ensure schools are well resourced. In some cases there have been some improvements. There are some remote schools which greatly needed this investment.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. There are some schools which desperately need infrastructure improvement. The fact remains we still needs real work to change attitudes and provide a different level of leadership, which is going to be resisted in many quarters, requiring parental responsibility and ensuring governments provide qualified and accredited teachers. By ‘accredited’ I mean if working remote, they need to be prepared to work remote - they need cross-cultural training; they need to be able to serve in that community - and we do not have the level of turnover we currently experience.
There is nothing better than stability in school staffing; it feeds into the classroom and the whole community. When you have churn in the teaching cohort as well as irregular attendance, it makes for chaos. When we stabilise that we might make progress and look forward to the results coming through, and see marked improvement.
When we have results available nationally and compare system with system, as the current Prime Minister has done, we have to be honest. It is no good when a kid comes home with a bad report to say: ‘You have done really well; that is really good’. The kid thinks: ‘I thought I was going to be chided for this; mum and dad think it is okay’. Off they go thinking it was good, however in their heart they know it was not.
You do not want a government to say: ‘Our schools are going gangbusters; they are fantastic. Everyone is doing a wonderful job, and we are on a par with everyone else, like for like’. If that is not the case it is an irresponsible position to take. It may make people feel good but it is not the truth. I would prefer someone to say: ‘We have some challenges. We might be doing well nationally in Grade 3, 4, or whatever, but, by and large, we are behind, and this is what we will do to lift it. There is nothing wrong with our kids, nothing wrong with our teachers, we need to move in this direction then we will have that lift and see improvement’. That is the type of leadership required, not gloss over it and say everything is fantastic, which is what we have had from this government. That is misleading, and is not what you would do to your own children - telling your kids they have done well when they know they have not. You have to tell them the truth - take a hard stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the real building education revolution required which is harder than giving schools money to build nice things, putting a sign up out the front, opening it at an appropriate time and getting a round of applause. That is fine. There is another level of leadership required in the Territory and an opportunity waits. This government has had 10 years. The community is waiting for that leadership so there is change in education.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells, please.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! A member left the Chamber when you called quorum. They are not able to …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you need to stay.
Mr Mills: I thought it was government members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not; it is all members’ responsibility. Thank you, we have a quorum.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he has a passion for education - that has been consistent. However, I do not accept the assertions ministers for Education in the Labor government have pretended all is rosy in the garden of education in the Territory; that we do not have any challenges, and it is really about bricks and mortar, our focus is simply there. That is wrong.
The first minister for Education saw chronic under-resourcing in the delivery of education in the Territory, and took on the challenge of turning around the chronic under-resourcing and took on the challenge of bringing secondary education into remote areas of the Territory for the first time in decades. We have had successive ministers for Education bring to this Chamber debates on education which consistently say this is what we are trying to do in resourcing for teachers: learning programs such as the introduction of literacy and numeracy; a focus on skills; the accelerated literacy learning rolled out across schools; improving the number of teacher aides; increasing the number of teachers; putting smart technology into schools irrespective of whether students are urban, regional or remote; a whole comprehensive, multifaceted approach to improve the outcomes for the children of the Territory.
It is not just about bricks and mortar. I cannot say strongly enough how dedicated successive ministers for Education under Labor have been in the Territory in taking a holistic approach to improving the learning outcomes of our children, particularly focusing on the outcomes for Indigenous children because they have been the most disadvantaged over the decades. To hear such nonsense from the Leader of the Opposition is a shame because sometimes he tries to play a fair bat when it comes to education - not today.
This statement was specifically around the infrastructure, the single greatest investment in schools we have seen in the history of the Territory through the Building the Education Revolution funding, as a result of the federal government’s response to the global financial crisis. We have had many statements on education which focus on learning outcomes, on the increased resources for teachers. This statement focuses on how a stimulus package directed at schools can provide infrastructure which helps learning outcomes because the multiuser facilities schools are putting in are creating good learning spaces which enhance the opportunity for our children to be in a better environment to learn.
I might add that Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as federal Education minister, funded 200 additional teachers into the Northern Territory teaching system, and funded a whole raft of new government employee housing to provide housing for teachers in remote communities. She did it without fuss, without fanfare. She did it because it was the right thing to do, understanding if we have more teachers to deal with our disadvantaged we will, hopefully, achieve better education outcomes. That will take some time. This will not change overnight, however it took Julia Gillard as a federal Education minister, now Prime Minister, to recognise the specific needs in the Territory and to support them through all important resources.
The National Partnership on Low Socio-Economic School Communities delivered under Labor, under Julia Gillard as Education minister, is about providing additional funding targeted to the schools in resources to support the students who are most at need. Not just bricks and mortar: teachers, teacher aides, learning resources, a focus on programs such as accelerated literacy. They are real resources, real initiatives which have come about from a federal Labor Education minister, Julia Gillard, and our Prime Minister, because she understands the critical importance of education.
We cannot escape the debate in the Chamber today around providing legacy education infrastructure through a stimulus response to a global financial crisis. It was the right thing to do; the smart thing to do. To have the Leader of the Opposition draw an analogy between taking his kids on a holiday to Disneyland to constructing education infrastructure has to be one of the more bizarre analogies I have ever heard in my life. We are talking about modern school infrastructure to support and underpin the delivery of education. To draw a bizarre analogy he is going to spend his family’s money on a holiday to Disneyland is one of the strangest things I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
The federal Labor government’s response to the global financial crisis has been applauded independently by experts. It has been applauded as one of the best by one of the world’s top economists - the Nobel Prize Laureate and professor at New York’s Columbia University, Joseph Stiglitz, said Australia had:
Former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Bernie Fraser said:
It is a direct result of the swift, decisive action by the federal Labor government that ensured Australia is the only advanced economy not to have gone into recession, and it protected hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. Under the Coalition the stimulus would not have occurred, this good education infrastructure would not have been put in place, and hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost across our nation, including in the Territory. We would have seen businesses go to the wall, and it would have taken years to claw back economic recovery.
Our government welcomed the BER package. We understood the value to our economy. We understood it would ensure protecting and stimulating jobs in the Territory at a time when private investment had tightened up as those credit markets froze and then slowly recovered. We recognised the legacy it would leave for our education facilities; the opportunity for teachers and students to be using that legacy infrastructure.
The CLP was against the stimulus. Their member in the Senate voted against the upgrading of Territory schools - schools in their own electorates which stood to benefit. The CLP has no credibility on this subject.
Looking at some of the independent commentary again, Bernie Fraser, former Governor of the Reserve Bank, pointed out that the Coalition’s opposition to the stimulus package:
We have the CLP trotting out the same rhetoric, pretending there was no need for the stimulus ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum. Treasurer, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: In the Territory, the BER component of the stimulus package has already delivered $135m into our economy. That is flowing through to the pockets of the tradespeople constructing the facilities. In total, we will receive approximately $268m under the BER package. We extrapolate that out to being equivalent to 300 projects. We have seen the creation of 6000 new jobs in the last year alone. The architects, engineers, building firms, and the subcontractors know how critical this BER program has been in saving jobs. The Master Builders are wholly behind this stimulus. The Master Builders Association CEO, Graham Kemp, said: ‘We have been able to hold the construction industry intact in the Northern Territory to be ready for the bigger projects when they come on’.
There have been three elements to the program. First, a National School Pride program which delivered important minor new works like shade facilities, painting, and upgrades. They were used to lift and refurbish our schools. We saw 132 schools receive minor upgrades worth a total of $14.87m. These works have supported the local tradies and small businesses. Talk about pride, listening to the school councils they are so proud of the improvements delivered to their schools. If you expect a child to put in the extra effort learning ensure they have a decent facility, and minor new works is critically important to that. The program worked hand-in-hand with our own government’s commitment to upgrade primary and group schools across the Territory. We have been rolling that election commitment out hand-in-hand with the stimulus funding.
The second element was the Primary Schools for the 21st Century. It includes new classrooms, multipurpose halls, resource centres and libraries, administration and other facilities across our schools. Forty schools are already enjoying new infrastructure. They have new classrooms, new multipurpose halls, libraries and resource centres. There are 95 major school works under way at various stages of construction throughout the Territory, and six have been finalised to go to tender. We estimate there are approximately 101 projects at risk if Tony Abbott gets his way and slashes this all-important program.
Jobs are at risk; schools will literally miss out. The Territory will lose an opportunity to build this all important legacy infrastructure, a one-time opportunity delivered by a federal Labor government. The BER is also delivering science and language centres worth $25m in the Territory. This initiative will have a profound impact on educational opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged students in the Territory. There are five science and language centres currently under construction, and an additional three have been completed. We have delivered a new language centre at Alice Springs High School, a sports science centre at Katherine High School, and a science centre at Tennant Creek High School. Projects under way and nearing completion include new science centres at Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Milingimbi, and Shepherdson College, and a language centre at Maningrida. How worthy are these schools and these projects, yet the CLP condemns this program and the Coalition would rip it apart. What a shame!
In my own electorate I have seen a $125 000 extension to the school canteen at Karama Primary School. Karama Primary School is getting a $2m multipurpose area; Malak Primary School has had $125 000 upgrade to the quadrangle area, also a $2m new administration building upgrade and meeting space; Manunda Terrace Primary School received $125 000 for minor new works to the canteen, caretaker’s residence, and the early years’ play area; and also $2m for a library. O’Loughlin College, importantly, is receiving $404 000 for a science lab; Holy Family Primary School is about to open the new $2m library indoor/outdoor learning centre and Marrara Christian School is getting $2.79m for a library.
Members opposite did not want any of these works to occur. They opposed the program and did not support school upgrades in their own electorates. Under the CLP, schools like Woodroofe, Bakewell, Driver and Durack would not have new classrooms or halls. The CLP stands condemned for their opposition to this BER program.
There is a stark difference between Labor and the opposition. Labor is delivering real improvements in education: real resources, additional teachers, teacher housing to support additional teachers in the bush, the bricks and mortar of the new classrooms, learning areas, science labs and libraries. The Commonwealth has supported education.
This was not building for building’s sake. This was about protecting jobs, protecting the nation’s economy through pumping money into the construction sector and doing what the World Bank, and others, recommended we do. What are we getting out of it? We are not getting halls in the middle of nowhere; we are getting real facilities to improve learning outcomes for our children.
They can waffle with their political spin and rhetoric about how, under the Howard years, they: ‘saved all their money’. I can advise, as a Treasurer, the major economic reforms upon which Costello and Howard were able to squirrel away significant surpluses were delivered under a Hawke/Keating economic reform agenda. Economists will say that. Even the Coalition in Canberra will admit that.
What happens when you drive up a surplus is you starve the states and territories. At the same time Canberra, under the Coalition, was driving up their surplus, states and territories around our nation were going further and further into debt. Why? The Commonwealth deserted infrastructure - they left the space. They would not fund infrastructure in schools, housing, or roads. They did not care about the urban planning of our cities, and they tied us down in all of our funding agreements, whether it was a health agreement, an education resources agreement, a disability agreement - in all the SPP funding agreements the states and territories kept losing funding. The percentages went from 50:50 - 50% funding from the Commonwealth, 50% funding from the state or territory - to about 70:30 - 70% funding from the state or territory and 30% funding from the Commonwealth.
Canberra, under the Coalition, kept the money and strangled the states and territories. We still had to deliver the services, ensure people could attend hospital and be treated appropriately and teachers were funded and schools could be built. We still had to ensure roads were built and new land was being turned off for housing. The states and territories did all that; we did it on our own and had to go into debt.
The CLP seems to think it was only Labor states. No. Western Australia had to take on significant debt burdens to meet their infrastructure needs as well. They would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Labor states and territories in ministerial councils and federal financial relations disagreements, arguing with the Costello/Howard regime they could not, for the sake of building our nation, the sake of productivity in our nation, or the sake of training and education in our nation, desert the need for the Commonwealth to shoulder its fair share in delivering infrastructure.
The clowns in the CLP do not understand that. They do not understand federal financial relations and the importance of the Commonwealth putting its fair share into infrastructure, or the importance of the Commonwealth having acted swiftly and decisively to prop up our nation’s economy in response to the global financial crisis. They do not get it; they bury their heads in the sand. They are ignorant and would sit by and let their latest mate, Abbott, tear down a critically important project delivering improved education facilities. I say shame - shame on the CLP.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, that was beautiful - absolutely beautiful. And you believe every word of it! We play the same game as we played yesterday; we have ministerial statements designed to paint a picture that side of the House believes. Politics is a funny game. In this case it seems to be about political point scoring not focusing on what we really should be doing.
The minister’s statement starts off with:
If that opening statement was not designed to get anything more than a bite, I will stand corrected. I recall the time in the Northern Territory where primary schools were built one school/one suburb to ensure the majority of children did not have to cross major roads on their way to and from school.
This government says it has put so much into infrastructure in schools. In the seat of Brennan, we have four new suburbs and only one school - Bakewell Primary School - catering for Farrar, Gunn, Bakewell and Rosebery. The government has had to put in traffic lights and crossings over major roads. Why? Because they failed to plan and deliver on schools; failed to deliver appropriate schools and cater for the growth of the Palmerston region. It was only after the government was brought kicking and screaming they committed over $50m for Rosebery middle and primary schools. Many people have put much work into delivering those schools and I take my hat off to each and every one of them - many were volunteers. Those schools will fill quickly with the ongoing development of Johnston, Bellamack and Zuccoli.
The success of the BER project in the Northern Territory has probably had more to do with pro-active school principals and strong school councils. To suggest Damian Hale contributed in any way is absolute spin. If we had a black stump as a member we still would have received money under the Building the Education Revolution. We would have received money if the Labor government was stimulating the economy of Australia; it would not matter who we had. This government has not had a good record in federal government funding in recent years. How much did you receive for the ports when $150m was required?
A member: Three hundred.
Mr CHANDLER: $300m. How much did this government get for ports? Zero! You go to Canberra, roll over, get your belly tickled and come back. To suggest the member for Solomon has contributed in any way is political spin.
I did not want to point it out, however we are talking about education; there were at least two spelling mistakes in the statement. I have not seen Larrakeyah spelt ‘Larrakeyaj’. This is the education revolution and not even the ministerial statement from the minister for Education is free of spelling errors; it is working well.
The problem this side of the House, and conservative politics, has had with the Building the Education Revolution program is its title. If it was titled School Infrastructure Program it might not have received as much attention, although the wanton waste in other jurisdictions should be focused on. In this case, education and revolution is building buildings. Buildings do not make smarter kids and until governments understand supporting teachers, having a strong curriculum, dealing with bullying in schools, dealing with special needs children and getting children to school are much more important than the building they use.
There are some good examples in the Northern Territory of how this funding helped many of the schools; Bakewell school, in my electorate, is one. I put that down to a very pro-active principal, June Wessels, an amazing lady, and a strong school council which was prepared when the first funding announcement was made. They were ready to go; they had a plan of action. Schools have a five-year plan, and because of the pro-active nature of the principal and school council, and the fact they were ready to roll, they received funding in the first round. They were able to hit the ground running, ensure they got in early, had contractors in place, and today there are new buildings and a roof over the basketball court. There is some shortfall in funding for a sound system for the stage area, and the school council will be called on to pick up that shortfall.
There is no doubt there are some good projects under the BER program. One was brought to my attention last week - this is in South Australia, and I pinpoint this because I continually hear from the Labor government that the conservative side of politics is against stimulating the economy. They are so wrong. They admitted they would have to go into debt to stimulate the economy. The conservative side of politics is worried about wanton waste. Whilst we have some good outcomes in the Northern Territory, other jurisdictions were not so fortunate. In one small town in South Australia, with a population of about 5500 people, there are five schools - four public schools and one Catholic school. They received a building each under this program - all identical, all for the same purpose. Only one of the schools required the building; the other schools wanted different things.
One of the reasons the program was more successful in the Northern Territory is because of good principals and good solid councils - they had more say in what they could do; it was not run by bureaucrats. Perhaps there are lessons for other jurisdictions on how it could have been done better. It is not an education revolution; it does not improve children’s educational needs and it does not improve the standard of education provided. There have been some good outcomes. I particularly liked Millner Primary School with their solar energy because there is a learning side to that project where the infrastructure can help, within the curriculum, teach children about renewable energies. That is one really good example. I have given others with Bakewell school in Palmerston.
There has been massive waste around this country which has sent us further and further into debt. My children will be left with a legacy of the current government, to pay back this debt. Whilst you have debt, you forever damage further infrastructure and the ability to manage, plan for, and deliver on required infrastructure into the future.
If this was a revolution, it would have been designed to support our teachers and our students with more effective curriculum and help learning. If it was a revolution, it would work towards getting kids to school, keeping kids in school, and ensuring the education they receive is the absolute best - not ensuring a roof over a basketball court.
In recent years this government has provided little infrastructure. In cases where they have provided infrastructure, it has come at great cost. Several programs have been introduced such as the middle years program and, at Palmerston High School, the wonderful, new secondary education facilities. Several early problems were ironed out. One of the problems was the original plan for the secondary facility was in the vicinity of $10m. We do not know the final outcome. Why is that? We do not know why the government chose an interstate company - not supporting local business - with no track record in constructing a building that size. Toward the end, when it was evident this company was not up to the job, a public servant stepped in to manage the program. I take my hat off to that person for their ability to get the job completed on time. However, at what cost?
Mismanagement and reliance on an interstate company with no experience shows the management skills this government has when it comes to choosing the correct people. Had this government managed all the money involved in the Building the Education Revolution, it would not have been done any better in the Northern Territory that other states in Australia. Pro-active principals and strong school councils with input into delivering what their schools needed were the reasons the program was successful in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe this program, and the money it delivered to the Northern Territory, was because of one member. I know your spin today was designed to support a federal campaign, however, if we had a black stump as a member we would still receive funding if the federal Labor government was truthful in stimulating the economy of Australia.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, that was an interesting contribution. Member for Brennan, my daughter attends Bakewell Primary School. Can you clarify if you were for or against the $200 000 school upgrade; for or against $2m for new classrooms; and for or against $1m for hall extensions? Are you for or against it, member for Brennan?
Mr Chandler: Absolutely for it - terrific for that school.
Mr KNIGHT: The Labor governments, at Territory and federal level, were supportive of vital infrastructure going into our schools and the debate then, and today, was the Liberal conservatives said no. They said: ‘No, you are not going to put money into schools; you are not going to put $2m worth of classrooms into Bakewell Primary School’. That is what you voted for. It was not about waste because the program had not started. It was legislation going through the federal parliament and your colleagues, at the federal level, and you on the other side, supported …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you direct the member to make his comments through the Chair. It may get very personal.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Happy to, Madam Speaker. The CLP opposition supported their Liberal colleagues to vote against Bakewell Primary School extensions to the hall, and $2m going to extra classrooms. That was the point. We did not hear much from you, member for Brennan, at the time. You say you support it now, however, you did not support our motion calling on the Coalition opposition to support the government in the BER program. That was all about Bakewell Primary School getting new classrooms. It was about classrooms and halls across the Northern Territory.
Mr Chandler: You have failed to deliver for the school for how many years?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Chandler: There were eight demountables in that school.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brennan!
Mr Chandler: Four suburbs, one school.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan!
Mr Chandler: Failure.
Mr KNIGHT: You cannot kick out another one, Madam Speaker. The member for Brennan would not call on his federal colleagues …
Mr Chandler: You were rescued.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: … to support Labor getting classrooms for Bakewell Primary School; for those kids to have extra classrooms, for hall extensions, for upgrades - $200 000 worth of upgrades to the school - $2m to new classrooms. That is what it came down to. You did not support it; you voted against it. You did not call on your federal colleagues to support it.
I can move through each electorate. We can look at Katherine. The member for Katherine voted against vital education infrastructure: Casuarina Street Primary - $2m for a new classroom block; $125 000 for upgrades in and around the school. At Clyde Fenton School there is $125 000 going into shade, refurbishment of ablution blocks, bus shelters and general upgrades, and $2m for a multipurpose learning centre. The member for Katherine voted against money going to …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is misleading the House. I did not vote against anything he is alluding to.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine, if you wish to make a personal explanation you may approach me afterwards.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I will make a personal explanation.
Mr KNIGHT: As most would remember there was a motion in this parliament calling on the Coalition opposition to support the government providing this money to the Northern Territory, to Katherine, to Clyde Fenton School, to the electorate of the member for Katherine. This side supported the motion. The other side, and the member for Katherine, voted against the motion. He voted against Clyde Fenton receiving $2m for extra classrooms. That is the wash-up of it.
Let us move to Katherine High School, which I have visited many times - $200 000 for improvements and upgrades, and $1 970 000 for a science centre. The School of the Air does vital work serving the Katherine and Top End region - $850 000. The member for Katherine voted against that money going to Katherine School of the Air. The member for Katherine voted against a motion calling on the Coalition to support the government providing this money to Katherine School of the Air.
Katherine South, where my son attended; lovely school, lovely teaching staff, vitally needing new infrastructure - $2m and another $125 000 going into an all weather drop-off point for buses. Kintore Street School, a great little school - $50 000 for refurbishments, another $250 000 for ablution blocks and resource centre upgrades. The member for Katherine has voted against a multipurpose centre of $2m going into MacFarlane Primary.
There is $5m or $6m going into education infrastructure in the Katherine electorate alone, and the member for Katherine said: ‘I do not think it should go there’. He said: ‘I do not support money going into education infrastructure in my electorate’. You denied your electorate should receive $5m to $6m. I hope the people of Katherine know. The members for Katherine and Brennan voted against it.
Where will I move to next? Who else do we have in the Chamber? No, no I will leave you, Jodeen, you are lovely. The member for Sanderson is a doozey.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it correct the minister cannot bring to the attention of the House who is in the Chamber and who is not?
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, although I do not believe he mentioned anyone. Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Sanderson voted against $150 000 going into Anula Primary for upgrades to their grounds and repainting. You also voted against $2.5m for a multipurpose hall at Anula Primary School. Why did you do that? You said: ‘No, no, that should not happen; it is a waste of money’. The member for Fong Lim said it was all a waste of money. A multipurpose centre for Sanderson which you say is a waste of money. It is an incredible statement!
Sanderson Middle School - $200 000; Wagaman Primary - I know a young lady who attends Wagaman Primary and you would deny her $2m for a new library. Why would you do that? Why would you vote against $2m? There is $4m or $5m going into schools in your electorate and you proudly voted against a motion calling on the Coalition to support the government in these measures.
This was about doing several things. One was supporting jobs in the biggest financial crisis the world has seen for 30 or 40 years, and stimulating the economy. We had a downturn in the private sector and the government stepped in with this program, which was not a waste of money as suggested by the member for Fong Lim. It was going to vital education infrastructure, vital roads, and vital social housing. It was going to a range of areas which supported thousands and thousands of jobs across the Territory and across Australia. It supported business; it kept the doors open.
Tony Abbott would close the doors of business. He happily voted against closing down business. He would like to see people in dole queues. Labor kept people in jobs; Labor kept the doors open for business; Labor put vital education, health, housing and roads infrastructure across Australia. That is the difference we have in this House; a strategic intervention by Labor at the federal and Territory level to keep the economy moving.
The Coalition was happy to see the country go into recession. Labor saved Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling! Member for Braitling!
Mr Giles: Did it save the Territory? Did it save the Territory?
Mr KNIGHT: Labor saved Australia, and the Northern Territory, from a recession.
Mr Giles: Saved the Territory?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr KNIGHT: If we had gone down the path of the CLP and Tony Abbott, we would be in recession today. Thousands and thousands of jobs would have been lost, businesses would have closed, and we would not have education infrastructure for the next generation of skilled tradespeople, academics, teachers, nurses …
Mr Westra van Holthe interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Mr KNIGHT: … doctors - we would not have these people.
That is the difference in this debate. The member for Brennan supports it but votes against it. Given the option 12 months ago he would have said: ‘No, that money is not coming to the Northern Territory; is not coming to Bakewell Primary School’. Your choice at the time was to say: ‘No, it is a waste of money. When you are at Bakewell, member for Brennan, tell everyone: ‘I thought this new classroom was a waste of money. It is here, and I am happy to walk through it’. Look at the extensions and say: ‘This was a waste of money’.
The member for Katherine has been very quiet in his electorate regarding his actions in the House on this program.
I will move to my electorate, where I am proud to see vital education infrastructure going into primary schools across …
Mr Giles: Have you built a bridge at the Daly yet?
Mr KNIGHT: It is coming, it is coming!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Giles: What about Palumpa?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr KNIGHT: We do not want to go back to the 2000 election results do we?
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I still have the stats for Palumpa.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair and stay to the point.
Mr KNIGHT: Still trying to find those 30-odd people at Port Keats who voted for you.
Adelaide River School is a great school. Tony Clegg does a good job in the community, and the parents are fantastic. The school council does a wonderful job. They were very appreciative of the $250 000 for the covered outdoor learning centre.
Batchelor Area School had been looking at several items of infrastructure. They had been saving money, and the injection of $850 000 for a resource centre and $75 000 for the outside dining and meeting area came in very handy. It is a growing school that wants more classrooms and facilities, so the injection was great.
I visited Belyuen School recently where money was used to cover the breakfast room area. They teach local kids how to cook breakfast and prepare meals. It also received $250 000 for a covered outdoor learning area. Tim does a fantastic job with those kids with 90% attendance.
Labor is supporting those schools with important infrastructure. The member for Brennan said infrastructure is not really important; it is about everything else. Infrastructure is important; having new classrooms is important; having covered outdoor areas is important.
Come down to Berry Springs Primary School. A massive new building has been constructed which supports a new facility for the kids. It is a multipurpose facility as it is a cyclone shelter for the Berry Springs area. Many buildings in the rural area are not up to cyclone standard and we now have a facility, through the federal government stimulus package, for an approved cyclone shelter at the school. The rural area has been looking at this for some time.
The school at Douglas Daly received $50 000, and another $250 000 for general upgrades and a covered outdoor learning area. The Dundee Beach School received $250 000 for a resource centre, and general upgrades around the school of $77 000.
I was recently at Nganmarriyanga School …
Ms Carney: Sorry, I missed that.
Mr KNIGHT: Nganmarriyanga, thank you, member for Araluen. I invite you to visit.
Ms Carney: With you, any time.
Mr KNIGHT: Excellent. $75 000 for repainting the exterior of the building, and work has already commenced. Security fencing is up and contractors are on-site to build an $850 000 multipurpose facility. That is certainly welcome.
I am unsure how far the member for Braitling journeyed recently, however Peppimenarti School - $350 000 for a covered outdoor learning centre. Did you see that great facility?
Mr Giles: I can answer that question. I was …
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Braitling, resume your seat. It is not Question Time.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I know he was at Emu Point; they told me. He would have seen the extension to the school: another classroom - $0.5m for extensions to the Emu Point Outstation. That school has 100% attendance - every child in that community goes to school. It is great work by Terry Sams and the Sams family. More money is going to the Woolaning School. This was mentioned today and part of the project is still …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the upgrade/relocation of Woolianna School is under threat. If there is a change of government on 21 August - Tony Abbott has a first day/first week action plan, which would be to stop projects. Labor will build a $750 000 resource centre at Woolianna School for the Woolianna Road Community and the kids from Nauiyu community. The Liberals will stop that project. They will consider it a waste, and the community will be without that facility. There is a clear difference between the two parties.
Madam Speaker, it has been …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very important speech and I draw your attention to the state of the House. I want government to listen to this speech, it is very important.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells. A quorum is present. Minister, you have the floor.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. The difference between the two parties is: in the biggest economic downturn globally since the war, Labor saw it had to do something. At the federal level, it came with a significant stimulus package. The NT Labor government welcomed it; the CLP opposed it. At the federal level, Tony Abbott said it was a waste of money. The member for Fong Lim says it is a waste of money. Labor stimulated the economy at both federal and the Territory level. It saved thousands of jobs, kept businesses open, and put vital infrastructure into schools, hospitals, roads and public housing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his stewardship of the Education portfolio. I look forward to attending openings at opposition members’ BER facilities; it will be interesting to see if they attend. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I commend the statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in speaking on the statement, whilst not going into any great detail because it is not worth it, the government is attempting to take credit for things it is not responsible for. Much is Commonwealth money and we know this government has previously mismanaged money from the Commonwealth government, notably SIHIP.
I spoke to several teachers today and I will not say if they were from private or public schools. A general comment was that it was a load of fluff. If teachers are saying that, it is indicative of how they view this kind of statement. There is no doubt about it; the government is running this statement now to prop up the abysmal performance of the member for Solomon, Mr Hale. It will not work, and voters will see through it.
There are six schools in my electorate which have received funding to build infrastructure - Bees Creek Primary, Litchfield Christian, Humpty Doo Primary, St Francis of Assisi, Middle Point Primary and Taminmin College. The infrastructure projects have been various and not dissimilar to projects at urban schools - shade over sporting courts, new library, and new classrooms which are well overdue and needed in the rural area, given the growth in the young population in the rural area.
Bees Creek has told me the work they are undertaking, and the success of the project in the school, has much to do with the building contractor. The contractor at Bees Creek was Brustolin Builders. Bees Creek Primary School is within 2% of all schools around the country happy with the work performed.
Litchfield Christian School had a new library. The bricks and mortar are more than welcomed by these schools as they are expanding, but much financial support and assistance is needed to finalise the structural improvements. For example, they get the bricks and mortar and have to do the paving and landscaping; they need resources and electronic equipment. Whilst the schools welcome the infrastructure, more needs to be provided for them to benefit, in a big way, from the funding.
I will single out Taminmin College for special mention. Their middle school has around 614 students and their senior school has 541 - 1155 students. The school has doubled in size since the implementation of middle schools, when they had about 600 students and five science laboratories. With 1155 students they only have one more laboratory some distance from the preparation room meaning students have to push trolleys with chemicals and other items they use in their work, which is not acceptable. This school is bursting at the seams yet it does not get the same resource commitment from the Northern Territory government - I am not talking Commonwealth - other schools do. Due to a lack of laboratories, practical sessions are cut short so students are getting less practice and training in science than some of their urban counterparts.
Arts facilities are the same. The number of students has increased dramatically since the implementation of middle schools but resources have remained the same. There would be overcrowding in areas. The students are not getting their fair share of use of resources and equipment. They are not being treated as fairly and equitably as their urban counterparts, and it could be argued they may fall behind. I am not suggesting they are; they are not being treated the same as urban middle and secondary school students.
I am quite sure when Darwin Middle School opened there were refrigerators for student lunches and refreshments, and lockers for every student. Taminmin College does not have that. It has applied for minor works and is putting proposals to the department for fridges and lockers – particularly fridges, given the increase in our temperatures throughout the Wet Season and the potential for food products to become contaminated. That should be a priority. Both college and council are working with government to put them on the same footing as the new middle schools and receive lockers and fridges. Darwin Middle School has wireless throughout the school. They have drop-down screens throughout the school, yet Taminmin College does not have this. The minister, and the government, need to look at how Taminmin College is resourced, given the expansion in that area, and given Weddell is to be turned off in five to seven years - which I do not believe will happen - bringing greater pressure to bear on schools in the rural area.
Another issue relates to fees not being compulsory. I will not go into that argument; however schools cannot call them contributions. The legal division within the department ruled that out so if a parent wanted to contribute to a school they could not. It begs the question, how can schools equip themselves with the necessary resources in this electronic age, which students need, when they do not have the ability to raise funds. It is not right.
To show the imbalance between rural area schools and other Territory schools, let us look at Nhulunbuy High School. On 11 May 2009, the school was given $3.18m for middle school education and $2.6m for senior school education - $5.78m. Enrolment is about 284 students. In 2007-08, Taminmin received $4.2m for new classrooms for the middle school implementation, growing 614 students. That does not seem equitable to me - $4.2m for 614 students; $5.78m for 284 students. I urge the minister to look seriously at the submissions from Taminmin College to bring them to the same level as their urban counterparts. It needs capital injection. Taminmin is a 30-year-old school needing minor works programs. I have written to the minister about this and tabled a petition - the library is grossly inadequate.
The department of Education website talks about Building the Education Revolution bringing classrooms and necessary infrastructure to schools, and giving 21st century libraries to schools under the program. They are not doing that at Taminmin College. The library was built for a school of 500 and is a community library. We now have a school population of 1155 and growing, plus a growing residential area, yet the library is in the same building and is struggling to cope.
I will conclude comments on Taminmin College, however I want to stress the government needs to lift its game in providing resources and services to the educational community in the rural area. The same goes for the Howard Springs Primary School, which is more than 30-years-old. They struggle with power and water supplies. Girraween, being a new primary school, does not have as many issues. The government needs to treat rural schools the same way as urban schools so students receive the same advantages and opportunities as their urban counterparts.
Statements come and go; schools will always be there. We need to ensure schools have the necessary resources and infrastructure to provide the best possible education for rural area students.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the roll-out of the Building the Education Revolution program across the Northern Territory. I would like to make a comment for the member for Brennan. It makes me feel very old when I reflect on my time in the Territory - more than half my life. I lived through a period when the Country Liberal Party government was closing Territory schools. It was unfortunate one happened to be in Tennant Creek, where I was Assistant Principal, before it went through the period of being assessed and, then, closed. It was a pity. A number of Darwin primary schools were also closed under the Country Liberal Party. We have stories, we have history, and history stands.
It was good to hear the member for Goyder. I have seen some theatrics in this House, but I could feel enthusiasm from the member for Goyder - it was definitely there. Working in drama for many years, I could tell. However, the member for Goyder had to put the negative spin on it.
There had to be a deconstruction; trivial points and challenging school communities: ‘No, I will turn away $0.8m in infrastructure because I am worried about the paving’. Having been in the field for a long time that does not occur. You take on that opportunity with a real challenge; a pioneering spirit and you get those pavers. If they have to come from the river, they come from the river. In some cases, many moons ago, that is exactly what we did. There was real enthusiasm, however it is not allowed out; it is controlled by party politics. Party politics says no BER - the Country Liberals say it is a bad thing. As we have heard in this House many times, it was not supported. My real concern is, should Tony Abbott be elected on 21 August, this program will be terminated by a federal Liberal government and the Territory will be sadly lacking.
Building the Education Revolution is a topic I am passionate about on a number of fronts: as the Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, as a former teacher, as the member for Barkly, and as a Territorian and parent. In 2009, the world was faced with the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economies were collapsing, banks folding and industries shutting down. It was clear strong action was needed if Australia was to avoid the economic fate of our global counterparts.
In February 2009, the federal Labor government took decisive action. Instead of waiting to see what would happen, hoping for the best as the Coalition would have done, the Labor government announced $42bn in a nation building plan - a plan to keep Australia’s economy moving, to keep Australians in work and businesses open.
For the Territory, the $42bn nation building plan delivered $574m in projects including $17.02m for road and rail infrastructure improvements, $270m for Territory schools, and more than $60m for social housing. The Henderson government took up the challenge and responded rapidly to the roll-out of the nation building plan and BER ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it now being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the government has had ample notice of this bill, which is not in any way complex. I believe we have the gender language right; there are no ‘z’s to speak of, and the Attorney-General will know what I mean.
I issued a media release during the last sittings and will quote intermittently from it because it describes what this bill is about. I will also refer to the comments I made in October 2008, when we debated the government’s Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill.
The effect of the bill is to free up the Supreme Court by ensuring magistrates have the ability to impose a greater length of imprisonment on offenders who appear before them.
The section referred to in the bill which we seek to amend is section 188 - the common assault provision. That, sadly, consumes a great deal of time. It is almost the bread and butter work of our magistrates in the Northern Territory. The wording under the Criminal Code is an offender having been found guilty of a common assault is liable to imprisonment for five years, or upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for two years. That means, in a very practical sense, an offender goes to court and the magistrate asks defence counsel whether their client consents to the matter being dealt with summarily. Magistrates ask that every day in our courts. The defence counsel says: ‘Yes, Your Worship, my client consents’. The client consents because the wording of section 188 provides the offender will receive a lower period of imprisonment. If the offender does not consent they will be dealt with by the Supreme Court, in which case they are subject to a period of imprisonment of up to five years. Hence there is great incentive for offenders, and consenting to the matter being dealt with summarily occurs every day.
We say the time has come where it is no longer acceptable for a sentence to be reduced if it is dealt with summarily; in a lower court. We say because a matter is dealt with summarily in the lower court does not mean the offender should be subject to a different sentence. We say those days are gone, given the high rates of assaults in the Northern Territory; for matters to be dealt with summarily that should no longer be an incentive.
The bill does not seek to increase sentences for common assault. It seeks to ensure magistrates can impose sentences commensurate with community expectations that are the same as those which can be imposed by judges of the Supreme Court. Offenders can opt for a maximum of two years if they elect to have the matter dealt with in the Magistrates Court. It means magistrates are limited to the cap of two years under our Criminal Code. Because assaults take up the majority of time in the Magistrates Court we say, given the nature and high rate of offending in the Territory, magistrates should have a level of flexibility whereby they can sentence in accordance with Supreme Court judges.
We say the same with respect to section 189A, which deals with assaults on police. Subsection (1) provides:
Once again, defendant and defence counsel attend court. The magistrate says: ‘Does your client consent to this matter being dealt with summarily?’ ‘Yes Your Honour’, and why not because in the Magistrates Court there is a maximum period of imprisonment of two years, whereas in the Supreme Court there is a maximum of five years. There is an incentive for a defendant to consent to the matter being dealt with summarily.
Similarly, in respect of section 189A(2), if the police officer assaulted suffers harm, the offender is liable to imprisonment for seven years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for three years. Once again, the offender will attend court, the magistrate will ask defence counsel: ‘Does your client consent to the matter being dealt with summarily?’ ‘Yes’ is invariably the answer. The magistrate is bound only to sentence to a maximum of three years, whereas if the matter were dealt with in the Supreme Court, the maximum term of imprisonment would be seven years. It is straightforward.
I am unsure if members remember the bill, it was in October 2008, several months after the election where Labor went out of its way to persuade, some would say con, Territorians about their tough on crime stance. The Chief Minister said the government would close loop holes; the term ‘actual imprisonment’ would mean actual imprisonment; the usual sort of gumpf we hear from the government and the Chief Minister. I spoke during that debate and towards the end I said:
I outlined those sections. I then said:
I do not recall the Attorney-General responding, and I was not contacted by the then Attorney-General. I have had discussions with senior members of the legal profession. Like any group, some will agree and some oppose. My view is the majority view, and the best view, is this is an eminently sensible proposal. It also has the effect of freeing up judges in the Supreme Court who are dealing with these assaults.
Next sittings the government might say the effect of this is freeing up Supreme Court judges but creating more work for magistrates. We have enough magistrates; we have four in Alice Springs. The bush communities are serviced well. We also have enough magistrates in the Top End. I am unsure the argument I anticipate from the government stacks up. It may have several years ago, but not now.
I am strongly of the view the Criminal Code, a pretty significant document in the Territory, needs to move with us. What was right years ago may not be right now. Do we, as a parliament, as a community, believe it is acceptable for defendants to receive a concession or incentive in sentencing? Do we believe they should receive that for assault matters, given the very high rate of violence and assaults in the Territory? I feel certain my constituents would say, no, it is not acceptable and we need to move with the times.
In relation the Criminal Code, several years ago I came across a letter I have since provided to the Northern Territory Archives. It was drafted by Paul Everingham and written to Michael Kirby, former Justice, although not Justice of the High Court then. In the five or six page letter Paul Everingham answered many issues Michael Kirby presented him. That letter was written 20 years ago, and the same issues Paul Everingham was talking about then still apply in the Territory. He made the case the Criminal Code suits the Northern Territory; it might not suit other jurisdictions however it suits us, which is why we are proceeding with it.
In the same way Everingham made the case then - and I do not compare myself to Everingham; I have great respect for him, he was a very capable politician - I am not in his league. However I press the case in the same way he did all those years ago; the change the opposition proposes reflects our circumstances in the Territory. It reflects the changing nature of community expectations; is an advantage to our justice system; sends a message to those offenders; does the right thing in sensible policy, and responds to the high rate of assaults in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I do not expect government to consent, however they might be good enough to indicate, at the next sittings, that they will undertake a review of various parts of the Criminal Code, or come up with something which gives us hope that ultimately government will accept these changes or make them itself. If the Attorney-General says: ‘We are going to consent to these changes’, I will be very pleased, but I am not optimistic. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly:
(a) call on the Territory government to immediately establish a government anti-corruption task force as a discrete unit with the Northern Territory Police Force;
There is nothing worse than making a suggestion, as there have been allusions tossed around from time to time in the Chamber, of grubby deals, silver circles and corruption. They can be tossed around and mud can stick, and you can happily chuckle away as though you have scored a political point. It is not good enough. There needs to be, accompanying an assertion or an allegation made in parliament or any place, the capacity for it to be substantively checked, just as in the Chamber we have the mechanism, if someone were to make an allegation or assertion, it needs to be made by substantive motion; you cannot let these things hang. They should be able to be tested so we can move on.
That is the thinking behind it, and also to recognise the Territory is a growing jurisdiction. Most, if not all, states have a capacity to assess matters such as this. It is something we need to also put in place; hence the motion.
Corruption is generally described as the abuse of public power for private gain through actions which are consciously hidden. Corruption is conduct which can adversely affect the integrity, honesty, or impartial exercise of a government agency - or to be seen to do so.
The Northern Territory is a growing jurisdiction and, while its population is small - 220 000 is the smallest in the country - it is important government manages change and plans for the future in all areas. The Henderson government has failed to manage change adequately, particularly when we see the Territory’s rapid population growth over the past five or so years. The failure to manage the change of population has had manifold effect. Part of that broader and more complex effect is the need to change and to improve its instruments, hence this motion.
More than $1bn of additional GST revenue has been spent and the results, unfortunately, are not seen in higher standards in education, shorter waiting lists in the hospital, or better Power and Water infrastructure - and I could go on, particularly about education results in the bush. That has been change - large amounts of money, however the result could have been better.
Power and Water has become increasingly incapable of meeting the most basic needs of the growing population - that is a concern; basic infrastructure. There is much talk about education reform, but the government has not succeeded in substantively raising standards in Territory schools - that is a concern. There has been an increase in money spent, change, reshaping of the way education is delivered, however the results have not improved. There has been difficulty in managing change. Also, hospital waiting lists as previously mentioned, and law and order. The government has failed to meet the needs of police and, as a result, violent crime in the Territory is at alarmingly high levels.
We can have discussions and debates, mount attacks and defence over this issue. The fact remains, as a local member for nearly 12 years, I have seen change in my own community. You can see it in the public amenity; you can hear it in the stories of people who came through the door. There is concern about change which is not for the better, particularly public housing and the poorer areas in our community. It is flowing into all sectors of our community with the disturbing rise of violence, combined with the land release policy, which has served to place pressure on hard-working families and those hoping for something better.
All the things mentioned require good governance, leadership and decisions made which recognise the heart of the problem, and respond to that need in a comprehensive way - not just a superficial way - something which understands the problem, explains the problem, proposes a solution and sticks with it. People do not like change but they want change, and that is difficult.
In order to do that there needs to be a confidence in government, and the instruments of government. There is nothing worse than a community where allegations can be floated. They can exist for some time and are quite damaging because they erode people’s confidence in government. However, some choose to do that for short-term political gain; toss around allegations in parliament, let them hang there and take no responsibility for any long-term effect. That is why we need something to allow those allegations, if they are genuinely held, to be properly tested.
It is essential the Territory is properly covered by the establishment of a corruption watchdog looking into the future. The vast majority of Australian jurisdictions have an ICAC-style body. New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia responded to official corruption with the establishment of such bodies. I hope we will not need to respond to corruption and, if required, we can crush it at its source. It should not be presumed - as may make for a debating point - there is corruption; there are terrible problems which need to be attended to. I do not hold that view. I am concerned about the space which can be used by those who are mischievous; to toss out an allegation and let it hang. If you are going to make a charge, there should be the capacity for it to be properly tested, otherwise shut up. That is the point of this.
It is certainly not arising from a belief there is widespread corruption or a serious problem. It is the need to put this instrument in place because I am concerned about the erosion of the parliament, or other bodies there to protect our citizens.
It is important for governments to be vigilant in maintaining high standards of anti-corruption. We are all aware of rumours which circulate. I am not fond of rumours in any organisation; I like to deal with them. I have dealt with them in any number of communities; I hunt it down and drag it to the bright light of day by the scruff of the neck. These things need to be sorted out because they do have an effect.
Tony Fitzgerald QC, who investigated corruption in Queensland in the late 1980s, last year delivered a scathing attack on that state’s Labor government. Mr Fitzgerald blasted the ethics of current and former Labor governments saying secrecy was re-established by sham claims under which documents sought through freedom of information provisions were placed off limits by being run through Cabinet. Access can now be purchased, patronage is dispensed, mates and supporters are appointed, and retired politicians exploit their connections to obtain success fees for deals between business and government, Mr Fitzgerald said.
A watchdog is particularly important given the recent investigations into the use of funds and exercise of powers about SIHIP for example, or Indigenous expenditure or variations in BER funding. If an allegation is made we should be able to have it properly checked. Procurement and tenders - a watchdog would provide oversight of government business divisions and government owned corporations. I acknowledge the established government watchdogs, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Public Information Commissioner, however the investigation of corruption goes deeper than administrative conduct by government agencies.
The government may say there is no need for an anti-corruption commission in the Territory. It may argue the size of the Territory means between the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Public Information Commissioner and the NT Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command an anti-corruption body is not needed. However, the deficiency of these bodies is they generally rely on members of the public and the public service submitting complaints about the way an agency is conducting its business, not the possible corrupt actions of an individual or individuals within that agency. The government keeps these bodies so underfunded they struggle to respond adequately and robustly to these complaints if they are of a substantive nature. Actions which may, on the surface, look legitimate but have been engineered to direct benefits to an individual are unlikely to be picked up by a member of the public or a colleague.
The Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command has power to investigate corruption involving members of the police force. It has no jurisdiction over a public servant outside the police. Our motion proposes the role and powers of the Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command be extended to investigate corruption across all of government and in the lead-up to developing legislation for a stand alone anti-corruption body, and the power to make recommendations to DPP for prosecution, investigate police, investigate members of the Legislative Assembly by complaint or own motion, conduct surveillance or access records, monitor declarations of interest by senior public servants.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be supported.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion, and I will outline the reasons why. I was interested to see, in debating this motion, whether the Leader of the Opposition would put anything on the table to identify there is, was, might be in the future, issues of corruption in the Northern Territory and there was nothing - absolutely nothing to back up the need to establish an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory.
He talked about supposed policy failings of government - and the opposition has its view on government policies, and the government will prosecute the case for our policies and the success we are having. Those issues are for a political debate, rightly debated in this Chamber and contested at election time - they have nothing to do with corruption. My understanding of corruption is an individual, or a group of individuals conspiring together, have illegally gained financially as a result of corrupt dealings. In establishing an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory I would need evidence - not allegations - of whether it is public servants, politicians, our police officers, an individual or a group of individuals illegally financially benefiting from access to information or inside deals. No evidence has been put on the table at all.
This motion, in part, stems from the Leader of the Opposition having his hand on his heart and talking about allegations made in this Chamber which hang there; no movement on them and someone needs to investigate. I am not prepared to establish a body, essentially on an unfounded allegation, untested, with no evidence to support the allegation. I am not prepared to engage in a witch-hunt into people’s lives based on an unfounded, untested, non-evidence-based allegation by a member of parliament.
The member for Braitling, in debates during the budget sittings of parliament, was making allegations that SIHIP was corrupt. I took that very seriously. I advised the member for Braitling and the Leader of the Opposition if they had any evidence or information to suggest there was corruption in SIHIP to bring it forward and it would be independently investigated. They have a legal responsibility to do that.
This was on the back of the Auditor-General recently completing a thorough audit of SIHIP and reporting to this House many things in the program were going well. There were some potential problems ahead. Original structures may not have been as good as they should have been, however nothing in the Auditor-General’s report suggested there were concerns about corruption. During the Estimates Committee hearings on the budget the Auditor-General was asked whether he had any concerns about corruption in SIHIP, given he had very recently audited all financial transactions within the program. The Auditor-General is on the public record clearly saying he had no concerns or evidence of any corruption within the program.
The Leader of the Opposition believes we need to establish an anti-corruption commission at enormous expense to hunt down an unfounded, untested, no evidence-based allegation of corruption, yet the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory, and the Commonwealth Auditor-General, have audited this program and not found any evidence of corruption. I am not prepared, as Chief Minister, to commit enormous amounts of public money to a witch-hunt allowing unfounded, untested allegations to hang in the ether - people’s good names and reputations dangling by a thread for months and months as an organisation goes off on a witch-hunt.
I urge the Opposition Leader to call on members on his side of the House to stop making allegations in this parliament. I have spoken to many businesses which form part of the alliances, both formally and subcontracted to provide materials, and they are offended their corporate good name has been put in a most malicious way suggesting this program is corrupt.
The only businesses that could corruptly benefit from SIHIP would be those engaged in delivering the program. So which businesses are illegally and corruptly benefiting from this program? Dozens of businesses are involved in this program, all with that allegation over their head and no evidence to back it up. In fact, the Auditor-General who has been through the books, when explicitly asked: ‘Was there any evidence of corruption,’ said: ‘No’.
This House would turn into a coward’s castle of unfounded, untested allegations designed to hang people out there - a witch-hunt being forced on them, their business, and their family based on unfounded, untested, no evidenced-based allegations in this parliament.
Look at the history of anti-corruption commissions interstate. The Opposition Leader mentioned Queensland. I recall reading The Hillbilly Dictator, which clearly identified the incredible corruption occurring in Queensland at both the political and police level. It was institutionalised for many years, and highlighted a demonstrative need in that jurisdiction to establish an anti-corruption commission based on fact, evidence, and allegations which stood the test of the legal system. I urge the Opposition Leader, if he has not read the book, read it. If that behaviour was occurring in the Northern Territory I would be the first to establish an anti-corruption commission. Look at the history of New South Wales and anti-corruption commissions at the political and police level - institutionalised political corruption, and significant corruption within the New South Wales Police Force.
I have asked Ombudsmen, past and present, if they have concerns regarding corruption in our police force. From time to time individual officers will do the wrong thing; there are systems in place to deal with that. Ombudsmen past and present have advised they have no concerns about institutionalised corruption within our police force. Establishing an anti-corruption commission normally occurs where there has been institutionalised political and police corruption.
Victoria is moving to establish an anti-corruption commission as a result of significant gangland violence where rival gangs in control of the drug trade, and other illegal trades, have resorted to systematic killing of individual members in public places. That is not occurring in the Northern Territory. If it was, and police were unable to resolve those issues, yes, there would be need for an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory. To establish an instrument to investigate corruption in the Northern Territory would need some basis, apart from unfounded, untested, non-evidenced-based political allegations of corruption from the opposite side of this House.
Leader of the Opposition, my door is open. If you can come to me with evidence, no matter how small, which would stand the test of an inquiry into corruption - whether it is political corruption, corruption in the public service, or police corruption - I will have it tested and treat the information in the strictest confidence. As Chief Minister, I will not tolerate corruption in the Northern Territory. Because we are a small jurisdiction, and given the increased powers the government, through this Assembly, has given the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman now has powers without allegation. The Ombudsman has own motion powers to investigate anything in the Northern Territory.
The Opposition Leader is wrong to say agents of parliament can only act on allegations; the Ombudsman has own motion powers to launch investigations and the Auditor-General looks at financial transactions across government. I have every confidence in the auditing ability of our Auditor-General to receive complaints about public servants who may or may not be doing the wrong thing, and investigate those issues thoroughly. We have an Information Commissioner and a Whistleblower Commissioner. The Whistleblower Commissioner can receive allegations of corruption or wrongdoing within the public service and investigate those allegations on a confidential basis.
To add another expensive bureaucratic layer to an already extensive capacity for people to have allegations tested and investigated is not warranted based on the Opposition Leader’s statement tonight.
The legal capacity to deal with corruption already exists in the Territory. Provisions to deal with official corruption and abuse of office exist under Part IV of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. Any allegations of official corruption of abuse of office - whether political office or office held by public servants - already exists under Part IV of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition the Northern Territory Police will investigate any allegations of official corruption or abuse of office professionally, thoroughly, and impartially. We have the independent institutions created by parliament, the provisions within our Criminal Code and the police to investigate those allegations.
Based on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments tonight, there is no need to add another layer to the scrutiny which already exists. If the Leader of the Opposition is asserting, when an allegation of corruption under Part IV of the Criminal Code is made to the Northern Territory Police they do not have the professional integrity or ability to investigate that complaint, that is a vote of no confidence in our police force. I have every confidence our police force will investigate any allegation of official corruption professionally, thoroughly, and impartially. Leader of the Opposition, if you have any evidence or any allegation police are not, will not, have not, dealt with allegations of corruption, bring them to my office and I will have them independently reviewed.
In conclusion, the Leader of the Opposition attempted to justify this motion based on supposed policy failings of government where extra revenue had been appropriated to agencies. I assert we have had significant improved outcomes - he asserts that is not so. However, they are not allegations of corruption; they are allegations related to service delivery which can be tested through the political process and through this parliament. His motion does not go anywhere to investigating policy, or supposed policy, failings of government; they are, rightfully, for the democratic process. Item (c) in his motion says:
He is talking about people who are financially gaining where they should not have been, based on a suggestion. He talked about not believing in rumours, but his motion says we are going to establish a kangaroo court to go on a witch-hunt to embarrass, either politically or professionally, public servants and business people based on a suggestion of corruption. That is not good enough, Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not be supporting this motion. I extend an invitation to meet with me at any time if you have any substantive allegations of corruption against any member of this parliament, any policy officer in the Northern Territory, any public servant in the Northern Territory or any business person in the Northern Territory. I guarantee you a thorough and impartial hearing. I will not tolerate corruption in the Northern Territory. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated no need for a commission, and the government will not be supporting the motion.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address several matters raised by the member for Wanguri. He says the Northern Territory has an Auditor-General, an Ombudsman, and a number of other people to look into various aspects, the subject of this motion.
I recall recently the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman made application for an increase in funds to expand the investigations they perform, and to deal with a range of services they are required to provide for the general public in relation to allegations of unfairness, corruption and other things. Through the estimates process, we found the applications were declined; they did not receive the requested funds to improve the services they provide to the public.
The member for Wanguri also raised …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I could correct you - it is Chief Minister. Only in the adjournment debate would it be member for Wanguri.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chief Minister raised a point in relation to part (c) of the motion - to provide the task force with the powers to investigate any or all suggestions of government or political corruption within the Northern Territory. He specifically referred to financial gain. I understand that to mean only financial gain. Corruption comes in all forms, some of which I am aware of and probably some I am not. It is not confined to financial gain. When the Chief Minister says we should all go to his office with allegations of corruption, I would have an issue going straight to the Chief Minister if it was information about someone he was close to. You need someone to be at arm’s length from government to investigate these matters.
Over the past decade or so, Labor governments across the country have become synonymous with corruption. To their credit, in response many have established anti-corruption watchdogs which have endeavoured to right the wrong of appalling maladministration. Some recent examples might include the Labor Party dominated Wollongong Council, where developers were sleeping with the town planner in order to influence planning application outcomes. I do not have a problem with people in relationships, however when it is alleged these liaisons are occurring in order to influence planning outcomes, these are the issues anti-corruption watchdogs need to look at.
In New South Wales, there was a case of electoral corruption with allegations of voters being enrolled at false addresses, branch stacking, paying for preferences, and standing dummy candidates. These are appalling situations we would not want to occur in the Northern Territory. We have to do everything in our power to ensure those things do not happen here.
In Victoria, the first Underbelly series highlighted the incapacity of police to investigate their own. I am not suggesting for a minute that is the case here, however there are issues in the wider community which might need our own anti-corruption watchdog.
On the eve of an election in Victoria, the Premier has finally bowed to pressure from the opposition and announced he will establish an anti-corruption watchdog. It is interesting the Chief Minister raised some of the serious issues which occur in Victoria. In my experience in the Northern Territory Police Force, although it does not happen publicly, I have been privy to things which could have occurred. We have moved people out of town because they were to be executed. These are serious things the public generally do not see and, sadly, the Chief Minister is not aware of some of the matters which have occurred in the past.
Queensland, which has a rich history of official corruption, has the country’s first anti-corruption fighter. That was a good thing because no one - be it politicians, police officers, the judiciary, the general public, mums and dads - no one wants to see corruption in a democratic society. We want to live in peace and progress the lives of ourselves, and our families, and enjoy a peaceful existence. An independent commission against corruption will not stamp out all corruption; it will ensure corruption is investigated at arm’s length from government, therefore giving it independence and some credibility. Anti-corruption watchdogs need absolute credibility so people in the suburbs, the bush, and the rural areas know an independent body has been investigating all forms of corruption, financial or otherwise. They can have confidence that someone, other than the government, has been investigating itself or others in the community.
In August 2000, an ALP local government councillor was gaoled in Queensland for forging and uttering electoral forms to influence pre-selection plebiscites. These are serious matters which bring people of disrepute into the political limelight and into the decision-making bodies of our community where we legislate against corruption. It is important to scrutinise all members of the community, across all walks of life and all vocations. Her allegations implicated other members of Queensland ALP, and sparked the Beattie Labor government and the Criminal Justice Commission to take action. Without the Criminal Justice Commission who knows what this would have played out to.
In New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption recently raised concerns about a number of registered lobbyists with backgrounds in politics, either as members of parliament, staffers or advisors. One only has to look at the example some years ago of a former premier in Western Australia who brought shame upon himself, and those around him, in relation to his conduct. These are the reasons the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales was formed; to investigate that type of complaint.
Unlike Queensland and New South Wales, there is no code of conduct or legislation to oversee the level of influence a former politician has on the decisions of government in the Territory. It is not enough to sit complacently by and assume everything will be all right - there is no corruption in the Territory. We are a small jurisdiction, and small jurisdictions can create a climate where people become complacent about their responsibilities. We should establish a watchdog before there is a real need for one. If you act early, swiftly, and now, it is a deterrent for those who might come from other places and take the Territory for granted and make it something we do not want it to be, by their corrupt practices.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to support this motion and the intent we want to make the Territory a better place and keep it that way. People who want to be involved in corruption and criminal activities will not come here because we have a solid anti-corruption watchdog, properly resourced, with the ability to quickly investigate matters. Those people return to where they came from, and we keep the Territory a safe and good place to do business, to live and to enjoy life.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was clear the Chief Minister, in his rebuttal of this proposition, did not quite understand what was being put before him. He seems to believe you do not have a fire brigade until the city is on fire. We want to put the necessary protections in place before a problem arises. Taking the view of the Chief Minister, I suggest to him there is corruption, and so on and so forth, which warrants this. He thought I was talking about other problems; that the waiting list in hospitals, the standards in education, SIHIP and so on, were my substantiation for an anti-corruption body. No, I was talking about the need for the right instruments in place to attend to problems. He did not seem to understand that. It is another part of our growth as a civil society that we need these instruments in place.
I also said there had been an occasion, even in this Chamber, which gave rise to this, where allegations were made which caused me to think I do not want to live in a place where an allegation can be made and left hang. In this Chamber it can be by way of substantive motion if rumours are on foot; they can be properly tested, otherwise, get on with it. That is the context. If he wanted me to bring stories about corruption, this is not appropriate and not the context in which I come to the debate. I do not say: here is problem X, Y and Z; we could all turn our minds to stories which give rise to concern. That is not how I have approached this. Clearly, the Chief Minister did not understand that.
The Chief Minister’s argument is we do not need it because I have not proven there is corruption. Therefore, you do not have the fire brigade until the city is on fire - evidence of a mindset which has given rise to the lack of progress and forward planning. When it comes to urban land release or properly addressing the strategic issues in education, health, or the public service, the mindset is no attention to forward planning or strategy, or recognising the role of leadership to put in the instruments for taking today’s issues and finding a better solution for them tomorrow. Simple as that – he did not get. In this case, it appears ignorance rules. Nonetheless, I ask honourable members to support this motion.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
During the June sittings, I urged the government to undertake an inquiry, using the Inquiries Act, as the vehicle to ensure openness and accountability. However, it appears minister Hampton was correct in pointing out the weakness of that act; that being the inadequate penalties applying to people who failed to give evidence or provide documents to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament.
It, therefore, appears common sense whenever a legislative shortfall becomes apparent - particularly where it has been deemed to be weak, out-of-date, or not able to meet its obligation or, in this case, to provide an adequate deterrent for anyone called to appear before a board of inquiry - to amend, update, or bring into line that legislation.
The Inquiries Act allows the Legislative Assembly to establish a board of inquiry into any given matter. The board has power to compel a person to give evidence or provide documentation to assist that inquiry. The current penalty for refusing to provide documentation to an inquiry or give evidence is set at $100. These penalties have not been amended since 1985, and are unlikely to be successful as a deterrent given it is only $100. In contrast, recent legislation introduced and supported by this government suggests abandoning a shopping trolley within the waterfront precinct should attract a penalty in the area of $13 000, yet a person who fails to give evidence or provide documentation to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament risks receiving a fine of $100. Similar penalties in the Ombudsman Act, the Environmental Protection Authority Act and the Information Act attract a fine more appropriate to the nature of the offence.
As a good example, the penalty set by the Commission of Inquiries Act 1950 in Queensland, section 19, for a similar offence is 200 penalty units or 12 months in prison. Similar legislation introduced in recent years has seen penalties for the breach of similar provisions set between 100 penalty units, as can be seen in the Ombudsman Act, sections 126 and 127, and 200 penalty units in the Information Act, section 101.
The government has been committed to gradually converting references to monetary penalties to penalty units, with one penalty unit equivalent to $131 as of 1 July 2010. This is in conjunction with the plans to review all penalties and impose an estimated 15% increase. The majority of penalties within Justice-managed legislation have already been increased by at least 15%.
This amendment to the Inquiries Act, including amending section 11(1) to increase the penalty from $100 to 200 penalty units, and amending section 12 to increase the penalty from $100 to 200 penalty units, not only fits within the government’s own policy to update legislation to reflect penalty units, it also provides a fix for the minister who quite rightly pointed out this weakness within the Inquiries Act and, of course, updates older legislation and provides a real deterrent and consequence for anyone who fails to attend a hearing or produce documents, or refuses to be sworn or give evidence to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament. That is vital, given the importance of an inquiry set up by this parliament. Given this amendment passes the commonsense test, there is no reason it should not be supported. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the Territory parliament indicate its support for the Coalition’s plan to save nearly 400 homes at the RAAF Base Darwin;
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot see how the Labor government, in its right mind, could find itself in this position. I hope against hope they have an amendment to this which deals with number (3) - to get it out of the way so it is not so offensive to them - they would be supporting a motion which describes them as inept, inadequate and dysfunctional. I would concede if you want to drop (3) and continue with the others. We might find ourselves in a place of agreement in the presence of families who need a sensible approach.
I cannot believe Labor members, some I see drinking coffee in the mall and really enjoying the role, do not know or do not care about the pressure ordinary working families – the younger families - are under. Perhaps you are in the space where you explain it away; you are not engaged, and can explain it in all manner of ways that makes it easier for you to drink your coffee and say ‘hail fellow, well met’. You do not know? Of course you know. If you do know, you do not care because you would be galvanised into action.
You would not give the response: ‘Yes, but what about this?’ You would not put out slogans attempting to defend yourself and your pathetic response. It is a terrible situation. They are perfectly good houses, and I have seen the photos. I have heard so much about these houses. I remember going there years ago, and it struck me as a normal suburb. I have heard the argument from government excusing their weak response to a real problem that the houses are inappropriate. Come doorknocking with me in Driver and I could take you to a hundred houses like this; fine houses with good families - tell them their house is inappropriate! These are the same as houses in Driver, Gray and Woodroffe - the same houses built at the same time.
Standing with Pauline as I did yesterday - and I met with her on Friday - she started talking about it. She is a retired nurse; she worked in pathology, and wants to make a contribution in her unit. She provides care - Family and Community Services - however she cannot because her daughter requires emergency housing. Territory Housing speaks of a list not yet provided by the Chief Minister when asked yesterday how many were on it. The list gives the idea of a line of people. I would like to see the numbers because there are two lists. One is the emergency housing list; the other is the general waiting list. From what I can see, no one on the general waiting list is moving. Emergencies are going to the emergency wait list, which is the only list being responded to. The other one is blowing out to three, four, five years.
We have a crisis impacting on families. This lady cannot provide care for babies; that is what she wants to do - it makes her useful. With her qualifications and life experience as a nurse, it is something she can do. However, she cannot because her daughter was told: ‘You are going to have to wait at least six months’. ‘I am in trouble. If you cannot provide for me, I am on the streets’. ‘Your mum, a senior citizen, is in a granny flat, you can live there; we will allow that’. As a consequence, two babies are unable to be cared for. Family and Community Services expressed their concern and have written to Housing asking if they could fix this because they desperately need Pauline to provide care for babies. Such is the crisis.
Sometimes people tell their stories. Every time she talked about it she cried. I wondered, as we came to Monday, whether she would be interested in telling the story more widely. I thought she might be reticent, however she said: ‘No, I will do anything if it helps’. If you met Pauline you would be impressed by her resolve. She is not inclined to do that type of thing but said: ‘I would be happy to do that’. I felt for her, and explained to her beforehand what was happening. She said: ‘I am happy to do this. The little boy I am looking after at the moment, my grandson, is shy but I am happy to speak’. The cameras pulled up outside the house, residents come out and I felt a duty to explain what was happening. I told them there were vacant houses at the RAAF Base and we have to get this government to recognise there is a solution under its nose which will make a difference, and we are interviewing your neighbour. One lady punched the air with her fist and said: ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’ and started to tell me her story.
I move around; I talk to people. They come into my office. I am the local member for Gray, Moulden and Woodroffe. I hear it all the time; it cannot be ignored. To have this lame dog excuse - rollover Hendo, Defence say they cannot do it. Oh, okay. It is like the meek shall inherit the earth. What type of government do you have? If you want to tell an agency: ‘I am the government, I would like you to do this’, they say: ‘Well, there is a problem doing that’. ‘Do you think so? What about this? I would like you to do that’. ‘There is a problem with that, minister’. ‘Is that right? Okay, have you any suggestions?’ ‘Oh, no’.
You wonder what the job of government is. It seems to be signing up to anything, rolling over, having its tummy scratched whenever a command or direction is issued. I do not understand you when it comes to standing on your hind legs and defending the rights of people to have a home, and admitting you stuffed up by resisting, as the member for Karama resisted. I remember the day she caved in and changed direction and, without a blush, commenced speaking differently - a complete sea change before our eyes. In 2007, with no apology, she changed from: ‘You cannot release more land because you will flood the market. You guys want to wreck the marketplace. You are vandals and cannot be trusted’.
The reason for the sudden dramatic shift was the glossy brochures galore. It was as though there had been a ‘road to Damascus’ experience. I detect the presence and actions of a focus group which finally got through to this thick government it needed to attend to things brewing under its nose and being felt by ordinary citizens coming up to an election. It is a little too late. People have grown tired of the disingenuous spin and confected response to real problems. There are houses which may have problems. Territorians do not want a: ‘Yes, that is probably a good idea but, but, but, but defence. The soldiers said we cannot do it; we will have to go somewhere else’. For God’s sake!
There is a way through this. If you fought like a Territory government should fight, space can be made, that is my firm conviction. I have seen things turn around when someone takes a stand, someone shows resolve, particularly when doing it for those who need it. Right is on your side.
It is a serious problem - let us go through some of the facts. The most recent numbers released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show home prices in Darwin increased 14.8% in the last 12 months, and publicly available pricing puts the median cost of a home over $580 000. Did you know? If you did know, apparently you do not care. That is a staggering debt for a new homeowner to commit to. Compared to the days of 20% deposit and a demonstrated savings capacity, delivering $120 000 in cash as a down payment on a home today is an insurmountable task for many.
I moved to the Territory over 20 years ago with a young family. I would not be able to move to the Territory today, with a young family, to take up a position as principal of a local school. After renting for a period of time in Gray we bought a house in Driver at a cost of $120 000. That is the deposit required for a young family to purchase a unit now - $120 000.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There may have been an error with the clock because I noticed the Leader of the Opposition started at 10 minutes. I believe the time for debate on a motion is 20 minutes. Is that right, Mr Clerk?
The CLERK: Thirty.
Dr BURNS: He has 20 minutes up his sleeve.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. We now have a society which relies on leverage to support home ownership, and it is a perilous situation - things are finely tensioned in the home. If interest rates rise, or if someone has an event which causes their income to diminish, as in a sad case of someone in Bellamack - they had to pull the pin. What changed? Change of heart, no. When they planned it just about stacked up. There were delays and the price increased. They stretched it - they could nearly make it. Then, it all fell apart in the saddest of ways. It was tragic for them because their dream dissolved, crashed. How was that? She fell pregnant. She wanted a baby but it meant she could not work. She had a significant income which was now taken out of the equation; they had to abandon their dream. It was traumatic for the young couple. The domestic pressures around that were significant.
Their situation is a result of the failure to balance supply and demand in the release of land. In the past, state and territory governments balanced supply and demand of land in the marketplace. That has changed. You reap a harvest of stamp duty, however you are interfering with the marketplace and who is suffering? People like those I mentioned.
Treasury figures report the average Territory family has a fortnightly income of $1892, with monthly loan repayments of $1856. That is almost misery according to the Dickens’ equation. That is nearly 50% of a two-income family’s spending putting a roof over their heads. That is what is required to get into the home market.
The median rent of a home in the Top End is over $500 per week. The housing crisis forces both adults in a family into the workplace. It is a crisis driven by failed policy and failed leadership. Someone has to accept responsibility. The Labor government says: ‘Who could that be? It has to be the Country Liberals; they were in power for 27 years’. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. We will keep item 3 in the motion - inept, inadequate and dysfunctional government.
For years we have been promised a resolution to the housing crisis; a crisis driven home squarely by the policies of the Henderson government, and its predecessor, Clare Martin. Instead of leadership in planning and direction, we see a litany of housing failures. The biggest failure so far has been affordable housing. Housing affordability is now at a critical level for families paying mortgages or rent. It is straining family budgets already stretched by steep price rises in petrol, grocery, childcare, health, and education.
That is what Damian Hale said in 2007, which is why Kevin Rudd - do you remember him, the one who was done over recently? Damian Hale said Kevin Rudd announced a plan to build 50 000 homes for the rental market in 2007. They were in touch, they knew, they felt the pain, as the current Prime Minister feels the pain. That is why they were building 50 000 homes for the rental market. People were hopeful something would happen. There was an announcement in 2007 to deliver 50 000 homes across Australia and, in 2010, we have a rehash announcement from Labor which might – might - deliver one home by the end of the year, if - and a big if - someone can deliver the NRAS participants a block of land.
Second on the housing failure hit list is SIHIP. In 2007, as an emergency response - for goodness sake! - the Coalition committed to funding accommodation and housing throughout the Northern Territory for Indigenous Territorians. Three years later, the Labor government has spent over $200m and delivered on a fraction of the commitment of 750 new homes. Residents of communities such as Wadeye and Gunbalanya have to live with the failures of Labor to deliver housing in the bush, and the residents of Alice Springs, Palmerston, and Darwin have to live with the failure of Labor’s land release programs necessary to deliver housing opportunities and affordability in the cities.
As another glossy brochure hits letterboxes, we should be reminded of the commitments of Labor land release in the Territory. There were to be 640 blocks of land released in 2009, the majority in Bellamack and Johnston, another 930 in 2010, and a projected 930 again in 2011. Pause at this point. When those glossy brochures first hit letterboxes in Palmerston, three young families came into my office within two weeks very excited. They wanted to know where the land was - they wanted to get into the marketplace. I said: ‘It is glossy brochure, I hope it comes to pass’. That was 2007, and there is still no land. It was a glossy brochure - another hoax. How can you do that to people? Oh, you needed to win an election.
In 2009, 640 blocks were to be delivered across the Top End. What do we have? In 2010, homes built in Bellamack and Johnston - zero. What is under construction in Bellamack? Like the expensive foray into remote housing under SIHIP, it is Henderson’s affordable housing solution - the boxes. I have seen them at Chung Wah - homes with holes for air-conditioners, but no facilities; with pads for extra rooms at extra cost, with price tags out of reach of first homebuyers - and no buyers. Affordable housing which is unaffordable. Half-baked, half homes fully priced.
Federal Labor’s solution to this government’s problem is to re-announce the National Rental Affordability Scheme and roll out a build program over the next three years of 1200 new buildings - 1200 dwellings to compete for 2500 new available home lots and land releases. That is 1200 dwellings in three years, when the current population growth rate requires nearly 1500 dwellings a year to keep pace. One thousand two hundred dwellings for 3000, 4000 or 5000 INPEX employees; 1200 dwellings with an underlying demand over three years for 4000 new homes; 1200 just to stand still. We are meant to accept this at face value.
Julia Gillard seems like a nice lady; she made the announcement. We have a need and she feels the pain. We are supposed to accept this. Well, once bitten, twice shy. I have met too many families who have had their hopes dashed that these commitments will be delivered, that this government is serious. How wrong is it? How wrong is it that 80 homes under SIHIP have cost $200m? How wrong is it that the Territory government has failed to deliver affordable rental housing in 2009 and 2010 under the NRAS program? How could a scheme rolled out in 2008, taking bids through 2009 and 2010, leave Territorians waiting until 2011 for the first new rental home? How? Because of a lazy and inefficient government, a government which did not bother working through the Round 1 funding of NRAS to get a project up for consideration, a government which did not support Round 2 applications. How wrong that the member for Solomon, and the Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, say there were no NRAS applications in Rounds 1 and 2 when there were applications for 172 homes. Applications were rejected for homes in the Darwin rural area and in Nhulunbuy, homes not supported by this government, not acted upon by the local member, and not delivered by Labor.
How wrong that 1200 homes from a lazy, inefficient government will cost hundreds of millions, if not billons of dollars to build and still leave behind a land availability squeeze, a home availability squeeze and a home price and rental squeeze. How wrong that 100 homes will remain vacant at the RAAF Base Darwin during the middle of the worst housing crisis in decades. It goes from bad to worse when you have the capacity for some release to this pressure sitting right under your nose.
When faced with a median rent of over $500 per week, where the first $25 000 of a person’s wage goes to shelter, 100 homes would offer immediate relief to workers trawling through the shallow pool of available rental properties. It is a way to address the 1.9% rental vacancy rate in Darwin, the 1.2% vacancy rate in Palmerston; a way to add to the limited rental space currently unoccupied. Is it any wonder 100 homes would make such a major difference when there is 10% of the current vacant rentals market? Is it any wonder 1500 new homes a year is vital to supporting a population growth, an interstate migration of 2000 to 3000 people a year, and is it any wonder we have a spiralling housing cost when government is failing to deliver the underlying infrastructure to the housing market!
Returning to land, the commitment to deliver housing is a vital necessity to our economic wellbeing. The Territory government has failed to act therefore the federal government is forced to pick up the pieces. However, the ongoing commitment to deliver land for housing underpins the story to be written about housing affordability. If land prices continue at these levels, if it costs $350 000 for a block of land at Lyons or $220000 for land in a new suburb in Palmerston, what price will be the finished product? We are in the era of $0.5m starter homes, of base rental prices of $500 a week or more, and a widening gap between the purchasing power of people and the purchase price of properties. Without affordable land release in the Territory we have reached a crossroads.
The population centres of Alice Springs and Katherine have growth restraint because of a lack of land. Darwin and Palmerston have growth restrained because of a lack of land. In the growth towns across the Territory, because of incompetence government governance of SIHIP, there is a lack of developing land. In a Territory with an area of 1.4 million km we have urban land valued at $250m per square kilometre. As land is so expensive because we have not kept pace with population and become a decentralized community interlinked with green public transport, we are pressing more people into the same space; we are moving up and not out. We are failing to deliver land on the fringes to keep prices down in the centre. We are cramming more homes into the same housing space and charging more for the privilege. We have more homes for Larrakeyah Barracks on smaller blocks of land. We have four-storey apartment blocks appearing in the suburbs of Wanguri, Karama and even Rosebery.
This is all driven by a failure to release land and keep rents down. We have a glacial land release program at Mt Johns Valley, at Bellamack and at Johnston. We have delayed release of Berrimah and Muirhead, Zuccoli and Alice Springs Research Station, and for all these failures we have failed commitments for affordable housing.
A Northern Territory affordable housing company has not been delivered. Short-term worker accommodation has not been delivered. NRAS funding, on the table since 2007, has not been delivered. Is it any wonder rental prices have skyrocketed on a three-bedroom home by $300 per week since 2002? Has anyone studied economics? Is it any wonder the public housing waiting list time for a three-bedroom home is five years in Darwin, four years in Alice Springs and three years and eight months in Palmerston; that public housing in Nhulunbuy has a wait time of seven years and more for one, two or three-bedroom homes.
Where is the NRAS funding for Nhulunbuy requested under Round 2 of the offers last year? What applications were rejected by the Commonwealth? Where is support for Indigenous housing in the bush? What is this government’s real commitment to affordable housing? All we see are excuses - we cannot save 400 homes at Ludmilla; we cannot keep kids at the local school; we cannot save businesses at Winnellie shops. We do not do these things under this government because it does not have the vision. Find a piece of land, employ a builder, design a home and deliver construction all by the end of 2010 according to the lazy and inefficient Damian Hale and appalling Labor government.
Is this possible? I have seen The Castle and I say: ‘You are dreaming’. There are people needing a response, and it beggars belief you are not fighting to sort this out. They are right under your nose. You could cut yourselves much slack if you stood beside the Territory opposition and fought for the opportunity for families to move into homes and create a little space in the market. It is not a solution to the whole problem; however it is a big difference to people who need some slack now. The ones I have mentioned need it now.
The couple who pulled out of the deal at Bellamack; Pauline, who wants to look after babies but sleeps in a single bed with her granddaughter at her unit, and her daughter in another room with two kids. It is not good. My own kids cannot come here because it is too expensive. You could do something - there is a solution. Do not tell me: ‘Oh yeah but’. In the past Territory governments have stood up for Territorians and found a way. There is a way. You can support the Territory opposition. You can support the coalition and we could make it happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge members to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept the sincerity of the Opposition Leader in his quest to assist people undergoing housing stress. Many people in the community are experiencing housing stress, however I would like to underline at the outset of my response to the Opposition Leader’s motion that, as a government, we have a plan for assisting people with accommodation over a whole range of sectors, whether they be seniors, equity for people wanting to purchase their first house, or families under rental stress looking for assistance.
Nonetheless, whilst I can see where the Leader of the Opposition and others are coming from in relation to the RAAF Base, I cannot accept that the plan put forward by Natasha Griggs and the Coalition is a viable way forward. It is unfair to give people false hope those properties will be rented because the Defence department has made it plain they require this land for their own strategic purposes, and they will not relinquish it. I do not believe it is possible, even if the Coalition wins the election. It is a sad state of affairs. People see those empty houses and ask: ‘Why can we not take it over; excise it from the RAAF Base, put families in there and ease the burden?’ It is that simple - life is not that simple. Defence will not relinquish the land.
Members on the opposite side who know about this have acknowledged it to me in private. Defence has made it clear. Coalition Defence spokesman, David Johnson, said they could not deliver the promise if the Defence department opposed the idea. The Defence department has its own strategies for its properties. One only has to look at the way the airport has changed over the last decade to see a complete polarisation of the activities of the commercial/civilian part of the airport - the Johnston side of the airport - to what is happening on the other side - the Ludmilla side - where there are many Defence installations and much equipment and security. From my interaction with Defence in a number of portfolio areas they jealously guard their strategic interests, whether it is Darwin Harbour or the RAAF Base at Ludmilla. Defence is making it clear they do not want to relinquish that land.
I will give you another example. Jetstar wanted to build another terminal near the Aviation Museum. Defence strenuously opposed the proposal. Lobbyists from Jetstar approached the federal government to gain permission to erect another terminal on that side of the airport. It will not happen. Why will it not happen? Because Defence have their strategic interests in the airport at heart. That message is being ignored by Natasha Griggs during the election campaign.
The Leader of the Opposition is sincere in his proposal. I can see where he is coming from; he sees and experiences the need. As local members we all have people - and particularly as minister for Housing - approaching us with desperate needs for accommodation and housing. I wish I had a magic wand to solve the problem. It is not going to be solved in the way proposed by Natasha Griggs; it needs a strategic approach. This government, in collaboration with the Commonwealth government, has a strategic approach to resolve these issues, not so much overnight, in the medium to longer term.
Much has been said in the last day about the partnership, and what has been delivered in housing under the stimulus package. In the stimulus Stage 1 construction, there was $7.1m for 22 dwellings to be constructed, with 16 of those 22 dwellings complete, and the remaining six dwellings to be complete by late August - later this month. Of those, there are much needed four by four-bedroom dwellings in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. Under Stage 2 construction, there was $48m for 186 dwellings, with the majority to be complete by the end of 2011. Much is happening and it is churlish to ignore work is occurring and being fast-tracked.
The Wirrina development is under way with a development agreement signed in August 2010 by the Territory government and Sitzler Pty Ltd. Sitzler has lodged a development application, with construction of 45 quality rental units and 10 public housing units for seniors due to be completed by June 2012. That is an important development.
Bellamack Seniors Village: $10m joint-funded Commonwealth and Northern Territory government program for construction of 40 seniors units; contract was awarded in June 2010. Construction commenced in July 2010, and is due for completion in March 2011.
Refurbishment projects under way: 34 South Terrace, Alice Springs - $2.4m refurbishment of the unit complex. That property will be leased to Aboriginal Hostels Limited. Larapinta Seniors Village: $5.6m for 18 dwellings to be constructed. Design and documentation is under way; projected construction contract award date is December 2010; and projected completion date is September 2011.
Future works: design briefs are under development for the following projects: Bellamack and Tiwi – two-bedroom public housing unit; Malak Seniors Village; and refurbishment of various public housing unit complexes. Stage 2 projects include: 12 bedroom upgrade of Catherine Booth House, Stuart Park by the Salvation Army; 20 units of supported affordable housing accommodation at Coconut Grove by St Vincent de Paul; eight units at Malak for women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence; 18 units for transitional accommodation at Crerar Road, Berrimah - I saw that construction three or four weeks ago - 45 units of social housing in Parap as part of the Wirrina Development; eight public housing units in Bellamack; four public housing units at The Gap; eight units of managed accommodation for homeless people at East Side, Alice Springs by the Salvation Army; 28 units of transitional accommodation at Percy Court in Alice Springs; and 35 units of managed accommodation at The Lodge, Larapinta.
Regarding the motion before the Assembly, on one hand we have the opposition supporting a proposal to excise land from the RAAF Base even though the land is required for strategic purposes by the Department of Defence. On the other hand, the opposition has refused to support, at a national level, the stimulus package which has provided $59.7m for housing across the Territory. That is not counting almost $50m announced in Budget 2010-11 for 150 units of housing, and does not include much of the in-fill developments in Millner. We discussed this in estimates, member for Braitling; a number of duplexes are being constructed on two larger blocks in Millner. We are looking at other locations to construct further in-fills to consolidate blocks. That is our plan and, particularly for seniors, is my plan.
We also have the announcement, as part of the election campaign by Julia Gillard and Damian Hale, regarding the 1200 NRAS units to be constructed by Ethan Affordable Housing company based in Victoria. We heard today planning for their first units is well under way. I am advised they will be taking that to the Development Consent Authority shortly, and are looking to begin construction by the end of this calendar year. NRAS is a very good program. I received a briefing on the spot about NRAS; it will work well in the Northern Territory. Developers will embrace it, construct dwellings and, through an affordable housing company like Ethan, will manage it.
In contrast, it is okay to say there are many houses at the RAAF Base, and the motion the Leader of the Opposition brought forward says in part (4):
In my experience as Housing minister, there are homeless people who cannot support a tenancy. If you were to put some of those tenants in housing at the RAAF Base it would not make anyone happy; you would have a concentration of problems.
We all know about Cornwallis Circuit, Palmerston and the problems which occur when there is a concentration of public housing tenancies - people with manifold problems concentrated in one area. There is an explosion of social problems which is not good for anyone. During the last sittings I talked about District 9. If it were to come to fruition you would be seeing the RAAF Base houses - it is not clear who would go into these houses, except the Leader of the Opposition has said homeless people. There are many other people suffering housing stress; working people who would welcome the opportunity of paying 20% below market rent in an NRAS situation. Who will manage the houses, who will live there, and how are you going to determine rent?
It seems the Leader of the Opposition is flicking it to Territory Housing. Life is a little more complex. I reiterate; I can see where you are coming from, I respect your sincerity in the motion - not all the motion put forward, the concept you have brought forward, not the politics. I understand you see those houses and the need, and you believe people should just be able to move in - the suburb should be excised.
Life is not that simple. Defence does not want to relinquish those properties. Damian Hale and the current federal government have offered those houses be gifted to the Northern Territory. We are in caretaker mode at present; however with the election of a Gillard government we will work on the gifting and relocation of those houses. If there were to be an Abbott government in Canberra, there would be many problems and people would be disappointed. I do not believe you will be able to deliver on that promise.
Madam Speaker, the government opposes the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the RAAF Base housing is an excellent, established community with a name, Eaton, and an identity and history. It was a pleasure for me to recently support a rally to save these houses and meet former residents of these homes who, like my colleague the member for Brennan, would be very happy to live there again.
The RAAF Base housing has proximity to an excellent school, a fantastic little local shopping centre and the public transport corridors. In fact, at the rally it was interesting talking to people who had lived at the RAAF Base, who had moved out and would be very grateful if they could move back in. I had a lengthy conversation with one woman who had moved from the RAAF Base to Lyons and wanted to move back to the RAAF Base because there was a sense of community, proximity to schools, shops, other people, the city, and she was happy with the style of home as opposed to the new style. That may not suit everyone, but there were many people without houses supporting the proposal because they want somewhere to live.
It is interesting the Housing minister speaks about the type of dwellings and the fact they need to go because the RAAF wants the land for strategic purposes. Many issues stack up against that statement. Local businesses in that area rely on servicing local residents from that part of Darwin, particularly the community of Eaton. Local residents have done so for the past five decades or more. It is recognised as a thriving community dating back to the 1940s. The development of the area primarily began in the 1960s and continued through the 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, RAAF Base housing has additional significance as it survived the onslaught of Cyclone Tracy in 1974, which is testament to the fact these homes are very structurally sound. They are in immaculate condition. Defence has constantly maintained and regularly upgraded these properties, and they are an excellent affordable housing option as existing good quality houses.
Let me emphasise, for the sake of the Chief Minister, this is not a lazy policy. It is an exceedingly sensible policy and plain, old-fashioned common sense. It is amazing to many Territorians, Chief Minister, that you are considering walking away from an opportunity to secure these homes for Territory families. Each structure incorporates a range of good design features adapted to Darwin’s tropical climate. These homes provide a much needed choice of housing style: an elevated home rather than a concrete box, with gardens and landscaping well established.
These are the issues people at the rally were concerned about - the houses going, the gardens going, and a neighbourhood disappearing. These houses are an excellent example of sustainable living - homes which lend themselves to the use of cross-ventilation. They are not reliant upon the high and ever increasing costs of air-conditioning. The NT News, on 14 July this year, described them as ‘troppo style’. It is a style which is environmentally sustainable and reduces the carbon footprint, which we hear those opposite mention all the time. The moment they are moved they become unaffordable, as costs to ensure they meet mandatory standards will be extremely high.
If moved, as mooted by Damian Hale in an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to Natasha Griggs’ campaign, there will be massive issues. Because there is no provision under the Building Code for relocated houses, they will be treated as new homes and will have to meet the stringent energy conditions in the Building Code of Australia 2010 NT which, from 11 May 2010, means a new home must be five-star rated. This is impossible for these glorious tropical homes as the five-star rating affects external walls, shading, glazing, percentage of ventilation openings, etcetera. Building certifiers - when you can find them, because they are overworked due to insufficient numbers - will insist on current standards. Current standards are changing annually, and even the balustrades must comply.
You only have to look at these lovely homes to realise the requirement to pass the five-star energy rating is impossible. With so many louvers they suffer from excessive ventilation. Attempting the necessary structural upgrades on these homes would prove complicated, expensive, if not completely impossible. The cost of transportation of approximately $40 000 per home, and the construction of basic infrastructure – ground clearance, slab, sewerage, electrical, etcetera - adds prohibitive cost to moving them. There are engineering, plumbing certification and electrical issues. Having recently gone through renovations myself, getting an engineer in a timely manner is extremely difficult. You would also have to cut the larger ones in half as they are too expensive to relocate otherwise. At the end of the day there is no way of moving these homes in a cost-effective manner. One might also ask: where would they be moved to?
I would like to discuss figures. The 2009-10 budget papers said we require approximately 1700 dwellings a year. The 2010-11 budget papers said we need 1400 to 1500 dwellings per year. The government’s figures from 2009 say releases are going forward: in 2009, 640; in 2010, 930; 2011, 930; 2012, 905; and in 2013 plus, 2995. Even before we start, we are behind the eight ball in relation to land release.
When the government says there is a great new plan if the federal Labor government is re-elected – they will build 1200 homes, I wonder where they will put them because the figures for land release do not stack up. I did not get all the figures the minister for Housing quote regarding building houses, however, we are talking 10, 30, 40, 180. I do not think those figures will add up to 400.
We have an already established community, a functioning community, no earthworks required, the plumbing is connected and the power is on. The infrastructure is there in roads, kerbs, and the houses are liveable. In fact, they are better than some of the houses in my electorate. You have to ask: where are they going to put them? I would love to hear the government say they have found an extra 400 blocks of land. There is no way anyone wins if these homes are bulldozed. Taxpayers for many years have upgraded and maintained these homes to the point where they are in excellent condition. It is cost-efficient to reuse these homes as very little needs to be done; the buildings have been so well maintained by the Department of Defence - again, at enormous expense to the taxpayer. No residential home should be destroyed at this time of extreme housing stress in the Northern Territory brought on by the government’s inability to release land in a timely and sufficient manner.
If these homes were shifted, finding people to work on them - if you can find a block of land - will require enormous effort. Finding a builder at the moment is difficult. Try doing renovations or building a new home. Air-conditioner installers, plumbers, electricians, are all difficult to find. A builder friend rang me recently looking for air-conditioner installers because they are hard to find at the moment. Fortunately, I was able to give him the name of a friend who will pull him out of trouble. He is building and trying to find tradespeople. In this time of a lack of tradespeople we want to create more expense for people and more demand on the tight resources we have available, especially in Darwin.
Over the past 12 months, Darwin’s median house price has risen by nearly 16%. Over the past five years, prices have absolutely skyrocketed. In Ludmilla in June 2005, the average price for a home was $310 000; in June 2010, that had leapt to $561 600. In Coconut Grove in June 2005, $320 143, skyrocketing in 2010 to $500 090; and in Millner in June 2005, $245 000 and in June 2010, $493 000.
Some people may say if you are a landowner or a house owner that is great; you have a large equity in your home. I have three kids who live in Darwin and I would like them to buy houses at a reasonable price and not be forced, like some families, to move south because their children cannot afford to get into the housing market. I would love for people I know, and some of my relatives living in units with kids, to be able to buy an affordable home. When you look at the prices, and when they go up by 16%, people trying to save a 20% deposit are behind the eight ball. One has to hope alternative houses come onto the market. If the Coalition in Canberra is elected, it has already given a commitment it will excise the land from the RAAF Base. It will keep the suburb of Eaton, thereby supporting families.
I note the minister for Housing suggested homeless people might create problems. For the benefit of the minister, I have people coming into my office in despair because they are good, working people who cannot afford to buy a home. Some are in public housing at the moment and would like to buy a home but cannot afford to because of the inability of the government to release land, and have been unable to buy houses because they have increased in price.
People are still living in cars and in tents. It saddens me when they come into my office to complain about the lack public housing. The latest figure was around 3500 families on the public housing waiting list. The seniors housing list - it is great the government is building seniors accommodation, and I congratulate the minister for Housing for taking on seniors as a pet issue to pursue. However, we have a five-year waiting list for seniors. We will lose our seniors because they cannot afford to stay here. I have numerous seniors express concern about what they will do when they finish working. If they do not own their home, and many do not, their only choice is to leave town. It is a shame when they have to leave their families, their grandchildren and all their support services. Some do not have a choice.
Yet, we have the RAAF Base Darwin covering almost 45 ha south west of Darwin airport. We need to remember the RAAF Base contains one of the oldest surviving groups of houses in Darwin. There are individual structures and groups of buildings which stand as fine examples of military architecture and the adaptation of buildings to suit tropical climates with cross ventilation, elevated floors and wide eaves.
It is worth noting the original plans and layout for the RAAF Base were very high quality. These plans were thought to have been influenced by Walter Burley Griffin, with an underlying geometry of axial planning, a focus on precise areas for separate functions, and the recognition of landscape. It will not surprise you to be told the RAAF Base Darwin is listed on the newly instigated Commonwealth Heritage List for its various historic values. There are four separate listings: the Commanding Officer’s residence; Tropical Housing types 2 and 3, and 16 houses within the heritage RAAF Base precinct. They are significant for their association with a notable architect, B C G Burnett. They will be proudly sitting there for perpetuity if a Coalition government is re-elected; otherwise I fear they will be bulldozed. This important heritage area is an excellent focal point for the RAAF Base estate for the future.
In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, the entire heritage area is subject to a heritage management plan; an internal Defence document used to determine any potential impact a proposed development may have on the heritage values. A heritage management plan has been developed which guides the management of the heritage values at this site, and will ensure the extent of the heritage area is properly respected and adjacent areas are treated appropriately.
This week, the Planning minister proudly announced a leading international urban design company has been appointed to research and draft a master plan for the new Palmerston suburb of Zuccoli. I quote:
They are also about building the fabric of a community, providing safe areas, safety houses, Neighbourhood Watch and school kids knowing each other. We have that sense of community and the rally brought many people living on the RAAF Base out to support the retention of their community in the Territory. The minister went on to say:
That describes the suburb of Eaton very well - energy efficient and homes designed for our tropical lifestyle. Minister, this already exists at the RAAF Base Darwin.
The minister said Urbis Pty Ltd was selected because of its outstanding track record working on similar projects in regional cities in Western Australia and Queensland. They are not even a Territory company! Urbis, busily master planning a Territory suburb, has offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Dubai. That is sensible when looking at tropical conditions. I am sure Urbis employees are fine people and have an excellent track record; however, we are talking about the Territory. We are talking about tropical homes; we are talking about tropical design.
Minister, what in heaven’s name are the strategic planners doing in our department? We constantly see departments using advisors; they receive advice from contractors when we have fine people working for government. Why are our public services not being utilised in greater numbers?
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Brennan.
Why are we not using people in our departments? Why do they keep engaging consultants? It appears the government is reinventing the wheel as it did with the RAAF Base. Yes, the neighbouring airport operates 24-hours a day, as do other major capital city airports with the exception of Adelaide, Cairns, Gold Coast and Sydney. Those wanting to invest in these homes will do so knowing they are adjacent to a fully functional airport and RAAF Base, as are many homes in adjoining suburbs.
People may say: ‘That is fine; you do not live there’. Well, I do. I have not checked the map or measured the distance, however, I suspect my home is closer to the runway than some of the homes in Eaton. I knew the airport was there; I bought there; it does not worry me. I knew full well where I was moving, and that we have Pitch Black and other exercises, and we have jets. The great thing is I do not have to ask whose jets they are - they are ours. I am a great believer our fighter pilots going to the front line and putting their lives on the line deserve all the professional development we, as a government and as a community, can give them.
In relation the noise issues from the RAAF jets, we should take a leaf out of the book of progress written by the Mayor of Ipswich, Councillor Paul Pisasale, who has enthusiastically welcomed the 24 new Super Hornets based at the RAAF Base Amberley. When asked what advice he gave the local community if they had noise problems his response was: ‘To move out’. The new joint fighters to be based at Tindal will be here from time to time. I tolerate it because I am a supporter of professional development, not only for our public servants and people in private industry, also our Defence people.
It is a personal choice to live adjacent to an operational base; it has also proved an excellent home for RAAF families for many years and will no doubt continue to be well into the future for Territory families desperate for affordable, well planned accommodation. It appears that will only happen if Natasha Griggs is elected and is part of a Coalition government led by Mr Abbott. It appears Damian Hale and the current government will bulldoze the houses because it is too expensive to move them.
I ask the Chief Minister: ‘How can you perceive these houses to be past their use-by-date when they are only a few decades old?’ Has the Chief Minister visited European cities, carefully planned and centuries old? What is this idiotic modern day view that if it is not brand new it must be worthless? We must all have friends and family who would give their eye teeth to have a home in Eaton. I do. Members of my family with several children would love to move from a small unit into a home there. Increasing numbers of people attend my electoral office every day saying rising house prices puts it out of reach of young people starting a life and cementing the fabric of our community in Darwin.
For those unaware of the name Eaton, Group Captain Charles Eaton, OBE, AFC joined the RAAF in 1925. In 1940, with the completion of the new RAAF aerodrome, he was appointed Station Commander at RAAF Base Darwin. The RAAF Base has a proud history. Keeping the RAAF Base homes is common sense in this era of acute housing shortages. Because Defence personnel are moving to Lyons and other new suburbs out of reach of many Territorians, does not mean we should not seize the opportunity to support Natasha Griggs and save the RAAF Base houses.
The houses in Eaton should be gifted to the Northern Territory government to release onto the Darwin market at 25% less market price, giving young people a start. The minister for Housing wanted to know the nuts and bolts; how much we would charge, which public servant would administer it, whether it would be an AO2, AO3, AO4 or AO5. We are not here to talk nuts and bolts. We are here to get people with families out of tents, cars, caravans and into family homes. Madam Speaker, you may have seen photos of the houses recently in the Chamber, where you put on a sprinkler, mow the lawn and you would have a fabulous tropical home, with a great garden and great landscaping at no extra expense to the taxpayer.
It is all very well to look at moving them, however a builder was telling me if the government wants to shift them - and you have to look at the time frame – it will break many small businesses because the builders will not be able to compete with 400 homes being moved rapidly. Also, suppliers of building materials – if there is a glut on the market of 400 homes – would struggle.
In 2007, we had promises; in 2010, we do not seem to have the land. The minister for Housing said we give people false hope. Well, what about land release? There are brochures in the Chamber today regarding commitments the government made in relation to land release. People want to buy land; want to build. There is no land, the price goes up and no one can afford it. Young Territory families are missing out.
The minister said opposition members have expressed this will not happen - I believe it will. The Coalition has made a commitment and the government - if it remains in government after 21 August - has given a commitment it will excise the land and transfer it for Territory families.
The minister for Housing spoke about security issues. The main RAAF Base fence is behind Eaton between the runway and the RAAF suburb we are talking about. That was moved in the 1990s, so houses on the RAAF Base can be accessed by all - the pizza delivery guys, and other service delivery people can come and go. Even in The Narrows, houses have a back fence where, on one side, the resident owns the land and, on the other side, it is RAAF Base. The major security fence is between the RAAF Base itself and these homes.
The minister mentioned Larrakeyah; private homes back onto Larrakeyah Barracks. If security is a problem the RAAF needs to buy the entire suburb of The Narrows and shift people away from its fence. It has lasted for many years that way, and I do not think it is an issue.
Regarding Jetstar on the opposite side, I agree with the minister for Housing, and believe Defence was wise because there is existing infrastructure and hardstands for jet aircraft.
Madam Speaker, I fully support the RAAF Base housing proposal and this motion. I ask the government to consider what has been said in this House, and consider young Territory families who need support. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I mentioned yesterday how debates over the next two weeks would be taken over by the federal election campaign. Looking at the motion today, I am right. That is not to say the premise of the motion is not good; to save the houses at the RAAF Base. Surely, we are all on the same side when it comes to that principle?
There are many houses on the RAAF Base, as you can see from the Google photograph - a fair number of houses in one place. We need to keep in mind what we are discussing. We are not talking about a few houses; we are talking about an entire suburb.
I had an interest in saving these houses, and the ones at Larrakeyah, some time ago. In fact, I have raised the Larrakeyah houses with the minister more than once. From that, most of those houses are to be shifted. However, if we think it would be better for this area to excised, we should look at that.
I discussed the RAAF houses with Daryl Manzie on Territory FM, which is how the idea of excising the area from Defence came about. This was before the election. I felt it would be better to leave the houses at the RAAF Base because the infrastructure is there - water, power, sewerage and roads. To move the houses you have to find new infrastructure, unless you put them on land with infrastructure already available. It would take time, whereas for a relatively instant solution - and because we know these houses will not be vacated in one go - if it was possible to excise the land that is the best option.
However, we need to put things into perspective because it is not quite that simple. In the Northern Territory News on 1 August 2010, Mr Tony Abbott said, under a Coalition government, the RAAF Base houses would be fixed up and sold direct to the public. In the Northern Territory News on 5 August 2010, Mr Abbott said land would be excised from the RAAF, however, in the same article, Opposition Defence spokesperson David Johnson, said the Coalition would not meet that promise if the Defence Department opposed the idea. On the same page, Mr Damian Hale said the houses would be gifted to the Northern Territory government and moved to another location. He did not say where, but to be sold by developers - I am a little worried about the details of that.
It is worth seeing what Defence say. In a media release dated 25 June 2010 headed ‘Defence Corrects Records on Aircraft Noise and Housing at RAAF’ - there had been articles about the new Joint Strike Fighter Squadron reported to be coming to Darwin. In relation to housing at the RAAF Darwin, it said Defence housing plans are influenced by cost-effectiveness and its long-standing preference to provide housing in the community, and the houses at RAAF Darwin no longer meet the Defence minimum standard, and the age and condition of many of the houses makes them uneconomical to repair or upgrade. It says of the 395 houses on base, 102 are currently vacant, and of these properties, 99 are vacant because they require major work.
Deficiencies include the size of living areas, bedrooms and kitchens, many with insufficient spaces for a pantry or modern refrigerator, and lack of amenities. In several properties there has been a deterioration of the fabric of the buildings which incurs high maintenance costs. It also says Defence is currently investigating future options for the houses at RAAF Darwin; houses identified by the review as being no longer require for Defence personnel will be demolished or removed from the base possibly for use by other government agencies. Any reduction in housing at the base will occur progressively over the next five years.
Defence says the houses are not up to standard, however we know Defence has the highest standard of housing. At Lyons, Darwin and the suburbs in Palmerston, there is a standard for Defence personnel. That does not mean those not in Defence would not be quite happy to live there. I have been in Darwin long enough to know these older style houses are very comfortable. They are tropical but will not fit government’s five-star energy efficiency standards because they are meant to have air-conditioners. However, they may pass 10-star efficiency guidelines because they are louvered, tropical, and allow flow-through.
The Honourable Allan Griffin, Minister for Defence Personnel, said recently current Defence planning indicates land can be vacated at RAAF Darwin as required, for contingency purposes for Defence into the future. That sounds like Defence-speak for: we do not know why we want it but are not giving it to anyone, and if we did know we would not tell you. I wonder whether this could be the next nine-hole golf course. I would like more detail on what they want the land for. The Department of Defence is based in Canberra and, from my dealings whilst on Litchfield Shire, is very difficult when it comes to Defence land.
From personal attempts to have roads on Defence land changed -- Stevens and Campbell Roads - it has been a longest effort. Small changes are occurring at the moment, however getting a second entrance into the barracks is like pulling teeth - it is not easy. I say to the Department of Defence, you might have a good reason for hanging onto that land, however do not treat us like second class citizens. Give me a good reason for requiring the land and I will accept it.
The opposition spokesman on Defence, David Johnson, said if the Department of Defence had a good reason why the land could not be excised let us hear it, and we can consider it in a sensible manner. The RAAF is saying the reason people are not living there is the houses are not up to standard and it wants more people to live in the community. The minister says it is required for contingency purposes. There seems to be conflict as to why this land has to go.
There was a letter from Mr Snodgrass, manager of the Winnellie Supermarket, saying he agreed one of the reasons they did not want houses any longer was because of noise, and the noise associated with the jet fighters. I believe that is where this started. The RAAF released a media statement saying a new noise map from RAAF Darwin - I have the noise map here – for Darwin, and Darwin International Airport, has found while there will be a slight increase in aircraft noise on base - again we are referring to the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter - there will be no increase in noise levels in residential or industrial areas nearby, including the Winnellie industrial and Narrows residential area. You will find a copy of the contours for Darwin Airport on the draft master plan for Darwin Airport. It shows the area called Eaton is partly outside the 20ANF corridor, which is normally a safer area to live, also partially inside but not in the 25ANF corridor. These are the new ANF contours designed up to 2030. If these houses reach 2030 we will have done well.
Although we have a range of options from RAAF and Defence, we need more discussion with the Department of Defence before we give up the idea of excising the suburb. There is uncertainty around whether the land could be excised; although that is the option we should investigate thoroughly.
My feeling is neither side of parliament wants to see these houses destroyed. There may be some dispute over whether the houses stay put or are shifted. In general, we all want an outcome to help people who cannot afford to buy or rent a home. There has been comment about No (4) in the motion - giving homeless families a priority and allocating houses to Territory Housing. That is the nuts and bolts. There is room for NGO involvement. There are also issues the member for Sanderson mentioned.
When we talk about homelessness it is more than about itinerants or long-grassers. Homelessness is also people who cannot afford a mortgage, and these dwellings would be of benefit there. Young people like my daughter and her three children who, as a single mum, cannot afford a mortgage. They are not in the running for it. My daughter is not alone. There are numbers of families, especially in the rural area, where the children stay home and mum and dad find a few dollars to build a granny flat out the back. That is a fact of life, and there is a great opportunity for these houses to be used to help these people.
The department has said it will not empty all the houses at once; it will take four to six years. If the suburb cannot stay, it could be used for housing until the RAAF needs the land, which allows time to move the houses. The member for Sanderson said there is not enough land. Over the next four to six years, if there was a gradual movement of these houses, we would find enough land.
These would be ideal for the forestry land in the rural area, where up to 500 blocks could be developed at Howard Springs. The issue holding that up is there is a native title claim over that land.
A member: And Vince Collins
Mr WOOD: And Vince Collins, yes. Hopefully we can live with Vince. That claim should be determined later this year and there is an opportunity, if these houses are to be removed over five to six years, they could be used there. I see no reason why they could not be used in Zuccoli, or anywhere else. Looking at the pictures we have, once you have a few trees around them, why would they not fit into a new suburb? They could be done up – there are people willing to put money into these houses. It does not cost much to move them. I quoted figures when discussing the cost of moving the houses from Larrakeyah. A company from Queensland said to me: ‘We have moved nearly all the houses from Amberley Airbase in Brisbane’. They moved them to all parts of Queensland. A Katherine company has discussed movement of the houses from Larrakeyah for a reasonable price.
By handing them over to developers some may make exorbitant profits. We should be careful not to bump the price up so people receiving a second hand house have money to bring it up to standard. The selling of these houses, if that is what is to happen, needs to be carefully assessed and not given over to developers.
I have listened to the debate tonight, and not many people are involved, however I believe we spend our efforts and energy - I know we are close to a federal election – saying: ‘Look at me! Look at me!’, because we want your vote. No, we do that normally, however at the moment the average Territorian would give us a pat on the back if we gathered as a parliament because we are dealing with the Commonwealth Department of Defence.
We need to say to the federal government - whoever that is after 21 August - that, as a parliament, we want those houses saved. They are too important an asset to lose and they are not to be bulldozed. Whether they stay or are shifted can be debated at another time. A small committee of parliament could say: let us look at those 400 houses. Why could we not work with NGOs? Why could we not look at options for developing the houses? We all know there is a housing shortage and people are struggling. I do not see anyone saying these houses should be bulldozed. We all support the use of these houses; the number one question is the houses are saved. Whether the land is excised and left as is, or whether they are shifted, is the key.
Madam Speaker, to get away from the party political theatrics, I move an amendment to the motion:
Madam SPEAKER: Do you have that in writing and signed, member for Nelson, so we can have it circulated?
Mr WOOD: I do, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you want to speak further, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, only briefly. I have put my argument at the beginning of this amendment because it is an important issue. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing it forward. I understand the opposition person standing for Solomon is pushing this issue, which is good. However, this parliament has a duty to say these 400 houses are too important.
They are important because we have many people struggling to put a roof over their head. We need to tell the Department of Defence the houses will not be bulldozed. We want to make every effort to have the land excised, because that is the most sensible suggestion. Bear in mind, infrastructure such as the sewerage and water may be ageing. A sensible approach is if it is to be excised, we look at costs associated with excision. Again, that is something a small committee of parliament could do. We could discuss these issues with the Department of Defence or the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s call, however this is above party politics. This is a case where Territorians would say our parliament should fight for these houses to be saved.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there further speakers in the debate?
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, I am still waiting for the amendment. I would like to examine it.
Mr Knight: I would like to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Business, bear in mind from now on all members are speaking to the original motion and the proposed amendment moved by the member for Nelson. This means members who have previously spoken are entitled to speak to the amendment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, having read the words of the amendment from the member for Nelson, I can indicate government has no problem. We still have a point of difference over excise or not excise, how you relocate, and the issues the member for Nelson has enunciated. However, on the broad issue of whether we want to save 400 homes, yes, we want to save 400 homes.
How to do it, where they would be, whether you would gradually relocated some into areas such as the forestry land, has to be worked out. We believe - and have not changed our position on this – we could work with the Department of Defence, as we successfully worked through the relocation of homes from Larrakeyah. We have a track record of working with the Department of Defence in saving houses.
We are on the record saying we are not against saving houses - that has never been an issue. We say do not give people false hope; do not pretend a strategic defence position taken by the Department of Defence is something you can sweep under the carpet and pretend does not exist - it does exist. Similarly, our position is clear. We know what the noise zones are moving to, particularly with the jet strike force, which is an issue.
We support the proposed amendment by the member for Nelson. However, the issues will have to be worked through. It is not as simple as sweeping it under the carpet, as the opposition would have you believe could be done. All the legitimate concerns of the Department of Defence …
A member: John Howard thinks so.
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly. Our former Prime Minister, John Howard, pointed out Defence strategic issues needed to be taken into account. As a government we respect that, particularly when you look at the proximity of those homes to the RAAF Base with significant noise issues, and increasing noise issues.
Madam Speaker, we have no issue around saving houses; we are all for saving houses. How do you use the houses? Do you relocate some over a period of years? This government has a track record of working with Defence, particularly the relocation of houses from Larrakeyah. I am restating what has been articulated in this Chamber by the Chief Minister, and what was clearly articulated by the member for Solomon. We are happy to support the amendment put by the member for Nelson.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, my only concern is this does not provide an outcome. It provides an indication of support, and there is no argument on either side of parliament - we are trying to save the RAAF Base houses. The member for Nelson’s amendment is no different to a committee organising the next date for a meeting because it has not resolved to do anything.
We have an opportunity to lock in parliament’s support, to achieve something, to have an outcome not just give an indication of support. This is a headline which will achieve nothing. We support saving 400 homes. The government supports saving 400 homes. The difference is how the homes are to be saved. Do we move them all over the Territory, or do we save them in the suburb of Eaton? I have a concern with this general statement which seems to sit in the middle. It is similar to what was debated earlier where we have a middle-of-the-road shot. We are not making a decision either way; we will sit in the middle of the road.
We have an opportunity to lock in a decision on how to save these properties. This statement merely gives an indication of what we already support. Both sides are trying to achieve something; this does not state what we want to achieve.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the proposer of the original motion, I see the intent here is to strip from the original motion anything which smacks of politics and sanitise it. When I look at our section (1): ‘The Territory parliament indicate its support for the Coalition’s plan to save nearly 400 homes at RAAF Base Darwin’, by sanitising it we remove any reference that someone had a plan contrary to the government’s. I accept the issue is the saving of 400 homes at the RAAF Base.
The member for Karama did not make it clear the intent of this motion was supported. Parliament indicating its support to save nearly 400 homes at the RAAF Base in Darwin is homes not houses, and there is a difference. I heard the member for Karama say the government would save the homes, however those homes could be put in other places; there may be a range of options available to us. The essential element of this, as outlined by the sound contours, etcetera, is the land which is there, and that land being used for a purpose other than some holding pattern to move the houses.
Our firm position is the land and houses together; that is the point of the exercise. It is not some smarmy wriggle room created by the Labor government. The truth is they want to have their cake and eat it too. The land and the houses - that is the point of this.
I will accept number (2) and (3) - I gave you room to remove number (3) because it is impossible to support. However, the point is the homes at the RAAF Base. It is not the houses being saved and shunted around the countryside. It is the homes at the RAAF Base - that is what you are supporting. The Territory opposition supports that argument. You are supporting 400 homes at the RAAF Base on that land. You said something a little different. If you are supporting it you are supporting the homes on that land.
Mr Henderson: No, you did not listen to the proposer of the amendment.
Mr MILLS: I listened.
Mr Henderson: No, you did not. We support the intent of what Gerry is doing, not your spin.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Different intent.
Mr Henderson: The spin you are putting on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, have you finished? Order, Chief Minister!
There are two questions before the Chair. The first is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The second is the amendment as moved by the member for Nelson.
I put the amendment first, as is customary. The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Nelson be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend section 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code such that there is a minimum mandatory period of imprisonment where the victim of an alleged assault is:
1. a public sector employee, or acting in aid of a public sector employee;
The proposed minimum mandatory periods of imprisonment are:
1. if the person did not suffer harm or serious harm – one month;
In addition to these provisions, section 78BA of the Sentencing Act, (the act), provides for mandatory imprisonment for certain violent offences. It was inserted into the act in 2008. Sections 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code are offences to which section 78BA of the act applies. Section 78BA of the act provides that if an offender is found guilty of an offence to which this section applies, the court must record a conviction and order that the offender serve a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment which is partly, but not wholly, suspended- section 78BA(2). In circumstances where physical harm is caused to the victim, the section only applies if the harm suffered as a result of the offence is a physical injury which interferes with the victim’s health, section 78BA(1A).
I will turn to other jurisdictions. For similar offences, the maximum penalties in other states and territories are either lower than, or comparative to, the maximum penalties for these offences. There is only one jurisdiction which provides for a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment for certain assaults, Western Australia. In Western Australia, the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment only applies where the victim suffers bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm, and is a police, prison, security or ambulance officer, a contract worker providing court security service or custodial services, or a contract worker or subcontractor performing functions authorised under the Western Australian Prisons Act 1981.
The mandatory minimum sentences are, where the offender is aged between 16 and 18 years and causes either bodily harm or grievous harm, three months. Where the offender is an adult and causes grievous harm, 12 months. Where the offender is an adult and causes bodily harm, six months or, where the offender is an adult, causes bodily harm and is armed with a dangerous weapon or instrument, or the offence is committed in the company of others, nine months. These provisions were inserted into the Criminal Code in Western Australia in 2009.
Let us look at what happens. The offence of assaulting a police officer is generally committed in the course of other offending, and the statistics regarding sentence length can only be considered indicative as it is unknown what the effect of the other offences may have been on the sentence imposed. With that in mind, between 2006 and 2009, a total of 579 people were convicted of offences involving assaulting a police officer, including 566 cases of assaulting a police officer, and 13 cases of assaulting a police officer causing harm. Of these 579 cases, most of which were assaulting a police officer, 64% received imprisonment orders, 13% received fully suspended imprisonment orders, and one percent home detention and 22% non-custodial orders.
It is noteworthy that, as stated above, 566 of the 579 cases were assaulting a police officer, with only 13 being assaulting a police officer causing harm. For those persons who received a sentence of imprisonment, the average term of imprisonment was two months, and 87% of offenders who served a term of actual imprisonment, served a term of five months or less.
Madam Speaker, I turn to the bill. The amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition appear to create a scheme considerably more punitive than the current legislation however, in practice, without any reference to harm, the average term of imprisonment between 2006 and 2009 was two months, which is above the mandatory minimum sentence suggested by the opposition. It is clear the current legislation is working. Most offenders who assault a police officer, whether it causes harm or not, spend time in prison. The circumstances in which assaults are committed are very diverse, and providing mandatory minimum terms will undoubtedly lead to injustice in some circumstances. For that reason, the government does not support this legislation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that is hardly surprising when the talk of maximums could create some effect and, in the instance reported, perhaps sustains a debating point on one frame. The issue is we need to establish a clear standard. There is another difference not referred to by the Attorney-General; that being not necessarily an injury arising from intervention through emergency. There needs to be that level of protection provided to those there to protect us.
Before going further, there were amendments I assume government is not supporting. Nonetheless, I will go through the amendments circulated for the information of members.
There has been a lapse of time between the introduction of this bill and tonight. In that time, there has been significant change to the legislation regulating health practitioners in the Territory. At the time the bill was drafted, all health practitioners in the NT were regulated by the Health Practitioners Act. Since the commencement of the Health Practitioners Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act on 1 July 2010, the majority of health practitioners are now regulated by that act.
Clause 3(2) of the bill refers to the Health Practitioners Act to define a health practitioner for the purposes of the bill. Since this act now only applies to Aboriginal health workers, occupational therapists, and radiographers, reference to the Health Practitioners Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act will need to be incorporated into the bill. Therefore, in the chance that members break rank and support this, we will be going to committee stages.
Putting those amendments aside, this bill is about sending a clear message, an unambiguous message that assaulting our public servants will not be tolerated. That is the clear message - no ifs or buts - there is a minimum. The bill is about protecting our public servants as they go about their duties providing services to Territorians. Public employees such as transit officers, employed to ensure Territorians safety on public transport, should not have to perform their duties knowing they will be a target of assault themselves - such as the story of a 31-year-old man who visited harm on a female police officer. They should be sent a very clear message.
A 31-year-old man was arrested at Ramingining community last weekend, after assaulting a female police officer. The off-duty officer was walking along a dirt road 3 km from Ramingining around 4.30 pm when she noticed a male following her. She was knocked unconscious after being hit on the back of the head with an unknown object. When she regained consciousness, the man was standing over her, but she managed to push him away and he ran off into the scrub. The woman, fortunately, was able to hail a passing motorist and was taken to Ramingining health clinic where she was treated for bruising and a cut to her head. She required stitches. A man was arrested at a nearby outstation later that night.
There has to be a very clear message sent. You can have all the maximums you want, however there has to be an absolute minimum in every case - no ifs or buts. You say there could be some injustice. Nothing can excuse an attack on a public servant - nothing can excuse that.
Nurses in Territory hospitals should not have to start their shift with a possibility they will end up in their own emergency department after being bashed by a patient. They need to know a basic standard is being protected, and they are being defended. After two nurses were assaulted by a patient earlier this year, the Australian Nursing Federation NT Secretary Yvonne Falckh confirmed the incident was not an isolated one. She called for tougher penalties for people who assault medical staff to send a clear message; defend and protect standards in our community and protect those people. That was a comment by Yvonne Falckh in the NT News, 7 July 2010.
The Territory is facing extreme difficulties retaining and recruiting medical staff and one way to address this issue is ensure nurses and doctors can provide healthcare services to Territorians without the fear of being assaulted, and if they are assaulted, there is a clear consequence - no ifs, no buts. There is a minimum response; at least it could increase from there. In the 2009 estimates, the Health minister was asked how many assaults on staff by patients were reported in Territory hospitals. This is frightening - numbers given by the Health minister were: in 2006-07, the number of physical assaults, 161; in 2007-08, the number of physical assaults, 196, a big increase; in 2008 to April 30 2009, total physical assaults, 142 - these are just the ones reported.
We need to reassure public servants we are there for them. One way to do that is increase the penalty for people who have no respect for the person providing them with critical services. I cannot abide by that; I cannot stomach that occurrence within our community. There has to be a clear response, a minimum response. At the very least there needs to be a consequence - no ifs or buts - our community expects that. We can readdress the imbalance of authority which has developed in this jurisdiction by introducing minimum mandatory sentences for those individuals who assault our transit officers, housing officers, doctors, nurses and police officers.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this; it will send a clear message that we respect and value those who protect and support us in our community by siding with them against those who visit violence upon them.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this bill. I will not say the government will not support this bill; as you are aware the Board of Inquiry into Child Protection in the Northern Territory will be reporting to government on 17 September 2010. It would be premature for me to accept any amendments without carefully considering any recommendations of the inquiry. Our government is on the record saying we will accept the recommendations of the Inquiry. We called the highest inquiry in the history of the Territory to look at a very serious problem which affects not only our government, but governments in the past and, if we do not fix it now, it will affect governments in the future. It not only a problem for governments, it is a problem for society, and a problem for families. The primary responsibility for the care and protection of children lies with families, and the government is to provide a safe environment, and support families to protect children.
I have placed on the record my determination to do anything possible to address some of the issues we have identified, and issues to be identified by the inquiry. It is premature to accept amendments to the Care and Protection of Children (Investigative Powers) Bill 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the minister and I spoke earlier, and I am not surprised by his response. This bill, for the sake of Hansard, was initiated by me and introduced by the member for Port Darwin when I was unavailable in February. As can be seen from the second reading speech, the bill was remarkably straightforward. In fact, the second reading speech, on my Hansard, consumes about half a dozen paragraphs; it was remarkably straightforward. It sought to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act and sought to remedy certain deficiencies with respect to the Children’s Commissioner, who can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - children in the care of the CEO - or in relation to the implementation of recommendations arising from the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse Report.
The Children's Commissioner does not have any own motion investigative powers under the Care and Protection of Children Act. We say that falls short of the mark. The bill sought to expand the scope of the Children's Commissioner’s functions to allow the commissioner to initiate own motion investigations into situations which involve children who go beyond those described as protected children, or those under the care of the CEO; in other words, all children in the Northern Territory.
The member for Arafura and I worked cooperatively when the Care and Protection of Children Bill was introduced. One of the differences we had - we agreed to disagree on many areas - was the view the Children's Commissioner’s role should extend beyond protected children - beyond those in the care of the CEO. In fact, in the care of the CEO was another point of difference. My very strong view was, and still is, the kids should be in the care of the minister. It is an abrogation of responsibility to delegate those children into the care of the CEO.
However, the government, as the member for Arafura did when she was minister, elected not to accept my argument. Several years later this minister elects not to accept much the same argument. We say it is important for the Children's Commissioner to have appropriate powers. Why bother having a Children's Commissioner and not empower the individual with sensible powers? I am certain I have a relatively recent Victorian Ombudsman’s report referring to the Children's Commissioner which mentions own motion investigations and the need for the Children's Commissioner to undertake own motion investigations. Own motion investigations enable the Children's Commissioner to investigate matters in relation to children in the Northern Territory. The Children's Commissioner does not need a formal report in relation to protected children. It is a sensible amendment, one the government does not see fit to introduce.
There are, in the Territory, probably hundreds of children in care. Importantly, that represents a very small percentage of children who are reported as being at risk of harm. Based on last year’s Health annual report, we know the number of investigations and substantiations are not commensurate with the number of reports. There are many children who, in one way or another, are considered at risk; that is, a greater number than those under the protection of the CEO. Yet, the Children's Commissioner cannot undertake investigations in relation to those children. Is that sensible? I do not think so. Should a Children's Commissioner be available for all Territory children? I believe so.
The minister will not be surprised to hear me say this; I have said it before and will say it again: it is not appropriate to wait until the board of inquiry delivers its recommendations. At estimates I asked the minister several questions regarding the terms of reference of the board of inquiry and, when answering questions, he said: ‘Oh, no, that was a matter for the board of inquiry’. After getting that answer on the record, I suggested the matters he referred to were not within the board of inquiry’s terms of reference. The government does not understand the terms of reference of the inquiry it was dragged kicking and screaming to initiate.
It still has not implemented a number of recommendations from at least two coronial investigations regarding amending the Care and Protection of Children Act. There were close to 10 recommendations made by the coroner in the Melville case regarding regulatory amendments which could be made, and amendments to the act itself.
An analysis of whether the existing Child Protection legislation in the Territory is adequate and whether government policy is adequate is not within the board of inquiry’s terms of reference. Hence, the government has coronial recommendations to amend the act and it has not done so. Every day in this House bills are put before us. Instructing Parliamentary Counsel to amend legislation is what we do as a parliament. This government refuses to do it, and the excuse of: ‘We will wait for the board of inquiry,’ is absurd, insulting and inadequate. However, this is the way this government conducts itself with respect to child protection.
Let me be more specific. This government, over the last few years in particular, has said: ‘It is not our fault. It is someone else’s fault. We have put in much money therefore we are getting better results’. Minister after minister, with few exceptions, failed to question, failed to discharge obligations as a minister with respect to child protection. The minister says: ‘We all care about child protection’. Of course we do, and the government is in a position to do something. That is what Territorians expect you to do. Making some legislative changes is what you should do. Blind Freddy can see that is what you should do - you refuse to do so.
Madam Speaker, I thought it appropriate to put those matters on the record. I commend this bill to honourable members.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I speak today in response to the opposition’s proposed legislation. This bill seeks limited changes to important health legislation, in isolation of the overall framework and intent of the act. It seeks an increase of government’s investigative and coercive powers in relation to the performance of health and community service providers. It also seeks to extend these powers to a large number of service providers not covered by the current Health and Community Services Complaints Act.
Before we look further into this bill, we need to examine the purpose of the existing legislation and determine if it is doing its job. The Health and Community Service Complaints Act was passed in 1998 and was developed to provide a fair and non-threatening way for complaints about health services to be dealt with and resolved, without the need to resort to expensive legal disputes. The act was designed to meet a number of practical objectives:
to establish an authority with sufficient independence and technical expertise to gain credibility with both users and providers of services; an authority that, for example, could convincingly say to providers something was not good enough and why it was not good enough; an authority that would also have the confidence of users so, when appropriate, they could accept their expectations may have been unreasonable;
provide users of health services with an independent, just, fair, accessible, and low-cost alternative to the legal system for the resolution of their complaints;
establish mechanisms which encourage and assist users and providers to resolve complaints cooperatively and directly with each other;
ensure any useful information or knowledge gained from complaints could be used to improve services; and
establish and promote basic user rights as the basis upon which to judge the adequacy of services and expectations.
I am confident the current act and the current commissioner are fulfilling these expectations, however, I appreciate there can be room for improvement in the legislation, but only after careful consideration of the entire act.
Considering the fact the current act was implemented in 1998, and recognising the substantial growth which has occurred in the Territory’s health and community services sector, it is acknowledged changes are required to this vitally important and complex area of service delivery. However, this can only sensibly occur in a planned, considered manner which involves extensive consultation by those affected by the legislation.
It is highly questionable for the member for Greatorex to bring these amendments before the House without providing any service provider or their representatives with an opportunity to comment on this bill. Similarly, I doubt he has provided members of the public, those who are recipients of the service, with the opportunity to say if they want or need these amendments. Without passing any comments on the merit of the member’s bill, I believe these important reforms need to be discussed with a fair representation of people in the area.
The current act operates in the health and community services environment, and often involves individuals who are particularly vulnerable - children, aged, disabled, critically ill, English as a second language - or who happen to be at a particularly vulnerable point in their life. These services can involve the application of highly sophisticated, technical equipment and treatment methodologies. This can result in a considerable disparity in knowledge and capacity between professional service providers and their clients; a disparity which is much greater in this area than many other areas of service delivery.
This imbalance in the status and power between service providers and clients/consumers results in a special vulnerability, particularly in the event things do not go well, or disagreements occur requiring resolution. Accordingly, it is most important the clients of these services have access to competent, objective, and independent mechanisms to deal with their complaints.
Contemporary service systems attempt to compensate for these problems by providing clients with access to independent, technically competent, complaint resolution mechanisms to resolve these matters in a fair and just manner. With acceptance of these mechanisms as being fair and just, clients are less likely to resort to the courts or other methods to resolve their issues.
Importantly, these mechanisms - complaint commissions or statutory office holders - have to be accepted as independent and unbiased. They must be able to maintain credibility with both clients and providers. They cannot be seen as advocates for one or the other without losing their reputation for independence and their effectiveness in obtaining acceptance of their decisions by both clients and providers.
Improvement in this area is required. Government has recognised this and has been engaged in a long and difficult process to bring about comprehensive and lasting improvements to this area. Unfortunately, the proposed bill’s piecemeal, ad hoc approach would not provide the effective or lasting improvements government considers necessary. It also ignores the interests of numerous stakeholders in the Territory - stakeholders whose input should rightly be sought before changes such as this are considered.
It is well recognised in the Territory that one of the commission’s strengths is its independence and low-cost complaint resolution model that provides a more accessible, informal alternative for matters that may otherwise have been taken before the courts. Another strength is the support it has gained from providers, users, and consumer organisations. Accordingly, we need to exercise caution when making wholesale changes to the act such as these proposed, when it is already seen as operating efficiently and effectively.
Over recent years, there has been an enormous amount of work by the commission and policy and legal officers in the Departments of Health and Families, Justice and Chief Minister, to carefully consider the improvements needed for this act and to develop appropriate responses to meet the needs of Territorians.
This is an important area; a very sensitive area. It is characterised by many, often conflicting, interests. It needs to be handled with a great deal of caution and sensitivity. Key stakeholders, particularly those service providers most likely to be impacted by these changes, have to be involved and, where possible, there should be agreement and consensus on the most appropriate strategies to implement the amendments thought appropriate.
There are various ways to achieve the intended improvements in the Health and Community Services Commission operations. Not all require legislative amendments. In some instances there are operational policies or strategies that can effectively improve the effectiveness of the commission. There are developments on the national arena that impact on the commission and, in some instances, we have progressed with the development of complementary legislation which will better provide the desired support and protection for clients than what is possible under this legislation. The new Public and Environmental Health, and Medicines and Poisons legislation, are examples of this work and I intend to bring these bills forward to parliament in the months ahead.
There are a few areas of the current act which have proven to be contentious with key stakeholders and a consensus position has not been reached. These issues remain under active investigation as we seek to develop a suitable outcome. I intend for this work to be finalised in the very near future and a comprehensive overhaul of the act prepared for consultation and debate.
The opposition’s bill consists of three new powers for the commission:
1. Matters to be investigated on commissioner’s own initiative. The opposition bill proposes the commissioner have a power to investigate matters in the absence of a complaint or a reference from the Legislative Assembly. This power is not presently available in the act.
Similar legislation in other jurisdictions shows there are different models for this power. Care must be taken to ensure this power does not turn the commissioner’s role more towards one of an advocate for clients, rather than an independent arbitrator of issues between providers and consumers. While agreeing an advocate’s role is important, there are other more appropriate ways for this to be achieved rather than by mixing it with a complaints investigation and resolution role.
The proposed amendments widen the powers of the commissioner to include investigation of ‘any matter relating to a health service or community service’. The suggested formulation is very wide and government believes it would benefit from further definition before it could be successfully introduced in the Northern Territory.
Many of the issues raised by the member for Greatorex may be better addressed through establishment of an independent community visitor or advocate for service users, as we have in the area of mental health services. With this role being provided independently, the complaints commissioner may be less likely to present as an advocate for service users and more likely to have a balanced image, achieving credibility with providers and users alike.
The bill proposes changes to the act to cover a situation where ‘a report as mentioned in section 65(4) contains recommendations for action by a person other than by a provider’. The proposed and related amendments appear to be designed to implement two significant changes: a power to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in reports by the commissioner, and a power to make recommendations for action by a person who would not be classified as a provider under the act.
There is a lack of agreement amongst stakeholders about how best to deal with situations with unregistered practitioners and which legislation is most effective. The proposed amendments are a crude method of expanding to unregistered providers. If the intent were to include recommendations to unregistered providers, then it would be better to make that explicit rather than relying upon interpretation of the proposed section 65(4).
While the principle of protecting users from unsafe, alternative or fraudulent services is admirable, mechanisms for achieving this will be more effective through consumer protection or public health legislation, avoiding the overlapping of jurisdictions and duplication of litigation resources.
The proposed bill inserts new provisions in the act which enable the commissioner to require a provider, or non-provider, to report on implementation of recommendations and to further investigate and make further reports to the minister. The effect of this amendment is to enable the commissioner to further investigate any matter where a provider and a non-provider have not followed recommendations to the satisfaction of the commissioner.
It could be argued that this would create a determinative power for the commission and would inadvertently change it from a recommendatory entity to a determinative entity. Such a change requires a considered policy decision. It should not be delivered unintentionally through a series of incremental changes such as these amendments, which could result in the evolution of a quite different entity.
The initial act was designed around a recommendatory entity with limited powers and an appropriate set of checks and balances for these powers. Adding powers without due consideration of the checks and balances which may be required is a reckless, potentially dangerous practice leading to inevitable problems for those who come under the act and those who have to administer it. The preferred option is to retain one of the strengths of the commission - that is, the commission as a recommendatory body - and not dramatically change its role and function without due process.
This government does not develop such legislation in isolation. It will not consider legislative changes such as this without consulting the individuals and organisations most affected by its provisions. To this end, my department is responsible for preparing draft amendments for consideration and comment by key stakeholders: health and community service professional organisations, registration bodies, services providers and their associations, etcetera. I also expect there will be opportunity for members of the public to comment. The responses and suggestions provided by these stakeholders will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into final, comprehensive amendments which I will bring forward to put before this body.
Madam Speaker, the opposition’s bill is not supported by the government as it cannot be considered in harmony with the current intent or framework of the act. It is a piecemeal, ad hoc approach to important legislation which should only be amended following comprehensive consideration of all the issues. It requires a substantial consultative process to be undertaken, and we need to consider the best ways to achieve the intended results in light of other current legislation, national directions, and development of complementary functions.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have noticed the time. Will we shut this down at 9 pm and continue next week? Is that how it works?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm, if you wish, you can have up to 10 minutes extension. That is for you, though. Do you want to keep talking until 9 o’clock?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I will make a few remarks now and continue next week.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious the government was not going to support this bill. The minister said he would bring in his own thoughtful amendments. I ask the minister to speak to the member for Johnston and previous Health ministers, including the members for Nightcliff and Stuart, who are well aware of a review conducted in 2003 and handed to the then minister, the member for Nightcliff in April 2004. This was a review of the act, including these amendments, to give own motion powers to the Health Complaints Commissioner.
Minister, are you going through the process once again, when you have all the information somewhere on the fifth floor? Someone has it. The member for Johnston, when he was Health minister, was well aware of it. He told the Health Complaints Commissioner at the time he would look into this. He did nothing, and has moved from that position.
It is a shame we are going to go through this again. How long will take? Whatever comes forward after the consultation and reviews will be a carbon copy of the bill we have put forward. It is disappointing and once again goes to the heart of this government’s attitude and the culture of cover up - too much to hide, not interested in being open and transparent, not interested in protecting the rights of Territorians.
We have seen it before with the CCTV cameras in the children’s ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. The commissioner was unable to follow that through and, as a result, they were not put in place in the appropriate time frame. Only after relentless questioning from this side of the House did the then minister follow that through.
Madam Speaker, I notice it is 9 pm. I will save these remarks and continue this speech at the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Greatorex. Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will complete this item of business before the Chair. I put the question that the Assembly does now adjourn and any item of business before the Chair stands adjourned to the next General Business Day.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, all in the Northern Territory and this House have been saddened by the enormous floods affecting Pakistan - the greatest natural disaster in that country’s history. Great sympathy has gone to our Pakistani community in Darwin at a time of great need and great tragedy in that country.
Today, I announced the Territory government would provide $50 000 to kick start the Red Cross appeal for victims of the floods on behalf of all Territorians, and I thank the member for Brennan for his message of support today. I really do thank you, Peter; this issue goes beyond politics and we know at times of need Territorians dig deep. It is appropriate, on behalf of all Territorians, to commit this money to kick start the appeal. The massive floods in Pakistan have affected around 14 million people, and it was only fitting we offer our support.
Our diverse multicultural community is what makes this Territory great, and around 400 Pakistani nationals call the Territory home. The community is active, with many members on various cultural and religious associations. Following the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, the Northern Territory community donated $37 000 through fund raising activities.
The current disaster, caused by monsoon rains forecast to continue well into August, has been described as the worst in the area for 80 years. Startling facts show the disaster being of epic proportions. For example, the Indus River in Sindh Province, of which Karachi is the capital, is likely to attain and I quote: ‘a very high to exceptionally high flood ranging from 600 000 cubic feet per second to 800 000 cubic feet per second’. Shelter for over two million homeless people is the most urgent need, as people affected by the floods include those whose villages were wiped out and others who were evacuated or injured. Cotton, rice, sugar cane and maize crops have been damaged, fruit orchards have been washed away, and the destruction of roads, bridges and towns has set Pakistan’s economic development back by years.
It is only fitting, as fellow human beings showing compassion, our government, on behalf of all Territorians, provides support for the estimated 14 million people affected by this disaster. Funds donated by the Territory government will help international Red Cross aid workers and the Pakistani affiliate, the Red Crescent, help victims trace missing family members, provide medical treatment, and have access to clean water, food and shelter.
Five Australian Red Cross aid workers are on the ground assisting with the organisation’s relief efforts. We commend them on their efforts and commitment to the people of Pakistan. I urge all Territorians to dig deep.
At the press conference held today with Ghulam Abbas, President of the Pakistani community in Darwin, and Sharon Mulholland, Executive Director of Red Cross, we urged Territorians to have a morning tea in their workplace, or a raffle, and donate a gold coin or whatever they can, and school students throughout the Northern Territory to hold a fund raising event to support this relief campaign. I know Territorians will dig deep.
From discussions with Mr Abbas today, I am pleased to inform the Assembly no one in the Pakistani community has missing relatives; however they are concerned for their country and their people in Pakistan. This evening, I am unaware of any Territory family or resident of our Pakistani community having direct family members affected.
I also commend Sharon Mulholland and the team at Red Cross in the Northern Territory. They do a magnificent job. Talking to Sharon today, it seems fund raising efforts are becoming more frequent as the extent of natural disasters around the world becomes more extensive and damaging and, on numerous occasions over the last few years, the Red Cross has coordinated significant fund raising efforts across the Northern Territory to support many people around the world severely affected by natural disasters.
To the Pakistani community tonight, everyone in this Assembly is thinking of you and we will all be doing our best, as local members, to support the fund raising effort. Tonight our sympathies go to the Pakistani nation, our community in the Northern Territory, and we will do everything we can to help.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak tonight on another terrific event happening in Katherine. The Dry Season is a busy time in Katherine, and August is the traditional time for the Katherine Festival.
Starting last weekend was the Annual Red Cross Fete. As usual, the event was very well attended with craft on sale, some of our seniors’ famous scones with jam and cream, excellent entertainment and many stalls and activities. I acknowledge Jane Goodings and all her helpers for putting together such a great event, as it was last year.
On Saturday night, we had the Annual Katherine Prize. These awards comprise the Brian and Jeanette Lambert Art Acquisition Award, and the Dr Peter and Kathleen Short Craft Acquisition Award, together with other awards which were hosted by the Katherine Town Council and held on the lawns of the Civic Centre. All entries in the art and craft categories impressed the judge, Janice McEwen, who is the director of Top End Arts and publisher of the NT entertainment guide Off the Leash. I extend my thanks to Janice for coming to Katherine. She is a person in the artistic world of note, and her attendance in Katherine and her expertise in helping judge those awards was very much appreciated.
An outstanding oil painting titled In Awe, In Wonder by Darwin artist Gerald James Grady was the winner of the Brian and Jeanette Lambert Art Acquisition Award. As with the art pieces entered into the Katherine Prize, Ms McEwen was equally impressed with the quality of the craft entries. Long-term Katherine resident, Kathleen Donald was the 2010 Dr Peter and Kathleen Short Craft Acquisition Award winner with her beautiful necklace and earrings set titled Jewellery in Dry Season’s Colours. It really was an impressive set of jewellery - very simple, pleasing to the eye, and beautiful.
Not surprising was the fact our judge on the night felt the need to nominate a number of commendations for other outstanding works of art and craft. In the Art Highly Commended was Winsome Jobling for Gamba, a very interesting series of pieces of paper made from gamba grass. Another highly commended was Christine Fox for Melaleuca Leucadendra which I thought was an exceptional painting and could have won on the night. The skill which goes into some of those paintings is exceptional, and this one was so good you could easily have mistaken it for a photograph. Also an award winner for highly commended was Faith Thompson Nelson for the work Night Time Dreaming, and Jan Milner Cole for Kakadu in the Wet.
In the Commended range, Carolyn Bursa for her piece titled There’s Always a Journey. Also, Kit McNeill for her painting Looking out from Oenpelli. I acknowledge Kit is the wife of our esteemed and respected Clerk of the House. Well done, Kit.
The Craft Highly Commended awards went to Kirsty Bartlett for Golden Orb, which was another stunning necklace, and Kerryn Taylor for Katherine Gorge Shoes, a quilted pair of shoes with a Katherine Gorge design. It was quite exceptional to see the talent, the craft, and the amount of time which goes into it. Also in Craft Highly Commended were several Danny Murphy pots. They were called Salmon Gum and Ghost Gum - two amazing clay pots. If you could picture a salmon gum and beside it a ghost gum, the finish on those trees was captured in the finish on these pots. Again, exceptional quality and beautiful pieces of work.
On the night we also had the Somerville Art and Craft Youth Awards. I acknowledge the Somerville organisation, which does an outstanding job in Katherine, and is very quick to become involved in the community and support many community events.
In the 13 to 14 years class the winner of the Somerville Art and Craft Youth Award was Taylah Locke for her Purple Quilt and Pillow. In the Highly Commended range were Ami Bilske and Sasha Osterburg. In the 15 to 16 years group the winner was Georgia Knight. Georgia painted two very interesting pieces which were put together and titled Ireland Landscapes. Highly Commended was Sasha Osterburg; Commended were Dylan Tapp, Jess Wallace and Sekari Butler. In the 17 to 18 years class, the winner was Laurie Barrett for Butterfly Falls, and in the Highly Commended range, Charley Anning who had two works, and Ethan Woods. Commended were Travis Braun and Silas Aureell.
Renowned demographer, Bernard Salt, has been quoted as saying - I apologise if I do not get this 100% right: ‘The health of the community can be measured by the health and strength of the artistic sector in the community’. I believe him. I feel very comfortable inferring the Katherine community is very healthy. I am, and remain, impressed at the quality of the artistic pursuits from members of the Katherine community, made even more impressive when you consider we are such a small town.
I congratulate not only the winners and those commended for their works, but everyone who exhibited and put so much effort into the event to make it so successful. Of course, a big thanks to the Katherine Town Council and others who made the event possible.
That is not all as far as the Katherine Festival goes. Over the next 10 days or so we will see the Katherine River fishing competition, another event sponsored by Somerville, and the Triple 000 concert, which will be an interesting night. It is a gathering of all the emergency services in a fundraising ball. There will be many types of entertainment on the night put together as performances and skits by those attending. Along with several other people, I have offered myself to be auctioned as a slave for the night to raise money for the charitable organisations. I look forward to reporting next week on the success of that evening, although I reserve the right not to if I do not receive enough bids for my services as a slave - I would not want to be embarrassed.
On top of that, we have the Teddy Bears Picnic, the Fist Full of Films, La Boheme opera and Mandinka Sound Concert, with the main event to be held on the evening of 21 August, the grand finale of the two week festival.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Dry Season is a great time to be in the Northern Territory, and that is no less evident than in Katherine when the Katherine Festival is on.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk briefly about a great event I attended in Alice Springs on Saturday night, the Desert Sports Foundation Dinner and Fundraiser held at the Alice Springs Memorial Club. The Desert Sports Foundation is the idea of Murray Stewart, a local Alice Springs identity well known to many members. Murray is not only an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council, he is also a world-renowned sportsman. In fact, I believe he still holds a world record for blind athletes in the 70 m event.
The idea of the sports foundation is to raise money for local Alice Springs youth to participate in elite-level sports events. As a parent, and as minister for Sport, I am fully aware of the cost incurred by families in Alice Springs and some of our remote communities. The foundation hopes to help young athletes aspire to greater things and perhaps one day realise their dreams – it is a great idea.
The fundraiser was well attended by many locals in Alice Springs, including business people. John Boyle, another world-renowned athlete for basketball and also from Alice Springs was the Master of Ceremonies for the night and did a fantastic job. Ted Egan, the former Administrator and great historian of Territory sports, was guest speaker. He spoke passionately about role models and the work he had done over many years with some great Territory icons, in particular Billy Abala.
The second part of the night was to announce the first 10 inductees from Alice Springs to the Hall of Fame. My speech that night was around the first 10 inductees being role models for the community, and their family, over many years. Those two words come to mind when you think about some of the inductees into the Hall of Fame.
I acknowledge Rani Marshall, daughter of Glen Marshall, who attends Ross Park Primary School. She was the winner of the logo for the Desert Sports Foundation. It was a great honour to present her with her winning certificate. I mentioned in 50 years time people will still be attending dinners for the Sports Foundation and her logo will be there. It was a proud moment for her parents, and for her to win the competition.
I acknowledge John and Jenny Matteucci, local business people who donated six items of sports memorabilia to the foundation, which on the night raised over $3000. A big thanks to John and Jenny for their donation. I also acknowledge the other sponsors and donors to a worthy foundation.
The selection panel for the Hall of Fame consisted of Dick Kimber; Mary Meldrum; Damien Ryan, Mayor of Alice Springs; Steve Menzies; Pat Miller, Deputy of the Administrator; and Graham Ross. It was a very difficult job; anyone put in a position to determine a hall of fame for sports in Central Australia would be up for a tough task. There were many nominees, and I congratulate all nominees for the 10 spots. You cannot dispute those who became the 10 inaugural members of the Alice Springs Hall of Fame. They are icons and heroes of Alice Springs and Central Australia.
I will name the 10 inductees in no particular order:
Sam Calder: there has been a Calder Shield in cricket in the Northern Territory; we had a Condolence Motion in the House this year for Sam, who recently passed away. His daughter, Di Calder, represented him.
Maureen Trindle, someone close to me - my mother-in-law – and an icon in softball, hockey and basketball in Alice Springs.
Pat Gallagher, an icon in netball and hockey.
Marg and Reg Harris were both inducted for obvious reasons. It was great to talk to Marg; she is still very switched on and has a great memory of the early days in Alice Springs.
Ivy Hampton, a close relative, was world champion in darts in the 1970s and 1980s when it was a pretty tough sport. To get to the highest level of world champion is a great achievement. She was represented by her daughter, Jenny.
Joan Higgins, represented by her daughter, Sue Ryde.
Donna-Lee Patrick played 40-odd tests for Australia in hockey, and has had a fantastic career. Unfortunately it was cut short by a knee injury.
Malcolm Hill for his achievements in cycling.
Neville Connor for his contribution in many sports, and as a renowned jockey, and has done much for the turf club in Alice Springs.
James Swan, who had eight or nine Australian titles and reached the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games.
So, 10 inductees, all worthy recipients, and family members were extremely proud of their achievements.
I thank Murray Stewart for the concept of the sports foundation; I am sure it will grow. A big congratulations to all who were inducted into the Hall of Fame.
I also rise tonight to adjourn on the importance of our job in parliament, and how what we do impacts on the lives of Territorians. I was astounded listening to the outburst from the member for Greatorex yesterday during the debate on the Territory’s construction industry. It makes me wonder how serious the member for Greatorex is about his job, and how long he will continue.
He might have used the opportunity to highlight some of the great projects being undertaken by the construction industry in Central Australia, including building of the new Alice Springs accommodation park by Sitzler Bros; building new school facilities such as the new OLSH hall in his electorate of Greatorex; Probuild’s involvement in the new aquatic centre; the new houses being built on town camps providing work for local contactors; or the close to 300 dwellings being privately developed in Alice Springs and approved by the Development Consent Authority.
Instead we heard the extraordinary admission from the member for Greatorex about how he resents sitting in parliament; he would much rather spend time with his family or out bush enjoying the scenery.
I do not enjoy being away from my family for extended periods of time either; it is what we sign up for when we are elected to represent the people of the Northern Territory, whether in government or in opposition. We sit in this House for 38 days a year. That is not a huge demand, however, the work we do is very important. It affects the lives of Territorians, and we all have a vital role to play representing our constituents in parliament where the big decisions are made.
It is extraordinary to say because you are in opposition you are wasting your time here. The member for Greatorex said he had had a gutful, and he despised being here. I hope he tells his constituents in Greatorex that, and tells them how long he is going to stick at the job he despises.
The member for Greatorex is often missing in action when it comes to Central Australia; it is supposed to be his shadow portfolio. During the budget debate about Central Australia this member said nothing, and he did ask one question about Central Australian issues or the portfolio during estimates. Now we have the admission that parliament is a waste of time.
He has a safe seat and takes this for granted. The only time this member is wasting is that of the people of Greatorex, who deserve better.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on Thursday, 22 July, I attended, at the invitation of Yambirrpa School Council, a special graduation ceremony at Yirrkala CEC for the Year 12 graduates of 2009, as well as the Indigenous education workers from Yirrkala homelands schools, who were graduating from Batchelor College with their certificates. Also, on the day, were many men and women, employees of organisations such as Dhimurru, Laynhapuy Homelands and Department of Education and Training, receiving their certificates in spoken and written English. If we could see as many non-Indigenous graduating with certificates in spoken and written Yolngu Matha it would be a fine day for us all.
The event was MC’d by Waylu Wunungmurra, the senior cultural advisor at Yirrkala CEC, and the welcome to country was delivered by traditional owner, Laklak Marika, who lives at Gutjangan on Bremer Island. Representing DET were Vicki Bayliss and Hylton Hayes, with Vicki presenting certificates to the Year 12s, and representing Batchelor was Professor Claire Kilgariff, who presented certificates and was ably supported by tutor Helen Clarke.
My congratulations go to those Year 12 students who graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. They include Bamurungu Munungurr, Dhamarrarr Munungurr and Yilki Guyula and the Indigenous education graduates were Yurraynga Yunupingu, Lombinga Munungurr and Birritpirrit Dhamarrandji.
The number of people who attended the graduation ceremony to join in the celebration of the achievements of these people was a clear sign of the collective community pride. Education, as we all know, is an important step; it is the first step towards a strong future and towards job for all people, Ngapaki and Yolngu, but and especially for young people.
Katrina Hudson, who taught the three Year 12 students at Yirrkala CEC, outlined in her speech the enormous challenges which these young people face in mainstream education, not the least of which are language and cultural challenges, family illness, family deaths and bereavement, and cultural obligations.
I pay additional tribute to Yilki, who was also acknowledged as the top Indigenous student in the Northern Territory from a remote area. She was recognised for this in a special celebration in the Northern Territory Parliament House great hall in February. Well done to Yilki; it is a considerable achievement and one she should be rightly proud of.
Indigenous education workers have an enormous role to play in homeland communities and homeland learning centres - a role which is extremely important in supporting young people’s education and providing a path to the future and to employment. Indigenous education workers are an important - indeed a vital - part of a team which works hard alongside non-Indigenous teachers to deliver the best possible outcomes for children. Homelands are strong places where people are healthy and culture is strong and respected, and Ngapaki, or non-Indigenous teachers, could not do their job without them.
I also acknowledge the contribution of Leon White who tutors the Batchelor students. A teacher himself and a former principal of Yirrkala CEC, he has more than 30 years experience and is a long-term resident of Yirrkala. Leon is well known for his passion for Indigenous education, and would never forgive me if I did not put on the record his passion and advocacy for bilingual education as well.
Indigenous education workers are excellent role models for students, family, and community as they play an important role in continuing to develop and support the community needs and aspirations of Yolngu people.
The 2010 Nhulunbuy Debutante Ball was held on Saturday, 31 July 2010 at Nhulunbuy Town Hall. It occurs every second year, and does not happen without much hard work from fundraising through to dedicated dance lessons.
Before I list the young women and men involved in this year’s debutante ball, I acknowledge up-front those who put in so much time and effort to make it happen.
Debbie Hanks, without whom I am sure the event would not happen, takes on the prime role of coordinator of the event year after year, such that it is known quite rightly as ‘Deb’s Ball. Blue Douglas and Evelyn McSherry for many years have taken on the role of chief dance instructors and on the night look after all the sound and lighting. Steve and Deanne Castelli also support the hours of dancing lessons and fundraising and have done for many years, with their sons and daughters being involved in previous years. Cheryl Smith and Coleen Owen also do not have children involved in the ball but give up their time to plan, fundraise and assist on the night. Sally Putland, Matron of Honour, gave up much of her time to assist with organising. It was a special night for Sally seeing the youngest of her four children, Sam, participate in the Deb Ball. Her own mum, Ann Thurston, had made the journey to Gove for the night to see her grandson, and granddaughter, Emma, as Maid of Honour.
There was also a group of parents, Debbie Osborne, Sharee Boyd, Libby Baulch, Judy Davidson and Tracey Kelly, who were part of the organising committee. Special thanks to Pat Ellis who graciously accepted the role of MC for the evening and carried out his official duties admirably, as always. Pat and his wife, Wendy, made the trip from Yilpara Homeland where Pat is Principal of the Baniyala Garangali School. Pat and Wendy knew many of the young women making their debut, along with their partners, having taught many of them at Nhulunbuy Primary School and preschool.
It was a special night for me, having known many of the debs and their partners since they were babies and watched them grow through their years at childcare, preschool, primary school and high school.
In the absence of Northern Territory Administrator, Tom Pauling, I was delighted to have the 14 stunningly beautiful debutantes - all students in either Year 11 or 12 at Nhulunbuy High School - and their handsome, dashing partners presented to me. They were: Chloe Aitchison and Brandon Peckham; Cassie Bausch and Wayne Vearncombe; Jordynne Boyd and Jake Edwards; Jess Cunningham and Sam Putland; Amy Fullard and Joe Nash; Danielle Gindl and Michael Mayer; Tess Hutchinson and Harry Lines; Taylah Keeley and Luke Barrett; Ashley Lenane and Taylor Dennerley; Taylah-Jayne Lewis and Mark Leota; Mariah McGill and Rhys Mulholland; Polly Nash and Cameron Eley; Emily Osborne and Keegan Kelly; and Abby Pollard and Nathan Reid.
Also presented to me were: Matron of Honour, Sally Putland; and Maids of Honour, Emma Putland and Brinkley Dennerley. Particularly delightful was beautiful Flower Girl, little Lilly Osborne and handsome Page Boy, Albert Fullard who, mum Sue told me the following day, eventually got to bed after 2 am having found his second wind.
It was a fantastic night and I extend my congratulations to all who were involved with the Deb Ball, and look forward to the Deb Ball in 2012.
As we all know, August is Seniors Month in the Territory, and several events will be held in Nhulunbuy to mark the occasion and acknowledge and celebrate the achievements and contributions of seniors in our community.
Thanks to Nhulunbuy Over Threes, who are putting on a picnic in the park on Monday, 23 August. A morning tea, hot drinks, and ice creams for the kids will be provided and, as local member, I am happily sponsoring prizes for the lucky door, best yarn or tale, and best paper folded aeroplane. Well done to Cassie McIlree, Secretary of Over Threes, who has led this idea and event, and I know will be well supported by all other families associated with Over Threes.
Well done also to Lee Peters, a long-term Gove resident and avid golfer who has put her hand up to organise a four person, nine hole Ambrose to celebrate Seniors Month. The purple and blue jacket day will be held on Sunday, 22 August at Gove Country Golf Club and promises to be a great event.
Both these events are receiving funding from the Northern Territory government for Seniors Month thanks to Cassie and Lee, who went to the trouble of putting in an application and planned these special events for our senior citizens.
I attended with the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon last Saturday, 7 August, the official opening of the Nhulunbuy Christian School library under the BER program. What a wonderful morning it was and what a spectacular building has been gifted to the Nhulunbuy Christian School community. It is much more than a library, and I will be speaking further about the Christian School library in this House as part of the debate on Building the Education Revolution and its success in delivering infrastructure to our schools, as well as, of course, keeping people in jobs.
The opening ceremony included a warm welcome from Principal Steve Venour, the National Anthem led by Josh McKeogh, with students from Year 5 and Transition, and was followed by the ribbon cutting. School captains Ashleigh Baker and Jack Tracy delivered speeches offering their thanks on behalf of students, and this was followed by poem readings from Darcy Terpstra and Joshua Lowe in Year 2, and Emily Giles and Megan Donovan in Year 5. Their poems were excellent original works highlighting what their new library meant to them.
Council Chair Malcolm Farnsworth also spoke and offered a prayer, followed by the school song, which was written a few years ago by parents Lily Delaguila and Sharon Mason, and was beautifully performed by Josh McKeogh and Chayse Aston, accompanied by Year 5 and Transition students.
There was the cutting of a very special cake and then the doors of the library were thrown open for all to have a wander through. There were displays of student work within the library and some beautiful student artwork adorning the walls of the library, produced under supervision of art teacher, Kylie Farnsworth.
To top off what was a wonderful morning, a morning tea was generously provided. Many people celebrated the official opening of a fantastic building gifted to Nhulunbuy Christian School by the federal government. With your leave, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table for the record the program which goes with that opening.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a great long-term resident who epitomises the survival of a close-knit family and also of a small family business.
On Saturday, 26 June 2010 at the Cyprus Community Hall, Kyriacos Savvas, together with 200 family members and close friends, celebrated his 90th birthday. I count myself as being fortunate to be invited to such a very special occasion with my wife, Elizabeth.
Kyriacos’s brother and sister-in-law, Omiros and Anna Savvas and Ploutou’s cousins, Haralambos and Nina Varnava, flew from Brisbane for the occasion, and some of Kyriacos’ lifelong friends, Harry Patsalou, Barny Kyriacou, Andreas Karaolias and Michael Kosta, were in attendance to help him enjoy the occasion as well as reminisce about their lives in Darwin from the 1950s until now.
Kyriacos Savvas was born in Fterikoudi, Cyprus, on 26 June 1920. He was the eldest of five brothers, including a set of twins, and two sisters. At the age of 14, he left school to help support his family.
In 1948, one of the twin brothers, John, left Cyprus by plane and, after three days, arrived in Darwin looking for work. There seemed to be plenty of opportunity so he wrote to his brother, Kyriacos, and invited him to join him, which he did in 1949. Prior to the construction of the old post office the site was occupied by a collection of tin sheds, from one of which the Savvas brothers ran a family restaurant. They provided a very simple menu of steak and eggs and fish and chips. Kyriacos worked around the clock for 6 10s a week. He still remembers the large mosquitoes in the days before flywire.
Kyriacos left the food business within 12 months and bought a shoe repair business for 300 with a 3 m frontage located about where Rush Clothing Store is today in Smith Street. By 1955, he was well established in the shoe business. Savvas Footwear is Darwin’s sole family shoe business.
By family arrangement and after an exchange of photographs he courted and married Ploutou, who travelled to Darwin with her friend, Koula Patsalou. In the days before the Greek Church many Greeks and Cypriots were married in the Church of England. Kyriacos and his wife had known each other in their village in the mountains outside Nicosia. They settled into their new country with the arrival of Andros in 1957, Savvas in 1959, Sophia in 1961, Mario in 1963 and the twins, John and George, in 1969. All births were delivered by the well known Dr Doug Mounsey - a family tradition.
In 1960, the family bought a block in the new shopping centre at Nightcliff and, in 1963, opened their second shoe shop. Ploutou mixed her household duties with the retail activities in the shop, and the children helped in the shoe trade as they grew up.
In 1954, Kyriacos had purchased a block of land in Smith Street for 300. With the assistance of a subcontractor, he built the family home which stayed intact until Cyclone Tracy blew most of Darwin away. Ploutou and the children were evacuated to a family in Toowoomba while Kyriacos battled on to restore the family’s livelihood. In 2003, Mr Savvas sold the property in Smith Street and moved into his new residence in McMaster Crescent, Parap Grove.
Today their children have outgrown their years at Larrakeyah Primary and Darwin High School and for some of the family the hectic days of the soccer competition have been exchanged for a more leisurely attendance at the clay target gun club. Savvas, John and Sophia work in the shoe shop in what is a fiercely competitive retail war. Mario works as an excavator with a Greek family, and George works as a public servant. The Savvas family are philosophical about their retail position, and know enough secrets of the trade to ensure their continued success.
Kyriacos and Ploutou have made an important contribution to the Darwin community. They grieve for their son, Andros, but have eight grandchildren. They are immensely proud of their children.
I, too, pay my respects to the family who battled through thick and thin, who worked very hard and have contributed to the social and economic life of Darwin. It was great to be with the Savvas family to celebrate the birthday of their patriarch, Kyriacos Savvas.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Grade 7 Minyerri Community School students, accompanied by Mrs Petrina Doyle, Mr Grant Allgood, Ms Isobelle Hume and Mrs Melva Hodgson. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PERSONAL INJURIES (LIABILITIES AND DAMAGES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
(Serial 115)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act to provide that individuals and corporations who donate food and grocery products receive immunity from civil liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption and/or use of those goods.
In late 2009, Woolworths Limited approached the Northern Territory government with a request that an amendment of this nature be made to the act as the absence of such legislation in the Territory operates as a disincentive to the donation of food and grocery products to charitable organisations. Woolworths expressed an interest in making donations to the Food 4 Life program established by Baptist Care Northern Territory in conjunction with Foodbank Australia.
The program involves Baptist Care Northern Territory sourcing food and grocery products form donors which it then supplies to disadvantaged individuals and families through existing emergency relief agencies and charities. Baptist Care Northern Territory also distributes donated items direct to the public through warehouses. This food is safe for human consumption but not suitable for retail sale. There are similar programs in all other jurisdictions.
While Woolworths had commenced donating non-perishable items, it was reluctant to donate perishable items until this legislation has commenced. Other organisations such as SecondBite, which operates in Victoria and Tasmania, have also indicated an interest in establishing operations in the Territory.
This legislation encourages donations. By encouraging donations without exposure to liability for civil claims, charitable organisations will be able to provide a more comprehensive and reliable source of food and grocery products to pass on to those in need. We have listened to the community. All other jurisdictions have similar legislation which has been operating well. For example, Victoria introduced similar legislation in 2002. By 2006, it is understood food donations in Victoria had increased threefold.
In the technical operation of the bill, and to ensure appropriate checks and balances in the donation of food, the immunity will operate only if:
1. the goods were donated in good faith for a charitable or benevolent purpose with the intention that the consumer will not have to pay for them; and
Donors will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of any relevant handling requirements in relation to the goods, such as where the food needs to be refrigerated. If the food is only safe to consume for a particular period of time, the donor will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of the relevant time limit. However, once a distributing organisation such as Baptist Care Northern Territory receives donated food, it will be responsible for the safe handling and storage of that food in accordance with existing food safety laws. The distributor will not be protected from liability by the legislation.
It is important to note the bill will not add to existing processes and procedures regarding the safe handling and storage of food for donors or distributors. However, the bill will provide a level of comfort to donors so, if food fit for human consumption when it was donated becomes contaminated at some other point, they will not be liable for any harm the food might have caused. It is strongly believed this fact alone will encourage an increase in food donation.
Every year, Territorians throw out about 30 000 tonnes of food and grocery items which could be redistributed to needy Territorians. This legislation is an important step which will benefit Territorians. Individual Territorians and companies will be able to confidently donate food in the knowledge they are now protected from liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption of food. These new laws will encourage Territorians to donate food and grocery items that would otherwise be wasted.
This government understands many individuals and organisations want to do the right thing, and want to support charities to help less fortunate Territorians. This legislation will not only make it easier to donate food, but we hope will encourage other charities to set up operations in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through All Stages –
Youth Justice Amendment Bill (Serial 120)
Pass Bill through All Stages –
Youth Justice Amendment Bill (Serial 120)
Mr VATSKALIS (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent a bill titled Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 120) passing through all stages on 19 August 2010.
Motion agreed to.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit interference with Parks and Wildlife crocodile traps. This bill is before members today to resolve a legislative gap which limits the ability to prosecute the worrying and increasing trend of members of the public interfering with crocodile traps. The intention of this bill is to enable Parks and Wildlife rangers to either refer serious interferences with crocodile traps for prosecution, or to issue infringement notices for minor interferences. This sends a strong message to the public, and members of the House would agree discouraging this type of behaviour is in the best interests of both the offenders and the broader Northern Territory community.
This bill will establish an offence under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which prohibits touching, standing on, entering, moving or otherwise disturbing a crocodile trap regardless of whether the trap is in use or not, and irrespective of its location on or off parks and reserves. The offence will be a regulatory one and will be included in the penalty infringement notice scheme to allow for prompt treatment by way of an infringement notice with a penalty of three penalty units, which is equal to a fine of $399 for the least serious cases. Rangers will still have discretion to refer more serious breaches to be prosecuted through the courts. If the offence is proven it will carry a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, equivalent to $6650 or six months imprisonment.
Unfortunately, the offenders in most instances are shown to be young Territorians and information suggests they are urged on by the desire to go one better than the last example seen in the media. This issue came to a head late last year when three young Territory men appeared on the front cover of the Northern Territory News, with two of the three photographed inside the trap. I can easily imagine the distress and concern this image would cause for parents of teenagers throughout the Northern Territory.
Saltwater crocodiles are without exception one of the most dangerous animals in Australia. As recent and tragic events have shown, they can be indiscriminate killers should the opportunity arise. Human fatalities can cause immense distress to families, and the public, and place a great strain on rangers and police involved in the recovery and subsequent coronial inquests.
I take this opportunity today to inform the House of the significant efforts and work which goes towards the management of saltwater crocodiles in the Northern Territory. In doing so I will highlight for members the value and importance of crocodile traps, and why rangers must be provided with the necessary tools to protect the public.
The Northern Territory has some of the most extensive saltwater crocodile habitat in the world. Crocodiles are a common part of life in the Top End, and through our enjoyment of the great outdoor lifestyle we are often in close proximity to their natural habitats. The government has, over many decades, combined significant resources to reduce the risk to the public posed by these large and formidable creatures.
In the last 12 months this government has provided funding for an additional 20 crocodile traps as well as a new harpoon boat for crocodile removal. Areas such as Darwin Harbour, the rural area, and the Katherine River area are managed intensively to minimise the number of crocodiles present. However, this management will always be limited by the surrounding environments which continue to provide a source of new animals and therefore pose an ongoing safety risk.
Parks and Wildlife has more than 60 traps in operation throughout the known range of the saltwater crocodile. These traps are concentrated in areas of human population and are baited and checked by rangers on a regular basis. Over 200 saltwater crocodiles are removed from these traps each year. Every time a trap is damaged, set off deliberately, or stolen there is an increased risk in that area of a crocodile being at large with no trap available to catch the animal.
In many instances trapped animals are released before rangers can remove them. To think a member of the public would release a trapped crocodile believing they are doing some public good is clearly of concern, as the crocodile learns to be wary of traps and becomes even more difficult to locate and remove. Management alone cannot protect Territorians, and for this reason the government has undertaken an extensive public awareness campaign called Croc Wise. In 2009-10, the government committed $140 000 towards developing a safety campaign to alert Territorians and visitors alike that saltwater crocodiles can be present in any of our northern waterways.
The government has committed ongoing funding of $75 000 per annum to ensure the message continues to be publicised and spread throughout multiple forms of communication. My department is also currently developing an integrated curriculum-based crocodile awareness program for use in schools throughout the Northern Territory. Educating our children and demonstrating appropriate Croc Wise behaviours around our waterways will play a significant part in reducing the likelihood of further human fatalities.
Ultimately, we must co-exist with these animals. To do so we require an ongoing management program, coupled with public awareness and enabling legislation, to support the principles of public safety and the rangers engaged in this dangerous work. For these reasons, the passage of this bill ensures the Croc Wise messages are unequivocal: interfering with crocodile traps is not only reckless and dangerous, it is considered an offence by our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 111)
(Serial 111)
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill was to be debated yesterday, however, as a result of issues I identified with the Attorney-General and her staff, it was not. It is brought on today with those issues not remedied. The issues are not catastrophic and no side of politics will be issuing a flurry of media releases about the bill, nor should they, however, a series of legislative principles are at stake and in my capacity as shadow Attorney-General are appropriate to raise.
The issues I identified have not been addressed and in my view should be. Whilst I have never defended the member for Karama, on this occasion I extend some level of sympathy to her. An Attorney-General should not be placed in a position where he or she introduces a bill into parliament which is half done. I would not like it if I were Attorney-General. I do not know her views, however, I knew Syd Stirling and Peter Toyne well enough to know they would be displeased.
I will outline some of the issues. In order to do so, I need to reflect on the Attorney-General’s second reading speech on 9 June this year. She said:
- The purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references, and correcting typographical and grammatical errors and omissions.
This bill, as a Statute Law Revision Bill normally does, makes amendments to a series of Northern Territory acts. I am concerned about not finishing the job in relation to one act, the Aboriginal Land Act, for reasons which will become obvious shortly. In the minister’s second reading speech she said:
- Sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act are repealed and substituted with new sections 7 and 17 to reflect the current drafting practices and amend gender-biased terminology. In doing this, some of the text has also been updated. For example, the heading of the new section 7 reads: ‘Members of parliament and others may enter Aboriginal land’. Currently, it reads: ‘Members of parliament and,’ etcetera, ‘may enter’, etcetera, ‘Aboriginal land’. Similar changes are made to section 17.
For instance, section 9(c) of the Aboriginal Land Act refers to the words ‘he’ and ‘himself’; section 10 uses the word ‘his’; section 12 uses the word ‘him’; section 13 uses the word ‘he’; section 14 in its heading refers to the word ‘etcetera’ and refers to the word ‘he’; and section 16 uses the word ‘his’ on two occasions. In section 18, the words ‘his’ and ‘he’ remain; in section 21 the words ‘he’ and ‘his’ remain; in section 22 the words ‘him’ and ‘his’ remain, as does the word ‘his’ in section 22(2). Similarly, in section 23, the word ‘etcetera’ remains in the heading and in the contents of the section the words ‘his’ ‘his’ and ‘his’ are repeated.
Why would you tinker with legislation that is, to use the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, designed to reflect current drafting practices and amend gender-biased terminology when you only do it in two sections and leave close to a dozen other sections unamended? It is bizarre; it is extraordinary.
This issue is not going to keep people awake at night, but why waste the parliament’s time? Why would you waste the Attorney-General’s time by presenting a bill which proposes amendments to a number of pieces of legislation, and does not complete the job in respect of the sections referred to? I would hate members to think I was awake all night on this, however, yesterday I found a document called Legislative Instruments Handbook. I have mislaid the front cover; I am sure it was from the federal Attorney-General’s Department. It provides guidelines in legislative drafting. I looked for the section regarding gender-specific language. The document is several years old but I am sure it has not changed; I am happy to table it if members want. I quote:
- Gender-specific language is inappropriate if it refers to only one sex when it could apply to both sexes.
There is a useful discussion of the issue on the University of Southern Queensland website, which I am sure members will be enthusiastic to see. I will provide members with the address if they want.
I also found a document called Drafting Practice Guide from the Parliamentary Counsel’s office in the Australian Capital Territory, dated February 2009. It says, under the not unsurprising subheading, ‘He or she’:
Avoid the use of gender-specific personal pronouns. If it is necessary to use a personal pronoun, both masculine and feminine forms must be used, eg ‘he or she’.
I can assure members it is mildly interesting, however important in getting legislation right. The Northern Territory is one of two jurisdictions whose Interpretation Act has a provision where the use of the masculine term exists in legislation, and then it is deemed the feminine is included. In other words, the Northern Territory parliament at some stage has said in legislation: if you see the word ‘he’ also read it as though it included ‘she’. If that was case, why is the Attorney-General placed in a position of - notwithstanding the Territory’s Interpretation Act - saying the Statue Law Revision Bill (Serial 111) provides a number of amendments which, inter alia, reflect current drafting practices and amends gender-biased terminology? I am sure the Attorney-General has better things to do than undo things generally provided in legislation, as is the case with our Interpretation Act. The government’s view is: we are going to change gender-biased terminology.
This leads me to a document which refers to past instances where government policy has been referred to by various members of the Labor government insofar as correcting gender-biased wording in legislation. Here are some of them. In 2004, the member for Johnston, when he was Lands and Planning minister debating the Place Names Act said:
- Finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions in line with Northern Territory government policy.
His colleague, now the Chief Minister, said in relation to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, in 2002:
The amendments also include the update of gender provisions to keep in line with existing Northern Territory government policy.
The now Chief Minister repeated that in the Petroleum Amendment Bill, again in 2002, where he said:
- Finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions to keep in line with Northern Territory government policy.
In a debate on the Places of Public Entertainment Amendment Bill in 2003, former minister, Jack Ah Kit said:
In addition, Parliamentary Counsel has also included amendments that insert gender neutral language in the sections of the Places of Public Entertainment Act that are being amended by the bill, which accords with their current drafting style.
It is this government’s policy to remove gender specific language, and government ministers have rightly said so over the years.
We have before us today a bill which, according to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, seeks inter alia to amend gender-biased terminology. The bill itself corrects gender-biased terminology in sections 7 and 17, but not sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22 and 23, some of which have multiple references to the words ‘his’, ‘he’ or ‘him’. With great respect to those who drafted the legislation, it is really dumb to put the Territory’s first law officer in a position where she says: ‘We are correcting two out of 12 provisions in accordance with government policy’. Does government policy not extend to the other 10 provisions? Clearly not!
I am grateful for the interest of the Attorney-General and her staff in this matter, and that they did not pursue the bill yesterday as a result of issues I raised, however this bill should be remedied. Why are we talking about it when it is not even half done? I would like to think the government might, in due course, look more carefully at its legislation to ensure in line with its policy, gender-specific language is corrected in all legislation. I cannot pursue the matter further.
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding those reservations and observations, we support the bill. I am not aware of a statute law revision bill not supported by any opposition. I hope the government will be more rigorous in the legislation it presents to the House in the future.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will not be speaking for long in relation to this issue, however, it reiterates eloquently the point I made last night. I have some sympathy with the argument put forward by the member for Araluen: the Attorney-General is extremely busy and should not have to cast her mind to the level of detail the member for Araluen has exercised.
I made some comments in relation to the bill before the House last night regarding shopping trolleys left at the waterfront attracting a $13 000 fine. It is concerning ministers will allow these regulations to pass into law, but it is the quality of support surrounding those ministers which sometimes needs to be looked also. As ministers and parliamentarians, whilst I appreciate public servants are very hard-working and dedicated people, it remains incumbent upon us to cast a critical eye upon the information presented to us. Sometimes we do that in a hurry, and make mistakes when we do not pay attention to the issues.
Last night I made some comments in relation to those by-laws. One of my remarks was not entirely accurate because of the time frames involved in commenting. I will be correcting the record in relation to warrants.
Madam Speaker, the process of passing legislation is the core and fundamental issue of this House in its purest sense, and the level of vigilance displayed by the member for Araluen should become the benchmark for us all.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Araluen and Port Darwin for their contribution to debate. I also thank them for their support of the Statute Law Revision Bill which deals with sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act. I will come back to that; it is the most contentious part of the debate this morning. It also deals with section 110 of the Building Act, which is repealed and substituted with a new section restructured to read more clearly. The Electrical Workers and Contractors Act is amended to remove a small number of references to the Electricity Act. This has all been based on consultation with relevant departments. The Firearms Act and Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act were also amended. They referred to the old National Exchange of Police Information Scheme, which is no longer the information system in use. CrimTrac is now in use, so an update of the act has occurred.
There is some fixing of a very minor nature, which is essentially what statute law revision bills are about; they contemporise and update legislation which sit on the books where something has changed -- you alter other pieces of legislation. It is the role of an Attorney-General to deal with statue law revisions across a range of acts they do not necessarily have carriage of.
With the Aboriginal Land Act - the one attracting most debate in the Chamber this morning - we dealt with sections 7 and 17 because a sentence was wrongfully omitted. Whilst there, a decision was made to remove the gender-specific language in those two sections of the act. Whilst they were dealing with those two sections, they removed the gender-specific language in accordance with government policy and put in the non-gender specific language, using ‘his’ or ‘her’, etcetera.
I have a great deal of empathy with what the member for Araluen, supported by the member for Port Darwin, is saying. Why change part of something; why not update and change the entire act, particularly in relation to implementing government policy? Government policy is very clear, and the member for Araluen has done her research and quoted very senior members of this government on debates which talk about the government policy of non-gender specific language.
Historically, the masculine is deemed to be read as the feminine under the Interpretation Act governing interpretation of the laws of the Territory. However, it is the Northern Territory government’s policy to remove gender-specific language and, when we go through a statute law review process as we have done for sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act, it would have been an opportunity to remove gender-specific language from the entire act.
Having had discussions with the member for Araluen it is a point we agree on. I did not want to hold up other contemporary changes in the statute law review where the work has been done by lawyers in Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Justice. They have done the work which is the Statute Law Reform Bill before us, and I was not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. I was going to allow the work those good, hard-working lawyers have done proceed.
It is an instructive debate in the Chamber this morning which I will be ensuring all levels, from Parliamentary Counsel through to people in legal policy of the Department of Justice, turn their attention to. We are lawmakers in this Chamber and the government has policies. People employed to bring the laws of the Territory before us ought to pay heed to government policies and take the opportunities, when they arise, to do the whole job, paint the whole room, clean the brushes afterwards, give them a rinse out, pack them away ready to go to the next task, having completed the previous task.
There is no disagreement in the Chamber about government policy of removing gender-specific language; it is a good thing to do. It is a contemporary practice we should be embarking upon when the opportunity arises, and the opportunity arose in the statute law revision.
I understand why people involved in drafting, and lawyers in the Department of Justice, decided to focus on sections 7 and 17 of the Aboriginal Land Act in relation to the SLR because of the omission of a sentence. The opportunity was there to capture the gender-specific language in the remaining 10 sections. It would not have been too difficult a task, too much work, or taken too much time, however the opportunity was not taken. That is disappointing.
I find this debate instructive. I welcome it, and will ensure it is given to all officers who undertake those duties so in future debates the question of the removal of gender-specific language does not need to be raised because it is occurring as a matter of course.
I thank members opposite for their contribution to the debate. I sincerely thank the member for Araluen for the effort she has taken to research this matter and put her views on the record; views, as Attorney-General, I agree with.
I commend this bill to members of the Chamber because it appropriately deals with the sections of the legislation it intended to. In the Aboriginal Land Act the net was not cast wider than sections 7 and 17 because there was a focus and purpose. They focused on two sections and did not look at other sections of the act to remove gender specific-language.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to ensuring government policy around the removal of gender-specific language is thoroughly pursued through all levels of the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel. I recognise they are currently doing much work for government in the making of law. We have a very heavy agenda so officers of my department, and, Parliamentary Counsel, are working very hard. I recognise that, however when opportunities arise let us do the full job.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD AND RAIL (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 110)
(Serial 110)
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have carriage of this legislation from this side of the Chamber. Although the bill is titled ‘Transport of Dangerous Goods’, this is a new area for me. I thank the minister for allowing her staff to provide a briefing.
I often reflect on the role of federal parliament and how they analyse legislation with the two Houses. For us, only having one House, moving to committee stage and having a full grasp on what is happening with the model legislation is difficult. I understand this bill comes as reforms which occurred under model regulations from the United Nations and were adopted under the previous federal government in 2005, seeking to move from the ADG6 to ADG7. I understand we were supposed to adopt model legislation between 1 January and 31 December 2008, and that has been delayed for some time.
I have some amendments which were sent across on Monday; you should have received those. One is about increasing penalty units for certain offences from 60 to 80 penalty units, and the other is about re-inserting an offence contained in the current act, and in the model legislation, but omitted from this bill. The omitted provision created a separate offence for a person failing to comply with the act and ought reasonably to have known the failure would put the safety of a person, property or environment at risk. They are the amendments we are putting forward today.
It is my intention to go into committee stage and ask many questions about this legislation, and its history, so I have a full understanding of it before I provide support. I accept it is model legislation, and I believe all but Tasmania and the Northern Territory have come on board to date. However, as legislators, we need to have a full understanding of it.
Madam Speaker, I will not go any further; I will reserve questions and comments for the committee stage and my final reading.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill. I also thank the minister for the briefing. We are looking at bringing our laws in line with other states. I always question whether the upgrades in much our legislation are necessary. Australian Standards are being changed all the time. For instance, nowadays every electrical cord has to be tagged every 12 months. When you buy brand new equipment you expect it to be up to standard automatically. Someone has made much money tagging computers in schools because someone decided the standards should change. About five years ago, you did not have to do it.
This is similar. A body of people say standards should change for various reasons. I do not believe changes should not be challenged; with change sometimes comes expense. We need to debate whether those changes are justified based on real risk, or whether it is theoretic risk. It is a general philosophy I am concerned about in relation to bodies we do not have much say in. The Australian Standards is a group of people who produce new regulations and, if you want a copy of those regulations, you have to subscribe. They are not something the public can access, debate, question, and query.
Looking at this bill I had that in mind. However, after the briefing I realised this is not going to make major changes to Northern Territory trucking companies because most companies coming from interstate are already under the new guideline, ADG7, and the Northern Territory is currently ADG6. Some trucking companies are automatically working under the new national guidelines, and these changes will make it sensible. If you came in from Queensland with an ADG7 placard on a vehicle, you would have to change it to a lower standard by putting an ADG6 sign on, which does not make sense. If this means we have a seamless set of rules for the cartage of dangerous goods that is important.
We should not confuse this with the carrying of ordinary goods. The Territory has, for a long time, relied on trucks bigger than allowed in other states because of the distance and cost required to bring goods and materials to the Northern Territory. Triple road-trains and now triple road-trains with an extra half are permitted. I would like to debate road-trains at another time. We have had some accidents recently, however that is not the issue we are discussing today. We have distinct areas which have to be recognised by other states. When bringing in national guidelines, not so much in relation to dangerous goods - general cartage of goods - we need to look at the Northern Territory as not a separate case, but take into account our geographical isolation from the rest of Australia and the long distances required to cart materials.
I support the legislation. I know the opposition has amendments; I am happy to listen to the debate. I am concerned a catch-all type phrase might cover everything when there are already penalty units in the act. I query two sets of penalties for the one act: one which catches everything, and one which is already specific for each clause. I would rather see how this legislation goes. It is a point of view the member for Braitling is putting forward; whether it makes a large difference in practice - perhaps we look at the legislation as it operates.
The government has been discussing its bill, without amendments, with the trucking industry; that is important. If the trucking industry has not seen the amendments, or had adequate consultation, bringing this on now might be premature. I am not saying the amendments do not have merit. From my briefing, there has had quite some consultation with the trucking industry. The penalties in this legislation have been seen by the trucking industry and I have not had any feedback to say it objects. I am happy to support the legislation as it is. I am willing, though, in time, to see whether the penalties are sufficient and what feedback we receive as the legislation moves forward.
It appears to make good sense we are part of Australia all connected by road and rail, and having such legislation is important.
The briefing also explained what happens when we transport dangerous goods by sea. We move into areas within the jurisdiction of the states and territories, and then move into the Commonwealth. Again, it is an area which needs looking at. If you are transporting goods from one side of Australia to the other, is there a single authority responsible for the cartage of goods by sea? We have a national approach saying states are all connected by road and rail. Is there an opportunity for uniformity in the cartage of dangerous goods by sea? If you have a barge from Darwin loaded with ammonium nitrate, or a dangerous good, how far out to sea do you travel before it is not the responsibility of the Northern Territory government? When does it become a matter for the Commonwealth? It may be an area worthy of discussion. I am sure I am not the only person who has looked at this.
When you deliver goods to Gove you are under the Commonwealth. Gove and Alyangula are both secure ports. They come under the Maritime Security Act - a different set of rules. I discovered that when I visited Groote Eylandt. I was told I could not take photographs, and they had cameras everywhere. If they see you with your camera they are out to get you. I found it strange I could not take a photo at a port of loading manganese, but when I went to Nhulunbuy several weeks later it was exactly the same thing.
Madam Speaker, at the briefing we discussed national guidelines for road and rail and whether there is an issue in relation to the transport of goods. Transport of goods by barge in the Northern Territory is quite common; there may need to be discussion about uniform guidelines for the cartage of goods by sea. I support this legislation.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I support the bill before us today. There is always an element of risk when transporting dangerous goods involving heavy vehicles on Territory road or rail networks. The majority of heavy vehicles and trains carrying dangerous goods do so without incident. This is due to the safety requirements in place, licensing, and the professional operators who work in this field.
However, from time to time mistakes or accidents occur, with a recent example in the Barkly electorate a fortnight ago. On 30 July 2010, two trailers of a road-train hauling copper sulphate, rolled over on the Barkly Highway. Something obviously went wrong. It is a timely reminder of the need to take action to reduce such risks. This bill is a good example of that. The copper sulphate had been loaded at Darwin Port and was destined for Mount Isa Mines. Fortunately, while the accident was significant, no one was injured. The copper sulphate may be described as mildly toxic after acute exposure. The estimated 58 tonnes of product which spilled resulted in the Barkly Highway being closed until emergency services personnel from Tennant Creek, as well as the cleanup crew from Mount Isa Mines, attended. Their work ensured the spill was contained and cleaned-up. I am aware NT WorkSafe immediately began inquiries into the incident due to the potential environmental hazard. The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport was also contacted.
The area where the accident occurred represents the headwaters of the Lake Eyre Basin and the connection of an eco-corridor which travels through the centre of Australia into our great Lake Eyre. It is also in the middle of prime cattle country which represents the Territory on a global scale; our beef is prized and exported around the world. It also occurred in a spot where people live and work on cattle stations, not to mention the tourists. It highlights the importance of this legislation, it relates to a national perspective, and definitely highlights some interesting connections, both eco-social and cultural, between the Territory and the rest of Australia.
Transporting dangerous goods on Territory roads or rail occurs on a daily basis and, in the vast majority of cases, is done professionally and safely. This government has a great plan for the future: as Australia’s link with Asia, the Northern Territory has natural, strategic advantages based on location and on our plan to become a vibrant transport hub. The Territory 2030 strategic plan is the government’s road map for the future and, under this plan, we will continue to grow the Territory economy.
We will support the continued contribution of the resources sector, expand the manufacturing industry, increase shipping movements in the Territory, and establish Darwin as a key centre for the oil and gas operations, maintenance and workforce.
The Labor government is moving forward, and in a booming Territory we will see an increase in the amount of freight, including dangerous goods, being transported on our road and rail networks. We have heard introducing the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 is to upgrade Northern Territory laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods. The object of the bill is to regulate the transport of dangerous goods on land, to promote public safety, and protect property and the environment.
As was the case with the recent incident on the Barkly Highway, it is not uncommon for dangerous goods to be transported into or out of the Territory, and it is essential our dangerous goods transport requirements fit in, as seamlessly as possible, with those interstate or even overseas for that matter, and reflect world’s best practice in both efficiency and safety.
This bill puts the framework in place to achieve this by adopting the Commonwealth’s package of model legislation. The inclusion of significant penalties for failing to comply with the direction of an authorised officer, or for obstructing an authorised officer, also sends a firm and clear message to industry.
As Transport minister, I meet regularly with national transport operators and one of the key issues raised is cross-border regulations. Work is under way to reduce the regulatory burden on transport operators which can be required to comply with differing and complex regulations across the states.
Part of the Commonwealth’s package of model legislation is the act we are debating today, with the regulations, and the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail, 7th edition, or ADG7 as it is more commonly referred to. ADG7 adopts the structure, format, definitions and concepts of the United Nations recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods model regulation, whilst retaining Australian-specific provisions.
The main benefits associated with harmonisation with international, intermodal regulations are consistency, a more frequent revision cycle for the code, a single set of laws governing the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, and additional concessions for the transport of smaller quantities of these substances.
The laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods regulate the transport of flammable, toxic, corrosive, gaseous, infectious and dangerous goods and substances which pose a significant risk to human life, property, or the environment when they are transported. Adoption of AGD7 will ensure the transport of dangerous goods in the Territory can be carried out seamlessly across state borders, and allows Territory transport businesses to participate effectively in a uniform, national scheme.
Whilst transport operators who cross borders will already be aware of, and must comply with ADG7 interstate, I welcome the advice the competent authority, NT WorkSafe, will provide education and information to smaller NT operators about the new compliance requirements to ensure they are fully aware of their new obligations.
I also welcome the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General’s comments regulations made under this bill will provide for licences issued under current arrangements to be valid after this bill commences, thereby reducing the immediate impact of the new laws; industry and business is not disadvantaged when the switch is flicked.
Such legislation as that before us requires adequate auditing and enforcement to be most effective. Broadening the powers of authorised officers, including the power to stop and search vehicles; give directions to rail operators; inspect and search premises; seize and remove documentation, equipment and records; obtain search warrants where it is suspected an offence or dangerous situation may occur are important for the effectiveness of the legislation. The provision for reciprocal powers of authorised officers in different jurisdictions is also a positive step and, where applied, may result in improved use of existing resources and enable more effective and efficient investigation of more complex matters which occur within two or more jurisdictions.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is important to the Territory. I thank the Attorney-General for this legislation, and I commend the bill to honourable members.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for his support; he understands the issues. They were debated in detail at the transport ministerial council known as the Australian Transport Council. I was the Transport minister when ADG7 was hotly debated at the transport ministerial council. I do not propose to go back over the comprehensive analysis of the legislation - how it applies, and to what goods - as the Minister for Transport has. Instead, I will go directly to the comments made by members opposite.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support. He took the opportunity to have a detailed briefing from officers of my agency and my staff. He understands it is in the Territory’s interest - particularly our transport providers, and the broader public and the environment - that we participate in the consistent national laws as the ADG7 applies. He understands the proof is in the pudding; you allow operation of a relatively new system to apply for some time then look at how it is operating.
Importantly, for any of us involved in understanding rules and regulations applying to transport, you can only do that with the industry. If you are not engaging thoroughly and effectively with the industry to understand the practical application of your laws, you are missing the point. My question to the member for Braitling, in the committee stage will be: what consultation have you undertaken with the industry in the amendments you have brought before the House? I will be interested to hear your response.
We have ensured at every step in the development of the ADG7 - which is a comprehensive set of tasks, requirements, laws and regulations for the transport of dangerous goods, as people living in a society would expect. Transport ministers from across the nation, their officers and authorities such as NT WorkSafe, have engaged with industry to test and understand how this will apply and whether it will create significant impediments to transportation of dangerous goods, which is part of the productivity of our nation.
Why are dangerous goods transported? Orica is transporting backwards and forwards from the ERA mine in Kakadu. Part of our nation’s productivity is the transport of dangerous goods. In the Territory, it is particularly applicable because we have so many mines; we are a resource-rich jurisdiction. We do not want to create regulatory impediments and barriers to the transport of dangerous goods. We want to ensure we apply world’s best practice and national consistent practice to the Territory. That is what we are doing in the legislation before the Chamber today.
We went through, in fine detail, which of the provisions within the model legislation we would apply. Because the Territory is a resource state and, by its nature will require the transport of dangerous goods on a far more frequent basis than you may well see in a non-resource rich state, we decided, rather than the catch-all provisions being proposed by the member for Braitling, on specific provisions for specific breaches so industry knew what they should be doing, how they should be doing it, and what specific penalties would apply.
We did not go down the catch-all path; a rather lazy path: we can pull you up and, if you do not comply by failing to provide some information, catch-all - 400 penalty units, off to gaol for two years it is. That is proposed by the opposition today - the lazy catch-all. We deliberately wanted specific penalties for specific breaches because this is a real and engaged industry transporting dangerous goods across the Territory to support our productivity.
The other aspect being proposed in committee stage amendments by the opposition relates to penalties. Quite deliberately, our government decided that because there is a matrix of different penalties which apply across the jurisdictions and, as is our jurisdictional right when dealing with model legislation to pick where we land in the penalty provisions, to be in the middle. We are not the highest, and not the lowest; we will be in the middle to be fair to our industry. We will not be dragging our feet; they are tough penalty provisions. However, we are not going to be at the more extreme end because we recognise these penalties will be applied. People may be in breach of ADG7 and the penalties will apply. This is not a theoretical debate; this is real, live. There is a result; there are trucking companies to which these penalties could, ultimately, apply; this is not theoretical. This is not something we take lightly.
The member for Braitling, who is the shadow Transport spokesperson, chose to pursue a briefing of legislation which has been sitting on the books for several months, last Friday. He went to the wrong office - reasonable mistake to go to the Minister for Transport’s office, even though the legislation was introduced into parliament by the Attorney-General - a reasonable and understandable mistake. He finally received a briefing on Monday and, at 5 pm on Monday afternoon, e-mailed committee stage amendments.
If that is not last minute, what is? If you were genuine in wanting to engage government on consistent laws in the transport of dangerous goods, you would not leave it to the last minute. It looks rushed and somewhat rash. I will question you in the committee stage on how much consultation you have had with industry. The Northern Territory government has stepped through what it signed up to do at the National Transport Commission and the Australian Transport Council. We signed up to embark on this process in 2007. The amended Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail package came out when we went into caretaker government.
In relation to why we did not meet the time frame in August 2008, quite appropriately asked by the member for Braitling, the package of legislation comprising the model legislation, the regulations, was approved at the ATC in August 2008. For some in this Chamber that date might ring a bell. The decision committed the states and territories to introduce model legislation by 31 December 2008 to allow for a 12-month transition period.
The Northern Territory government was in caretaker mode during the Australian Transport Council’s voting period for the adoption of ADG7. Anyone who understands caretaker mode knows you do not progress legislation. We came out of caretaker mode and proceeded with what the nation had signed up to do; the introduction of ADG7. We ensured not only the larger transporters of dangerous goods in the Territory such as Coles Wesfarmers, Orica and Vopak were consulted during the development and drafting of this bill - there is a raft of model legislation and you pick which elements apply to your jurisdiction for consistency and appropriateness to your jurisdictional needs - which is what we have done with this ADG7 application.
We engaged the large transporters, and informed smaller transporters in the Territory in the lead-up to this bill being introduced. We propose implementation of legislation for early 2011 so the fine details can be worked through and discussed with operators, large and small. It is the appropriate and responsible way to approach this legislation.
NT WorkSafe have consulted with Casey Haulage, DirectHaul, DGM Australia, Chemtrans, ConocoPhillips, Bevex Distribution, the Tanami which is the Newmont Mining Corporation, Crocodile Gold, Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Rio Tinto ERA, Pacific National Darwin, Perkins Shipping, GEMCO, Maxam Australia, Pioneer Road Services and the NT Branch of the Australian Trucking Association.
I question whether the opposition has consulted with those companies, and the peak NT branch of the ATA, in relation to the committee stage amendments brought before the Chamber. The Trucking Association has been informed of progress through this, as has NT WorkSafe’s transport and storage sub-committee. NT WorkSafe has kept the industry and unions informed through the Workplace Health and Safety Advisory Council. Consultation has taken place with the rail sector through the Department of Construction and Infrastructure Rail Safety Unit and the NT Rail Safety committee.
Other NT government departments informed of the proposed bill include: Department of Chief Minister; NT Treasury; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport; Department of Health and Families; Department of Lands and Planning; Department of Resources; and the Department of Business and Employment.
All jurisdictions have implemented ADG7 except Tasmania, and I am advised the legislation has been introduced in Tasmania. Although we went into caretaker mode when it was kicking off, we are by no means last. Regulations will be required to fully implement the model legislation to replace the current ADG6, and will be drafted following passage of the bill. We anticipate the bill will commence in early 2011 to allow drafting of the regulations, discussion of the regulations with the industry - the people who do the work - and through the WorkSafe and transport committees.
In relation to the query from the member for Nelson: it is good to have consistency with road and rail, what about marine? I am advised the Australian Maritime Safety Authority monitors compliance when it comes to marine. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code covers the transport of dangerous goods by sea; there is consistency.
I also advise COAG has gone through a laborious process which flowed from the Australian Transport Council, where all jurisdictions in Australia have signed up to a marine authority - we will cede the remaining existing marine regulatory environments each of us has to a national authority. That was an in-principle agreement at COAG. Negotiation is occurring across states and territories regarding the detail of that authority and the fees which will apply to local coastal shipping.
Whilst there is movement, a federal election is under way and the final detail and negotiations will happen post-federal election. Every jurisdiction has signed up to cede those marine obligations to the Commonwealth. It was not as critical for us; we are, however, lining up with some other small jurisdictions regarding how you would manage the fee and licence processes applying through a national authority. We do not want to see our local shipping companies disadvantaged in any way. The devil is always in the detail when you go to a single national authority. However, at COAG level, all jurisdictions have signed to go down that path.
We have the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code covering the transport of dangerous goods by sea, and the next step of a single regulatory authority for marine has been signed at COAG. Some of the smaller jurisdictions are arguing with the Commonwealth about costs applying to what are currently coastal shipping fees which vary across Australia, in and out of our ports, for example.
This is sensible legislation; this is tested, this is world’s best practice, this is national best practice, already occurring on our roads with the bulk of our national transporters applying ADG7; they cross state boundaries every day. We went into the specifics of the legislation and took the smaller Northern Territory-based haulage companies through it. This will affect them; they need to be prepared for it, and we are wary of applying a penalty regime that would be extraordinary. Adopting some regimes within the model would have been overly onerous to industry, so we quite deliberately decided to land in the middle. I make no apology for that; it is a reasonable approach for a new set of rules and regulations which will be strict, onerous and much welcomed by this government. We would not have signed up to it if we were not serious about ensuring the safety of our environment.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the committee stage debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr GILES: I seek leave to change chairs, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Indeed. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Honourable members, the committee has before it the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 110), together with schedule of amendments No 43 circulated by the member for Braitling.
Clauses 1 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 84, by leave, taken together:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I have listened to the greatest load of waffle to waste time so we do not end up the same as yesterday, in a statement before lunch. All we have had for the last 30 minutes from the Attorney-General is the greatest load of diatribe. We are in parliament to debate these things; the timing of my briefing is not important to anyone. Who I consult with is none of your business; I can consult with whomever I like.
These amendments are very important. The Transport minister is talking about people going across jurisdictions; I have put in amendments which support other jurisdictions so when people come into the Territory they can have similar legislation. Your diatribe is absolutely ridiculous. I would like to ask: under AGC7, under the old legislation of 2003, how many people were penalised by WorkSafe for not complying under the old act?
Ms LAWRIE: I will respond to the assertions made by the shadow minister that clause 32(2), the penalty provision proposing the maximum penalty of 80 penalty units, is consistent with other jurisdictions.
I draw his attention to section 32. The proposed penalty in the Northern Territory legislation before us is 60 penalty units; in Queensland it is 90 penalty units; in Victoria 60 penalty units; and in the ACT it is 50 penalty units. The dollar amount of a penalty unit various across the jurisdictions. For example, in Queensland a penalty unit is $100, therefore the penalty, in a monetary sense, would be $9000; in Victoria with 60 penalty units, a unit equating to $116.82 would be $7009.20; in the ACT with their 50 penalty units, it would be $110 for an individual and $550 for a corporation so if you chose the individual that is $5500; in South Australia provision exists, however there is no penalty provided; and in Western Australia it is $10 000 for an individual.
The assertion by the shadow minister that he has brought forward a penalty unit which is consistent nationally is a furphy – it is not true! The facts are: in Queensland it is $9000; in Victoria it is $7009.20; in the ACT, $5500; Western Australia, $10 000; and we are in the middle at $7900. Your assertion that there is a consistent penalty unit is wrong, which is the point I made in my summing up. Penalties vary across jurisdictions, and we took the time and effort to look at them and arrive at a setting for the Territory which is fair, reasonable, and makes it middle of the pack.
Regarding the query on the number of prosecutions, WorkSafe is responding to that.
Mr GILES: I appreciate …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, if I could interrupt you there. As per the script prepared for you, you need to seek leave to move the amendments you are putting forward; you have not done that.
Mr GILES: I seek leave to move amendments 43.1 to 43.16 together.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: I would appreciate, Attorney-General, getting those figures before the end of the committee stage. You are changing the penalty system from the previous act to this new act. You spoke about different penalties in other jurisdictions. However, under section 22 of the 2003 act: Offence to fail or comply with direction - and I will read this out:
- A person must not:
(a) without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction made by an authorised officer in accordance with section 18 or 20;
(b) without reasonable excuse, obstruct an authorised officer or a person assisting an authorised officer in the exercise of power of the authorised officer; or
(c) give to an authorised officer who is exercising such a power information that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular.
Penalty: If the offender is a natural person - $10 000 or imprisonment for 6 months or both.
What your bill proposes is not $10 000; you are proposing 60 penalty units at $133. My maths comes to $7900, I believe …
Ms Lawrie: $7980.
Mr GILES: $7980 - we are seeing a decrease in the fine. Regarding uniformity or continuation, the reason for 80 penalty points is to keep it in line with the previous penalty. To say it is absurd to come up with 80 penalty units - it is already in the current legislation. How many people have been fined for doing the wrong thing under this criterion, and why do you want to drop the fine?
Usually we have CPI, inflation, fines going up all over the place; we do not always agree with them. We are talking about the transport of dangerous goods and you want to drop the fine.
Last night we saw the tabling of by-laws for the Waterfront Corporation. People will be fined $13 000 for leaving a shopping trolley at the waterfront, and you are dropping a fine from $10 000 to $7900 for not complying with transport of dangerous goods legislation. I need some justification to support what you are talking about.
Ms LAWRIE: We will agree to disagree at the end of this debate. You do not want to take on board what the government is saying. I will repeat: we have chosen the penalties based on the middle of the pack. We are introducing consistent legislation, model legislation, ADG7, so the rules of ADG7 will apply for a truck leaving a depot at Melbourne and delivering dangerous goods to the Port of Darwin. We could say: ‘What was it in the Territory?’, or we could look at the penalties applying across our nation and say: ‘Where do we sit in the context of our nation?’ These goods cross state boundaries? We could say: ‘What were we previously?’ which has no relationship to the transport of these goods across our boundaries. We looked at the nation, at landing in the middle, and have gone from $10 000, in some instances, to $7980.
We have also taken out potential gaol where it does not apply across the penalties in other jurisdictions. We have said: ‘If you face a gaol penalty in another jurisdiction, you will face a gaol penalty in the Territory’. We are in the middle of where penalties apply in other jurisdictions. That is how we have applied the penalty provisions.
We have articulated that; the industry knows it. Does the industry know you are proposing to ratchet it up today? Answer that question.
Mr GILES: How many people have been sent to gaol under the previous legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: Answer the question. You have not answered the question. Have you consulted industry with your amendments?
Mr GILES: Get used to it; we are used to it. I am …
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Have you consulted industry about these committee stage amendments?
Mr GILES: I am asking questions in an attempt to support your legislation. You can be smart; I am trying to support legislation coming through the new model put out under the previous Coalition. We are trying to reach agreement here. You have legislation from 2003 which I am seeking to realign.
The Minister for Transport said he wants to - and I am paraphrasing - send a firm and clear message to industry to comply with the directions of officers and prevent obstruction of officers as they carry out their duties. By reducing the maximum penalty by $2000 for failing to comply with a direction, and reducing the penalty for obstruction by $3400-odd, is this sending a clear and firm message to the industry?
Ms LAWRIE: We are debating the opposition’s committee stage amendments. You have to prosecute an argument which convinces the government we should adopt your committee stage amendments. So far, all I am hearing from you is: ‘We have looked at what the penalties used to be in the Territory and that is where we want to be, thereabouts’. That is the essence of your argument. If you seriously want government to consider adopting your committee stage amendments, answer this: have you consulted with industry?
Mr GILES: We are not here debating my amendments.
Dr Burns: We are!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: They are part of bringing the bill into this Chamber - you are trying to get a new bill through. I put amendments to your bill, and we will talk to these amendments, however you are trying to get your bill through the Chamber. You need to justify reducing the fines. How many people have been fined, how many people have been gaoled? There is intent for legislation; you do not legislate without reason. Has anyone been prosecuted? This is not a political witch hunt; I want justification for reducing the fines. Has anyone been prosecuted, fined, sent to gaol? We see chemical spills in the Territory, they are dangerous and hazardous.
I understand the intent of the legislation. I appreciate the model regulations under the United Nations. I understand why the ATC has brought this model into Australia. I understand why the bill is before us. I want some justification for why we are changing things. You can be smart and have a political argument. I have not consulted every single transport company or person you mentioned, however, I have consulted.
Ms Lawrie: Name one.
Mr GILES: That is what is important. No, I am not telling you who I consult with.
Dr Burns: What about the peak body, have you spoken to them?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: It is not important; it is none of your business who I consult with. You want to get a bill through this Chamber, you have to justify why you want to reduce fines. Again, how many people have been prosecuted, what were the fines, and how many were sent to gaol?
Ms LAWRIE: Whether the shadow minister for Transport likes it or not, we are in committee stage debating amendments led by him. We are debating your amendments now. If you want government to seriously consider your amendments to the penalty provisions and the subsequent catch-all amendment, which you have not yet put, who have you consulted with? Have you at least consulted with the Australian Trucking Association, Northern Territory Branch?
Mr GILES: Who I consult with is none of your business. Why have you dropped your fine regime? The Minister for Transport spoke of normality across jurisdictional boundaries; I support the same concept. Why are you looking at reducing the penalty regime?
Ms LAWRIE: I will take you through it again and will choose, for simplicity’s sake, clause 31: Failing to comply with direction to stop road vehicle. That is a pretty simple one. Previously in the NT a person faced a fine of $10 000, the body corporate faced a fine of $50 000, and the individual also potentially faced six months’ imprisonment. In relation to the ADG7 and how penalties apply across all jurisdictions of the nation, I will read the penalties.
First and foremost, nowhere else in Australia did the individual face gaol. For consistency, we stripped out the potential penalty of gaol – gone - because nowhere else in Australia failing to comply with a direction to stop was an individual facing gaol. We said: if you are not going to face gaol in South Australia, once you cross the border you are still not going to face gaol.
We then looked at the monetary payments across all the jurisdictions. In Queensland it is $9000. New South Wales did not enact direction provisions; it enabled authorised officers under the Occupational Health and Safety legislation to issue notices under the act. In Victoria, for a natural person it is sitting at $7000 - about $1000 less than the NT. The ACT is $5500 - a couple of thousand dollars less than us, and in South Australia the provision exists but no penalty was provided. In Western Australia it is $10 000. I repeat: we chose our penalty provisions to be middle of the pack; we are not as high as Western Australia and not as low as the ACT. We are not $10 000 like WA, and not $5500 like the ACT. We are more than Victoria, less than Queensland. We are much more than ACT, less than WA. We are middle of the pack.
In my summation I said we deliberately chose the penalty ratings which will apply to the ADG7 because it is consistent, model legislation - we would sit middle of the pack. If you do not face gaol somewhere else in Australia for a breach, you do not face gaol here. If you face gaol somewhere else in Australia for a breach, you face gaol here. Middle of the pack in relation to penalty provisions!
Mr GILES: You gave an example of clause 31 - we did not seek to amend clause 31. I am trying to understand why, where we had $10 000, you dropped to $7000-odd. Queensland has a $9000 fine, Western Australia has $10 000, and you say you are middle-of-the-road. I do know if you can judge the ACT and Victoria as part of that balance. I want a simple explanation as to why you have dropped it by so much, because it is not middle-of-the-road as it crosses with Western Australian and Queensland. It might be if you were driving through the ACT. It is not middle-of-the-road; it does not provide for consistency, and it is model legislation. I want to understand why you have chosen the sit-on-the-fence, middle-of-the-road position, rather than the position of Queensland or Western Australia, and why it has reduced so much?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not reduced much at all. In an industry - ask them the difference between $10 000 and $7980; that is not a significant change for the industry. When you look at the monetary amounts involved in the haulage of dangerous goods, it is not much. Industry would not see that as a significant change; have that conversation with them. I do not expect you to understand what I am telling you today. Talk to the industry; you will find it informative and useful.
We are going over old ground. I repeat: we made a decision consistent with policy decisions we make when we set penalties across a raft of other legislation - we sit middle of the pack, particularly when bringing in a new regime. We looked at the penalties and how they applied across all the states, we will sit in the middle of the pack; we will see how it goes. I understand you do not agree, and I will let the ATA and all those companies know you wanted it at $10 000 - happy to do that; happy to inform them. You have yet to give me the name of anyone in the industry you have consulted with. You will not even confirm you have consulted with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch. At the very least you could confirm that. If you want us to take you seriously, have you consulted with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch?
Mr GILES: This is about protecting the environment and Territorians, and ensuring our legislation is correct. I ask again, has anyone been prosecuted under the previous legislation? How many people were fined, how many people were sent to gaol?
Ms LAWRIE: I have asked WorkSafe for that information. The information provided so far is there have been several consents to prosecute provided by NT WorkSafe to the Northern Territory Police, and prosecutions have occurred. That information is not with WorkSafe; they do the consent to prosecute which goes through to police, and the judicial system takes over. I have people searching the records.
Mr GILES: By several, can you me a rough number?
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is several. Again, did you at any stage consult with the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch? A pretty simple question!
Mr GILES: We might move to the next amendment.
Dr Burns: Yes, we might.
Ms Lawrie: Why would you move on and not answer the question?
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 32 to 84 agreed to.
Clause 85:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendment 43.17. The purpose of this is to reinsert an offence contained in the current act, and also in the model legislation, omitted from this bill. Section 37(2) of the current act says:
- A person involved in the transport of dangerous goods by road or rail must not fail to comply with the provisions of this act in circumstances where the person knew or reasonably ought to have known that the failure would be likely to endanger the safety of another person or of property or the environment.
Section 71(2) of the model legislation says:
- If a person involved in the transport of dangerous goods by rail or road fails to comply with a provision of this Act in circumstances where the person knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the failure would be likely to endanger the safety of another person or of property or the environment, the person is guilty of an offence.
Our purpose with this amendment is keeping with the 2003 act and the model legislation; reinserting what might be an oversight. Is there a reason it was taken out?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to give the reason, and I hope it is understood. Clause 85 of the bill contains a provision which makes it an offence to fail to ensure dangerous goods are transported safely. There is a defence if the defendant establishes he or she ensured the safe transport of the goods as far as reasonably practical. This would have a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment.
You propose inserting an additional provision into clause 85 which makes it an offence to contravene the act while being reckless if the contravention would endanger the safety of people, property, or the environment, and a similar penalty provision of 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment.
We decided not to pick up this catch-all offence; we wanted specific offences in this legislation. For example, our specific offences cover failing to comply with directions, failing to licence a vehicle or driver and failing to ensure safety. All our specific offences have the underlying aim of protecting persons, property, and the environment in light of the objects the bill, which states:
- The object of this Act is to regulate the transport of dangerous goods on land in order to promote public safety and protect property and the environment.
Importantly - and this is the crux of why we are not supporting you – a catch-all offence may create tension between other specific offences which have a lower penalty and, more particularly, offences in the Criminal Code which relate to causing harm to a person, damaging property, or environmental offences under other more appropriate regimes such as the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. There would be a tension between this catch-all and specific offences which sit within this and other legislation.
Mr GILES: Thank you. Could you explain to me how clause 85 is not a catch-all now?
Ms LAWRIE: Certainly. The concept we have in clause 85 is broadly around ensuring safety as far as is reasonably practical. Your proposed insertion is quite specific for different failures to comply, engaging conduct, endangering the safety, etcetera. We have put specific offences in those failures to comply. We have a broad offence in ensuring safety - the intent of this legislation – however, the specifics in failure to comply you are proposing as a catch-all, we have dealt with as specific offences.
Further, my office has contacted the Australian Trucking Association Northern Territory Branch, which advises that there has been no consultation between you, or anyone representing you, and the Association regarding these committee stage amendments.
Mr GILES: I do not believe you fully understood the reason I am asking these questions. It is not for political reasons; it is to ensure we have sound legislation. Often in the committee stages people do not fully understand what they are talking about. We have a Committee section on Level 3, and no one seems to know what they do. It is important for us, and me, to ensure we understand what we are doing.
I asked you a question; you finished it off with a very smart undertone. That is all well and good; I have broad shoulders. I do not understand - and I am happy for you to explain so I understand and support it - how your current clause 85 in the bill is not a catch-all as opposed to number 3? I want to know how it is not a catch-all. Could you explain it so any reasonable person can understand?
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 85 provides a catch-all to ensure the intent of the legislation, the transport of dangerous goods safely, occurs. It enshrines what this legislation is about. Your catch-all goes to failures to comply, not the broad transport goods safely and if you do not, you will cop this. The specific failures to comply, which your catch-all goes to, are contained within specific sanctions provided for in the bill, with specific penalties against them. If you apply a catch-all, as proposed by you in clause 85, there is tension between the specific failures to comply and the catch-all.
Some of the specific failures to comply, such as failure to comply with a direction to stop the vehicle, have a different penalty unit and provisions to what you are proposing. Your catch-all would capture a failure to comply with the direction to stop a vehicle. If we were to insert your proposed amendment, this catch-all would apply the 400 penalty units and the penalty of imprisonment for two years. Your catch-all would capture a failure to comply with the direction to stop the vehicle: 400 penalty units or two years imprisonment. However, there is a penalty around failure to comply to stop the vehicle in the legislation - we discussed it previously in debate. It has a penalty unit of 60 penalty units, and does not have a gaol provision.
If someone is driving a truck and they fail to comply with a direction to stop, what would you do? What call do you make if we were to adopt your proposed committee stage amendment? There is a tension between the legislation provision which says that 60 penalty units - which is in the ball park of what happens elsewhere in Australia - or your catch-all, which is 400 penalty units and potential two years’ gaol. There is a tension between the specific provisions within the legislation. Similarly, there is a tension between other penalties which could be applied under current legislation, such as waste management and pollution.
You come here as the shadow Transport minister proposing last minute committee stage amendments and you have not consulted the industry. You have not consulted with the peak body of the industry, the Australian Trucking Association NT Branch. That is a failure of duty on your behalf.
Mr GILES: Thank you for your wisdom. Under clause 85 of the bill, what happens if someone fails to stop a truck? What happens under this bill, as opposed to our amendments?
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 31, which is the failure to comply with the direction to stop a truck, would apply.
Mr GILES: Sixty penalty units for failing to stop a truck? Minister, our clause 85 amendment, the insertion of number (3), is from the model legislation. Does that mean your government believes the model legislation is wrong?
Ms LAWRIE: You obviously do not understand what happens in model legislation. Model legislation is created, and within the model legislation there are pathways jurisdictions choose to take for consistency - whichever aspect you take is consistent. We did not choose the lazy path, as some of the large jurisdictions did, saying: ‘We will not have specific provisions for specific failures to comply; we will have catch-alls. We will catch you for a broad range of things’. Because we are a very active transport of dangerous goods jurisdiction, we decided on specific penalties for specific breaches so we could engage industry in the detail saying if you do these things in the Territory these penalties apply, which is consistent with the ADG7, the model law.
What we have done is consistent with the model legislation and contained within it. We did not pick up the catch-alls because there was tension between our specific provisions contained within the model legislation, which we have led today.
Mr GILES: Minister, you raised two big, lazy jurisdictions. Who are those two big, lazy jurisdictions?
Ms LAWRIE: I am dealing with our legislation; you are proposing amendments you have not consulted with industry on. How embarrassing for you.
Mr GILES: Who are those two big, lazy jurisdictions? Have you told your Labor colleagues in those jurisdictions they are lazy?
Ms LAWRIE: You are assuming it does not include Western Australia.
Mr GILES: Who are those two lazy jurisdictions?
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Braitling has asked a question on the basis of material introduced by the Attorney-General. I ask you direct the Attorney-General to answer the question.
Ms LAWRIE: I am on my feet to answer so there is no direction required.
Madam CHAIR: If we could pause for a moment while I confer with the Clerk. With all due respect, the member for Braitling has asked the minister questions which have not been answered. The minister is about to address the issue.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a view on who is lazy and who is not; we are not lazy in the Territory. We go into the detail of the legislation, pull out the specific provisions, the penalties, the offences; we liaise with industry, small and large, the peak bodies, committees – you have done nothing.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, you will be aware the Attorney-General has not answered the question. She said there were two, big, lazy jurisdictions. I ask you to invite the Attorney-General to answer that question.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, it is not my role to direct the minister how to answer questions.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I have a question for the Attorney-General.
Given your comments there are two, big, lazy jurisdictions, and given Labor’s traditional, although not recent, disinclination to rat on mates, could you enlighten us by ruling out some jurisdictions. Was it Victoria and New South Wales, Attorney-General?
Ms LAWRIE: The debate by the member for Araluen is a nonsense. What has occurred in this Chamber is the opposition has been found wanting. It brought into debate committee stage amendments without going anywhere near the industry affected – sheer arrogance.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, one final question.
Madam CHAIR: One final question because it is midday, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, is your reluctance to name those big, lazy jurisdictions in any way related to not wanting to create a controversial headline during a federal election campaign?
Ms LAWRIE: You are wrong.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, being midday we will now suspend.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I ask we pass this legislation. We have concluded the committee stage debate; we can proceed with the legislation.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, do you have further questions?
Mr GILES: Yes, I do.
Madam CHAIR: In that case we will be suspending …
Ms LAWRIE: I seek clarification of what other questions you have. We have exhausted …
Ms CARNEY: That is out of order, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is my legislation; I am able to ask what other questions you have.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, could we have an indication of how many questions you have?
Mr GILES: No.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will be suspending committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE: Why would we not be dealing with the committee stage now? Do we have another 10 minutes, because we do go 10 minutes in?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair …
Madam CHAIR: Please pause. We have a Public Accounts Committee meeting scheduled, minister, which I am required to attend.
Ms CARNEY: If I could very briefly respond. The member for Braitling, in his capacity of scrutinising this bill, is allowed the advantage of considering the Attorney-General’s answers over the luncheon adjournment. There seems to be …
Ms Lawrie: So he can call ….
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms CARNEY: There seems to be some suggestion the member for Braitling should not be able to further pursue this matter. We resent that suggestion, and I make that comment in light of the Attorney-General’s comments …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! That is because the member for Braitling might want to call a few people and do a quick consultation.
Ms Carney: Ask them if they were the big, lazy Labor jurisdictions.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Honourable members, it is after midday, I am suspending committee; it will resume following Question Time.
Debate suspended.
TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD AND RAIL (NATIONAL UNFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 110)
(Serial 110)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move chairs?
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment we are proposing to clause 85 is no more than the current act, and no less than provided in section 71 of the model legislation. Minister, please give reasons why your government will not support an amendment which will provide greater protection to the environment, to property and to Territorians?
Ms LAWRIE: The entire bill is about greater protection to the environment, to Territorians and greater protection in the transport of dangerous goods.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, the definitions talk about some goods which are considered too dangerous to be transported by road. What kind of goods are these?
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is the goods will be defined either within the regulations or the code.
Ms PURICK: Assuming there are goods - there must be if it is referenced - if they are too dangerous to transport by road and the Territory needs these products, how will they be transported into and around the Territory?
Ms LAWRIE: Regulations and codes provide how dangerous goods would be transported. Rail is sometimes considered a more appropriate form of transport, when available, than road, depending on the goods. Any dangerous goods have a series of requirements as to how they are transported, including how they are marked, handled, and what sort of containers they are in. Those normal procedures would apply.
Ms PURICK: Thank you. Is it not true, when there was a cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway three or four years ago, no prosecutions were carried out because the office of WorkSafe bungled the investigation into the spill?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not true.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I beg to differ. What is the reason no prosecutions were pursued regarding that incident?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised transport of the goods did not breach the licensing requirements.
Ms PURICK: Minister, you may have been the minister at the time - I am not sure. A few years ago the government commissioned a study into what commodities considered hazardous and/or dangerous are transported into the Territory, and in what volumes. I do not recall a report being made public. Are you able to provide details - you may need to take this on notice - of exactly what dangerous and/or hazardous materials are transported into the Territory by road and rail, and in what quantities? For example, copper sulphate - the member for Barkly has trouble understanding the difference between that and copper sulphide - petroleum products; the range of chemicals used in the mining industry; the range of chemicals used at ConocoPhillips plant; the helium plant; petroleum products; lubricants and fuels. There are probably more than 50 products.
The government commissioned a research report. For Country Liberals’ members to fully explain the nature of this legislation to our electorates, albeit national uniformity, we need to highlight the kind of commodities which are brought into the Northern Territory. Are you able to give information on that report; will it be made public?
Ms LAWRIE: I am able to advise the list of goods too dangerous to be transported appears as Appendix A to ADG7. I have the full list and am happy to provide you with a copy.
Regarding investigations into incidences of dangerous goods spillages in the Territory - and there have been several, and they have been raised in debate - on every occasion reports have recommended the adoption of ADG7. We have that before us at the moment.
Ms PURICK: Clause 13(2)(a) says:
- … is apparently physically and mentally fit …
How do you define: apparently physically fit? How will the government apply ‘apparently mentally fit’? What does it mean? It is very subjective. Who is going to judge whether a driver is physically and mentally fit? If a government official deems they are not physically fit, what right of appeal does a driver or business have?
Ms LAWRIE: Clearly, ‘apparent’ is a subjective term. Argument on whether the person is physically or mentally fit could be led at the time. All companies which transport dangerous goods have checks within the system and if a transport inspector was concerned about the physical or mental fitness of a person transporting the goods, he would raise it and those arguments could be led.
Mr GILES: Minister, earlier in debate you referred to several lazy jurisdictions. I am wondering whether you had a chance to recollect which jurisdictions they were.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to reflect ad nauseum on how lazy you have been in not consulting.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, to question the minister again. I presume you mean Victoria because of the way they approached the legislation. Can you confirm that is what you were thinking? You have taken a middle-of-the-road approach and you took Victoria as being one of the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I call relevance on this one. We are debating very specific amendments to this legislation and the member has strayed far beyond that unless he can demonstrate relevance to the specific amendment we are discussing.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Braitling, can we focus on the amendments before us? It is my recollection you asked this question of the minister prior to the suspension. She is of the view she has answered your question.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. It was relevant because the minister brought it into the debate. Also, the minister did not answer the question. Perhaps you, as Chair …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, you have asked the question several times. The Attorney-General has addressed your question. I cannot direct her to give the answer you would like to hear; we seem to be at a stalemate. Do you wish to proceed with further questions?
Mr GILES: I would like to know if the government has a policy. It was mentioned several times they have a middle-of-the-road policy, not a lazy jurisdictional policy, and not a show-stopper policy. I would like to know the lazy jurisdictions. However, I will move on for the sake of these amendments, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: We are putting your motion. The question is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. The noes have it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I believe we need a division. One government minister said ‘aye’ and one said ‘no’; so we need a division.
Madam CHAIR: Is a division supported? A division is called. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs AAGAARD: You are not allowed in here, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, standing orders …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House.
Mr TOLLNER: Standing orders …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim …
Mrs AAGAARD: You have been suspended from the House for a day. You are not allowed in committees or in the Chamber.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, you are suspended.
Dr Burns: Call the Serjeant-at-Arms.
Mrs AAGAARD: Member for Fong Lim, neither you nor the member for Port Darwin is allowed in the Chamber, or any of the galleries, or any committee meetings.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw! You are suspended from the Chamber. You are suspended from the Chamber, member for Fong Lim.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: You have been suspended.
The question is that the amendments as moved by the member for Braitling be agreed to.
The committee divided.
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Ms Carney Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Ms Purick Mr Knight
Mr Styles Ms Lawrie
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any ministerial statements? Minister for Education and Training.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Did I miss my chance to speak? I was standing up for the third reading?
Madam SPEAKER: We have passed the bill, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: I was standing here for some time.
Madam SPEAKER: No one was standing when I looked around.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building the Education Revolution in the Northern Territory
Building the Education Revolution in the Northern Territory
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, education was neglected for decades under the CLP, especially when it came to infrastructure. In contrast Labor, the government since 2001, has invested heavily in school infrastructure. The Territory government has spent well over $500m on school infrastructure since 2001, and we have a long way to go to bring all schools up to a high standard. In remote communities we have built new schools, new secondary education facilities and teacher housing. We have also built new schools to meet the needs of our growing urban communities, and are continually upgrading schools and keeping others well maintained and in good repair. Our current program of works for 2008 to 2012 amounts to $246m, and is the Territory’s single largest school infrastructure program. We will deliver better facilities for our students and teachers across the Territory.
Despite these record spends we know we have much to do in order to provide excellent school facilities for all Territory children. That is why this government embraced the Australian government stimulus package, which included the Building the Education Revolution program. These programs have delivered $205m-worth of infrastructure to Northern Territory government school communities, and $65m for non-government schools. It defies belief that the CLP opposition, in keeping with the Liberal-National Party coalition, still maintains its position of opposing BER spending and their threat to curtail it if given the chance.
Apart from the great educational benefits which will be enjoyed by young Territorians for years to come, this funding has also supported Territory businesses during the biggest global downturn for 75 years. The Territory is fortunate to have in Damian Hale a strong champion of the national stimulus programs which have, in total, delivered $574m to the Territory.
The BER is an important core component of the national stimulus which will help build a sustainable future for the Territory. It will continue to support infrastructure, economic growth and jobs for Territorians for years to come.
In February 2009, the Australian government announced its $42bn national building jobs plan and stimulus package. Its strategic intent was to minimise expected decline in Australian economic growth due to the global financial crisis.
Funding to the Territory came through various national partnerships, including the Building the Education Revolution, which has provided a total of $205m for government schools in the Northern Territory and $64m for non-government schools. This infrastructure investment includes new and enhanced facilities at Northern Territory government schools, as well as new and refurbished school infrastructure for non-government schools.
According to the BER guidelines, the Australian government aims were to first, provide economic stimulus through the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure and, second, build learning environments to help children, families and communities participate in activities which will support achievement, develop learning potential, and bring communities together. To achieve these aims the Northern Territory government has aligned public sector resources, prioritised getting works out to the market, engaged with industry and streamlined processes to deliver schools infrastructure on a magnitude never imagined and never previously undertaken in our history of self-government.
Already, $135m has been delivered into our economy, and there is more to come as construction continues across Territory primary schools. Many builders have reported without this funding they would not have survived the global financial crisis.
The government school stimulus alone has provided work for 113 consultancies, engineers, project managers, architects, all valued at $14.5m. Already, 64 construction projects have been let valued at around $170m. More than 520 local companies have received benefit from debt stimulus, and 213 apprentices have been engaged, 58 of whom are Indigenous.
The volume of work to be coordinated concurrently across schools in the Northern Territory is unprecedented. There are currently 133 schools with projects under construction, 44 of which have reached practical completion and are being utilised by the schools. These projects have been delivered on time, in budget, and to the delight of teachers, children, and school communities. Some of these will be detailed in case studies later in this statement.
To begin to tell the BER story, there are three parts to the school stimulus package. The Northern Territory successfully attracted funding for all three. First, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, otherwise known as P21, designed to build or refurbish large scale infrastructure in primary schools, primary to Year 12 schools, and in special schools. This could include libraries, halls, indoor sporting centres, or other multipurpose facilities. The Northern Territory secured $173.05m for 134 government schools, and $50.1m for 30 non-government schools.
The second part is the Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools – SLC - a bid-based process to build science laboratories or language learning centres in secondary schools. This program has provided $15.76m for eight Territory government schools, and a further $9.3m for six non-government secondary schools.
The third part is the National School Pride, or NSP, to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor infrastructure in all schools. $15.77m was allocated to 150 government schools, and $4.475m for 36 non-government schools.
For our 186 government and non-government schools spread over 1.5 million km, the benefits have been extraordinary and the response from our building and construction industry commendable. The size and reach of the BER required good administrative and project management processes to effectively and efficiently manage a program of such scale, complexity, geographic distribution, and urgency. It required an enormous up-front effort from the mums and dads and brothers and sisters involved in helping design buildings. The commitment to deliver on the part of contractors, subcontractors, and apprentices has been extraordinary and is ongoing.
The magnitude of the undertaking and the time lines set down by the Australian government to ensure rapid economic stimulus have created a unique set of circumstances with challenges across every area of management. Some of the challenges include achieving the time lines to all Primary Schools for the 21st Century Round 1 projects mobilised in a very short time. This meant decisions being made quickly, including consideration of options by the school community.
Rounds 2 and 3 followed soon after. School communities and principals met the challenge and worked diligently through the choices and options for libraries, halls, indoor sporting centres, or other multipurpose facilities and refurbishments. The fast approaching Wet Season was an added challenge for the Territory to contend with, particularly in remote areas where gaining access would inevitably cause delays.
While the economic stimulus objective required the rapid construction and refurbishment of school infrastructure, school communities had no difficulty in choosing projects which would improve learning environments to help children, families, and communities. School communities were actively engaged in the process of determining priorities, with school leaders highly influential in the design outcome.
The success of the BER in the Territory is largely attributed to the principals’ and school councils’ effective decision-making which enabled the program to stay on track and achieve the economic stimulus objective. With industry, schools, and government working closely together many of the initial challenges and obstacles were able to be overcome, allowing the first tender for the P21 projects in government schools to be advertised and awarded in June 2009, just four months after the announcement of the BER program.
In addition to the major primary school projects, there were also small projects funded under the National School Pride category which were successfully managed by principals and school councils - and we are talking about mums and dads. The projects under this category are, for the most part, completed and used every day by children and teachers in our schools. The outcomes are many and varied and include landscaping, fencing, shade and recreation facilities, classroom enhancements, painting, plastering, concreting, signage, carpeting, security upgrades, and many general refurbishments for our schools.
The Territory was also successful in securing $25m for science and language centres for eight government schools and six non-government schools. The funding conditions for this category required states and territories to submit a competitive bid, and the result for the Northern Territory exceeded our expectations. This initiative will have a profound impact on the educational opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged students in the Northern Territory.
Every science and language centre project is a welcome addition to our schools infrastructure. Completed projects to date include: a new 21st century language centre at Centralian Middle School; the Territory’s first sports science centre at Katherine School; a recently opened science centre at Tennant Creek High School; and science centres in Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, and Milingimbi schools due for completion by December.
Value for money in BER has been the subject of comment in the context of a federal election. The Australian government responded by establishing a BER task force. Complaints to the task force related to only 2.7% of the 9000 BER projects being rolled out across the nation. It is worth noting in the Northern Territory, the task force received only two minor complaints for which they decided no further action was required. It would seem one of the few manifestations of complaint was from the member for Braitling. He has denied he specifically named Larrakeyah School in an article in The Australian on 16 June. I quote:
- The opposition spokesmen on infrastructure, Adam Giles, said he had serious concerns about whether the Northern Territory government was achieving value for money under BER.
He said:
When you can build a McDonalds for $1m but a school hall for $2m, you have to ask some questions.
I have a question for the member for ‘Praitling’ I will call him: what school hall were you referring to, member for Braitling. You say you were not referring to Larrakeyah. Which one were you referring to? I expect you to substantiate your claim when you speak. I will be listening very carefully because the inference drawn by the journalist was it was Larrakeyah Primary School.
Larrakeyah Primary School is justly proud of the infrastructure built under BER. Not only has it been an extension of their school hall and a full fit-out of their canteen, five classrooms have been refurbished, with some additional classrooms. Covered structures throughout the school and fencing works have been completed with the several million dollars spent on that school. It is wrong for anyone, even if it was not the member for Braitling, to infer you can build a McDonalds for less - for $1m. We are talking chalk and cheese - a fast food outlet. We are talking about fitting out an educational institution. The opposition needs to substantiate which parts of the BER in the Northern Territory they do not support. That is the challenge.
I will skip some of my statement because it dealt specifically with Larrakeyah. The Prime Minister, when Education minister, said in relation to the Larrakeyah School BER as follows, and I quote:
- … the school community worked to deliver a project which is delivering an extended assembly hall with an integrated canteen which is big enough for the whole school community.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. It is a ministerial statement, I am sure it is important.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum; ring the bells, please. Thank you, we have a quorum. You have the call, minister.
Dr BURNS: Thank you. I will continue with the quote from the Prime Minister when she was Education minister:
- The entrance to the school has been remodelled and redesigned so that it is now an assembly area. This means that kids from the local Defence Force base can come into school without having to go near the area where the cars are - obviously safer. As a result of this development, the old canteen, which was in the middle of the play area used by the early education facility has been demolished. A demountable which was on a strip of under-used land close to the boundary with the Defence Force base has been removed and another school will benefit from that demountable. The five new classrooms have been placed there. As a result of this design, there is an additional space in the assembly hall, the new canteen, five new classrooms and additional play areas to that which were in the original design of the school.
Further on:
All fittings and furniture have been included like interactive white boards in each of the classrooms, desks, chairs, industrial fridges, bain-maries, and the list goes on. The principal says that he is delighted with the project and so is the local P & C.
I have a photo of the project at Larrakeyah, a lovely development. I will table the photo for the benefit of members. I will be interested in what the member for Port Darwin has to say on this - whether he is supports it. Is he a supporter of this great project in his electorate? It looks beautiful, and I am sure the kids, teachers and school community love it. One would hope the member for Port Darwin would be magnanimous enough to say he likes it.
I am also interested to hear what the member for Braitling has to say - there is more; there are three photos – and which school hall project in the Northern Territory was not value for money.
We believe we are achieving value for money by having an effective framework for assessing value for money. The BER remains true to its origin as an economic stimulus through the integral involvement of the private sector wherever possible. Private sector project managers have been engaged to manage the construction of Primary Schools for the 21st Century and some science and language centres projects in schools. Implementation includes the establishment of a system of governance, communication, consultation and project management to deliver the P21 and SLC’s project. Industry input and cooperation was crucial in the development and effective delivery of the works.
The Department of Education and Training is responsible for administration of the BER program on behalf of public schools in the Northern Territory, an internal BER infrastructure team partnered with the Department of Construction and Infrastructure to manage and drive the initiative. Furthermore, the Northern Territory government has utilised existing project procurement legislation, regulation and policy to ensure accountability, local participation, and value for money from government investment under the BER program. These procedures are widely recognised by both government and industry as being transparent and accountable processes which are tested through various internal and external audit means.
These include the Northern Territory Procurement Act 1995; Northern Territory Procurement Directions; selection methodology based on value for money assessment which included attributes such as past experience and expertise, timeliness, capacity, including local participation; and Indigenous employment and training; financial delegations; Northern Territory Procurement Review Board; contract and procurement services; contract document agency; panel contracts; hard money contracts, and design and construct contracts.
The Northern Territory procurement process ensured equitable competition for contractors and value for money approach in accordance with our procurement framework. Qualified, experienced and independent quantity surveyors were engaged to evaluate each project and provide estimates of project costs. Where DET and DCI are not satisfied that the tenders have demonstrated value for money, the tender has been withdrawn for reissue at a later date. Ultimately, the success of the program is measured by the children and teachers who are the beneficiaries of these buildings, which in the NT are not simply halls, classrooms and shade structures. They are exciting, modern, multipurpose teaching and learning environments, and some outdoor spaces for sports and play. Many are indoor, air-conditioned spaces fit for a range of activities from daycare to preschool to after-school care use.
The education story, the BER, is about Northern Territory schools and what has been achieved to increase teaching and learning facilities to enhance our schools.
There are some very special stories such as Millner Primary School, which happens to be in the electorate of Johnston. This school community has achieved quite a bit; here is a photo of the solar array. This school is interested in reducing greenhouse gases and providing sustainability. They had already undertaken a number of projects before I became member for the area; this is an extension of what they have been doing. The whole school is behind it; it is a learning exercise as well as an environmental exercise, and I commend the school. It received $2m funding for a multipurpose hall.
The multipurpose hall turned out to include the construction of a solar outdoor learning facility, including cover over the existing basketball court. The project involved installation of a 100.8 kW solar voltaic system. The solar outdoor learning facility will supply Millner school with 150 000 kW hours of renewable energy each year. This will reduce the school’s green house gas emissions - and I am sure the member for Brennan is interested in this - by 100 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Congratulations to Millner school for that very innovative program.
The project was designed to be a learning experience for the students attending the school, as well as providing an excursion opportunity for other students. Features to support learning include a viewing platform and interactive display, which will provide both static and graphic displays to tell the story of the solar array. The storyboard will provide information on the development and operation of the system as well as benefits to the school.
In closing, it is appropriate to acknowledge the Northern Territory has benefited enormously from the visionary thinking of the Australian government over the past few years. The federal and Territory opposition parties are on record as not supporting the national stimulus package and, consequently, the BER. I extend a challenge to each member of the opposition to consider the schools in their electorate - and I have a list of projects by electorate close by me - and I will be listening very carefully to the responses by members of the opposition. I ask them to consider the schools in their electorate, to consider the BER projects being completed or under way, and identify and make public those projects they believe should not have happened. The BER will be remembered for its vision and the benefits it has afforded Australian children.
One thing I omitted was the report tabled nationally on the BER which I mentioned briefly in the statement. I was interested to read the report on the Northern Territory, and was particularly pleased to see our administration costs on the program are the second lowest in the nation. I believe they were running at 9%, and the lowest in the nation was around 8%. We have pared our administration costs for this project right down. I commend all those officers, contractors and consultants involved in this project.
One aspect I mentioned earlier today was square metre costing for the Territory in remote areas; they are on the high side of the scale compared to other jurisdictions. It is difficult building in remote areas and those costs were quite acceptable; an average cost put there. Given the diversity of the Northern Territory, both geographically and climatically, and the difficulties in carrying out projects in remote areas, all projects represent value for money.
As well as providing a much needed stimulus to the economy which has saved businesses, jobs and strengthened our economic future, the targeting of education as a beneficiary of this investment has hailed a new era in education which will benefit all Territory schoolchildren for many years to come. The substantial investment in government infrastructure on the part of Territory Labor governments since 2001 has received a fantastic boost with the huge investment from the Australian Labor government.
I congratulate those involved in the successful implementation of this massive program, including principals, school councils and businesses alike. It is enough to say 40 000 Territory schoolchildren will now enjoy a bright future through learning experiences in wonderful new facilities provided by the BER and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for Education for bringing forward this statement today to discuss the Building the Education Revolution. The slogan is of real concern because it assumes this is about education when, in fact, it is about a building program, and education occurs within that infrastructure.
It is a cleverly crafted slogan to convey a message which can be placed on a billboard in front of a school to give people a good feeling. I visited 30-plus schools and, having worked in schools and been a principal for 10 years, if you were offered money to build something in your school you would be delighted. Every one of those school communities was delighted at the opportunity and it would be inconceivable to not recognise that.
The way it has worked in the Northern Territory compared to other states has been better. It is because of the closer relationship between the decision-maker, the administration through the department of Education and, most importantly, the connection between the principal and the school council. That has resulted in the program providing something for those schools which is pretty exciting. No adult, no child, will have a negative view about the opportunity to build something in the school; it is human nature. It is the easiest thing to do and receive immediate applause for.
While it has been called the Education Revolution, you have to dig a little deeper to ensure the things which occur within the school will improve standards, attendance, and so on.
Before going down that path, the program itself had significant flaws because it was founded on an idea which allowed a message to be put on a billboard at the front of schools; the reason being the global financial crisis. I believe the light went on: ‘That is a really good idea; we will give money to school communities’. As Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister, said when it came to benefits for senior citizens: ‘There is no point doing that because they do not vote for us’.
There might have been the reverse discussion behind the scenes: ‘What a great idea; they will vote for us because it so attractive. Not only that, we can put signs up which will stay for some time, and that is where most voting takes place. We will get them up early and create that impression. It is as though all the political planets have aligned and we have a pearler here’.
The current Prime Minister would have said: ‘That is a really good idea’, and away they went. It ticked all the boxes. Maybe they got political goose bumps and thought: ‘What a ripper! How fortunate the cupboard is full’. The cupboard was not bare because there had been a conservative government in power who knew how to save and clear debt. They had the money. They could withdraw from the bank because the money was there; they could spend it on schools, put those signs up, create the impression and be applauded because they were the goodies; they are spending money and the other guys were putting it aside for a rainy day - those nasty conservatives. The wonderful lefties can do all this and everyone is happy.
As a community leader, you have to tell the whole story. If I had said to my kids: ‘Let us sell all our assets; let us take all the money and have the best holiday ever’, the kids would have loved me for a short time. However, later, when they needed a deposit for their house, and I would say: ‘Remember when we went to Disneyland; that was your deposit’.
There is another element to this which needs attending to, and those comments reflect on the political nature and construct of the program itself. It is a point in time, however time continues. When those signs come down we want to know within those schools there was genuinely an education revolution which can be measured not in infrastructure, but in better spelling, reading, science aptitude and a whole range of things. Ultimately, their capacity to engage in the economic activity in the Northern Territory is where it will really be measured. I remember being at school when money was given for science labs all around the country, which was exciting. However, I do not remember much of what changed in the teaching of chemistry or physics. That is the point of the exercise, and we do not hear that in the minister’s statement. It talks about the program and the infrastructure. You cannot put a sign on a program; you can on a building. That is why this was so exciting for Education minister, Julia Gillard.
There is no unified system for gauging the existing resource level of our Northern Territory schools. Schools were given a range of options and could pick this, that or the other. What happens in a school is if you want one of those, three of those or two of these, you pick from whatever is on offer. This tells us there is no unified or deeper analysis of the existing resource level of our schools. That needs to occur. Sadly, if resourcing issues emerge in the future there will be no money to pay for them; it has already been spent. This leads to the question of whether we did get value for money.
The program was largely constructed through a political prism, and that is how it was viewed. It is seen as a political thing; any criticism is seen in a political context, however the truth is it was about education and if, in time to come, there needs to be a response in education, there will not be that capacity because it has been exhausted. This is because the question was not asked of the school community. Granted there was a good level of communication and coordination in the decision-making process at the school level in the Territory. However, the question needs to be asked: ‘What does this school community need in order to enhance and improve its educational performance?’ There is a fund to meet that need. They would then have some freedom to consider how they could invest in their school community to improve education outcomes.
If they were asked that question we could have had greater value for money. The real value coming in education standards and results, and the school community having its thinking centred around education rather than: will it be a shade structure; will it be air-conditioning; will it be a gym, a library? I visited schools which said: ‘We have a library and we have another library now. We are unsure what to do with the old library, however, we will make good use of the new one’.
Having spent time in Palmerston where we have experienced extraordinary growth in the schools, particularly Bakewell Primary School - I was at its opening – it has been full from the beginning; there has been no room for extra breakout areas. Much of the last 11 years has seen kids on the stage. When I go to the northern suburbs I see schools with space because the population has reduced and there is room everywhere. Yet, they were asked: ‘Do you need a library? Do you need a this or a that?’ The truth was: ‘Not really, however, since you are offering a brand new thing, we will have one of those, thank you very much’. If you ask those schools: ‘What do you need in order to improve your education outcomes?’, you would have a different question and a different process.
That is the point about value and I do not believe you can argue against it. You will argue and justify your position by saying: ‘It was a global financial crisis. We had to act swiftly. We could not go down that path’. Have that argument if you wish, however, if you are genuine you could have asked the other question and provided the flexibility if you had the autonomy in the Territory to ask questions of school communities and allow them to consider a different question.
There is an increasingly serious danger in the Northern Territory of having another generation of Indigenous kids divided from the mainstream because, from the ages of five to 17, they have not acquired the necessary education for a future of employment, pride and accomplishment and better than basic income. Before we climb on political horses this point needs a response. You have to ask: is the building of infrastructure, welcome though it is - particularly in some places - going to result in a change to the problem we see? Is it, or is it not?
I will be looking at not so much if the kids have a good feeling about using the new facilities, whether the staff enjoy the new space, whether it is good having an air-conditioned assembly or not – they are fine, they will all have a good feeling about it – the education results, the standards, are being achieved or not. Are more kids going to school? Are they learning? Are more kids going through VET training and being gainfully employed? They are the questions which need to be pursued if you are genuine about education, because this is a building program.
Did we get value for money? We can talk about whether these facilities were over-priced - probably. When you flood any system with this amount of money it may cause prices to rise; there is evidence of that. Was there rorting in the system? In the Territory, we do not know. A higher price was paid in a number of cases than normal if it were a one-off - in a normal marketplace. The market was overstimulated by a flood of cash which resulted in distortion to the normal flow of the marketplace. The question about the value for money is whether it is a building here or a building there. The real value is about education itself, and that is the question we have to ask.
Report 2 from the NT Coordinator-General, Mr Bob Beadman, states:
- The area of the school building block that is clearly stalled is in school attendance.
… governments are not sending a strong enough signal to the people of remote areas that full school attendance is legally ‘non-negotiable’ and that failure to comply with the law will result in a range of serious sanctions. Governments are irresponsibly allowing the law to be flouted with impunity and this seriously undermines the effectiveness of attendance programs.
What has been quoted from Mr Beadman is where the hard stuff comes in. It is easy to build something, I know they enjoy it, and some of those schools needed improved facilities, however this is the hard stuff. How are you going to deal with that? It is easy to build something but hard to change people’s behaviour and attitude. This is a requirement we have as community leaders. If we are truly a minister for Education, or a government which takes education seriously, it is about changing behaviour, not the funding of programs, not the building of buildings; they are separate. We want real change which is measurable in people’s lives.
He makes a good point. That is what we need to reflect on. This does not stop with the early years. The report gives an example of the dire consequences from the Tiwi Islands Training and Employment Board. This is the real thing. We have a dedicated classroom, fully equipped with a network of computers, a lecturer, a Tiwi support officer who acts as an interpreter, and a Tiwi liaison officer to pick up students and take them home. We also provide breakfast and morning and afternoon tea, and we have a capacity to train 20 students.
If you put the full stop there it is fantastic; you could describe it as a really good program. You could make it the subject of a speech in parliament, or a dorothy dixer. Is that not fantastic? You have a support officer, an interpreter, a liaison officer, the kids are picked up from home, taken to the school, they are getting breakfast and afternoon tea and they have capacity for 20. Is that not great? Great program! So far this year we have had a maximum of five students. You funded the program, but there are only five students and attendance is spasmodic. Anyone who has worked in a school knows you need consistent attendance. It could be any one of those 20 turning up. You could have one turn up one day, and another the next; it is a complete churn and you have no chance of making effective inroads in to that kid’s education. They have to attend regularly. If they say five and it is spasmodic it could be any one on any day; not the same five. That is the challenge if you want to genuinely build an education revolution.
Mr Beadman goes on to say:
This program is currently running at a loss and may have to be cancelled. Had it not been for the fact that literacy and numeracy is the most important requirement for further education and training it would have been cancelled last year.
- The observation is made that without commitment from local people it is pointless to expect positive outcomes. It is reasonable to conclude that such commitment is less likely while the option of doing nothing remains available.
There is an option of doing nothing. I remember going to one of the communities - I will not name it - where they kept us in the office and told us what they needed in the community. When I turned the discussion to the school they said: if only they had a more interesting curriculum, better teachers, this kind of program running, they would have more kids go to school. The member for Macdonnell will know which school I am referring to. Whilst speaking to the police officer the bell rang. I said: ‘What is that?’ He said: ‘That is the school bell ringing. That is the first time I have heard it for a long time’. The bell was ringing because there was a parliamentary committee in town. I asked to look at the school; they were not comfortable with that because there were only a few kids wandering around a large well-appointed school.
Do I believe if we had better programs, more interesting teachers, and a more interesting curriculum, more kids would go to school? Bunkum! You cannot keep giving; you have to reach a point where there is a requirement and consequence for not sending your kid to school. That is the type of education revolution we need: a change of behaviour and a sanction for condoning child neglect. That is the hard stuff. I could have said: ‘Oh, you poor things, let us build something else’. There is much investment which would be the pride of a number of schools. It was not the facility; the attitude of the school community needs to be addressed - that is the hard stuff.
We have to get kids to school. One day we will have a serious commitment where you cannot put a big sign up and say: ‘We are serious about this’. You will see it on the roll books, in the results, and in the lives of kids. We are not talking about a handful of students in remote schools; up to 5000 kids are estimated to attend school irregularly. It is a serious issue even in some of our urban schools. Irregular attendance is not the same kids not turning up from time to time, it is churning through. If you have any consistent approach to your curriculum, you cannot deliver education if the kids miss out on chunks.
There is also the retention and turnover of teaching staff. Again, how useful is it to have bricks and mortar and an inability to retain a teacher? This is the core business. How are you going to inspire those teachers and hold them to invest in kids lives? That is the real challenge. We can say at least we have some infrastructure in place; that is the easy stuff. The harder part is what we should be attending to, and we need to see progress here. Of the teachers recruited in the Indigenous Education Agreement Program, 60% stayed in the financial year 2009-10. Only 60% of those recruited stayed; 40% did not.
We have already heard of the desperate need for a proper school library at Taminmin College, the biggest high school in the Northern Territory with 1240 kids. That question could have been answered if you asked the system: what do you need in order to improve your education outcomes. There is no point building a library without ensuring you have resourced, trained librarians. You have to put the capacity in the building. The building is not the education; education happens in the building. The Campaign for Quality School Librarians website makes the following point:
- The TLs made points about the lack of qualified staffing in most NT school libraries, the demise of advisory services and the poor collections in many schools. Since c. 1990, TLs are no longer staff separately in NT government schools so are optional. Up to 30 new BER libraries will be in remote schools without qualified staffing.
Is that a concern? Absolutely! It is a building, the building houses a library, and a library needs someone qualified to ensure the books help kids learn to read. You can say: ‘We have the library; is that not nice?’ That is not it; the books need to be read, the kids need to attend school to learn to read, they need to develop a love for reading. That is the investment in the teacher. You cannot put big signs up in front of school about that; you have to do something else. That is what is required and the real challenge is now.
We have had a big reshuffle in the Northern Territory. It was not called the Building the Education Revolution, it was middle schools. It was the biggest ever change in education in the Northern Territory. A ‘whole new era’ was probably the slogan. It was about education, however it was really about buses, buildings and reorganising how schools operate - what happens in the school. I remember the Education minister at the time, Syd Stirling, saying: ‘Yes, I know there is disruption, however, it will settle down and, mark my words, we are going to see the results improve. Bear with us, the results will improve’.
This is 2010 and we have seen no evidence. For all that disruption, all that change, all that movement, all that talk about curriculum, we have not seen results improve and, after all, that is what it is about. You can have motion, movement, different uniforms, different constructs, but if the curriculum and the capacity of teachers and kids attending school does not mean better results, what is it all for? It is not for much at all. They may have had any one of those three funding streams available to them. They may have built a new language centre, but is the language centre used to improve results?
When it comes to value for money, the tendered amount for a total of 16 schools was $17 431 099; the final cost came in at $20 486 566. The lefties would probably think: ‘That is not much’. Fortunately the conservatives were in power and had money put aside. ‘That is only a 17.5% increase. Anyway the kids loved it. It was really good’. You have to live within your budget; that is a blowout on the tendered cost by 17.5%. You need to explain it, and accept it as an increase not a decrease. This is not to say you did not get something in your school the kids liked and the teachers appreciated; there have been some significant improvement in schools. That is more of a question for a Treasurer to take seriously; we have blown that out by 17.5%. This is where excess profits could possibly have been made by builders because the tender may have been inaccurate in the first place. Variations have been added to the original brief which should not have been originally omitted. A strict approval process should have been in place for all variations. Why do you have a 17.5% increase?
Explanatory notes provided with details of completed projects include the comment:
- They [variations] can result from omissions and/or changes in the documentation.
There should have been a strict limit of no more than 5%, not 17.5%. That is an issue of management of the program which sits in the context of my earlier comment on the way it was operated in the Northern Territory.
I know our community is well connected. I know those who have been contracted to work in schools often have a relationship to the school community. However, the underlying issue is it is not an education revolution - it is a building program. It is a program which could have been crafted in a different way, which would have allowed the school community, which works well in the Territory, to ask a different question which could have resulted in a focusing of resource areas to improve results in children’s attendance, in their reading, in their maths and, particularly, literacy and numeracy.
That is where we need to see an education revolution, and that cannot commence until we remind parents they have an obligation to send their kids to school - it is not optional. They have to send their kids to school. Government has an obligation to ensure schools are well resourced. In some cases there have been some improvements. There are some remote schools which greatly needed this investment.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. There are some schools which desperately need infrastructure improvement. The fact remains we still needs real work to change attitudes and provide a different level of leadership, which is going to be resisted in many quarters, requiring parental responsibility and ensuring governments provide qualified and accredited teachers. By ‘accredited’ I mean if working remote, they need to be prepared to work remote - they need cross-cultural training; they need to be able to serve in that community - and we do not have the level of turnover we currently experience.
There is nothing better than stability in school staffing; it feeds into the classroom and the whole community. When you have churn in the teaching cohort as well as irregular attendance, it makes for chaos. When we stabilise that we might make progress and look forward to the results coming through, and see marked improvement.
When we have results available nationally and compare system with system, as the current Prime Minister has done, we have to be honest. It is no good when a kid comes home with a bad report to say: ‘You have done really well; that is really good’. The kid thinks: ‘I thought I was going to be chided for this; mum and dad think it is okay’. Off they go thinking it was good, however in their heart they know it was not.
You do not want a government to say: ‘Our schools are going gangbusters; they are fantastic. Everyone is doing a wonderful job, and we are on a par with everyone else, like for like’. If that is not the case it is an irresponsible position to take. It may make people feel good but it is not the truth. I would prefer someone to say: ‘We have some challenges. We might be doing well nationally in Grade 3, 4, or whatever, but, by and large, we are behind, and this is what we will do to lift it. There is nothing wrong with our kids, nothing wrong with our teachers, we need to move in this direction then we will have that lift and see improvement’. That is the type of leadership required, not gloss over it and say everything is fantastic, which is what we have had from this government. That is misleading, and is not what you would do to your own children - telling your kids they have done well when they know they have not. You have to tell them the truth - take a hard stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the real building education revolution required which is harder than giving schools money to build nice things, putting a sign up out the front, opening it at an appropriate time and getting a round of applause. That is fine. There is another level of leadership required in the Territory and an opportunity waits. This government has had 10 years. The community is waiting for that leadership so there is change in education.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells, please.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! A member left the Chamber when you called quorum. They are not able to …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you need to stay.
Mr Mills: I thought it was government members.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not; it is all members’ responsibility. Thank you, we have a quorum.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he has a passion for education - that has been consistent. However, I do not accept the assertions ministers for Education in the Labor government have pretended all is rosy in the garden of education in the Territory; that we do not have any challenges, and it is really about bricks and mortar, our focus is simply there. That is wrong.
The first minister for Education saw chronic under-resourcing in the delivery of education in the Territory, and took on the challenge of turning around the chronic under-resourcing and took on the challenge of bringing secondary education into remote areas of the Territory for the first time in decades. We have had successive ministers for Education bring to this Chamber debates on education which consistently say this is what we are trying to do in resourcing for teachers: learning programs such as the introduction of literacy and numeracy; a focus on skills; the accelerated literacy learning rolled out across schools; improving the number of teacher aides; increasing the number of teachers; putting smart technology into schools irrespective of whether students are urban, regional or remote; a whole comprehensive, multifaceted approach to improve the outcomes for the children of the Territory.
It is not just about bricks and mortar. I cannot say strongly enough how dedicated successive ministers for Education under Labor have been in the Territory in taking a holistic approach to improving the learning outcomes of our children, particularly focusing on the outcomes for Indigenous children because they have been the most disadvantaged over the decades. To hear such nonsense from the Leader of the Opposition is a shame because sometimes he tries to play a fair bat when it comes to education - not today.
This statement was specifically around the infrastructure, the single greatest investment in schools we have seen in the history of the Territory through the Building the Education Revolution funding, as a result of the federal government’s response to the global financial crisis. We have had many statements on education which focus on learning outcomes, on the increased resources for teachers. This statement focuses on how a stimulus package directed at schools can provide infrastructure which helps learning outcomes because the multiuser facilities schools are putting in are creating good learning spaces which enhance the opportunity for our children to be in a better environment to learn.
I might add that Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as federal Education minister, funded 200 additional teachers into the Northern Territory teaching system, and funded a whole raft of new government employee housing to provide housing for teachers in remote communities. She did it without fuss, without fanfare. She did it because it was the right thing to do, understanding if we have more teachers to deal with our disadvantaged we will, hopefully, achieve better education outcomes. That will take some time. This will not change overnight, however it took Julia Gillard as a federal Education minister, now Prime Minister, to recognise the specific needs in the Territory and to support them through all important resources.
The National Partnership on Low Socio-Economic School Communities delivered under Labor, under Julia Gillard as Education minister, is about providing additional funding targeted to the schools in resources to support the students who are most at need. Not just bricks and mortar: teachers, teacher aides, learning resources, a focus on programs such as accelerated literacy. They are real resources, real initiatives which have come about from a federal Labor Education minister, Julia Gillard, and our Prime Minister, because she understands the critical importance of education.
We cannot escape the debate in the Chamber today around providing legacy education infrastructure through a stimulus response to a global financial crisis. It was the right thing to do; the smart thing to do. To have the Leader of the Opposition draw an analogy between taking his kids on a holiday to Disneyland to constructing education infrastructure has to be one of the more bizarre analogies I have ever heard in my life. We are talking about modern school infrastructure to support and underpin the delivery of education. To draw a bizarre analogy he is going to spend his family’s money on a holiday to Disneyland is one of the strangest things I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
The federal Labor government’s response to the global financial crisis has been applauded independently by experts. It has been applauded as one of the best by one of the world’s top economists - the Nobel Prize Laureate and professor at New York’s Columbia University, Joseph Stiglitz, said Australia had:
- … the best designed stimulus package of any of the countries, advanced industrial countries, both in size and in design, timing, and how it was spent – and I think it served Australia well.
Former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Bernie Fraser said:
- Labor’s stimulus package was a stunningly successful response to the GFC. It kept businesses afloat and preserved jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians who may well otherwise have become unemployed.
It is a direct result of the swift, decisive action by the federal Labor government that ensured Australia is the only advanced economy not to have gone into recession, and it protected hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. Under the Coalition the stimulus would not have occurred, this good education infrastructure would not have been put in place, and hundreds of thousands of jobs would have been lost across our nation, including in the Territory. We would have seen businesses go to the wall, and it would have taken years to claw back economic recovery.
Our government welcomed the BER package. We understood the value to our economy. We understood it would ensure protecting and stimulating jobs in the Territory at a time when private investment had tightened up as those credit markets froze and then slowly recovered. We recognised the legacy it would leave for our education facilities; the opportunity for teachers and students to be using that legacy infrastructure.
The CLP was against the stimulus. Their member in the Senate voted against the upgrading of Territory schools - schools in their own electorates which stood to benefit. The CLP has no credibility on this subject.
Looking at some of the independent commentary again, Bernie Fraser, former Governor of the Reserve Bank, pointed out that the Coalition’s opposition to the stimulus package:
- … is an indelible blot on the Coalition’s economic management credentials.
We have the CLP trotting out the same rhetoric, pretending there was no need for the stimulus ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum. Treasurer, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: In the Territory, the BER component of the stimulus package has already delivered $135m into our economy. That is flowing through to the pockets of the tradespeople constructing the facilities. In total, we will receive approximately $268m under the BER package. We extrapolate that out to being equivalent to 300 projects. We have seen the creation of 6000 new jobs in the last year alone. The architects, engineers, building firms, and the subcontractors know how critical this BER program has been in saving jobs. The Master Builders are wholly behind this stimulus. The Master Builders Association CEO, Graham Kemp, said: ‘We have been able to hold the construction industry intact in the Northern Territory to be ready for the bigger projects when they come on’.
There have been three elements to the program. First, a National School Pride program which delivered important minor new works like shade facilities, painting, and upgrades. They were used to lift and refurbish our schools. We saw 132 schools receive minor upgrades worth a total of $14.87m. These works have supported the local tradies and small businesses. Talk about pride, listening to the school councils they are so proud of the improvements delivered to their schools. If you expect a child to put in the extra effort learning ensure they have a decent facility, and minor new works is critically important to that. The program worked hand-in-hand with our own government’s commitment to upgrade primary and group schools across the Territory. We have been rolling that election commitment out hand-in-hand with the stimulus funding.
The second element was the Primary Schools for the 21st Century. It includes new classrooms, multipurpose halls, resource centres and libraries, administration and other facilities across our schools. Forty schools are already enjoying new infrastructure. They have new classrooms, new multipurpose halls, libraries and resource centres. There are 95 major school works under way at various stages of construction throughout the Territory, and six have been finalised to go to tender. We estimate there are approximately 101 projects at risk if Tony Abbott gets his way and slashes this all-important program.
Jobs are at risk; schools will literally miss out. The Territory will lose an opportunity to build this all important legacy infrastructure, a one-time opportunity delivered by a federal Labor government. The BER is also delivering science and language centres worth $25m in the Territory. This initiative will have a profound impact on educational opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged students in the Territory. There are five science and language centres currently under construction, and an additional three have been completed. We have delivered a new language centre at Alice Springs High School, a sports science centre at Katherine High School, and a science centre at Tennant Creek High School. Projects under way and nearing completion include new science centres at Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Milingimbi, and Shepherdson College, and a language centre at Maningrida. How worthy are these schools and these projects, yet the CLP condemns this program and the Coalition would rip it apart. What a shame!
In my own electorate I have seen a $125 000 extension to the school canteen at Karama Primary School. Karama Primary School is getting a $2m multipurpose area; Malak Primary School has had $125 000 upgrade to the quadrangle area, also a $2m new administration building upgrade and meeting space; Manunda Terrace Primary School received $125 000 for minor new works to the canteen, caretaker’s residence, and the early years’ play area; and also $2m for a library. O’Loughlin College, importantly, is receiving $404 000 for a science lab; Holy Family Primary School is about to open the new $2m library indoor/outdoor learning centre and Marrara Christian School is getting $2.79m for a library.
Members opposite did not want any of these works to occur. They opposed the program and did not support school upgrades in their own electorates. Under the CLP, schools like Woodroofe, Bakewell, Driver and Durack would not have new classrooms or halls. The CLP stands condemned for their opposition to this BER program.
There is a stark difference between Labor and the opposition. Labor is delivering real improvements in education: real resources, additional teachers, teacher housing to support additional teachers in the bush, the bricks and mortar of the new classrooms, learning areas, science labs and libraries. The Commonwealth has supported education.
This was not building for building’s sake. This was about protecting jobs, protecting the nation’s economy through pumping money into the construction sector and doing what the World Bank, and others, recommended we do. What are we getting out of it? We are not getting halls in the middle of nowhere; we are getting real facilities to improve learning outcomes for our children.
They can waffle with their political spin and rhetoric about how, under the Howard years, they: ‘saved all their money’. I can advise, as a Treasurer, the major economic reforms upon which Costello and Howard were able to squirrel away significant surpluses were delivered under a Hawke/Keating economic reform agenda. Economists will say that. Even the Coalition in Canberra will admit that.
What happens when you drive up a surplus is you starve the states and territories. At the same time Canberra, under the Coalition, was driving up their surplus, states and territories around our nation were going further and further into debt. Why? The Commonwealth deserted infrastructure - they left the space. They would not fund infrastructure in schools, housing, or roads. They did not care about the urban planning of our cities, and they tied us down in all of our funding agreements, whether it was a health agreement, an education resources agreement, a disability agreement - in all the SPP funding agreements the states and territories kept losing funding. The percentages went from 50:50 - 50% funding from the Commonwealth, 50% funding from the state or territory - to about 70:30 - 70% funding from the state or territory and 30% funding from the Commonwealth.
Canberra, under the Coalition, kept the money and strangled the states and territories. We still had to deliver the services, ensure people could attend hospital and be treated appropriately and teachers were funded and schools could be built. We still had to ensure roads were built and new land was being turned off for housing. The states and territories did all that; we did it on our own and had to go into debt.
The CLP seems to think it was only Labor states. No. Western Australia had to take on significant debt burdens to meet their infrastructure needs as well. They would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Labor states and territories in ministerial councils and federal financial relations disagreements, arguing with the Costello/Howard regime they could not, for the sake of building our nation, the sake of productivity in our nation, or the sake of training and education in our nation, desert the need for the Commonwealth to shoulder its fair share in delivering infrastructure.
The clowns in the CLP do not understand that. They do not understand federal financial relations and the importance of the Commonwealth putting its fair share into infrastructure, or the importance of the Commonwealth having acted swiftly and decisively to prop up our nation’s economy in response to the global financial crisis. They do not get it; they bury their heads in the sand. They are ignorant and would sit by and let their latest mate, Abbott, tear down a critically important project delivering improved education facilities. I say shame - shame on the CLP.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, that was beautiful - absolutely beautiful. And you believe every word of it! We play the same game as we played yesterday; we have ministerial statements designed to paint a picture that side of the House believes. Politics is a funny game. In this case it seems to be about political point scoring not focusing on what we really should be doing.
The minister’s statement starts off with:
- … education was neglected for decades under the CLP, especially when it came to infrastructure.
If that opening statement was not designed to get anything more than a bite, I will stand corrected. I recall the time in the Northern Territory where primary schools were built one school/one suburb to ensure the majority of children did not have to cross major roads on their way to and from school.
This government says it has put so much into infrastructure in schools. In the seat of Brennan, we have four new suburbs and only one school - Bakewell Primary School - catering for Farrar, Gunn, Bakewell and Rosebery. The government has had to put in traffic lights and crossings over major roads. Why? Because they failed to plan and deliver on schools; failed to deliver appropriate schools and cater for the growth of the Palmerston region. It was only after the government was brought kicking and screaming they committed over $50m for Rosebery middle and primary schools. Many people have put much work into delivering those schools and I take my hat off to each and every one of them - many were volunteers. Those schools will fill quickly with the ongoing development of Johnston, Bellamack and Zuccoli.
The success of the BER project in the Northern Territory has probably had more to do with pro-active school principals and strong school councils. To suggest Damian Hale contributed in any way is absolute spin. If we had a black stump as a member we still would have received money under the Building the Education Revolution. We would have received money if the Labor government was stimulating the economy of Australia; it would not matter who we had. This government has not had a good record in federal government funding in recent years. How much did you receive for the ports when $150m was required?
A member: Three hundred.
Mr CHANDLER: $300m. How much did this government get for ports? Zero! You go to Canberra, roll over, get your belly tickled and come back. To suggest the member for Solomon has contributed in any way is political spin.
I did not want to point it out, however we are talking about education; there were at least two spelling mistakes in the statement. I have not seen Larrakeyah spelt ‘Larrakeyaj’. This is the education revolution and not even the ministerial statement from the minister for Education is free of spelling errors; it is working well.
The problem this side of the House, and conservative politics, has had with the Building the Education Revolution program is its title. If it was titled School Infrastructure Program it might not have received as much attention, although the wanton waste in other jurisdictions should be focused on. In this case, education and revolution is building buildings. Buildings do not make smarter kids and until governments understand supporting teachers, having a strong curriculum, dealing with bullying in schools, dealing with special needs children and getting children to school are much more important than the building they use.
There are some good examples in the Northern Territory of how this funding helped many of the schools; Bakewell school, in my electorate, is one. I put that down to a very pro-active principal, June Wessels, an amazing lady, and a strong school council which was prepared when the first funding announcement was made. They were ready to go; they had a plan of action. Schools have a five-year plan, and because of the pro-active nature of the principal and school council, and the fact they were ready to roll, they received funding in the first round. They were able to hit the ground running, ensure they got in early, had contractors in place, and today there are new buildings and a roof over the basketball court. There is some shortfall in funding for a sound system for the stage area, and the school council will be called on to pick up that shortfall.
There is no doubt there are some good projects under the BER program. One was brought to my attention last week - this is in South Australia, and I pinpoint this because I continually hear from the Labor government that the conservative side of politics is against stimulating the economy. They are so wrong. They admitted they would have to go into debt to stimulate the economy. The conservative side of politics is worried about wanton waste. Whilst we have some good outcomes in the Northern Territory, other jurisdictions were not so fortunate. In one small town in South Australia, with a population of about 5500 people, there are five schools - four public schools and one Catholic school. They received a building each under this program - all identical, all for the same purpose. Only one of the schools required the building; the other schools wanted different things.
One of the reasons the program was more successful in the Northern Territory is because of good principals and good solid councils - they had more say in what they could do; it was not run by bureaucrats. Perhaps there are lessons for other jurisdictions on how it could have been done better. It is not an education revolution; it does not improve children’s educational needs and it does not improve the standard of education provided. There have been some good outcomes. I particularly liked Millner Primary School with their solar energy because there is a learning side to that project where the infrastructure can help, within the curriculum, teach children about renewable energies. That is one really good example. I have given others with Bakewell school in Palmerston.
There has been massive waste around this country which has sent us further and further into debt. My children will be left with a legacy of the current government, to pay back this debt. Whilst you have debt, you forever damage further infrastructure and the ability to manage, plan for, and deliver on required infrastructure into the future.
If this was a revolution, it would have been designed to support our teachers and our students with more effective curriculum and help learning. If it was a revolution, it would work towards getting kids to school, keeping kids in school, and ensuring the education they receive is the absolute best - not ensuring a roof over a basketball court.
In recent years this government has provided little infrastructure. In cases where they have provided infrastructure, it has come at great cost. Several programs have been introduced such as the middle years program and, at Palmerston High School, the wonderful, new secondary education facilities. Several early problems were ironed out. One of the problems was the original plan for the secondary facility was in the vicinity of $10m. We do not know the final outcome. Why is that? We do not know why the government chose an interstate company - not supporting local business - with no track record in constructing a building that size. Toward the end, when it was evident this company was not up to the job, a public servant stepped in to manage the program. I take my hat off to that person for their ability to get the job completed on time. However, at what cost?
Mismanagement and reliance on an interstate company with no experience shows the management skills this government has when it comes to choosing the correct people. Had this government managed all the money involved in the Building the Education Revolution, it would not have been done any better in the Northern Territory that other states in Australia. Pro-active principals and strong school councils with input into delivering what their schools needed were the reasons the program was successful in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe this program, and the money it delivered to the Northern Territory, was because of one member. I know your spin today was designed to support a federal campaign, however, if we had a black stump as a member we would still receive funding if the federal Labor government was truthful in stimulating the economy of Australia.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, that was an interesting contribution. Member for Brennan, my daughter attends Bakewell Primary School. Can you clarify if you were for or against the $200 000 school upgrade; for or against $2m for new classrooms; and for or against $1m for hall extensions? Are you for or against it, member for Brennan?
Mr Chandler: Absolutely for it - terrific for that school.
Mr KNIGHT: The Labor governments, at Territory and federal level, were supportive of vital infrastructure going into our schools and the debate then, and today, was the Liberal conservatives said no. They said: ‘No, you are not going to put money into schools; you are not going to put $2m worth of classrooms into Bakewell Primary School’. That is what you voted for. It was not about waste because the program had not started. It was legislation going through the federal parliament and your colleagues, at the federal level, and you on the other side, supported …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you direct the member to make his comments through the Chair. It may get very personal.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Happy to, Madam Speaker. The CLP opposition supported their Liberal colleagues to vote against Bakewell Primary School extensions to the hall, and $2m going to extra classrooms. That was the point. We did not hear much from you, member for Brennan, at the time. You say you support it now, however, you did not support our motion calling on the Coalition opposition to support the government in the BER program. That was all about Bakewell Primary School getting new classrooms. It was about classrooms and halls across the Northern Territory.
Mr Chandler: You have failed to deliver for the school for how many years?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Chandler: There were eight demountables in that school.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brennan!
Mr Chandler: Four suburbs, one school.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan!
Mr Chandler: Failure.
Mr KNIGHT: You cannot kick out another one, Madam Speaker. The member for Brennan would not call on his federal colleagues …
Mr Chandler: You were rescued.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: … to support Labor getting classrooms for Bakewell Primary School; for those kids to have extra classrooms, for hall extensions, for upgrades - $200 000 worth of upgrades to the school - $2m to new classrooms. That is what it came down to. You did not support it; you voted against it. You did not call on your federal colleagues to support it.
I can move through each electorate. We can look at Katherine. The member for Katherine voted against vital education infrastructure: Casuarina Street Primary - $2m for a new classroom block; $125 000 for upgrades in and around the school. At Clyde Fenton School there is $125 000 going into shade, refurbishment of ablution blocks, bus shelters and general upgrades, and $2m for a multipurpose learning centre. The member for Katherine voted against money going to …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is misleading the House. I did not vote against anything he is alluding to.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Katherine, if you wish to make a personal explanation you may approach me afterwards.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. I will make a personal explanation.
Mr KNIGHT: As most would remember there was a motion in this parliament calling on the Coalition opposition to support the government providing this money to the Northern Territory, to Katherine, to Clyde Fenton School, to the electorate of the member for Katherine. This side supported the motion. The other side, and the member for Katherine, voted against the motion. He voted against Clyde Fenton receiving $2m for extra classrooms. That is the wash-up of it.
Let us move to Katherine High School, which I have visited many times - $200 000 for improvements and upgrades, and $1 970 000 for a science centre. The School of the Air does vital work serving the Katherine and Top End region - $850 000. The member for Katherine voted against that money going to Katherine School of the Air. The member for Katherine voted against a motion calling on the Coalition to support the government providing this money to Katherine School of the Air.
Katherine South, where my son attended; lovely school, lovely teaching staff, vitally needing new infrastructure - $2m and another $125 000 going into an all weather drop-off point for buses. Kintore Street School, a great little school - $50 000 for refurbishments, another $250 000 for ablution blocks and resource centre upgrades. The member for Katherine has voted against a multipurpose centre of $2m going into MacFarlane Primary.
There is $5m or $6m going into education infrastructure in the Katherine electorate alone, and the member for Katherine said: ‘I do not think it should go there’. He said: ‘I do not support money going into education infrastructure in my electorate’. You denied your electorate should receive $5m to $6m. I hope the people of Katherine know. The members for Katherine and Brennan voted against it.
Where will I move to next? Who else do we have in the Chamber? No, no I will leave you, Jodeen, you are lovely. The member for Sanderson is a doozey.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it correct the minister cannot bring to the attention of the House who is in the Chamber and who is not?
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, although I do not believe he mentioned anyone. Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Sanderson voted against $150 000 going into Anula Primary for upgrades to their grounds and repainting. You also voted against $2.5m for a multipurpose hall at Anula Primary School. Why did you do that? You said: ‘No, no, that should not happen; it is a waste of money’. The member for Fong Lim said it was all a waste of money. A multipurpose centre for Sanderson which you say is a waste of money. It is an incredible statement!
Sanderson Middle School - $200 000; Wagaman Primary - I know a young lady who attends Wagaman Primary and you would deny her $2m for a new library. Why would you do that? Why would you vote against $2m? There is $4m or $5m going into schools in your electorate and you proudly voted against a motion calling on the Coalition to support the government in these measures.
This was about doing several things. One was supporting jobs in the biggest financial crisis the world has seen for 30 or 40 years, and stimulating the economy. We had a downturn in the private sector and the government stepped in with this program, which was not a waste of money as suggested by the member for Fong Lim. It was going to vital education infrastructure, vital roads, and vital social housing. It was going to a range of areas which supported thousands and thousands of jobs across the Territory and across Australia. It supported business; it kept the doors open.
Tony Abbott would close the doors of business. He happily voted against closing down business. He would like to see people in dole queues. Labor kept people in jobs; Labor kept the doors open for business; Labor put vital education, health, housing and roads infrastructure across Australia. That is the difference we have in this House; a strategic intervention by Labor at the federal and Territory level to keep the economy moving.
The Coalition was happy to see the country go into recession. Labor saved Australia …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling! Member for Braitling!
Mr Giles: Did it save the Territory? Did it save the Territory?
Mr KNIGHT: Labor saved Australia, and the Northern Territory, from a recession.
Mr Giles: Saved the Territory?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr KNIGHT: If we had gone down the path of the CLP and Tony Abbott, we would be in recession today. Thousands and thousands of jobs would have been lost, businesses would have closed, and we would not have education infrastructure for the next generation of skilled tradespeople, academics, teachers, nurses …
Mr Westra van Holthe interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Mr KNIGHT: … doctors - we would not have these people.
That is the difference in this debate. The member for Brennan supports it but votes against it. Given the option 12 months ago he would have said: ‘No, that money is not coming to the Northern Territory; is not coming to Bakewell Primary School’. Your choice at the time was to say: ‘No, it is a waste of money. When you are at Bakewell, member for Brennan, tell everyone: ‘I thought this new classroom was a waste of money. It is here, and I am happy to walk through it’. Look at the extensions and say: ‘This was a waste of money’.
The member for Katherine has been very quiet in his electorate regarding his actions in the House on this program.
I will move to my electorate, where I am proud to see vital education infrastructure going into primary schools across …
Mr Giles: Have you built a bridge at the Daly yet?
Mr KNIGHT: It is coming, it is coming!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Giles: What about Palumpa?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr KNIGHT: We do not want to go back to the 2000 election results do we?
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I still have the stats for Palumpa.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair and stay to the point.
Mr KNIGHT: Still trying to find those 30-odd people at Port Keats who voted for you.
Adelaide River School is a great school. Tony Clegg does a good job in the community, and the parents are fantastic. The school council does a wonderful job. They were very appreciative of the $250 000 for the covered outdoor learning centre.
Batchelor Area School had been looking at several items of infrastructure. They had been saving money, and the injection of $850 000 for a resource centre and $75 000 for the outside dining and meeting area came in very handy. It is a growing school that wants more classrooms and facilities, so the injection was great.
I visited Belyuen School recently where money was used to cover the breakfast room area. They teach local kids how to cook breakfast and prepare meals. It also received $250 000 for a covered outdoor learning area. Tim does a fantastic job with those kids with 90% attendance.
Labor is supporting those schools with important infrastructure. The member for Brennan said infrastructure is not really important; it is about everything else. Infrastructure is important; having new classrooms is important; having covered outdoor areas is important.
Come down to Berry Springs Primary School. A massive new building has been constructed which supports a new facility for the kids. It is a multipurpose facility as it is a cyclone shelter for the Berry Springs area. Many buildings in the rural area are not up to cyclone standard and we now have a facility, through the federal government stimulus package, for an approved cyclone shelter at the school. The rural area has been looking at this for some time.
The school at Douglas Daly received $50 000, and another $250 000 for general upgrades and a covered outdoor learning area. The Dundee Beach School received $250 000 for a resource centre, and general upgrades around the school of $77 000.
I was recently at Nganmarriyanga School …
Ms Carney: Sorry, I missed that.
Mr KNIGHT: Nganmarriyanga, thank you, member for Araluen. I invite you to visit.
Ms Carney: With you, any time.
Mr KNIGHT: Excellent. $75 000 for repainting the exterior of the building, and work has already commenced. Security fencing is up and contractors are on-site to build an $850 000 multipurpose facility. That is certainly welcome.
I am unsure how far the member for Braitling journeyed recently, however Peppimenarti School - $350 000 for a covered outdoor learning centre. Did you see that great facility?
Mr Giles: I can answer that question. I was …
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Braitling, resume your seat. It is not Question Time.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I know he was at Emu Point; they told me. He would have seen the extension to the school: another classroom - $0.5m for extensions to the Emu Point Outstation. That school has 100% attendance - every child in that community goes to school. It is great work by Terry Sams and the Sams family. More money is going to the Woolaning School. This was mentioned today and part of the project is still …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the upgrade/relocation of Woolianna School is under threat. If there is a change of government on 21 August - Tony Abbott has a first day/first week action plan, which would be to stop projects. Labor will build a $750 000 resource centre at Woolianna School for the Woolianna Road Community and the kids from Nauiyu community. The Liberals will stop that project. They will consider it a waste, and the community will be without that facility. There is a clear difference between the two parties.
Madam Speaker, it has been …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very important speech and I draw your attention to the state of the House. I want government to listen to this speech, it is very important.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells. A quorum is present. Minister, you have the floor.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. The difference between the two parties is: in the biggest economic downturn globally since the war, Labor saw it had to do something. At the federal level, it came with a significant stimulus package. The NT Labor government welcomed it; the CLP opposed it. At the federal level, Tony Abbott said it was a waste of money. The member for Fong Lim says it is a waste of money. Labor stimulated the economy at both federal and the Territory level. It saved thousands of jobs, kept businesses open, and put vital infrastructure into schools, hospitals, roads and public housing.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his stewardship of the Education portfolio. I look forward to attending openings at opposition members’ BER facilities; it will be interesting to see if they attend. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I commend the statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in speaking on the statement, whilst not going into any great detail because it is not worth it, the government is attempting to take credit for things it is not responsible for. Much is Commonwealth money and we know this government has previously mismanaged money from the Commonwealth government, notably SIHIP.
I spoke to several teachers today and I will not say if they were from private or public schools. A general comment was that it was a load of fluff. If teachers are saying that, it is indicative of how they view this kind of statement. There is no doubt about it; the government is running this statement now to prop up the abysmal performance of the member for Solomon, Mr Hale. It will not work, and voters will see through it.
There are six schools in my electorate which have received funding to build infrastructure - Bees Creek Primary, Litchfield Christian, Humpty Doo Primary, St Francis of Assisi, Middle Point Primary and Taminmin College. The infrastructure projects have been various and not dissimilar to projects at urban schools - shade over sporting courts, new library, and new classrooms which are well overdue and needed in the rural area, given the growth in the young population in the rural area.
Bees Creek has told me the work they are undertaking, and the success of the project in the school, has much to do with the building contractor. The contractor at Bees Creek was Brustolin Builders. Bees Creek Primary School is within 2% of all schools around the country happy with the work performed.
Litchfield Christian School had a new library. The bricks and mortar are more than welcomed by these schools as they are expanding, but much financial support and assistance is needed to finalise the structural improvements. For example, they get the bricks and mortar and have to do the paving and landscaping; they need resources and electronic equipment. Whilst the schools welcome the infrastructure, more needs to be provided for them to benefit, in a big way, from the funding.
I will single out Taminmin College for special mention. Their middle school has around 614 students and their senior school has 541 - 1155 students. The school has doubled in size since the implementation of middle schools, when they had about 600 students and five science laboratories. With 1155 students they only have one more laboratory some distance from the preparation room meaning students have to push trolleys with chemicals and other items they use in their work, which is not acceptable. This school is bursting at the seams yet it does not get the same resource commitment from the Northern Territory government - I am not talking Commonwealth - other schools do. Due to a lack of laboratories, practical sessions are cut short so students are getting less practice and training in science than some of their urban counterparts.
Arts facilities are the same. The number of students has increased dramatically since the implementation of middle schools but resources have remained the same. There would be overcrowding in areas. The students are not getting their fair share of use of resources and equipment. They are not being treated as fairly and equitably as their urban counterparts, and it could be argued they may fall behind. I am not suggesting they are; they are not being treated the same as urban middle and secondary school students.
I am quite sure when Darwin Middle School opened there were refrigerators for student lunches and refreshments, and lockers for every student. Taminmin College does not have that. It has applied for minor works and is putting proposals to the department for fridges and lockers – particularly fridges, given the increase in our temperatures throughout the Wet Season and the potential for food products to become contaminated. That should be a priority. Both college and council are working with government to put them on the same footing as the new middle schools and receive lockers and fridges. Darwin Middle School has wireless throughout the school. They have drop-down screens throughout the school, yet Taminmin College does not have this. The minister, and the government, need to look at how Taminmin College is resourced, given the expansion in that area, and given Weddell is to be turned off in five to seven years - which I do not believe will happen - bringing greater pressure to bear on schools in the rural area.
Another issue relates to fees not being compulsory. I will not go into that argument; however schools cannot call them contributions. The legal division within the department ruled that out so if a parent wanted to contribute to a school they could not. It begs the question, how can schools equip themselves with the necessary resources in this electronic age, which students need, when they do not have the ability to raise funds. It is not right.
To show the imbalance between rural area schools and other Territory schools, let us look at Nhulunbuy High School. On 11 May 2009, the school was given $3.18m for middle school education and $2.6m for senior school education - $5.78m. Enrolment is about 284 students. In 2007-08, Taminmin received $4.2m for new classrooms for the middle school implementation, growing 614 students. That does not seem equitable to me - $4.2m for 614 students; $5.78m for 284 students. I urge the minister to look seriously at the submissions from Taminmin College to bring them to the same level as their urban counterparts. It needs capital injection. Taminmin is a 30-year-old school needing minor works programs. I have written to the minister about this and tabled a petition - the library is grossly inadequate.
The department of Education website talks about Building the Education Revolution bringing classrooms and necessary infrastructure to schools, and giving 21st century libraries to schools under the program. They are not doing that at Taminmin College. The library was built for a school of 500 and is a community library. We now have a school population of 1155 and growing, plus a growing residential area, yet the library is in the same building and is struggling to cope.
I will conclude comments on Taminmin College, however I want to stress the government needs to lift its game in providing resources and services to the educational community in the rural area. The same goes for the Howard Springs Primary School, which is more than 30-years-old. They struggle with power and water supplies. Girraween, being a new primary school, does not have as many issues. The government needs to treat rural schools the same way as urban schools so students receive the same advantages and opportunities as their urban counterparts.
Statements come and go; schools will always be there. We need to ensure schools have the necessary resources and infrastructure to provide the best possible education for rural area students.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the roll-out of the Building the Education Revolution program across the Northern Territory. I would like to make a comment for the member for Brennan. It makes me feel very old when I reflect on my time in the Territory - more than half my life. I lived through a period when the Country Liberal Party government was closing Territory schools. It was unfortunate one happened to be in Tennant Creek, where I was Assistant Principal, before it went through the period of being assessed and, then, closed. It was a pity. A number of Darwin primary schools were also closed under the Country Liberal Party. We have stories, we have history, and history stands.
It was good to hear the member for Goyder. I have seen some theatrics in this House, but I could feel enthusiasm from the member for Goyder - it was definitely there. Working in drama for many years, I could tell. However, the member for Goyder had to put the negative spin on it.
There had to be a deconstruction; trivial points and challenging school communities: ‘No, I will turn away $0.8m in infrastructure because I am worried about the paving’. Having been in the field for a long time that does not occur. You take on that opportunity with a real challenge; a pioneering spirit and you get those pavers. If they have to come from the river, they come from the river. In some cases, many moons ago, that is exactly what we did. There was real enthusiasm, however it is not allowed out; it is controlled by party politics. Party politics says no BER - the Country Liberals say it is a bad thing. As we have heard in this House many times, it was not supported. My real concern is, should Tony Abbott be elected on 21 August, this program will be terminated by a federal Liberal government and the Territory will be sadly lacking.
Building the Education Revolution is a topic I am passionate about on a number of fronts: as the Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, as a former teacher, as the member for Barkly, and as a Territorian and parent. In 2009, the world was faced with the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economies were collapsing, banks folding and industries shutting down. It was clear strong action was needed if Australia was to avoid the economic fate of our global counterparts.
In February 2009, the federal Labor government took decisive action. Instead of waiting to see what would happen, hoping for the best as the Coalition would have done, the Labor government announced $42bn in a nation building plan - a plan to keep Australia’s economy moving, to keep Australians in work and businesses open.
For the Territory, the $42bn nation building plan delivered $574m in projects including $17.02m for road and rail infrastructure improvements, $270m for Territory schools, and more than $60m for social housing. The Henderson government took up the challenge and responded rapidly to the roll-out of the nation building plan and BER ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it now being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN ASSAULTS) BILL
(Serial 113)
(Serial 113)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the government has had ample notice of this bill, which is not in any way complex. I believe we have the gender language right; there are no ‘z’s to speak of, and the Attorney-General will know what I mean.
I issued a media release during the last sittings and will quote intermittently from it because it describes what this bill is about. I will also refer to the comments I made in October 2008, when we debated the government’s Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill.
The effect of the bill is to free up the Supreme Court by ensuring magistrates have the ability to impose a greater length of imprisonment on offenders who appear before them.
The section referred to in the bill which we seek to amend is section 188 - the common assault provision. That, sadly, consumes a great deal of time. It is almost the bread and butter work of our magistrates in the Northern Territory. The wording under the Criminal Code is an offender having been found guilty of a common assault is liable to imprisonment for five years, or upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for two years. That means, in a very practical sense, an offender goes to court and the magistrate asks defence counsel whether their client consents to the matter being dealt with summarily. Magistrates ask that every day in our courts. The defence counsel says: ‘Yes, Your Worship, my client consents’. The client consents because the wording of section 188 provides the offender will receive a lower period of imprisonment. If the offender does not consent they will be dealt with by the Supreme Court, in which case they are subject to a period of imprisonment of up to five years. Hence there is great incentive for offenders, and consenting to the matter being dealt with summarily occurs every day.
We say the time has come where it is no longer acceptable for a sentence to be reduced if it is dealt with summarily; in a lower court. We say because a matter is dealt with summarily in the lower court does not mean the offender should be subject to a different sentence. We say those days are gone, given the high rates of assaults in the Northern Territory; for matters to be dealt with summarily that should no longer be an incentive.
The bill does not seek to increase sentences for common assault. It seeks to ensure magistrates can impose sentences commensurate with community expectations that are the same as those which can be imposed by judges of the Supreme Court. Offenders can opt for a maximum of two years if they elect to have the matter dealt with in the Magistrates Court. It means magistrates are limited to the cap of two years under our Criminal Code. Because assaults take up the majority of time in the Magistrates Court we say, given the nature and high rate of offending in the Territory, magistrates should have a level of flexibility whereby they can sentence in accordance with Supreme Court judges.
We say the same with respect to section 189A, which deals with assaults on police. Subsection (1) provides:
- Any person who unlawfully assaults a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for 2 years.
Once again, defendant and defence counsel attend court. The magistrate says: ‘Does your client consent to this matter being dealt with summarily?’ ‘Yes Your Honour’, and why not because in the Magistrates Court there is a maximum period of imprisonment of two years, whereas in the Supreme Court there is a maximum of five years. There is an incentive for a defendant to consent to the matter being dealt with summarily.
Similarly, in respect of section 189A(2), if the police officer assaulted suffers harm, the offender is liable to imprisonment for seven years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for three years. Once again, the offender will attend court, the magistrate will ask defence counsel: ‘Does your client consent to the matter being dealt with summarily?’ ‘Yes’ is invariably the answer. The magistrate is bound only to sentence to a maximum of three years, whereas if the matter were dealt with in the Supreme Court, the maximum term of imprisonment would be seven years. It is straightforward.
I am unsure if members remember the bill, it was in October 2008, several months after the election where Labor went out of its way to persuade, some would say con, Territorians about their tough on crime stance. The Chief Minister said the government would close loop holes; the term ‘actual imprisonment’ would mean actual imprisonment; the usual sort of gumpf we hear from the government and the Chief Minister. I spoke during that debate and towards the end I said:
- In my view, government should have used this opportunity to make other or consequential – although I suspect other - different amendments dealing with the ability of magistrates to impose sentences in respect of sections 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code.
I outlined those sections. I then said:
- The Attorney-General [who I think was the member for Johnston at that time] must surely know that a large number of offenders charged with these offences appear before magistrates every day of the week. This makes up a significant part of the matters that come before them. Yet our magistrates are hamstrung by the very sentence prescribed in the Code being reduced simply because the matter is dealt with by the lower courts. In other words, the government and others can tell their fellow Territorians that there is a five year sentence or a seven year sentence for particular offences, but what they are not told and what they do not know is that sentences are reduced if the matters are dealt with in the lower court. The current situation is limiting our magistrates and this restriction should, I think, be removed.
I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General about this particular matter in reply or at another time. I am happy to indicate to him that, subject on my part to some further discussions with members of the legal profession, I may bring on a bill to try to effect that change in due course.
I do not recall the Attorney-General responding, and I was not contacted by the then Attorney-General. I have had discussions with senior members of the legal profession. Like any group, some will agree and some oppose. My view is the majority view, and the best view, is this is an eminently sensible proposal. It also has the effect of freeing up judges in the Supreme Court who are dealing with these assaults.
Next sittings the government might say the effect of this is freeing up Supreme Court judges but creating more work for magistrates. We have enough magistrates; we have four in Alice Springs. The bush communities are serviced well. We also have enough magistrates in the Top End. I am unsure the argument I anticipate from the government stacks up. It may have several years ago, but not now.
I am strongly of the view the Criminal Code, a pretty significant document in the Territory, needs to move with us. What was right years ago may not be right now. Do we, as a parliament, as a community, believe it is acceptable for defendants to receive a concession or incentive in sentencing? Do we believe they should receive that for assault matters, given the very high rate of violence and assaults in the Territory? I feel certain my constituents would say, no, it is not acceptable and we need to move with the times.
In relation the Criminal Code, several years ago I came across a letter I have since provided to the Northern Territory Archives. It was drafted by Paul Everingham and written to Michael Kirby, former Justice, although not Justice of the High Court then. In the five or six page letter Paul Everingham answered many issues Michael Kirby presented him. That letter was written 20 years ago, and the same issues Paul Everingham was talking about then still apply in the Territory. He made the case the Criminal Code suits the Northern Territory; it might not suit other jurisdictions however it suits us, which is why we are proceeding with it.
In the same way Everingham made the case then - and I do not compare myself to Everingham; I have great respect for him, he was a very capable politician - I am not in his league. However I press the case in the same way he did all those years ago; the change the opposition proposes reflects our circumstances in the Territory. It reflects the changing nature of community expectations; is an advantage to our justice system; sends a message to those offenders; does the right thing in sensible policy, and responds to the high rate of assaults in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I do not expect government to consent, however they might be good enough to indicate, at the next sittings, that they will undertake a review of various parts of the Criminal Code, or come up with something which gives us hope that ultimately government will accept these changes or make them itself. If the Attorney-General says: ‘We are going to consent to these changes’, I will be very pleased, but I am not optimistic. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of a Government Anti-Corruption Task Force within the Northern Territory Police Force
Establishment of a Government Anti-Corruption Task Force within the Northern Territory Police Force
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly:
(a) call on the Territory government to immediately establish a government anti-corruption task force as a discrete unit with the Northern Territory Police Force;
There is nothing worse than making a suggestion, as there have been allusions tossed around from time to time in the Chamber, of grubby deals, silver circles and corruption. They can be tossed around and mud can stick, and you can happily chuckle away as though you have scored a political point. It is not good enough. There needs to be, accompanying an assertion or an allegation made in parliament or any place, the capacity for it to be substantively checked, just as in the Chamber we have the mechanism, if someone were to make an allegation or assertion, it needs to be made by substantive motion; you cannot let these things hang. They should be able to be tested so we can move on.
That is the thinking behind it, and also to recognise the Territory is a growing jurisdiction. Most, if not all, states have a capacity to assess matters such as this. It is something we need to also put in place; hence the motion.
Corruption is generally described as the abuse of public power for private gain through actions which are consciously hidden. Corruption is conduct which can adversely affect the integrity, honesty, or impartial exercise of a government agency - or to be seen to do so.
The Northern Territory is a growing jurisdiction and, while its population is small - 220 000 is the smallest in the country - it is important government manages change and plans for the future in all areas. The Henderson government has failed to manage change adequately, particularly when we see the Territory’s rapid population growth over the past five or so years. The failure to manage the change of population has had manifold effect. Part of that broader and more complex effect is the need to change and to improve its instruments, hence this motion.
More than $1bn of additional GST revenue has been spent and the results, unfortunately, are not seen in higher standards in education, shorter waiting lists in the hospital, or better Power and Water infrastructure - and I could go on, particularly about education results in the bush. That has been change - large amounts of money, however the result could have been better.
Power and Water has become increasingly incapable of meeting the most basic needs of the growing population - that is a concern; basic infrastructure. There is much talk about education reform, but the government has not succeeded in substantively raising standards in Territory schools - that is a concern. There has been an increase in money spent, change, reshaping of the way education is delivered, however the results have not improved. There has been difficulty in managing change. Also, hospital waiting lists as previously mentioned, and law and order. The government has failed to meet the needs of police and, as a result, violent crime in the Territory is at alarmingly high levels.
We can have discussions and debates, mount attacks and defence over this issue. The fact remains, as a local member for nearly 12 years, I have seen change in my own community. You can see it in the public amenity; you can hear it in the stories of people who came through the door. There is concern about change which is not for the better, particularly public housing and the poorer areas in our community. It is flowing into all sectors of our community with the disturbing rise of violence, combined with the land release policy, which has served to place pressure on hard-working families and those hoping for something better.
All the things mentioned require good governance, leadership and decisions made which recognise the heart of the problem, and respond to that need in a comprehensive way - not just a superficial way - something which understands the problem, explains the problem, proposes a solution and sticks with it. People do not like change but they want change, and that is difficult.
In order to do that there needs to be a confidence in government, and the instruments of government. There is nothing worse than a community where allegations can be floated. They can exist for some time and are quite damaging because they erode people’s confidence in government. However, some choose to do that for short-term political gain; toss around allegations in parliament, let them hang there and take no responsibility for any long-term effect. That is why we need something to allow those allegations, if they are genuinely held, to be properly tested.
It is essential the Territory is properly covered by the establishment of a corruption watchdog looking into the future. The vast majority of Australian jurisdictions have an ICAC-style body. New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia responded to official corruption with the establishment of such bodies. I hope we will not need to respond to corruption and, if required, we can crush it at its source. It should not be presumed - as may make for a debating point - there is corruption; there are terrible problems which need to be attended to. I do not hold that view. I am concerned about the space which can be used by those who are mischievous; to toss out an allegation and let it hang. If you are going to make a charge, there should be the capacity for it to be properly tested, otherwise shut up. That is the point of this.
It is certainly not arising from a belief there is widespread corruption or a serious problem. It is the need to put this instrument in place because I am concerned about the erosion of the parliament, or other bodies there to protect our citizens.
It is important for governments to be vigilant in maintaining high standards of anti-corruption. We are all aware of rumours which circulate. I am not fond of rumours in any organisation; I like to deal with them. I have dealt with them in any number of communities; I hunt it down and drag it to the bright light of day by the scruff of the neck. These things need to be sorted out because they do have an effect.
Tony Fitzgerald QC, who investigated corruption in Queensland in the late 1980s, last year delivered a scathing attack on that state’s Labor government. Mr Fitzgerald blasted the ethics of current and former Labor governments saying secrecy was re-established by sham claims under which documents sought through freedom of information provisions were placed off limits by being run through Cabinet. Access can now be purchased, patronage is dispensed, mates and supporters are appointed, and retired politicians exploit their connections to obtain success fees for deals between business and government, Mr Fitzgerald said.
A watchdog is particularly important given the recent investigations into the use of funds and exercise of powers about SIHIP for example, or Indigenous expenditure or variations in BER funding. If an allegation is made we should be able to have it properly checked. Procurement and tenders - a watchdog would provide oversight of government business divisions and government owned corporations. I acknowledge the established government watchdogs, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Public Information Commissioner, however the investigation of corruption goes deeper than administrative conduct by government agencies.
The government may say there is no need for an anti-corruption commission in the Territory. It may argue the size of the Territory means between the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Public Information Commissioner and the NT Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command an anti-corruption body is not needed. However, the deficiency of these bodies is they generally rely on members of the public and the public service submitting complaints about the way an agency is conducting its business, not the possible corrupt actions of an individual or individuals within that agency. The government keeps these bodies so underfunded they struggle to respond adequately and robustly to these complaints if they are of a substantive nature. Actions which may, on the surface, look legitimate but have been engineered to direct benefits to an individual are unlikely to be picked up by a member of the public or a colleague.
The Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command has power to investigate corruption involving members of the police force. It has no jurisdiction over a public servant outside the police. Our motion proposes the role and powers of the Police Ethics and Professional Standards Command be extended to investigate corruption across all of government and in the lead-up to developing legislation for a stand alone anti-corruption body, and the power to make recommendations to DPP for prosecution, investigate police, investigate members of the Legislative Assembly by complaint or own motion, conduct surveillance or access records, monitor declarations of interest by senior public servants.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be supported.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion, and I will outline the reasons why. I was interested to see, in debating this motion, whether the Leader of the Opposition would put anything on the table to identify there is, was, might be in the future, issues of corruption in the Northern Territory and there was nothing - absolutely nothing to back up the need to establish an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory.
He talked about supposed policy failings of government - and the opposition has its view on government policies, and the government will prosecute the case for our policies and the success we are having. Those issues are for a political debate, rightly debated in this Chamber and contested at election time - they have nothing to do with corruption. My understanding of corruption is an individual, or a group of individuals conspiring together, have illegally gained financially as a result of corrupt dealings. In establishing an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory I would need evidence - not allegations - of whether it is public servants, politicians, our police officers, an individual or a group of individuals illegally financially benefiting from access to information or inside deals. No evidence has been put on the table at all.
This motion, in part, stems from the Leader of the Opposition having his hand on his heart and talking about allegations made in this Chamber which hang there; no movement on them and someone needs to investigate. I am not prepared to establish a body, essentially on an unfounded allegation, untested, with no evidence to support the allegation. I am not prepared to engage in a witch-hunt into people’s lives based on an unfounded, untested, non-evidence-based allegation by a member of parliament.
The member for Braitling, in debates during the budget sittings of parliament, was making allegations that SIHIP was corrupt. I took that very seriously. I advised the member for Braitling and the Leader of the Opposition if they had any evidence or information to suggest there was corruption in SIHIP to bring it forward and it would be independently investigated. They have a legal responsibility to do that.
This was on the back of the Auditor-General recently completing a thorough audit of SIHIP and reporting to this House many things in the program were going well. There were some potential problems ahead. Original structures may not have been as good as they should have been, however nothing in the Auditor-General’s report suggested there were concerns about corruption. During the Estimates Committee hearings on the budget the Auditor-General was asked whether he had any concerns about corruption in SIHIP, given he had very recently audited all financial transactions within the program. The Auditor-General is on the public record clearly saying he had no concerns or evidence of any corruption within the program.
The Leader of the Opposition believes we need to establish an anti-corruption commission at enormous expense to hunt down an unfounded, untested, no evidence-based allegation of corruption, yet the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory, and the Commonwealth Auditor-General, have audited this program and not found any evidence of corruption. I am not prepared, as Chief Minister, to commit enormous amounts of public money to a witch-hunt allowing unfounded, untested allegations to hang in the ether - people’s good names and reputations dangling by a thread for months and months as an organisation goes off on a witch-hunt.
I urge the Opposition Leader to call on members on his side of the House to stop making allegations in this parliament. I have spoken to many businesses which form part of the alliances, both formally and subcontracted to provide materials, and they are offended their corporate good name has been put in a most malicious way suggesting this program is corrupt.
The only businesses that could corruptly benefit from SIHIP would be those engaged in delivering the program. So which businesses are illegally and corruptly benefiting from this program? Dozens of businesses are involved in this program, all with that allegation over their head and no evidence to back it up. In fact, the Auditor-General who has been through the books, when explicitly asked: ‘Was there any evidence of corruption,’ said: ‘No’.
This House would turn into a coward’s castle of unfounded, untested allegations designed to hang people out there - a witch-hunt being forced on them, their business, and their family based on unfounded, untested, no evidenced-based allegations in this parliament.
Look at the history of anti-corruption commissions interstate. The Opposition Leader mentioned Queensland. I recall reading The Hillbilly Dictator, which clearly identified the incredible corruption occurring in Queensland at both the political and police level. It was institutionalised for many years, and highlighted a demonstrative need in that jurisdiction to establish an anti-corruption commission based on fact, evidence, and allegations which stood the test of the legal system. I urge the Opposition Leader, if he has not read the book, read it. If that behaviour was occurring in the Northern Territory I would be the first to establish an anti-corruption commission. Look at the history of New South Wales and anti-corruption commissions at the political and police level - institutionalised political corruption, and significant corruption within the New South Wales Police Force.
I have asked Ombudsmen, past and present, if they have concerns regarding corruption in our police force. From time to time individual officers will do the wrong thing; there are systems in place to deal with that. Ombudsmen past and present have advised they have no concerns about institutionalised corruption within our police force. Establishing an anti-corruption commission normally occurs where there has been institutionalised political and police corruption.
Victoria is moving to establish an anti-corruption commission as a result of significant gangland violence where rival gangs in control of the drug trade, and other illegal trades, have resorted to systematic killing of individual members in public places. That is not occurring in the Northern Territory. If it was, and police were unable to resolve those issues, yes, there would be need for an anti-corruption commission in the Northern Territory. To establish an instrument to investigate corruption in the Northern Territory would need some basis, apart from unfounded, untested, non-evidenced-based political allegations of corruption from the opposite side of this House.
Leader of the Opposition, my door is open. If you can come to me with evidence, no matter how small, which would stand the test of an inquiry into corruption - whether it is political corruption, corruption in the public service, or police corruption - I will have it tested and treat the information in the strictest confidence. As Chief Minister, I will not tolerate corruption in the Northern Territory. Because we are a small jurisdiction, and given the increased powers the government, through this Assembly, has given the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman now has powers without allegation. The Ombudsman has own motion powers to investigate anything in the Northern Territory.
The Opposition Leader is wrong to say agents of parliament can only act on allegations; the Ombudsman has own motion powers to launch investigations and the Auditor-General looks at financial transactions across government. I have every confidence in the auditing ability of our Auditor-General to receive complaints about public servants who may or may not be doing the wrong thing, and investigate those issues thoroughly. We have an Information Commissioner and a Whistleblower Commissioner. The Whistleblower Commissioner can receive allegations of corruption or wrongdoing within the public service and investigate those allegations on a confidential basis.
To add another expensive bureaucratic layer to an already extensive capacity for people to have allegations tested and investigated is not warranted based on the Opposition Leader’s statement tonight.
The legal capacity to deal with corruption already exists in the Territory. Provisions to deal with official corruption and abuse of office exist under Part IV of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. Any allegations of official corruption of abuse of office - whether political office or office held by public servants - already exists under Part IV of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition the Northern Territory Police will investigate any allegations of official corruption or abuse of office professionally, thoroughly, and impartially. We have the independent institutions created by parliament, the provisions within our Criminal Code and the police to investigate those allegations.
Based on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments tonight, there is no need to add another layer to the scrutiny which already exists. If the Leader of the Opposition is asserting, when an allegation of corruption under Part IV of the Criminal Code is made to the Northern Territory Police they do not have the professional integrity or ability to investigate that complaint, that is a vote of no confidence in our police force. I have every confidence our police force will investigate any allegation of official corruption professionally, thoroughly, and impartially. Leader of the Opposition, if you have any evidence or any allegation police are not, will not, have not, dealt with allegations of corruption, bring them to my office and I will have them independently reviewed.
In conclusion, the Leader of the Opposition attempted to justify this motion based on supposed policy failings of government where extra revenue had been appropriated to agencies. I assert we have had significant improved outcomes - he asserts that is not so. However, they are not allegations of corruption; they are allegations related to service delivery which can be tested through the political process and through this parliament. His motion does not go anywhere to investigating policy, or supposed policy, failings of government; they are, rightfully, for the democratic process. Item (c) in his motion says:
- provide the task force with the powers to investigate any and all suggestions of government or political corruption within the Northern Territory.
He is talking about people who are financially gaining where they should not have been, based on a suggestion. He talked about not believing in rumours, but his motion says we are going to establish a kangaroo court to go on a witch-hunt to embarrass, either politically or professionally, public servants and business people based on a suggestion of corruption. That is not good enough, Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not be supporting this motion. I extend an invitation to meet with me at any time if you have any substantive allegations of corruption against any member of this parliament, any policy officer in the Northern Territory, any public servant in the Northern Territory or any business person in the Northern Territory. I guarantee you a thorough and impartial hearing. I will not tolerate corruption in the Northern Territory. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated no need for a commission, and the government will not be supporting the motion.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address several matters raised by the member for Wanguri. He says the Northern Territory has an Auditor-General, an Ombudsman, and a number of other people to look into various aspects, the subject of this motion.
I recall recently the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman made application for an increase in funds to expand the investigations they perform, and to deal with a range of services they are required to provide for the general public in relation to allegations of unfairness, corruption and other things. Through the estimates process, we found the applications were declined; they did not receive the requested funds to improve the services they provide to the public.
The member for Wanguri also raised …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I could correct you - it is Chief Minister. Only in the adjournment debate would it be member for Wanguri.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chief Minister raised a point in relation to part (c) of the motion - to provide the task force with the powers to investigate any or all suggestions of government or political corruption within the Northern Territory. He specifically referred to financial gain. I understand that to mean only financial gain. Corruption comes in all forms, some of which I am aware of and probably some I am not. It is not confined to financial gain. When the Chief Minister says we should all go to his office with allegations of corruption, I would have an issue going straight to the Chief Minister if it was information about someone he was close to. You need someone to be at arm’s length from government to investigate these matters.
Over the past decade or so, Labor governments across the country have become synonymous with corruption. To their credit, in response many have established anti-corruption watchdogs which have endeavoured to right the wrong of appalling maladministration. Some recent examples might include the Labor Party dominated Wollongong Council, where developers were sleeping with the town planner in order to influence planning application outcomes. I do not have a problem with people in relationships, however when it is alleged these liaisons are occurring in order to influence planning outcomes, these are the issues anti-corruption watchdogs need to look at.
In New South Wales, there was a case of electoral corruption with allegations of voters being enrolled at false addresses, branch stacking, paying for preferences, and standing dummy candidates. These are appalling situations we would not want to occur in the Northern Territory. We have to do everything in our power to ensure those things do not happen here.
In Victoria, the first Underbelly series highlighted the incapacity of police to investigate their own. I am not suggesting for a minute that is the case here, however there are issues in the wider community which might need our own anti-corruption watchdog.
On the eve of an election in Victoria, the Premier has finally bowed to pressure from the opposition and announced he will establish an anti-corruption watchdog. It is interesting the Chief Minister raised some of the serious issues which occur in Victoria. In my experience in the Northern Territory Police Force, although it does not happen publicly, I have been privy to things which could have occurred. We have moved people out of town because they were to be executed. These are serious things the public generally do not see and, sadly, the Chief Minister is not aware of some of the matters which have occurred in the past.
Queensland, which has a rich history of official corruption, has the country’s first anti-corruption fighter. That was a good thing because no one - be it politicians, police officers, the judiciary, the general public, mums and dads - no one wants to see corruption in a democratic society. We want to live in peace and progress the lives of ourselves, and our families, and enjoy a peaceful existence. An independent commission against corruption will not stamp out all corruption; it will ensure corruption is investigated at arm’s length from government, therefore giving it independence and some credibility. Anti-corruption watchdogs need absolute credibility so people in the suburbs, the bush, and the rural areas know an independent body has been investigating all forms of corruption, financial or otherwise. They can have confidence that someone, other than the government, has been investigating itself or others in the community.
In August 2000, an ALP local government councillor was gaoled in Queensland for forging and uttering electoral forms to influence pre-selection plebiscites. These are serious matters which bring people of disrepute into the political limelight and into the decision-making bodies of our community where we legislate against corruption. It is important to scrutinise all members of the community, across all walks of life and all vocations. Her allegations implicated other members of Queensland ALP, and sparked the Beattie Labor government and the Criminal Justice Commission to take action. Without the Criminal Justice Commission who knows what this would have played out to.
In New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption recently raised concerns about a number of registered lobbyists with backgrounds in politics, either as members of parliament, staffers or advisors. One only has to look at the example some years ago of a former premier in Western Australia who brought shame upon himself, and those around him, in relation to his conduct. These are the reasons the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales was formed; to investigate that type of complaint.
Unlike Queensland and New South Wales, there is no code of conduct or legislation to oversee the level of influence a former politician has on the decisions of government in the Territory. It is not enough to sit complacently by and assume everything will be all right - there is no corruption in the Territory. We are a small jurisdiction, and small jurisdictions can create a climate where people become complacent about their responsibilities. We should establish a watchdog before there is a real need for one. If you act early, swiftly, and now, it is a deterrent for those who might come from other places and take the Territory for granted and make it something we do not want it to be, by their corrupt practices.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to support this motion and the intent we want to make the Territory a better place and keep it that way. People who want to be involved in corruption and criminal activities will not come here because we have a solid anti-corruption watchdog, properly resourced, with the ability to quickly investigate matters. Those people return to where they came from, and we keep the Territory a safe and good place to do business, to live and to enjoy life.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was clear the Chief Minister, in his rebuttal of this proposition, did not quite understand what was being put before him. He seems to believe you do not have a fire brigade until the city is on fire. We want to put the necessary protections in place before a problem arises. Taking the view of the Chief Minister, I suggest to him there is corruption, and so on and so forth, which warrants this. He thought I was talking about other problems; that the waiting list in hospitals, the standards in education, SIHIP and so on, were my substantiation for an anti-corruption body. No, I was talking about the need for the right instruments in place to attend to problems. He did not seem to understand that. It is another part of our growth as a civil society that we need these instruments in place.
I also said there had been an occasion, even in this Chamber, which gave rise to this, where allegations were made which caused me to think I do not want to live in a place where an allegation can be made and left hang. In this Chamber it can be by way of substantive motion if rumours are on foot; they can be properly tested, otherwise, get on with it. That is the context. If he wanted me to bring stories about corruption, this is not appropriate and not the context in which I come to the debate. I do not say: here is problem X, Y and Z; we could all turn our minds to stories which give rise to concern. That is not how I have approached this. Clearly, the Chief Minister did not understand that.
The Chief Minister’s argument is we do not need it because I have not proven there is corruption. Therefore, you do not have the fire brigade until the city is on fire - evidence of a mindset which has given rise to the lack of progress and forward planning. When it comes to urban land release or properly addressing the strategic issues in education, health, or the public service, the mindset is no attention to forward planning or strategy, or recognising the role of leadership to put in the instruments for taking today’s issues and finding a better solution for them tomorrow. Simple as that – he did not get. In this case, it appears ignorance rules. Nonetheless, I ask honourable members to support this motion.
Motion negatived.
INQUIRIES AMENDMENT (PENALTIES) BILL
(Serial 114)
(Serial 114)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
During the June sittings, I urged the government to undertake an inquiry, using the Inquiries Act, as the vehicle to ensure openness and accountability. However, it appears minister Hampton was correct in pointing out the weakness of that act; that being the inadequate penalties applying to people who failed to give evidence or provide documents to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament.
It, therefore, appears common sense whenever a legislative shortfall becomes apparent - particularly where it has been deemed to be weak, out-of-date, or not able to meet its obligation or, in this case, to provide an adequate deterrent for anyone called to appear before a board of inquiry - to amend, update, or bring into line that legislation.
The Inquiries Act allows the Legislative Assembly to establish a board of inquiry into any given matter. The board has power to compel a person to give evidence or provide documentation to assist that inquiry. The current penalty for refusing to provide documentation to an inquiry or give evidence is set at $100. These penalties have not been amended since 1985, and are unlikely to be successful as a deterrent given it is only $100. In contrast, recent legislation introduced and supported by this government suggests abandoning a shopping trolley within the waterfront precinct should attract a penalty in the area of $13 000, yet a person who fails to give evidence or provide documentation to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament risks receiving a fine of $100. Similar penalties in the Ombudsman Act, the Environmental Protection Authority Act and the Information Act attract a fine more appropriate to the nature of the offence.
As a good example, the penalty set by the Commission of Inquiries Act 1950 in Queensland, section 19, for a similar offence is 200 penalty units or 12 months in prison. Similar legislation introduced in recent years has seen penalties for the breach of similar provisions set between 100 penalty units, as can be seen in the Ombudsman Act, sections 126 and 127, and 200 penalty units in the Information Act, section 101.
The government has been committed to gradually converting references to monetary penalties to penalty units, with one penalty unit equivalent to $131 as of 1 July 2010. This is in conjunction with the plans to review all penalties and impose an estimated 15% increase. The majority of penalties within Justice-managed legislation have already been increased by at least 15%.
This amendment to the Inquiries Act, including amending section 11(1) to increase the penalty from $100 to 200 penalty units, and amending section 12 to increase the penalty from $100 to 200 penalty units, not only fits within the government’s own policy to update legislation to reflect penalty units, it also provides a fix for the minister who quite rightly pointed out this weakness within the Inquiries Act and, of course, updates older legislation and provides a real deterrent and consequence for anyone who fails to attend a hearing or produce documents, or refuses to be sworn or give evidence to a board of inquiry set up by this parliament. That is vital, given the importance of an inquiry set up by this parliament. Given this amendment passes the commonsense test, there is no reason it should not be supported. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
RAAF Base Darwin - Housing
RAAF Base Darwin - Housing
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the Territory parliament indicate its support for the Coalition’s plan to save nearly 400 homes at the RAAF Base Darwin;
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot see how the Labor government, in its right mind, could find itself in this position. I hope against hope they have an amendment to this which deals with number (3) - to get it out of the way so it is not so offensive to them - they would be supporting a motion which describes them as inept, inadequate and dysfunctional. I would concede if you want to drop (3) and continue with the others. We might find ourselves in a place of agreement in the presence of families who need a sensible approach.
I cannot believe Labor members, some I see drinking coffee in the mall and really enjoying the role, do not know or do not care about the pressure ordinary working families – the younger families - are under. Perhaps you are in the space where you explain it away; you are not engaged, and can explain it in all manner of ways that makes it easier for you to drink your coffee and say ‘hail fellow, well met’. You do not know? Of course you know. If you do know, you do not care because you would be galvanised into action.
You would not give the response: ‘Yes, but what about this?’ You would not put out slogans attempting to defend yourself and your pathetic response. It is a terrible situation. They are perfectly good houses, and I have seen the photos. I have heard so much about these houses. I remember going there years ago, and it struck me as a normal suburb. I have heard the argument from government excusing their weak response to a real problem that the houses are inappropriate. Come doorknocking with me in Driver and I could take you to a hundred houses like this; fine houses with good families - tell them their house is inappropriate! These are the same as houses in Driver, Gray and Woodroffe - the same houses built at the same time.
Standing with Pauline as I did yesterday - and I met with her on Friday - she started talking about it. She is a retired nurse; she worked in pathology, and wants to make a contribution in her unit. She provides care - Family and Community Services - however she cannot because her daughter requires emergency housing. Territory Housing speaks of a list not yet provided by the Chief Minister when asked yesterday how many were on it. The list gives the idea of a line of people. I would like to see the numbers because there are two lists. One is the emergency housing list; the other is the general waiting list. From what I can see, no one on the general waiting list is moving. Emergencies are going to the emergency wait list, which is the only list being responded to. The other one is blowing out to three, four, five years.
We have a crisis impacting on families. This lady cannot provide care for babies; that is what she wants to do - it makes her useful. With her qualifications and life experience as a nurse, it is something she can do. However, she cannot because her daughter was told: ‘You are going to have to wait at least six months’. ‘I am in trouble. If you cannot provide for me, I am on the streets’. ‘Your mum, a senior citizen, is in a granny flat, you can live there; we will allow that’. As a consequence, two babies are unable to be cared for. Family and Community Services expressed their concern and have written to Housing asking if they could fix this because they desperately need Pauline to provide care for babies. Such is the crisis.
Sometimes people tell their stories. Every time she talked about it she cried. I wondered, as we came to Monday, whether she would be interested in telling the story more widely. I thought she might be reticent, however she said: ‘No, I will do anything if it helps’. If you met Pauline you would be impressed by her resolve. She is not inclined to do that type of thing but said: ‘I would be happy to do that’. I felt for her, and explained to her beforehand what was happening. She said: ‘I am happy to do this. The little boy I am looking after at the moment, my grandson, is shy but I am happy to speak’. The cameras pulled up outside the house, residents come out and I felt a duty to explain what was happening. I told them there were vacant houses at the RAAF Base and we have to get this government to recognise there is a solution under its nose which will make a difference, and we are interviewing your neighbour. One lady punched the air with her fist and said: ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’ and started to tell me her story.
I move around; I talk to people. They come into my office. I am the local member for Gray, Moulden and Woodroffe. I hear it all the time; it cannot be ignored. To have this lame dog excuse - rollover Hendo, Defence say they cannot do it. Oh, okay. It is like the meek shall inherit the earth. What type of government do you have? If you want to tell an agency: ‘I am the government, I would like you to do this’, they say: ‘Well, there is a problem doing that’. ‘Do you think so? What about this? I would like you to do that’. ‘There is a problem with that, minister’. ‘Is that right? Okay, have you any suggestions?’ ‘Oh, no’.
You wonder what the job of government is. It seems to be signing up to anything, rolling over, having its tummy scratched whenever a command or direction is issued. I do not understand you when it comes to standing on your hind legs and defending the rights of people to have a home, and admitting you stuffed up by resisting, as the member for Karama resisted. I remember the day she caved in and changed direction and, without a blush, commenced speaking differently - a complete sea change before our eyes. In 2007, with no apology, she changed from: ‘You cannot release more land because you will flood the market. You guys want to wreck the marketplace. You are vandals and cannot be trusted’.
The reason for the sudden dramatic shift was the glossy brochures galore. It was as though there had been a ‘road to Damascus’ experience. I detect the presence and actions of a focus group which finally got through to this thick government it needed to attend to things brewing under its nose and being felt by ordinary citizens coming up to an election. It is a little too late. People have grown tired of the disingenuous spin and confected response to real problems. There are houses which may have problems. Territorians do not want a: ‘Yes, that is probably a good idea but, but, but, but defence. The soldiers said we cannot do it; we will have to go somewhere else’. For God’s sake!
There is a way through this. If you fought like a Territory government should fight, space can be made, that is my firm conviction. I have seen things turn around when someone takes a stand, someone shows resolve, particularly when doing it for those who need it. Right is on your side.
It is a serious problem - let us go through some of the facts. The most recent numbers released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show home prices in Darwin increased 14.8% in the last 12 months, and publicly available pricing puts the median cost of a home over $580 000. Did you know? If you did know, apparently you do not care. That is a staggering debt for a new homeowner to commit to. Compared to the days of 20% deposit and a demonstrated savings capacity, delivering $120 000 in cash as a down payment on a home today is an insurmountable task for many.
I moved to the Territory over 20 years ago with a young family. I would not be able to move to the Territory today, with a young family, to take up a position as principal of a local school. After renting for a period of time in Gray we bought a house in Driver at a cost of $120 000. That is the deposit required for a young family to purchase a unit now - $120 000.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There may have been an error with the clock because I noticed the Leader of the Opposition started at 10 minutes. I believe the time for debate on a motion is 20 minutes. Is that right, Mr Clerk?
The CLERK: Thirty.
Dr BURNS: He has 20 minutes up his sleeve.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. We now have a society which relies on leverage to support home ownership, and it is a perilous situation - things are finely tensioned in the home. If interest rates rise, or if someone has an event which causes their income to diminish, as in a sad case of someone in Bellamack - they had to pull the pin. What changed? Change of heart, no. When they planned it just about stacked up. There were delays and the price increased. They stretched it - they could nearly make it. Then, it all fell apart in the saddest of ways. It was tragic for them because their dream dissolved, crashed. How was that? She fell pregnant. She wanted a baby but it meant she could not work. She had a significant income which was now taken out of the equation; they had to abandon their dream. It was traumatic for the young couple. The domestic pressures around that were significant.
Their situation is a result of the failure to balance supply and demand in the release of land. In the past, state and territory governments balanced supply and demand of land in the marketplace. That has changed. You reap a harvest of stamp duty, however you are interfering with the marketplace and who is suffering? People like those I mentioned.
Treasury figures report the average Territory family has a fortnightly income of $1892, with monthly loan repayments of $1856. That is almost misery according to the Dickens’ equation. That is nearly 50% of a two-income family’s spending putting a roof over their heads. That is what is required to get into the home market.
The median rent of a home in the Top End is over $500 per week. The housing crisis forces both adults in a family into the workplace. It is a crisis driven by failed policy and failed leadership. Someone has to accept responsibility. The Labor government says: ‘Who could that be? It has to be the Country Liberals; they were in power for 27 years’. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. We will keep item 3 in the motion - inept, inadequate and dysfunctional government.
For years we have been promised a resolution to the housing crisis; a crisis driven home squarely by the policies of the Henderson government, and its predecessor, Clare Martin. Instead of leadership in planning and direction, we see a litany of housing failures. The biggest failure so far has been affordable housing. Housing affordability is now at a critical level for families paying mortgages or rent. It is straining family budgets already stretched by steep price rises in petrol, grocery, childcare, health, and education.
That is what Damian Hale said in 2007, which is why Kevin Rudd - do you remember him, the one who was done over recently? Damian Hale said Kevin Rudd announced a plan to build 50 000 homes for the rental market in 2007. They were in touch, they knew, they felt the pain, as the current Prime Minister feels the pain. That is why they were building 50 000 homes for the rental market. People were hopeful something would happen. There was an announcement in 2007 to deliver 50 000 homes across Australia and, in 2010, we have a rehash announcement from Labor which might – might - deliver one home by the end of the year, if - and a big if - someone can deliver the NRAS participants a block of land.
Second on the housing failure hit list is SIHIP. In 2007, as an emergency response - for goodness sake! - the Coalition committed to funding accommodation and housing throughout the Northern Territory for Indigenous Territorians. Three years later, the Labor government has spent over $200m and delivered on a fraction of the commitment of 750 new homes. Residents of communities such as Wadeye and Gunbalanya have to live with the failures of Labor to deliver housing in the bush, and the residents of Alice Springs, Palmerston, and Darwin have to live with the failure of Labor’s land release programs necessary to deliver housing opportunities and affordability in the cities.
As another glossy brochure hits letterboxes, we should be reminded of the commitments of Labor land release in the Territory. There were to be 640 blocks of land released in 2009, the majority in Bellamack and Johnston, another 930 in 2010, and a projected 930 again in 2011. Pause at this point. When those glossy brochures first hit letterboxes in Palmerston, three young families came into my office within two weeks very excited. They wanted to know where the land was - they wanted to get into the marketplace. I said: ‘It is glossy brochure, I hope it comes to pass’. That was 2007, and there is still no land. It was a glossy brochure - another hoax. How can you do that to people? Oh, you needed to win an election.
In 2009, 640 blocks were to be delivered across the Top End. What do we have? In 2010, homes built in Bellamack and Johnston - zero. What is under construction in Bellamack? Like the expensive foray into remote housing under SIHIP, it is Henderson’s affordable housing solution - the boxes. I have seen them at Chung Wah - homes with holes for air-conditioners, but no facilities; with pads for extra rooms at extra cost, with price tags out of reach of first homebuyers - and no buyers. Affordable housing which is unaffordable. Half-baked, half homes fully priced.
Federal Labor’s solution to this government’s problem is to re-announce the National Rental Affordability Scheme and roll out a build program over the next three years of 1200 new buildings - 1200 dwellings to compete for 2500 new available home lots and land releases. That is 1200 dwellings in three years, when the current population growth rate requires nearly 1500 dwellings a year to keep pace. One thousand two hundred dwellings for 3000, 4000 or 5000 INPEX employees; 1200 dwellings with an underlying demand over three years for 4000 new homes; 1200 just to stand still. We are meant to accept this at face value.
Julia Gillard seems like a nice lady; she made the announcement. We have a need and she feels the pain. We are supposed to accept this. Well, once bitten, twice shy. I have met too many families who have had their hopes dashed that these commitments will be delivered, that this government is serious. How wrong is it? How wrong is it that 80 homes under SIHIP have cost $200m? How wrong is it that the Territory government has failed to deliver affordable rental housing in 2009 and 2010 under the NRAS program? How could a scheme rolled out in 2008, taking bids through 2009 and 2010, leave Territorians waiting until 2011 for the first new rental home? How? Because of a lazy and inefficient government, a government which did not bother working through the Round 1 funding of NRAS to get a project up for consideration, a government which did not support Round 2 applications. How wrong that the member for Solomon, and the Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, say there were no NRAS applications in Rounds 1 and 2 when there were applications for 172 homes. Applications were rejected for homes in the Darwin rural area and in Nhulunbuy, homes not supported by this government, not acted upon by the local member, and not delivered by Labor.
How wrong that 1200 homes from a lazy, inefficient government will cost hundreds of millions, if not billons of dollars to build and still leave behind a land availability squeeze, a home availability squeeze and a home price and rental squeeze. How wrong that 100 homes will remain vacant at the RAAF Base Darwin during the middle of the worst housing crisis in decades. It goes from bad to worse when you have the capacity for some release to this pressure sitting right under your nose.
When faced with a median rent of over $500 per week, where the first $25 000 of a person’s wage goes to shelter, 100 homes would offer immediate relief to workers trawling through the shallow pool of available rental properties. It is a way to address the 1.9% rental vacancy rate in Darwin, the 1.2% vacancy rate in Palmerston; a way to add to the limited rental space currently unoccupied. Is it any wonder 100 homes would make such a major difference when there is 10% of the current vacant rentals market? Is it any wonder 1500 new homes a year is vital to supporting a population growth, an interstate migration of 2000 to 3000 people a year, and is it any wonder we have a spiralling housing cost when government is failing to deliver the underlying infrastructure to the housing market!
Returning to land, the commitment to deliver housing is a vital necessity to our economic wellbeing. The Territory government has failed to act therefore the federal government is forced to pick up the pieces. However, the ongoing commitment to deliver land for housing underpins the story to be written about housing affordability. If land prices continue at these levels, if it costs $350 000 for a block of land at Lyons or $220000 for land in a new suburb in Palmerston, what price will be the finished product? We are in the era of $0.5m starter homes, of base rental prices of $500 a week or more, and a widening gap between the purchasing power of people and the purchase price of properties. Without affordable land release in the Territory we have reached a crossroads.
The population centres of Alice Springs and Katherine have growth restraint because of a lack of land. Darwin and Palmerston have growth restrained because of a lack of land. In the growth towns across the Territory, because of incompetence government governance of SIHIP, there is a lack of developing land. In a Territory with an area of 1.4 million km we have urban land valued at $250m per square kilometre. As land is so expensive because we have not kept pace with population and become a decentralized community interlinked with green public transport, we are pressing more people into the same space; we are moving up and not out. We are failing to deliver land on the fringes to keep prices down in the centre. We are cramming more homes into the same housing space and charging more for the privilege. We have more homes for Larrakeyah Barracks on smaller blocks of land. We have four-storey apartment blocks appearing in the suburbs of Wanguri, Karama and even Rosebery.
This is all driven by a failure to release land and keep rents down. We have a glacial land release program at Mt Johns Valley, at Bellamack and at Johnston. We have delayed release of Berrimah and Muirhead, Zuccoli and Alice Springs Research Station, and for all these failures we have failed commitments for affordable housing.
A Northern Territory affordable housing company has not been delivered. Short-term worker accommodation has not been delivered. NRAS funding, on the table since 2007, has not been delivered. Is it any wonder rental prices have skyrocketed on a three-bedroom home by $300 per week since 2002? Has anyone studied economics? Is it any wonder the public housing waiting list time for a three-bedroom home is five years in Darwin, four years in Alice Springs and three years and eight months in Palmerston; that public housing in Nhulunbuy has a wait time of seven years and more for one, two or three-bedroom homes.
Where is the NRAS funding for Nhulunbuy requested under Round 2 of the offers last year? What applications were rejected by the Commonwealth? Where is support for Indigenous housing in the bush? What is this government’s real commitment to affordable housing? All we see are excuses - we cannot save 400 homes at Ludmilla; we cannot keep kids at the local school; we cannot save businesses at Winnellie shops. We do not do these things under this government because it does not have the vision. Find a piece of land, employ a builder, design a home and deliver construction all by the end of 2010 according to the lazy and inefficient Damian Hale and appalling Labor government.
Is this possible? I have seen The Castle and I say: ‘You are dreaming’. There are people needing a response, and it beggars belief you are not fighting to sort this out. They are right under your nose. You could cut yourselves much slack if you stood beside the Territory opposition and fought for the opportunity for families to move into homes and create a little space in the market. It is not a solution to the whole problem; however it is a big difference to people who need some slack now. The ones I have mentioned need it now.
The couple who pulled out of the deal at Bellamack; Pauline, who wants to look after babies but sleeps in a single bed with her granddaughter at her unit, and her daughter in another room with two kids. It is not good. My own kids cannot come here because it is too expensive. You could do something - there is a solution. Do not tell me: ‘Oh yeah but’. In the past Territory governments have stood up for Territorians and found a way. There is a way. You can support the Territory opposition. You can support the coalition and we could make it happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge members to support this motion.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept the sincerity of the Opposition Leader in his quest to assist people undergoing housing stress. Many people in the community are experiencing housing stress, however I would like to underline at the outset of my response to the Opposition Leader’s motion that, as a government, we have a plan for assisting people with accommodation over a whole range of sectors, whether they be seniors, equity for people wanting to purchase their first house, or families under rental stress looking for assistance.
Nonetheless, whilst I can see where the Leader of the Opposition and others are coming from in relation to the RAAF Base, I cannot accept that the plan put forward by Natasha Griggs and the Coalition is a viable way forward. It is unfair to give people false hope those properties will be rented because the Defence department has made it plain they require this land for their own strategic purposes, and they will not relinquish it. I do not believe it is possible, even if the Coalition wins the election. It is a sad state of affairs. People see those empty houses and ask: ‘Why can we not take it over; excise it from the RAAF Base, put families in there and ease the burden?’ It is that simple - life is not that simple. Defence will not relinquish the land.
Members on the opposite side who know about this have acknowledged it to me in private. Defence has made it clear. Coalition Defence spokesman, David Johnson, said they could not deliver the promise if the Defence department opposed the idea. The Defence department has its own strategies for its properties. One only has to look at the way the airport has changed over the last decade to see a complete polarisation of the activities of the commercial/civilian part of the airport - the Johnston side of the airport - to what is happening on the other side - the Ludmilla side - where there are many Defence installations and much equipment and security. From my interaction with Defence in a number of portfolio areas they jealously guard their strategic interests, whether it is Darwin Harbour or the RAAF Base at Ludmilla. Defence is making it clear they do not want to relinquish that land.
I will give you another example. Jetstar wanted to build another terminal near the Aviation Museum. Defence strenuously opposed the proposal. Lobbyists from Jetstar approached the federal government to gain permission to erect another terminal on that side of the airport. It will not happen. Why will it not happen? Because Defence have their strategic interests in the airport at heart. That message is being ignored by Natasha Griggs during the election campaign.
The Leader of the Opposition is sincere in his proposal. I can see where he is coming from; he sees and experiences the need. As local members we all have people - and particularly as minister for Housing - approaching us with desperate needs for accommodation and housing. I wish I had a magic wand to solve the problem. It is not going to be solved in the way proposed by Natasha Griggs; it needs a strategic approach. This government, in collaboration with the Commonwealth government, has a strategic approach to resolve these issues, not so much overnight, in the medium to longer term.
Much has been said in the last day about the partnership, and what has been delivered in housing under the stimulus package. In the stimulus Stage 1 construction, there was $7.1m for 22 dwellings to be constructed, with 16 of those 22 dwellings complete, and the remaining six dwellings to be complete by late August - later this month. Of those, there are much needed four by four-bedroom dwellings in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. Under Stage 2 construction, there was $48m for 186 dwellings, with the majority to be complete by the end of 2011. Much is happening and it is churlish to ignore work is occurring and being fast-tracked.
The Wirrina development is under way with a development agreement signed in August 2010 by the Territory government and Sitzler Pty Ltd. Sitzler has lodged a development application, with construction of 45 quality rental units and 10 public housing units for seniors due to be completed by June 2012. That is an important development.
Bellamack Seniors Village: $10m joint-funded Commonwealth and Northern Territory government program for construction of 40 seniors units; contract was awarded in June 2010. Construction commenced in July 2010, and is due for completion in March 2011.
Refurbishment projects under way: 34 South Terrace, Alice Springs - $2.4m refurbishment of the unit complex. That property will be leased to Aboriginal Hostels Limited. Larapinta Seniors Village: $5.6m for 18 dwellings to be constructed. Design and documentation is under way; projected construction contract award date is December 2010; and projected completion date is September 2011.
Future works: design briefs are under development for the following projects: Bellamack and Tiwi – two-bedroom public housing unit; Malak Seniors Village; and refurbishment of various public housing unit complexes. Stage 2 projects include: 12 bedroom upgrade of Catherine Booth House, Stuart Park by the Salvation Army; 20 units of supported affordable housing accommodation at Coconut Grove by St Vincent de Paul; eight units at Malak for women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence; 18 units for transitional accommodation at Crerar Road, Berrimah - I saw that construction three or four weeks ago - 45 units of social housing in Parap as part of the Wirrina Development; eight public housing units in Bellamack; four public housing units at The Gap; eight units of managed accommodation for homeless people at East Side, Alice Springs by the Salvation Army; 28 units of transitional accommodation at Percy Court in Alice Springs; and 35 units of managed accommodation at The Lodge, Larapinta.
Regarding the motion before the Assembly, on one hand we have the opposition supporting a proposal to excise land from the RAAF Base even though the land is required for strategic purposes by the Department of Defence. On the other hand, the opposition has refused to support, at a national level, the stimulus package which has provided $59.7m for housing across the Territory. That is not counting almost $50m announced in Budget 2010-11 for 150 units of housing, and does not include much of the in-fill developments in Millner. We discussed this in estimates, member for Braitling; a number of duplexes are being constructed on two larger blocks in Millner. We are looking at other locations to construct further in-fills to consolidate blocks. That is our plan and, particularly for seniors, is my plan.
We also have the announcement, as part of the election campaign by Julia Gillard and Damian Hale, regarding the 1200 NRAS units to be constructed by Ethan Affordable Housing company based in Victoria. We heard today planning for their first units is well under way. I am advised they will be taking that to the Development Consent Authority shortly, and are looking to begin construction by the end of this calendar year. NRAS is a very good program. I received a briefing on the spot about NRAS; it will work well in the Northern Territory. Developers will embrace it, construct dwellings and, through an affordable housing company like Ethan, will manage it.
In contrast, it is okay to say there are many houses at the RAAF Base, and the motion the Leader of the Opposition brought forward says in part (4):
- In the event of a Coalition government being elected on 21 August, homeless families be given priority in the allocation of the houses that will be turned over to Territory Housing.
In my experience as Housing minister, there are homeless people who cannot support a tenancy. If you were to put some of those tenants in housing at the RAAF Base it would not make anyone happy; you would have a concentration of problems.
We all know about Cornwallis Circuit, Palmerston and the problems which occur when there is a concentration of public housing tenancies - people with manifold problems concentrated in one area. There is an explosion of social problems which is not good for anyone. During the last sittings I talked about District 9. If it were to come to fruition you would be seeing the RAAF Base houses - it is not clear who would go into these houses, except the Leader of the Opposition has said homeless people. There are many other people suffering housing stress; working people who would welcome the opportunity of paying 20% below market rent in an NRAS situation. Who will manage the houses, who will live there, and how are you going to determine rent?
It seems the Leader of the Opposition is flicking it to Territory Housing. Life is a little more complex. I reiterate; I can see where you are coming from, I respect your sincerity in the motion - not all the motion put forward, the concept you have brought forward, not the politics. I understand you see those houses and the need, and you believe people should just be able to move in - the suburb should be excised.
Life is not that simple. Defence does not want to relinquish those properties. Damian Hale and the current federal government have offered those houses be gifted to the Northern Territory. We are in caretaker mode at present; however with the election of a Gillard government we will work on the gifting and relocation of those houses. If there were to be an Abbott government in Canberra, there would be many problems and people would be disappointed. I do not believe you will be able to deliver on that promise.
Madam Speaker, the government opposes the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the RAAF Base housing is an excellent, established community with a name, Eaton, and an identity and history. It was a pleasure for me to recently support a rally to save these houses and meet former residents of these homes who, like my colleague the member for Brennan, would be very happy to live there again.
The RAAF Base housing has proximity to an excellent school, a fantastic little local shopping centre and the public transport corridors. In fact, at the rally it was interesting talking to people who had lived at the RAAF Base, who had moved out and would be very grateful if they could move back in. I had a lengthy conversation with one woman who had moved from the RAAF Base to Lyons and wanted to move back to the RAAF Base because there was a sense of community, proximity to schools, shops, other people, the city, and she was happy with the style of home as opposed to the new style. That may not suit everyone, but there were many people without houses supporting the proposal because they want somewhere to live.
It is interesting the Housing minister speaks about the type of dwellings and the fact they need to go because the RAAF wants the land for strategic purposes. Many issues stack up against that statement. Local businesses in that area rely on servicing local residents from that part of Darwin, particularly the community of Eaton. Local residents have done so for the past five decades or more. It is recognised as a thriving community dating back to the 1940s. The development of the area primarily began in the 1960s and continued through the 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, RAAF Base housing has additional significance as it survived the onslaught of Cyclone Tracy in 1974, which is testament to the fact these homes are very structurally sound. They are in immaculate condition. Defence has constantly maintained and regularly upgraded these properties, and they are an excellent affordable housing option as existing good quality houses.
Let me emphasise, for the sake of the Chief Minister, this is not a lazy policy. It is an exceedingly sensible policy and plain, old-fashioned common sense. It is amazing to many Territorians, Chief Minister, that you are considering walking away from an opportunity to secure these homes for Territory families. Each structure incorporates a range of good design features adapted to Darwin’s tropical climate. These homes provide a much needed choice of housing style: an elevated home rather than a concrete box, with gardens and landscaping well established.
These are the issues people at the rally were concerned about - the houses going, the gardens going, and a neighbourhood disappearing. These houses are an excellent example of sustainable living - homes which lend themselves to the use of cross-ventilation. They are not reliant upon the high and ever increasing costs of air-conditioning. The NT News, on 14 July this year, described them as ‘troppo style’. It is a style which is environmentally sustainable and reduces the carbon footprint, which we hear those opposite mention all the time. The moment they are moved they become unaffordable, as costs to ensure they meet mandatory standards will be extremely high.
If moved, as mooted by Damian Hale in an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to Natasha Griggs’ campaign, there will be massive issues. Because there is no provision under the Building Code for relocated houses, they will be treated as new homes and will have to meet the stringent energy conditions in the Building Code of Australia 2010 NT which, from 11 May 2010, means a new home must be five-star rated. This is impossible for these glorious tropical homes as the five-star rating affects external walls, shading, glazing, percentage of ventilation openings, etcetera. Building certifiers - when you can find them, because they are overworked due to insufficient numbers - will insist on current standards. Current standards are changing annually, and even the balustrades must comply.
You only have to look at these lovely homes to realise the requirement to pass the five-star energy rating is impossible. With so many louvers they suffer from excessive ventilation. Attempting the necessary structural upgrades on these homes would prove complicated, expensive, if not completely impossible. The cost of transportation of approximately $40 000 per home, and the construction of basic infrastructure – ground clearance, slab, sewerage, electrical, etcetera - adds prohibitive cost to moving them. There are engineering, plumbing certification and electrical issues. Having recently gone through renovations myself, getting an engineer in a timely manner is extremely difficult. You would also have to cut the larger ones in half as they are too expensive to relocate otherwise. At the end of the day there is no way of moving these homes in a cost-effective manner. One might also ask: where would they be moved to?
I would like to discuss figures. The 2009-10 budget papers said we require approximately 1700 dwellings a year. The 2010-11 budget papers said we need 1400 to 1500 dwellings per year. The government’s figures from 2009 say releases are going forward: in 2009, 640; in 2010, 930; 2011, 930; 2012, 905; and in 2013 plus, 2995. Even before we start, we are behind the eight ball in relation to land release.
When the government says there is a great new plan if the federal Labor government is re-elected – they will build 1200 homes, I wonder where they will put them because the figures for land release do not stack up. I did not get all the figures the minister for Housing quote regarding building houses, however, we are talking 10, 30, 40, 180. I do not think those figures will add up to 400.
We have an already established community, a functioning community, no earthworks required, the plumbing is connected and the power is on. The infrastructure is there in roads, kerbs, and the houses are liveable. In fact, they are better than some of the houses in my electorate. You have to ask: where are they going to put them? I would love to hear the government say they have found an extra 400 blocks of land. There is no way anyone wins if these homes are bulldozed. Taxpayers for many years have upgraded and maintained these homes to the point where they are in excellent condition. It is cost-efficient to reuse these homes as very little needs to be done; the buildings have been so well maintained by the Department of Defence - again, at enormous expense to the taxpayer. No residential home should be destroyed at this time of extreme housing stress in the Northern Territory brought on by the government’s inability to release land in a timely and sufficient manner.
If these homes were shifted, finding people to work on them - if you can find a block of land - will require enormous effort. Finding a builder at the moment is difficult. Try doing renovations or building a new home. Air-conditioner installers, plumbers, electricians, are all difficult to find. A builder friend rang me recently looking for air-conditioner installers because they are hard to find at the moment. Fortunately, I was able to give him the name of a friend who will pull him out of trouble. He is building and trying to find tradespeople. In this time of a lack of tradespeople we want to create more expense for people and more demand on the tight resources we have available, especially in Darwin.
Over the past 12 months, Darwin’s median house price has risen by nearly 16%. Over the past five years, prices have absolutely skyrocketed. In Ludmilla in June 2005, the average price for a home was $310 000; in June 2010, that had leapt to $561 600. In Coconut Grove in June 2005, $320 143, skyrocketing in 2010 to $500 090; and in Millner in June 2005, $245 000 and in June 2010, $493 000.
Some people may say if you are a landowner or a house owner that is great; you have a large equity in your home. I have three kids who live in Darwin and I would like them to buy houses at a reasonable price and not be forced, like some families, to move south because their children cannot afford to get into the housing market. I would love for people I know, and some of my relatives living in units with kids, to be able to buy an affordable home. When you look at the prices, and when they go up by 16%, people trying to save a 20% deposit are behind the eight ball. One has to hope alternative houses come onto the market. If the Coalition in Canberra is elected, it has already given a commitment it will excise the land from the RAAF Base. It will keep the suburb of Eaton, thereby supporting families.
I note the minister for Housing suggested homeless people might create problems. For the benefit of the minister, I have people coming into my office in despair because they are good, working people who cannot afford to buy a home. Some are in public housing at the moment and would like to buy a home but cannot afford to because of the inability of the government to release land, and have been unable to buy houses because they have increased in price.
People are still living in cars and in tents. It saddens me when they come into my office to complain about the lack public housing. The latest figure was around 3500 families on the public housing waiting list. The seniors housing list - it is great the government is building seniors accommodation, and I congratulate the minister for Housing for taking on seniors as a pet issue to pursue. However, we have a five-year waiting list for seniors. We will lose our seniors because they cannot afford to stay here. I have numerous seniors express concern about what they will do when they finish working. If they do not own their home, and many do not, their only choice is to leave town. It is a shame when they have to leave their families, their grandchildren and all their support services. Some do not have a choice.
Yet, we have the RAAF Base Darwin covering almost 45 ha south west of Darwin airport. We need to remember the RAAF Base contains one of the oldest surviving groups of houses in Darwin. There are individual structures and groups of buildings which stand as fine examples of military architecture and the adaptation of buildings to suit tropical climates with cross ventilation, elevated floors and wide eaves.
It is worth noting the original plans and layout for the RAAF Base were very high quality. These plans were thought to have been influenced by Walter Burley Griffin, with an underlying geometry of axial planning, a focus on precise areas for separate functions, and the recognition of landscape. It will not surprise you to be told the RAAF Base Darwin is listed on the newly instigated Commonwealth Heritage List for its various historic values. There are four separate listings: the Commanding Officer’s residence; Tropical Housing types 2 and 3, and 16 houses within the heritage RAAF Base precinct. They are significant for their association with a notable architect, B C G Burnett. They will be proudly sitting there for perpetuity if a Coalition government is re-elected; otherwise I fear they will be bulldozed. This important heritage area is an excellent focal point for the RAAF Base estate for the future.
In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, the entire heritage area is subject to a heritage management plan; an internal Defence document used to determine any potential impact a proposed development may have on the heritage values. A heritage management plan has been developed which guides the management of the heritage values at this site, and will ensure the extent of the heritage area is properly respected and adjacent areas are treated appropriately.
This week, the Planning minister proudly announced a leading international urban design company has been appointed to research and draft a master plan for the new Palmerston suburb of Zuccoli. I quote:
- Residential developments are not just about building homes but are also about creating urban environments that support the needs of residents.
They are also about building the fabric of a community, providing safe areas, safety houses, Neighbourhood Watch and school kids knowing each other. We have that sense of community and the rally brought many people living on the RAAF Base out to support the retention of their community in the Territory. The minister went on to say:
- This includes providing open spaces, community facilities, energy efficiency and homes designed for our tropical lifestyle …
That describes the suburb of Eaton very well - energy efficient and homes designed for our tropical lifestyle. Minister, this already exists at the RAAF Base Darwin.
The minister said Urbis Pty Ltd was selected because of its outstanding track record working on similar projects in regional cities in Western Australia and Queensland. They are not even a Territory company! Urbis, busily master planning a Territory suburb, has offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Dubai. That is sensible when looking at tropical conditions. I am sure Urbis employees are fine people and have an excellent track record; however, we are talking about the Territory. We are talking about tropical homes; we are talking about tropical design.
Minister, what in heaven’s name are the strategic planners doing in our department? We constantly see departments using advisors; they receive advice from contractors when we have fine people working for government. Why are our public services not being utilised in greater numbers?
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Brennan.
Why are we not using people in our departments? Why do they keep engaging consultants? It appears the government is reinventing the wheel as it did with the RAAF Base. Yes, the neighbouring airport operates 24-hours a day, as do other major capital city airports with the exception of Adelaide, Cairns, Gold Coast and Sydney. Those wanting to invest in these homes will do so knowing they are adjacent to a fully functional airport and RAAF Base, as are many homes in adjoining suburbs.
People may say: ‘That is fine; you do not live there’. Well, I do. I have not checked the map or measured the distance, however, I suspect my home is closer to the runway than some of the homes in Eaton. I knew the airport was there; I bought there; it does not worry me. I knew full well where I was moving, and that we have Pitch Black and other exercises, and we have jets. The great thing is I do not have to ask whose jets they are - they are ours. I am a great believer our fighter pilots going to the front line and putting their lives on the line deserve all the professional development we, as a government and as a community, can give them.
In relation the noise issues from the RAAF jets, we should take a leaf out of the book of progress written by the Mayor of Ipswich, Councillor Paul Pisasale, who has enthusiastically welcomed the 24 new Super Hornets based at the RAAF Base Amberley. When asked what advice he gave the local community if they had noise problems his response was: ‘To move out’. The new joint fighters to be based at Tindal will be here from time to time. I tolerate it because I am a supporter of professional development, not only for our public servants and people in private industry, also our Defence people.
It is a personal choice to live adjacent to an operational base; it has also proved an excellent home for RAAF families for many years and will no doubt continue to be well into the future for Territory families desperate for affordable, well planned accommodation. It appears that will only happen if Natasha Griggs is elected and is part of a Coalition government led by Mr Abbott. It appears Damian Hale and the current government will bulldoze the houses because it is too expensive to move them.
I ask the Chief Minister: ‘How can you perceive these houses to be past their use-by-date when they are only a few decades old?’ Has the Chief Minister visited European cities, carefully planned and centuries old? What is this idiotic modern day view that if it is not brand new it must be worthless? We must all have friends and family who would give their eye teeth to have a home in Eaton. I do. Members of my family with several children would love to move from a small unit into a home there. Increasing numbers of people attend my electoral office every day saying rising house prices puts it out of reach of young people starting a life and cementing the fabric of our community in Darwin.
For those unaware of the name Eaton, Group Captain Charles Eaton, OBE, AFC joined the RAAF in 1925. In 1940, with the completion of the new RAAF aerodrome, he was appointed Station Commander at RAAF Base Darwin. The RAAF Base has a proud history. Keeping the RAAF Base homes is common sense in this era of acute housing shortages. Because Defence personnel are moving to Lyons and other new suburbs out of reach of many Territorians, does not mean we should not seize the opportunity to support Natasha Griggs and save the RAAF Base houses.
The houses in Eaton should be gifted to the Northern Territory government to release onto the Darwin market at 25% less market price, giving young people a start. The minister for Housing wanted to know the nuts and bolts; how much we would charge, which public servant would administer it, whether it would be an AO2, AO3, AO4 or AO5. We are not here to talk nuts and bolts. We are here to get people with families out of tents, cars, caravans and into family homes. Madam Speaker, you may have seen photos of the houses recently in the Chamber, where you put on a sprinkler, mow the lawn and you would have a fabulous tropical home, with a great garden and great landscaping at no extra expense to the taxpayer.
It is all very well to look at moving them, however a builder was telling me if the government wants to shift them - and you have to look at the time frame – it will break many small businesses because the builders will not be able to compete with 400 homes being moved rapidly. Also, suppliers of building materials – if there is a glut on the market of 400 homes – would struggle.
In 2007, we had promises; in 2010, we do not seem to have the land. The minister for Housing said we give people false hope. Well, what about land release? There are brochures in the Chamber today regarding commitments the government made in relation to land release. People want to buy land; want to build. There is no land, the price goes up and no one can afford it. Young Territory families are missing out.
The minister said opposition members have expressed this will not happen - I believe it will. The Coalition has made a commitment and the government - if it remains in government after 21 August - has given a commitment it will excise the land and transfer it for Territory families.
The minister for Housing spoke about security issues. The main RAAF Base fence is behind Eaton between the runway and the RAAF suburb we are talking about. That was moved in the 1990s, so houses on the RAAF Base can be accessed by all - the pizza delivery guys, and other service delivery people can come and go. Even in The Narrows, houses have a back fence where, on one side, the resident owns the land and, on the other side, it is RAAF Base. The major security fence is between the RAAF Base itself and these homes.
The minister mentioned Larrakeyah; private homes back onto Larrakeyah Barracks. If security is a problem the RAAF needs to buy the entire suburb of The Narrows and shift people away from its fence. It has lasted for many years that way, and I do not think it is an issue.
Regarding Jetstar on the opposite side, I agree with the minister for Housing, and believe Defence was wise because there is existing infrastructure and hardstands for jet aircraft.
Madam Speaker, I fully support the RAAF Base housing proposal and this motion. I ask the government to consider what has been said in this House, and consider young Territory families who need support. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I mentioned yesterday how debates over the next two weeks would be taken over by the federal election campaign. Looking at the motion today, I am right. That is not to say the premise of the motion is not good; to save the houses at the RAAF Base. Surely, we are all on the same side when it comes to that principle?
There are many houses on the RAAF Base, as you can see from the Google photograph - a fair number of houses in one place. We need to keep in mind what we are discussing. We are not talking about a few houses; we are talking about an entire suburb.
I had an interest in saving these houses, and the ones at Larrakeyah, some time ago. In fact, I have raised the Larrakeyah houses with the minister more than once. From that, most of those houses are to be shifted. However, if we think it would be better for this area to excised, we should look at that.
I discussed the RAAF houses with Daryl Manzie on Territory FM, which is how the idea of excising the area from Defence came about. This was before the election. I felt it would be better to leave the houses at the RAAF Base because the infrastructure is there - water, power, sewerage and roads. To move the houses you have to find new infrastructure, unless you put them on land with infrastructure already available. It would take time, whereas for a relatively instant solution - and because we know these houses will not be vacated in one go - if it was possible to excise the land that is the best option.
However, we need to put things into perspective because it is not quite that simple. In the Northern Territory News on 1 August 2010, Mr Tony Abbott said, under a Coalition government, the RAAF Base houses would be fixed up and sold direct to the public. In the Northern Territory News on 5 August 2010, Mr Abbott said land would be excised from the RAAF, however, in the same article, Opposition Defence spokesperson David Johnson, said the Coalition would not meet that promise if the Defence Department opposed the idea. On the same page, Mr Damian Hale said the houses would be gifted to the Northern Territory government and moved to another location. He did not say where, but to be sold by developers - I am a little worried about the details of that.
It is worth seeing what Defence say. In a media release dated 25 June 2010 headed ‘Defence Corrects Records on Aircraft Noise and Housing at RAAF’ - there had been articles about the new Joint Strike Fighter Squadron reported to be coming to Darwin. In relation to housing at the RAAF Darwin, it said Defence housing plans are influenced by cost-effectiveness and its long-standing preference to provide housing in the community, and the houses at RAAF Darwin no longer meet the Defence minimum standard, and the age and condition of many of the houses makes them uneconomical to repair or upgrade. It says of the 395 houses on base, 102 are currently vacant, and of these properties, 99 are vacant because they require major work.
Deficiencies include the size of living areas, bedrooms and kitchens, many with insufficient spaces for a pantry or modern refrigerator, and lack of amenities. In several properties there has been a deterioration of the fabric of the buildings which incurs high maintenance costs. It also says Defence is currently investigating future options for the houses at RAAF Darwin; houses identified by the review as being no longer require for Defence personnel will be demolished or removed from the base possibly for use by other government agencies. Any reduction in housing at the base will occur progressively over the next five years.
Defence says the houses are not up to standard, however we know Defence has the highest standard of housing. At Lyons, Darwin and the suburbs in Palmerston, there is a standard for Defence personnel. That does not mean those not in Defence would not be quite happy to live there. I have been in Darwin long enough to know these older style houses are very comfortable. They are tropical but will not fit government’s five-star energy efficiency standards because they are meant to have air-conditioners. However, they may pass 10-star efficiency guidelines because they are louvered, tropical, and allow flow-through.
The Honourable Allan Griffin, Minister for Defence Personnel, said recently current Defence planning indicates land can be vacated at RAAF Darwin as required, for contingency purposes for Defence into the future. That sounds like Defence-speak for: we do not know why we want it but are not giving it to anyone, and if we did know we would not tell you. I wonder whether this could be the next nine-hole golf course. I would like more detail on what they want the land for. The Department of Defence is based in Canberra and, from my dealings whilst on Litchfield Shire, is very difficult when it comes to Defence land.
From personal attempts to have roads on Defence land changed -- Stevens and Campbell Roads - it has been a longest effort. Small changes are occurring at the moment, however getting a second entrance into the barracks is like pulling teeth - it is not easy. I say to the Department of Defence, you might have a good reason for hanging onto that land, however do not treat us like second class citizens. Give me a good reason for requiring the land and I will accept it.
The opposition spokesman on Defence, David Johnson, said if the Department of Defence had a good reason why the land could not be excised let us hear it, and we can consider it in a sensible manner. The RAAF is saying the reason people are not living there is the houses are not up to standard and it wants more people to live in the community. The minister says it is required for contingency purposes. There seems to be conflict as to why this land has to go.
There was a letter from Mr Snodgrass, manager of the Winnellie Supermarket, saying he agreed one of the reasons they did not want houses any longer was because of noise, and the noise associated with the jet fighters. I believe that is where this started. The RAAF released a media statement saying a new noise map from RAAF Darwin - I have the noise map here – for Darwin, and Darwin International Airport, has found while there will be a slight increase in aircraft noise on base - again we are referring to the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter - there will be no increase in noise levels in residential or industrial areas nearby, including the Winnellie industrial and Narrows residential area. You will find a copy of the contours for Darwin Airport on the draft master plan for Darwin Airport. It shows the area called Eaton is partly outside the 20ANF corridor, which is normally a safer area to live, also partially inside but not in the 25ANF corridor. These are the new ANF contours designed up to 2030. If these houses reach 2030 we will have done well.
Although we have a range of options from RAAF and Defence, we need more discussion with the Department of Defence before we give up the idea of excising the suburb. There is uncertainty around whether the land could be excised; although that is the option we should investigate thoroughly.
My feeling is neither side of parliament wants to see these houses destroyed. There may be some dispute over whether the houses stay put or are shifted. In general, we all want an outcome to help people who cannot afford to buy or rent a home. There has been comment about No (4) in the motion - giving homeless families a priority and allocating houses to Territory Housing. That is the nuts and bolts. There is room for NGO involvement. There are also issues the member for Sanderson mentioned.
When we talk about homelessness it is more than about itinerants or long-grassers. Homelessness is also people who cannot afford a mortgage, and these dwellings would be of benefit there. Young people like my daughter and her three children who, as a single mum, cannot afford a mortgage. They are not in the running for it. My daughter is not alone. There are numbers of families, especially in the rural area, where the children stay home and mum and dad find a few dollars to build a granny flat out the back. That is a fact of life, and there is a great opportunity for these houses to be used to help these people.
The department has said it will not empty all the houses at once; it will take four to six years. If the suburb cannot stay, it could be used for housing until the RAAF needs the land, which allows time to move the houses. The member for Sanderson said there is not enough land. Over the next four to six years, if there was a gradual movement of these houses, we would find enough land.
These would be ideal for the forestry land in the rural area, where up to 500 blocks could be developed at Howard Springs. The issue holding that up is there is a native title claim over that land.
A member: And Vince Collins
Mr WOOD: And Vince Collins, yes. Hopefully we can live with Vince. That claim should be determined later this year and there is an opportunity, if these houses are to be removed over five to six years, they could be used there. I see no reason why they could not be used in Zuccoli, or anywhere else. Looking at the pictures we have, once you have a few trees around them, why would they not fit into a new suburb? They could be done up – there are people willing to put money into these houses. It does not cost much to move them. I quoted figures when discussing the cost of moving the houses from Larrakeyah. A company from Queensland said to me: ‘We have moved nearly all the houses from Amberley Airbase in Brisbane’. They moved them to all parts of Queensland. A Katherine company has discussed movement of the houses from Larrakeyah for a reasonable price.
By handing them over to developers some may make exorbitant profits. We should be careful not to bump the price up so people receiving a second hand house have money to bring it up to standard. The selling of these houses, if that is what is to happen, needs to be carefully assessed and not given over to developers.
I have listened to the debate tonight, and not many people are involved, however I believe we spend our efforts and energy - I know we are close to a federal election – saying: ‘Look at me! Look at me!’, because we want your vote. No, we do that normally, however at the moment the average Territorian would give us a pat on the back if we gathered as a parliament because we are dealing with the Commonwealth Department of Defence.
We need to say to the federal government - whoever that is after 21 August - that, as a parliament, we want those houses saved. They are too important an asset to lose and they are not to be bulldozed. Whether they stay or are shifted can be debated at another time. A small committee of parliament could say: let us look at those 400 houses. Why could we not work with NGOs? Why could we not look at options for developing the houses? We all know there is a housing shortage and people are struggling. I do not see anyone saying these houses should be bulldozed. We all support the use of these houses; the number one question is the houses are saved. Whether the land is excised and left as is, or whether they are shifted, is the key.
Madam Speaker, to get away from the party political theatrics, I move an amendment to the motion:
- Omit all words after ‘that’ and insert in their stead the Territory parliament indicate its support to save nearly 400 homes at RAAF Base Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you have that in writing and signed, member for Nelson, so we can have it circulated?
Mr WOOD: I do, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you want to speak further, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, only briefly. I have put my argument at the beginning of this amendment because it is an important issue. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing it forward. I understand the opposition person standing for Solomon is pushing this issue, which is good. However, this parliament has a duty to say these 400 houses are too important.
They are important because we have many people struggling to put a roof over their head. We need to tell the Department of Defence the houses will not be bulldozed. We want to make every effort to have the land excised, because that is the most sensible suggestion. Bear in mind, infrastructure such as the sewerage and water may be ageing. A sensible approach is if it is to be excised, we look at costs associated with excision. Again, that is something a small committee of parliament could do. We could discuss these issues with the Department of Defence or the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s call, however this is above party politics. This is a case where Territorians would say our parliament should fight for these houses to be saved.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there further speakers in the debate?
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, I am still waiting for the amendment. I would like to examine it.
Mr Knight: I would like to speak …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Business, bear in mind from now on all members are speaking to the original motion and the proposed amendment moved by the member for Nelson. This means members who have previously spoken are entitled to speak to the amendment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, having read the words of the amendment from the member for Nelson, I can indicate government has no problem. We still have a point of difference over excise or not excise, how you relocate, and the issues the member for Nelson has enunciated. However, on the broad issue of whether we want to save 400 homes, yes, we want to save 400 homes.
How to do it, where they would be, whether you would gradually relocated some into areas such as the forestry land, has to be worked out. We believe - and have not changed our position on this – we could work with the Department of Defence, as we successfully worked through the relocation of homes from Larrakeyah. We have a track record of working with the Department of Defence in saving houses.
We are on the record saying we are not against saving houses - that has never been an issue. We say do not give people false hope; do not pretend a strategic defence position taken by the Department of Defence is something you can sweep under the carpet and pretend does not exist - it does exist. Similarly, our position is clear. We know what the noise zones are moving to, particularly with the jet strike force, which is an issue.
We support the proposed amendment by the member for Nelson. However, the issues will have to be worked through. It is not as simple as sweeping it under the carpet, as the opposition would have you believe could be done. All the legitimate concerns of the Department of Defence …
A member: John Howard thinks so.
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly. Our former Prime Minister, John Howard, pointed out Defence strategic issues needed to be taken into account. As a government we respect that, particularly when you look at the proximity of those homes to the RAAF Base with significant noise issues, and increasing noise issues.
Madam Speaker, we have no issue around saving houses; we are all for saving houses. How do you use the houses? Do you relocate some over a period of years? This government has a track record of working with Defence, particularly the relocation of houses from Larrakeyah. I am restating what has been articulated in this Chamber by the Chief Minister, and what was clearly articulated by the member for Solomon. We are happy to support the amendment put by the member for Nelson.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, my only concern is this does not provide an outcome. It provides an indication of support, and there is no argument on either side of parliament - we are trying to save the RAAF Base houses. The member for Nelson’s amendment is no different to a committee organising the next date for a meeting because it has not resolved to do anything.
We have an opportunity to lock in parliament’s support, to achieve something, to have an outcome not just give an indication of support. This is a headline which will achieve nothing. We support saving 400 homes. The government supports saving 400 homes. The difference is how the homes are to be saved. Do we move them all over the Territory, or do we save them in the suburb of Eaton? I have a concern with this general statement which seems to sit in the middle. It is similar to what was debated earlier where we have a middle-of-the-road shot. We are not making a decision either way; we will sit in the middle of the road.
We have an opportunity to lock in a decision on how to save these properties. This statement merely gives an indication of what we already support. Both sides are trying to achieve something; this does not state what we want to achieve.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as the proposer of the original motion, I see the intent here is to strip from the original motion anything which smacks of politics and sanitise it. When I look at our section (1): ‘The Territory parliament indicate its support for the Coalition’s plan to save nearly 400 homes at RAAF Base Darwin’, by sanitising it we remove any reference that someone had a plan contrary to the government’s. I accept the issue is the saving of 400 homes at the RAAF Base.
The member for Karama did not make it clear the intent of this motion was supported. Parliament indicating its support to save nearly 400 homes at the RAAF Base in Darwin is homes not houses, and there is a difference. I heard the member for Karama say the government would save the homes, however those homes could be put in other places; there may be a range of options available to us. The essential element of this, as outlined by the sound contours, etcetera, is the land which is there, and that land being used for a purpose other than some holding pattern to move the houses.
Our firm position is the land and houses together; that is the point of the exercise. It is not some smarmy wriggle room created by the Labor government. The truth is they want to have their cake and eat it too. The land and the houses - that is the point of this.
I will accept number (2) and (3) - I gave you room to remove number (3) because it is impossible to support. However, the point is the homes at the RAAF Base. It is not the houses being saved and shunted around the countryside. It is the homes at the RAAF Base - that is what you are supporting. The Territory opposition supports that argument. You are supporting 400 homes at the RAAF Base on that land. You said something a little different. If you are supporting it you are supporting the homes on that land.
Mr Henderson: No, you did not listen to the proposer of the amendment.
Mr MILLS: I listened.
Mr Henderson: No, you did not. We support the intent of what Gerry is doing, not your spin.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Different intent.
Mr Henderson: The spin you are putting on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, have you finished? Order, Chief Minister!
There are two questions before the Chair. The first is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The second is the amendment as moved by the member for Nelson.
I put the amendment first, as is customary. The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Nelson be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN ASSAULTS) BILL
(Serial 87)
(Serial 87)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend section 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code such that there is a minimum mandatory period of imprisonment where the victim of an alleged assault is:
1. a public sector employee, or acting in aid of a public sector employee;
The proposed minimum mandatory periods of imprisonment are:
1. if the person did not suffer harm or serious harm – one month;
In addition to these provisions, section 78BA of the Sentencing Act, (the act), provides for mandatory imprisonment for certain violent offences. It was inserted into the act in 2008. Sections 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code are offences to which section 78BA of the act applies. Section 78BA of the act provides that if an offender is found guilty of an offence to which this section applies, the court must record a conviction and order that the offender serve a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment which is partly, but not wholly, suspended- section 78BA(2). In circumstances where physical harm is caused to the victim, the section only applies if the harm suffered as a result of the offence is a physical injury which interferes with the victim’s health, section 78BA(1A).
I will turn to other jurisdictions. For similar offences, the maximum penalties in other states and territories are either lower than, or comparative to, the maximum penalties for these offences. There is only one jurisdiction which provides for a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment for certain assaults, Western Australia. In Western Australia, the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment only applies where the victim suffers bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm, and is a police, prison, security or ambulance officer, a contract worker providing court security service or custodial services, or a contract worker or subcontractor performing functions authorised under the Western Australian Prisons Act 1981.
The mandatory minimum sentences are, where the offender is aged between 16 and 18 years and causes either bodily harm or grievous harm, three months. Where the offender is an adult and causes grievous harm, 12 months. Where the offender is an adult and causes bodily harm, six months or, where the offender is an adult, causes bodily harm and is armed with a dangerous weapon or instrument, or the offence is committed in the company of others, nine months. These provisions were inserted into the Criminal Code in Western Australia in 2009.
Let us look at what happens. The offence of assaulting a police officer is generally committed in the course of other offending, and the statistics regarding sentence length can only be considered indicative as it is unknown what the effect of the other offences may have been on the sentence imposed. With that in mind, between 2006 and 2009, a total of 579 people were convicted of offences involving assaulting a police officer, including 566 cases of assaulting a police officer, and 13 cases of assaulting a police officer causing harm. Of these 579 cases, most of which were assaulting a police officer, 64% received imprisonment orders, 13% received fully suspended imprisonment orders, and one percent home detention and 22% non-custodial orders.
It is noteworthy that, as stated above, 566 of the 579 cases were assaulting a police officer, with only 13 being assaulting a police officer causing harm. For those persons who received a sentence of imprisonment, the average term of imprisonment was two months, and 87% of offenders who served a term of actual imprisonment, served a term of five months or less.
Madam Speaker, I turn to the bill. The amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition appear to create a scheme considerably more punitive than the current legislation however, in practice, without any reference to harm, the average term of imprisonment between 2006 and 2009 was two months, which is above the mandatory minimum sentence suggested by the opposition. It is clear the current legislation is working. Most offenders who assault a police officer, whether it causes harm or not, spend time in prison. The circumstances in which assaults are committed are very diverse, and providing mandatory minimum terms will undoubtedly lead to injustice in some circumstances. For that reason, the government does not support this legislation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that is hardly surprising when the talk of maximums could create some effect and, in the instance reported, perhaps sustains a debating point on one frame. The issue is we need to establish a clear standard. There is another difference not referred to by the Attorney-General; that being not necessarily an injury arising from intervention through emergency. There needs to be that level of protection provided to those there to protect us.
Before going further, there were amendments I assume government is not supporting. Nonetheless, I will go through the amendments circulated for the information of members.
There has been a lapse of time between the introduction of this bill and tonight. In that time, there has been significant change to the legislation regulating health practitioners in the Territory. At the time the bill was drafted, all health practitioners in the NT were regulated by the Health Practitioners Act. Since the commencement of the Health Practitioners Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act on 1 July 2010, the majority of health practitioners are now regulated by that act.
Clause 3(2) of the bill refers to the Health Practitioners Act to define a health practitioner for the purposes of the bill. Since this act now only applies to Aboriginal health workers, occupational therapists, and radiographers, reference to the Health Practitioners Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act will need to be incorporated into the bill. Therefore, in the chance that members break rank and support this, we will be going to committee stages.
Putting those amendments aside, this bill is about sending a clear message, an unambiguous message that assaulting our public servants will not be tolerated. That is the clear message - no ifs or buts - there is a minimum. The bill is about protecting our public servants as they go about their duties providing services to Territorians. Public employees such as transit officers, employed to ensure Territorians safety on public transport, should not have to perform their duties knowing they will be a target of assault themselves - such as the story of a 31-year-old man who visited harm on a female police officer. They should be sent a very clear message.
A 31-year-old man was arrested at Ramingining community last weekend, after assaulting a female police officer. The off-duty officer was walking along a dirt road 3 km from Ramingining around 4.30 pm when she noticed a male following her. She was knocked unconscious after being hit on the back of the head with an unknown object. When she regained consciousness, the man was standing over her, but she managed to push him away and he ran off into the scrub. The woman, fortunately, was able to hail a passing motorist and was taken to Ramingining health clinic where she was treated for bruising and a cut to her head. She required stitches. A man was arrested at a nearby outstation later that night.
There has to be a very clear message sent. You can have all the maximums you want, however there has to be an absolute minimum in every case - no ifs or buts. You say there could be some injustice. Nothing can excuse an attack on a public servant - nothing can excuse that.
Nurses in Territory hospitals should not have to start their shift with a possibility they will end up in their own emergency department after being bashed by a patient. They need to know a basic standard is being protected, and they are being defended. After two nurses were assaulted by a patient earlier this year, the Australian Nursing Federation NT Secretary Yvonne Falckh confirmed the incident was not an isolated one. She called for tougher penalties for people who assault medical staff to send a clear message; defend and protect standards in our community and protect those people. That was a comment by Yvonne Falckh in the NT News, 7 July 2010.
The Territory is facing extreme difficulties retaining and recruiting medical staff and one way to address this issue is ensure nurses and doctors can provide healthcare services to Territorians without the fear of being assaulted, and if they are assaulted, there is a clear consequence - no ifs, no buts. There is a minimum response; at least it could increase from there. In the 2009 estimates, the Health minister was asked how many assaults on staff by patients were reported in Territory hospitals. This is frightening - numbers given by the Health minister were: in 2006-07, the number of physical assaults, 161; in 2007-08, the number of physical assaults, 196, a big increase; in 2008 to April 30 2009, total physical assaults, 142 - these are just the ones reported.
We need to reassure public servants we are there for them. One way to do that is increase the penalty for people who have no respect for the person providing them with critical services. I cannot abide by that; I cannot stomach that occurrence within our community. There has to be a clear response, a minimum response. At the very least there needs to be a consequence - no ifs or buts - our community expects that. We can readdress the imbalance of authority which has developed in this jurisdiction by introducing minimum mandatory sentences for those individuals who assault our transit officers, housing officers, doctors, nurses and police officers.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this; it will send a clear message that we respect and value those who protect and support us in our community by siding with them against those who visit violence upon them.
Motion negatived.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (INVESTIGATIVE POWERS) BILL
(Serial 85)
(Serial 85)
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this bill. I will not say the government will not support this bill; as you are aware the Board of Inquiry into Child Protection in the Northern Territory will be reporting to government on 17 September 2010. It would be premature for me to accept any amendments without carefully considering any recommendations of the inquiry. Our government is on the record saying we will accept the recommendations of the Inquiry. We called the highest inquiry in the history of the Territory to look at a very serious problem which affects not only our government, but governments in the past and, if we do not fix it now, it will affect governments in the future. It not only a problem for governments, it is a problem for society, and a problem for families. The primary responsibility for the care and protection of children lies with families, and the government is to provide a safe environment, and support families to protect children.
I have placed on the record my determination to do anything possible to address some of the issues we have identified, and issues to be identified by the inquiry. It is premature to accept amendments to the Care and Protection of Children (Investigative Powers) Bill 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the minister and I spoke earlier, and I am not surprised by his response. This bill, for the sake of Hansard, was initiated by me and introduced by the member for Port Darwin when I was unavailable in February. As can be seen from the second reading speech, the bill was remarkably straightforward. In fact, the second reading speech, on my Hansard, consumes about half a dozen paragraphs; it was remarkably straightforward. It sought to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act and sought to remedy certain deficiencies with respect to the Children’s Commissioner, who can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - children in the care of the CEO - or in relation to the implementation of recommendations arising from the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse Report.
The Children's Commissioner does not have any own motion investigative powers under the Care and Protection of Children Act. We say that falls short of the mark. The bill sought to expand the scope of the Children's Commissioner’s functions to allow the commissioner to initiate own motion investigations into situations which involve children who go beyond those described as protected children, or those under the care of the CEO; in other words, all children in the Northern Territory.
The member for Arafura and I worked cooperatively when the Care and Protection of Children Bill was introduced. One of the differences we had - we agreed to disagree on many areas - was the view the Children's Commissioner’s role should extend beyond protected children - beyond those in the care of the CEO. In fact, in the care of the CEO was another point of difference. My very strong view was, and still is, the kids should be in the care of the minister. It is an abrogation of responsibility to delegate those children into the care of the CEO.
However, the government, as the member for Arafura did when she was minister, elected not to accept my argument. Several years later this minister elects not to accept much the same argument. We say it is important for the Children's Commissioner to have appropriate powers. Why bother having a Children's Commissioner and not empower the individual with sensible powers? I am certain I have a relatively recent Victorian Ombudsman’s report referring to the Children's Commissioner which mentions own motion investigations and the need for the Children's Commissioner to undertake own motion investigations. Own motion investigations enable the Children's Commissioner to investigate matters in relation to children in the Northern Territory. The Children's Commissioner does not need a formal report in relation to protected children. It is a sensible amendment, one the government does not see fit to introduce.
There are, in the Territory, probably hundreds of children in care. Importantly, that represents a very small percentage of children who are reported as being at risk of harm. Based on last year’s Health annual report, we know the number of investigations and substantiations are not commensurate with the number of reports. There are many children who, in one way or another, are considered at risk; that is, a greater number than those under the protection of the CEO. Yet, the Children's Commissioner cannot undertake investigations in relation to those children. Is that sensible? I do not think so. Should a Children's Commissioner be available for all Territory children? I believe so.
The minister will not be surprised to hear me say this; I have said it before and will say it again: it is not appropriate to wait until the board of inquiry delivers its recommendations. At estimates I asked the minister several questions regarding the terms of reference of the board of inquiry and, when answering questions, he said: ‘Oh, no, that was a matter for the board of inquiry’. After getting that answer on the record, I suggested the matters he referred to were not within the board of inquiry’s terms of reference. The government does not understand the terms of reference of the inquiry it was dragged kicking and screaming to initiate.
It still has not implemented a number of recommendations from at least two coronial investigations regarding amending the Care and Protection of Children Act. There were close to 10 recommendations made by the coroner in the Melville case regarding regulatory amendments which could be made, and amendments to the act itself.
An analysis of whether the existing Child Protection legislation in the Territory is adequate and whether government policy is adequate is not within the board of inquiry’s terms of reference. Hence, the government has coronial recommendations to amend the act and it has not done so. Every day in this House bills are put before us. Instructing Parliamentary Counsel to amend legislation is what we do as a parliament. This government refuses to do it, and the excuse of: ‘We will wait for the board of inquiry,’ is absurd, insulting and inadequate. However, this is the way this government conducts itself with respect to child protection.
Let me be more specific. This government, over the last few years in particular, has said: ‘It is not our fault. It is someone else’s fault. We have put in much money therefore we are getting better results’. Minister after minister, with few exceptions, failed to question, failed to discharge obligations as a minister with respect to child protection. The minister says: ‘We all care about child protection’. Of course we do, and the government is in a position to do something. That is what Territorians expect you to do. Making some legislative changes is what you should do. Blind Freddy can see that is what you should do - you refuse to do so.
Madam Speaker, I thought it appropriate to put those matters on the record. I commend this bill to honourable members.
Motion negatived.
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I speak today in response to the opposition’s proposed legislation. This bill seeks limited changes to important health legislation, in isolation of the overall framework and intent of the act. It seeks an increase of government’s investigative and coercive powers in relation to the performance of health and community service providers. It also seeks to extend these powers to a large number of service providers not covered by the current Health and Community Services Complaints Act.
Before we look further into this bill, we need to examine the purpose of the existing legislation and determine if it is doing its job. The Health and Community Service Complaints Act was passed in 1998 and was developed to provide a fair and non-threatening way for complaints about health services to be dealt with and resolved, without the need to resort to expensive legal disputes. The act was designed to meet a number of practical objectives:
to establish an authority with sufficient independence and technical expertise to gain credibility with both users and providers of services; an authority that, for example, could convincingly say to providers something was not good enough and why it was not good enough; an authority that would also have the confidence of users so, when appropriate, they could accept their expectations may have been unreasonable;
provide users of health services with an independent, just, fair, accessible, and low-cost alternative to the legal system for the resolution of their complaints;
establish mechanisms which encourage and assist users and providers to resolve complaints cooperatively and directly with each other;
ensure any useful information or knowledge gained from complaints could be used to improve services; and
establish and promote basic user rights as the basis upon which to judge the adequacy of services and expectations.
I am confident the current act and the current commissioner are fulfilling these expectations, however, I appreciate there can be room for improvement in the legislation, but only after careful consideration of the entire act.
Considering the fact the current act was implemented in 1998, and recognising the substantial growth which has occurred in the Territory’s health and community services sector, it is acknowledged changes are required to this vitally important and complex area of service delivery. However, this can only sensibly occur in a planned, considered manner which involves extensive consultation by those affected by the legislation.
It is highly questionable for the member for Greatorex to bring these amendments before the House without providing any service provider or their representatives with an opportunity to comment on this bill. Similarly, I doubt he has provided members of the public, those who are recipients of the service, with the opportunity to say if they want or need these amendments. Without passing any comments on the merit of the member’s bill, I believe these important reforms need to be discussed with a fair representation of people in the area.
The current act operates in the health and community services environment, and often involves individuals who are particularly vulnerable - children, aged, disabled, critically ill, English as a second language - or who happen to be at a particularly vulnerable point in their life. These services can involve the application of highly sophisticated, technical equipment and treatment methodologies. This can result in a considerable disparity in knowledge and capacity between professional service providers and their clients; a disparity which is much greater in this area than many other areas of service delivery.
This imbalance in the status and power between service providers and clients/consumers results in a special vulnerability, particularly in the event things do not go well, or disagreements occur requiring resolution. Accordingly, it is most important the clients of these services have access to competent, objective, and independent mechanisms to deal with their complaints.
Contemporary service systems attempt to compensate for these problems by providing clients with access to independent, technically competent, complaint resolution mechanisms to resolve these matters in a fair and just manner. With acceptance of these mechanisms as being fair and just, clients are less likely to resort to the courts or other methods to resolve their issues.
Importantly, these mechanisms - complaint commissions or statutory office holders - have to be accepted as independent and unbiased. They must be able to maintain credibility with both clients and providers. They cannot be seen as advocates for one or the other without losing their reputation for independence and their effectiveness in obtaining acceptance of their decisions by both clients and providers.
Improvement in this area is required. Government has recognised this and has been engaged in a long and difficult process to bring about comprehensive and lasting improvements to this area. Unfortunately, the proposed bill’s piecemeal, ad hoc approach would not provide the effective or lasting improvements government considers necessary. It also ignores the interests of numerous stakeholders in the Territory - stakeholders whose input should rightly be sought before changes such as this are considered.
It is well recognised in the Territory that one of the commission’s strengths is its independence and low-cost complaint resolution model that provides a more accessible, informal alternative for matters that may otherwise have been taken before the courts. Another strength is the support it has gained from providers, users, and consumer organisations. Accordingly, we need to exercise caution when making wholesale changes to the act such as these proposed, when it is already seen as operating efficiently and effectively.
Over recent years, there has been an enormous amount of work by the commission and policy and legal officers in the Departments of Health and Families, Justice and Chief Minister, to carefully consider the improvements needed for this act and to develop appropriate responses to meet the needs of Territorians.
This is an important area; a very sensitive area. It is characterised by many, often conflicting, interests. It needs to be handled with a great deal of caution and sensitivity. Key stakeholders, particularly those service providers most likely to be impacted by these changes, have to be involved and, where possible, there should be agreement and consensus on the most appropriate strategies to implement the amendments thought appropriate.
There are various ways to achieve the intended improvements in the Health and Community Services Commission operations. Not all require legislative amendments. In some instances there are operational policies or strategies that can effectively improve the effectiveness of the commission. There are developments on the national arena that impact on the commission and, in some instances, we have progressed with the development of complementary legislation which will better provide the desired support and protection for clients than what is possible under this legislation. The new Public and Environmental Health, and Medicines and Poisons legislation, are examples of this work and I intend to bring these bills forward to parliament in the months ahead.
There are a few areas of the current act which have proven to be contentious with key stakeholders and a consensus position has not been reached. These issues remain under active investigation as we seek to develop a suitable outcome. I intend for this work to be finalised in the very near future and a comprehensive overhaul of the act prepared for consultation and debate.
The opposition’s bill consists of three new powers for the commission:
1. Matters to be investigated on commissioner’s own initiative. The opposition bill proposes the commissioner have a power to investigate matters in the absence of a complaint or a reference from the Legislative Assembly. This power is not presently available in the act.
Similar legislation in other jurisdictions shows there are different models for this power. Care must be taken to ensure this power does not turn the commissioner’s role more towards one of an advocate for clients, rather than an independent arbitrator of issues between providers and consumers. While agreeing an advocate’s role is important, there are other more appropriate ways for this to be achieved rather than by mixing it with a complaints investigation and resolution role.
The proposed amendments widen the powers of the commissioner to include investigation of ‘any matter relating to a health service or community service’. The suggested formulation is very wide and government believes it would benefit from further definition before it could be successfully introduced in the Northern Territory.
Many of the issues raised by the member for Greatorex may be better addressed through establishment of an independent community visitor or advocate for service users, as we have in the area of mental health services. With this role being provided independently, the complaints commissioner may be less likely to present as an advocate for service users and more likely to have a balanced image, achieving credibility with providers and users alike.
The bill proposes changes to the act to cover a situation where ‘a report as mentioned in section 65(4) contains recommendations for action by a person other than by a provider’. The proposed and related amendments appear to be designed to implement two significant changes: a power to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in reports by the commissioner, and a power to make recommendations for action by a person who would not be classified as a provider under the act.
There is a lack of agreement amongst stakeholders about how best to deal with situations with unregistered practitioners and which legislation is most effective. The proposed amendments are a crude method of expanding to unregistered providers. If the intent were to include recommendations to unregistered providers, then it would be better to make that explicit rather than relying upon interpretation of the proposed section 65(4).
While the principle of protecting users from unsafe, alternative or fraudulent services is admirable, mechanisms for achieving this will be more effective through consumer protection or public health legislation, avoiding the overlapping of jurisdictions and duplication of litigation resources.
The proposed bill inserts new provisions in the act which enable the commissioner to require a provider, or non-provider, to report on implementation of recommendations and to further investigate and make further reports to the minister. The effect of this amendment is to enable the commissioner to further investigate any matter where a provider and a non-provider have not followed recommendations to the satisfaction of the commissioner.
It could be argued that this would create a determinative power for the commission and would inadvertently change it from a recommendatory entity to a determinative entity. Such a change requires a considered policy decision. It should not be delivered unintentionally through a series of incremental changes such as these amendments, which could result in the evolution of a quite different entity.
The initial act was designed around a recommendatory entity with limited powers and an appropriate set of checks and balances for these powers. Adding powers without due consideration of the checks and balances which may be required is a reckless, potentially dangerous practice leading to inevitable problems for those who come under the act and those who have to administer it. The preferred option is to retain one of the strengths of the commission - that is, the commission as a recommendatory body - and not dramatically change its role and function without due process.
This government does not develop such legislation in isolation. It will not consider legislative changes such as this without consulting the individuals and organisations most affected by its provisions. To this end, my department is responsible for preparing draft amendments for consideration and comment by key stakeholders: health and community service professional organisations, registration bodies, services providers and their associations, etcetera. I also expect there will be opportunity for members of the public to comment. The responses and suggestions provided by these stakeholders will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into final, comprehensive amendments which I will bring forward to put before this body.
Madam Speaker, the opposition’s bill is not supported by the government as it cannot be considered in harmony with the current intent or framework of the act. It is a piecemeal, ad hoc approach to important legislation which should only be amended following comprehensive consideration of all the issues. It requires a substantial consultative process to be undertaken, and we need to consider the best ways to achieve the intended results in light of other current legislation, national directions, and development of complementary functions.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have noticed the time. Will we shut this down at 9 pm and continue next week? Is that how it works?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm, if you wish, you can have up to 10 minutes extension. That is for you, though. Do you want to keep talking until 9 o’clock?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I will make a few remarks now and continue next week.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious the government was not going to support this bill. The minister said he would bring in his own thoughtful amendments. I ask the minister to speak to the member for Johnston and previous Health ministers, including the members for Nightcliff and Stuart, who are well aware of a review conducted in 2003 and handed to the then minister, the member for Nightcliff in April 2004. This was a review of the act, including these amendments, to give own motion powers to the Health Complaints Commissioner.
Minister, are you going through the process once again, when you have all the information somewhere on the fifth floor? Someone has it. The member for Johnston, when he was Health minister, was well aware of it. He told the Health Complaints Commissioner at the time he would look into this. He did nothing, and has moved from that position.
It is a shame we are going to go through this again. How long will take? Whatever comes forward after the consultation and reviews will be a carbon copy of the bill we have put forward. It is disappointing and once again goes to the heart of this government’s attitude and the culture of cover up - too much to hide, not interested in being open and transparent, not interested in protecting the rights of Territorians.
We have seen it before with the CCTV cameras in the children’s ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. The commissioner was unable to follow that through and, as a result, they were not put in place in the appropriate time frame. Only after relentless questioning from this side of the House did the then minister follow that through.
Madam Speaker, I notice it is 9 pm. I will save these remarks and continue this speech at the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Greatorex. Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will complete this item of business before the Chair. I put the question that the Assembly does now adjourn and any item of business before the Chair stands adjourned to the next General Business Day.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, all in the Northern Territory and this House have been saddened by the enormous floods affecting Pakistan - the greatest natural disaster in that country’s history. Great sympathy has gone to our Pakistani community in Darwin at a time of great need and great tragedy in that country.
Today, I announced the Territory government would provide $50 000 to kick start the Red Cross appeal for victims of the floods on behalf of all Territorians, and I thank the member for Brennan for his message of support today. I really do thank you, Peter; this issue goes beyond politics and we know at times of need Territorians dig deep. It is appropriate, on behalf of all Territorians, to commit this money to kick start the appeal. The massive floods in Pakistan have affected around 14 million people, and it was only fitting we offer our support.
Our diverse multicultural community is what makes this Territory great, and around 400 Pakistani nationals call the Territory home. The community is active, with many members on various cultural and religious associations. Following the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, the Northern Territory community donated $37 000 through fund raising activities.
The current disaster, caused by monsoon rains forecast to continue well into August, has been described as the worst in the area for 80 years. Startling facts show the disaster being of epic proportions. For example, the Indus River in Sindh Province, of which Karachi is the capital, is likely to attain and I quote: ‘a very high to exceptionally high flood ranging from 600 000 cubic feet per second to 800 000 cubic feet per second’. Shelter for over two million homeless people is the most urgent need, as people affected by the floods include those whose villages were wiped out and others who were evacuated or injured. Cotton, rice, sugar cane and maize crops have been damaged, fruit orchards have been washed away, and the destruction of roads, bridges and towns has set Pakistan’s economic development back by years.
It is only fitting, as fellow human beings showing compassion, our government, on behalf of all Territorians, provides support for the estimated 14 million people affected by this disaster. Funds donated by the Territory government will help international Red Cross aid workers and the Pakistani affiliate, the Red Crescent, help victims trace missing family members, provide medical treatment, and have access to clean water, food and shelter.
Five Australian Red Cross aid workers are on the ground assisting with the organisation’s relief efforts. We commend them on their efforts and commitment to the people of Pakistan. I urge all Territorians to dig deep.
At the press conference held today with Ghulam Abbas, President of the Pakistani community in Darwin, and Sharon Mulholland, Executive Director of Red Cross, we urged Territorians to have a morning tea in their workplace, or a raffle, and donate a gold coin or whatever they can, and school students throughout the Northern Territory to hold a fund raising event to support this relief campaign. I know Territorians will dig deep.
From discussions with Mr Abbas today, I am pleased to inform the Assembly no one in the Pakistani community has missing relatives; however they are concerned for their country and their people in Pakistan. This evening, I am unaware of any Territory family or resident of our Pakistani community having direct family members affected.
I also commend Sharon Mulholland and the team at Red Cross in the Northern Territory. They do a magnificent job. Talking to Sharon today, it seems fund raising efforts are becoming more frequent as the extent of natural disasters around the world becomes more extensive and damaging and, on numerous occasions over the last few years, the Red Cross has coordinated significant fund raising efforts across the Northern Territory to support many people around the world severely affected by natural disasters.
To the Pakistani community tonight, everyone in this Assembly is thinking of you and we will all be doing our best, as local members, to support the fund raising effort. Tonight our sympathies go to the Pakistani nation, our community in the Northern Territory, and we will do everything we can to help.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak tonight on another terrific event happening in Katherine. The Dry Season is a busy time in Katherine, and August is the traditional time for the Katherine Festival.
Starting last weekend was the Annual Red Cross Fete. As usual, the event was very well attended with craft on sale, some of our seniors’ famous scones with jam and cream, excellent entertainment and many stalls and activities. I acknowledge Jane Goodings and all her helpers for putting together such a great event, as it was last year.
On Saturday night, we had the Annual Katherine Prize. These awards comprise the Brian and Jeanette Lambert Art Acquisition Award, and the Dr Peter and Kathleen Short Craft Acquisition Award, together with other awards which were hosted by the Katherine Town Council and held on the lawns of the Civic Centre. All entries in the art and craft categories impressed the judge, Janice McEwen, who is the director of Top End Arts and publisher of the NT entertainment guide Off the Leash. I extend my thanks to Janice for coming to Katherine. She is a person in the artistic world of note, and her attendance in Katherine and her expertise in helping judge those awards was very much appreciated.
An outstanding oil painting titled In Awe, In Wonder by Darwin artist Gerald James Grady was the winner of the Brian and Jeanette Lambert Art Acquisition Award. As with the art pieces entered into the Katherine Prize, Ms McEwen was equally impressed with the quality of the craft entries. Long-term Katherine resident, Kathleen Donald was the 2010 Dr Peter and Kathleen Short Craft Acquisition Award winner with her beautiful necklace and earrings set titled Jewellery in Dry Season’s Colours. It really was an impressive set of jewellery - very simple, pleasing to the eye, and beautiful.
Not surprising was the fact our judge on the night felt the need to nominate a number of commendations for other outstanding works of art and craft. In the Art Highly Commended was Winsome Jobling for Gamba, a very interesting series of pieces of paper made from gamba grass. Another highly commended was Christine Fox for Melaleuca Leucadendra which I thought was an exceptional painting and could have won on the night. The skill which goes into some of those paintings is exceptional, and this one was so good you could easily have mistaken it for a photograph. Also an award winner for highly commended was Faith Thompson Nelson for the work Night Time Dreaming, and Jan Milner Cole for Kakadu in the Wet.
In the Commended range, Carolyn Bursa for her piece titled There’s Always a Journey. Also, Kit McNeill for her painting Looking out from Oenpelli. I acknowledge Kit is the wife of our esteemed and respected Clerk of the House. Well done, Kit.
The Craft Highly Commended awards went to Kirsty Bartlett for Golden Orb, which was another stunning necklace, and Kerryn Taylor for Katherine Gorge Shoes, a quilted pair of shoes with a Katherine Gorge design. It was quite exceptional to see the talent, the craft, and the amount of time which goes into it. Also in Craft Highly Commended were several Danny Murphy pots. They were called Salmon Gum and Ghost Gum - two amazing clay pots. If you could picture a salmon gum and beside it a ghost gum, the finish on those trees was captured in the finish on these pots. Again, exceptional quality and beautiful pieces of work.
On the night we also had the Somerville Art and Craft Youth Awards. I acknowledge the Somerville organisation, which does an outstanding job in Katherine, and is very quick to become involved in the community and support many community events.
In the 13 to 14 years class the winner of the Somerville Art and Craft Youth Award was Taylah Locke for her Purple Quilt and Pillow. In the Highly Commended range were Ami Bilske and Sasha Osterburg. In the 15 to 16 years group the winner was Georgia Knight. Georgia painted two very interesting pieces which were put together and titled Ireland Landscapes. Highly Commended was Sasha Osterburg; Commended were Dylan Tapp, Jess Wallace and Sekari Butler. In the 17 to 18 years class, the winner was Laurie Barrett for Butterfly Falls, and in the Highly Commended range, Charley Anning who had two works, and Ethan Woods. Commended were Travis Braun and Silas Aureell.
Renowned demographer, Bernard Salt, has been quoted as saying - I apologise if I do not get this 100% right: ‘The health of the community can be measured by the health and strength of the artistic sector in the community’. I believe him. I feel very comfortable inferring the Katherine community is very healthy. I am, and remain, impressed at the quality of the artistic pursuits from members of the Katherine community, made even more impressive when you consider we are such a small town.
I congratulate not only the winners and those commended for their works, but everyone who exhibited and put so much effort into the event to make it so successful. Of course, a big thanks to the Katherine Town Council and others who made the event possible.
That is not all as far as the Katherine Festival goes. Over the next 10 days or so we will see the Katherine River fishing competition, another event sponsored by Somerville, and the Triple 000 concert, which will be an interesting night. It is a gathering of all the emergency services in a fundraising ball. There will be many types of entertainment on the night put together as performances and skits by those attending. Along with several other people, I have offered myself to be auctioned as a slave for the night to raise money for the charitable organisations. I look forward to reporting next week on the success of that evening, although I reserve the right not to if I do not receive enough bids for my services as a slave - I would not want to be embarrassed.
On top of that, we have the Teddy Bears Picnic, the Fist Full of Films, La Boheme opera and Mandinka Sound Concert, with the main event to be held on the evening of 21 August, the grand finale of the two week festival.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Dry Season is a great time to be in the Northern Territory, and that is no less evident than in Katherine when the Katherine Festival is on.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk briefly about a great event I attended in Alice Springs on Saturday night, the Desert Sports Foundation Dinner and Fundraiser held at the Alice Springs Memorial Club. The Desert Sports Foundation is the idea of Murray Stewart, a local Alice Springs identity well known to many members. Murray is not only an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council, he is also a world-renowned sportsman. In fact, I believe he still holds a world record for blind athletes in the 70 m event.
The idea of the sports foundation is to raise money for local Alice Springs youth to participate in elite-level sports events. As a parent, and as minister for Sport, I am fully aware of the cost incurred by families in Alice Springs and some of our remote communities. The foundation hopes to help young athletes aspire to greater things and perhaps one day realise their dreams – it is a great idea.
The fundraiser was well attended by many locals in Alice Springs, including business people. John Boyle, another world-renowned athlete for basketball and also from Alice Springs was the Master of Ceremonies for the night and did a fantastic job. Ted Egan, the former Administrator and great historian of Territory sports, was guest speaker. He spoke passionately about role models and the work he had done over many years with some great Territory icons, in particular Billy Abala.
The second part of the night was to announce the first 10 inductees from Alice Springs to the Hall of Fame. My speech that night was around the first 10 inductees being role models for the community, and their family, over many years. Those two words come to mind when you think about some of the inductees into the Hall of Fame.
I acknowledge Rani Marshall, daughter of Glen Marshall, who attends Ross Park Primary School. She was the winner of the logo for the Desert Sports Foundation. It was a great honour to present her with her winning certificate. I mentioned in 50 years time people will still be attending dinners for the Sports Foundation and her logo will be there. It was a proud moment for her parents, and for her to win the competition.
I acknowledge John and Jenny Matteucci, local business people who donated six items of sports memorabilia to the foundation, which on the night raised over $3000. A big thanks to John and Jenny for their donation. I also acknowledge the other sponsors and donors to a worthy foundation.
The selection panel for the Hall of Fame consisted of Dick Kimber; Mary Meldrum; Damien Ryan, Mayor of Alice Springs; Steve Menzies; Pat Miller, Deputy of the Administrator; and Graham Ross. It was a very difficult job; anyone put in a position to determine a hall of fame for sports in Central Australia would be up for a tough task. There were many nominees, and I congratulate all nominees for the 10 spots. You cannot dispute those who became the 10 inaugural members of the Alice Springs Hall of Fame. They are icons and heroes of Alice Springs and Central Australia.
I will name the 10 inductees in no particular order:
Sam Calder: there has been a Calder Shield in cricket in the Northern Territory; we had a Condolence Motion in the House this year for Sam, who recently passed away. His daughter, Di Calder, represented him.
Maureen Trindle, someone close to me - my mother-in-law – and an icon in softball, hockey and basketball in Alice Springs.
Pat Gallagher, an icon in netball and hockey.
Marg and Reg Harris were both inducted for obvious reasons. It was great to talk to Marg; she is still very switched on and has a great memory of the early days in Alice Springs.
Ivy Hampton, a close relative, was world champion in darts in the 1970s and 1980s when it was a pretty tough sport. To get to the highest level of world champion is a great achievement. She was represented by her daughter, Jenny.
Joan Higgins, represented by her daughter, Sue Ryde.
Donna-Lee Patrick played 40-odd tests for Australia in hockey, and has had a fantastic career. Unfortunately it was cut short by a knee injury.
Malcolm Hill for his achievements in cycling.
Neville Connor for his contribution in many sports, and as a renowned jockey, and has done much for the turf club in Alice Springs.
James Swan, who had eight or nine Australian titles and reached the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games.
So, 10 inductees, all worthy recipients, and family members were extremely proud of their achievements.
I thank Murray Stewart for the concept of the sports foundation; I am sure it will grow. A big congratulations to all who were inducted into the Hall of Fame.
I also rise tonight to adjourn on the importance of our job in parliament, and how what we do impacts on the lives of Territorians. I was astounded listening to the outburst from the member for Greatorex yesterday during the debate on the Territory’s construction industry. It makes me wonder how serious the member for Greatorex is about his job, and how long he will continue.
He might have used the opportunity to highlight some of the great projects being undertaken by the construction industry in Central Australia, including building of the new Alice Springs accommodation park by Sitzler Bros; building new school facilities such as the new OLSH hall in his electorate of Greatorex; Probuild’s involvement in the new aquatic centre; the new houses being built on town camps providing work for local contactors; or the close to 300 dwellings being privately developed in Alice Springs and approved by the Development Consent Authority.
Instead we heard the extraordinary admission from the member for Greatorex about how he resents sitting in parliament; he would much rather spend time with his family or out bush enjoying the scenery.
I do not enjoy being away from my family for extended periods of time either; it is what we sign up for when we are elected to represent the people of the Northern Territory, whether in government or in opposition. We sit in this House for 38 days a year. That is not a huge demand, however, the work we do is very important. It affects the lives of Territorians, and we all have a vital role to play representing our constituents in parliament where the big decisions are made.
It is extraordinary to say because you are in opposition you are wasting your time here. The member for Greatorex said he had had a gutful, and he despised being here. I hope he tells his constituents in Greatorex that, and tells them how long he is going to stick at the job he despises.
The member for Greatorex is often missing in action when it comes to Central Australia; it is supposed to be his shadow portfolio. During the budget debate about Central Australia this member said nothing, and he did ask one question about Central Australian issues or the portfolio during estimates. Now we have the admission that parliament is a waste of time.
He has a safe seat and takes this for granted. The only time this member is wasting is that of the people of Greatorex, who deserve better.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on Thursday, 22 July, I attended, at the invitation of Yambirrpa School Council, a special graduation ceremony at Yirrkala CEC for the Year 12 graduates of 2009, as well as the Indigenous education workers from Yirrkala homelands schools, who were graduating from Batchelor College with their certificates. Also, on the day, were many men and women, employees of organisations such as Dhimurru, Laynhapuy Homelands and Department of Education and Training, receiving their certificates in spoken and written English. If we could see as many non-Indigenous graduating with certificates in spoken and written Yolngu Matha it would be a fine day for us all.
The event was MC’d by Waylu Wunungmurra, the senior cultural advisor at Yirrkala CEC, and the welcome to country was delivered by traditional owner, Laklak Marika, who lives at Gutjangan on Bremer Island. Representing DET were Vicki Bayliss and Hylton Hayes, with Vicki presenting certificates to the Year 12s, and representing Batchelor was Professor Claire Kilgariff, who presented certificates and was ably supported by tutor Helen Clarke.
My congratulations go to those Year 12 students who graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. They include Bamurungu Munungurr, Dhamarrarr Munungurr and Yilki Guyula and the Indigenous education graduates were Yurraynga Yunupingu, Lombinga Munungurr and Birritpirrit Dhamarrandji.
The number of people who attended the graduation ceremony to join in the celebration of the achievements of these people was a clear sign of the collective community pride. Education, as we all know, is an important step; it is the first step towards a strong future and towards job for all people, Ngapaki and Yolngu, but and especially for young people.
Katrina Hudson, who taught the three Year 12 students at Yirrkala CEC, outlined in her speech the enormous challenges which these young people face in mainstream education, not the least of which are language and cultural challenges, family illness, family deaths and bereavement, and cultural obligations.
I pay additional tribute to Yilki, who was also acknowledged as the top Indigenous student in the Northern Territory from a remote area. She was recognised for this in a special celebration in the Northern Territory Parliament House great hall in February. Well done to Yilki; it is a considerable achievement and one she should be rightly proud of.
Indigenous education workers have an enormous role to play in homeland communities and homeland learning centres - a role which is extremely important in supporting young people’s education and providing a path to the future and to employment. Indigenous education workers are an important - indeed a vital - part of a team which works hard alongside non-Indigenous teachers to deliver the best possible outcomes for children. Homelands are strong places where people are healthy and culture is strong and respected, and Ngapaki, or non-Indigenous teachers, could not do their job without them.
I also acknowledge the contribution of Leon White who tutors the Batchelor students. A teacher himself and a former principal of Yirrkala CEC, he has more than 30 years experience and is a long-term resident of Yirrkala. Leon is well known for his passion for Indigenous education, and would never forgive me if I did not put on the record his passion and advocacy for bilingual education as well.
Indigenous education workers are excellent role models for students, family, and community as they play an important role in continuing to develop and support the community needs and aspirations of Yolngu people.
The 2010 Nhulunbuy Debutante Ball was held on Saturday, 31 July 2010 at Nhulunbuy Town Hall. It occurs every second year, and does not happen without much hard work from fundraising through to dedicated dance lessons.
Before I list the young women and men involved in this year’s debutante ball, I acknowledge up-front those who put in so much time and effort to make it happen.
Debbie Hanks, without whom I am sure the event would not happen, takes on the prime role of coordinator of the event year after year, such that it is known quite rightly as ‘Deb’s Ball. Blue Douglas and Evelyn McSherry for many years have taken on the role of chief dance instructors and on the night look after all the sound and lighting. Steve and Deanne Castelli also support the hours of dancing lessons and fundraising and have done for many years, with their sons and daughters being involved in previous years. Cheryl Smith and Coleen Owen also do not have children involved in the ball but give up their time to plan, fundraise and assist on the night. Sally Putland, Matron of Honour, gave up much of her time to assist with organising. It was a special night for Sally seeing the youngest of her four children, Sam, participate in the Deb Ball. Her own mum, Ann Thurston, had made the journey to Gove for the night to see her grandson, and granddaughter, Emma, as Maid of Honour.
There was also a group of parents, Debbie Osborne, Sharee Boyd, Libby Baulch, Judy Davidson and Tracey Kelly, who were part of the organising committee. Special thanks to Pat Ellis who graciously accepted the role of MC for the evening and carried out his official duties admirably, as always. Pat and his wife, Wendy, made the trip from Yilpara Homeland where Pat is Principal of the Baniyala Garangali School. Pat and Wendy knew many of the young women making their debut, along with their partners, having taught many of them at Nhulunbuy Primary School and preschool.
It was a special night for me, having known many of the debs and their partners since they were babies and watched them grow through their years at childcare, preschool, primary school and high school.
In the absence of Northern Territory Administrator, Tom Pauling, I was delighted to have the 14 stunningly beautiful debutantes - all students in either Year 11 or 12 at Nhulunbuy High School - and their handsome, dashing partners presented to me. They were: Chloe Aitchison and Brandon Peckham; Cassie Bausch and Wayne Vearncombe; Jordynne Boyd and Jake Edwards; Jess Cunningham and Sam Putland; Amy Fullard and Joe Nash; Danielle Gindl and Michael Mayer; Tess Hutchinson and Harry Lines; Taylah Keeley and Luke Barrett; Ashley Lenane and Taylor Dennerley; Taylah-Jayne Lewis and Mark Leota; Mariah McGill and Rhys Mulholland; Polly Nash and Cameron Eley; Emily Osborne and Keegan Kelly; and Abby Pollard and Nathan Reid.
Also presented to me were: Matron of Honour, Sally Putland; and Maids of Honour, Emma Putland and Brinkley Dennerley. Particularly delightful was beautiful Flower Girl, little Lilly Osborne and handsome Page Boy, Albert Fullard who, mum Sue told me the following day, eventually got to bed after 2 am having found his second wind.
It was a fantastic night and I extend my congratulations to all who were involved with the Deb Ball, and look forward to the Deb Ball in 2012.
As we all know, August is Seniors Month in the Territory, and several events will be held in Nhulunbuy to mark the occasion and acknowledge and celebrate the achievements and contributions of seniors in our community.
Thanks to Nhulunbuy Over Threes, who are putting on a picnic in the park on Monday, 23 August. A morning tea, hot drinks, and ice creams for the kids will be provided and, as local member, I am happily sponsoring prizes for the lucky door, best yarn or tale, and best paper folded aeroplane. Well done to Cassie McIlree, Secretary of Over Threes, who has led this idea and event, and I know will be well supported by all other families associated with Over Threes.
Well done also to Lee Peters, a long-term Gove resident and avid golfer who has put her hand up to organise a four person, nine hole Ambrose to celebrate Seniors Month. The purple and blue jacket day will be held on Sunday, 22 August at Gove Country Golf Club and promises to be a great event.
Both these events are receiving funding from the Northern Territory government for Seniors Month thanks to Cassie and Lee, who went to the trouble of putting in an application and planned these special events for our senior citizens.
I attended with the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon last Saturday, 7 August, the official opening of the Nhulunbuy Christian School library under the BER program. What a wonderful morning it was and what a spectacular building has been gifted to the Nhulunbuy Christian School community. It is much more than a library, and I will be speaking further about the Christian School library in this House as part of the debate on Building the Education Revolution and its success in delivering infrastructure to our schools, as well as, of course, keeping people in jobs.
The opening ceremony included a warm welcome from Principal Steve Venour, the National Anthem led by Josh McKeogh, with students from Year 5 and Transition, and was followed by the ribbon cutting. School captains Ashleigh Baker and Jack Tracy delivered speeches offering their thanks on behalf of students, and this was followed by poem readings from Darcy Terpstra and Joshua Lowe in Year 2, and Emily Giles and Megan Donovan in Year 5. Their poems were excellent original works highlighting what their new library meant to them.
Council Chair Malcolm Farnsworth also spoke and offered a prayer, followed by the school song, which was written a few years ago by parents Lily Delaguila and Sharon Mason, and was beautifully performed by Josh McKeogh and Chayse Aston, accompanied by Year 5 and Transition students.
There was the cutting of a very special cake and then the doors of the library were thrown open for all to have a wander through. There were displays of student work within the library and some beautiful student artwork adorning the walls of the library, produced under supervision of art teacher, Kylie Farnsworth.
To top off what was a wonderful morning, a morning tea was generously provided. Many people celebrated the official opening of a fantastic building gifted to Nhulunbuy Christian School by the federal government. With your leave, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table for the record the program which goes with that opening.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a great long-term resident who epitomises the survival of a close-knit family and also of a small family business.
On Saturday, 26 June 2010 at the Cyprus Community Hall, Kyriacos Savvas, together with 200 family members and close friends, celebrated his 90th birthday. I count myself as being fortunate to be invited to such a very special occasion with my wife, Elizabeth.
Kyriacos’s brother and sister-in-law, Omiros and Anna Savvas and Ploutou’s cousins, Haralambos and Nina Varnava, flew from Brisbane for the occasion, and some of Kyriacos’ lifelong friends, Harry Patsalou, Barny Kyriacou, Andreas Karaolias and Michael Kosta, were in attendance to help him enjoy the occasion as well as reminisce about their lives in Darwin from the 1950s until now.
Kyriacos Savvas was born in Fterikoudi, Cyprus, on 26 June 1920. He was the eldest of five brothers, including a set of twins, and two sisters. At the age of 14, he left school to help support his family.
In 1948, one of the twin brothers, John, left Cyprus by plane and, after three days, arrived in Darwin looking for work. There seemed to be plenty of opportunity so he wrote to his brother, Kyriacos, and invited him to join him, which he did in 1949. Prior to the construction of the old post office the site was occupied by a collection of tin sheds, from one of which the Savvas brothers ran a family restaurant. They provided a very simple menu of steak and eggs and fish and chips. Kyriacos worked around the clock for 6 10s a week. He still remembers the large mosquitoes in the days before flywire.
Kyriacos left the food business within 12 months and bought a shoe repair business for 300 with a 3 m frontage located about where Rush Clothing Store is today in Smith Street. By 1955, he was well established in the shoe business. Savvas Footwear is Darwin’s sole family shoe business.
By family arrangement and after an exchange of photographs he courted and married Ploutou, who travelled to Darwin with her friend, Koula Patsalou. In the days before the Greek Church many Greeks and Cypriots were married in the Church of England. Kyriacos and his wife had known each other in their village in the mountains outside Nicosia. They settled into their new country with the arrival of Andros in 1957, Savvas in 1959, Sophia in 1961, Mario in 1963 and the twins, John and George, in 1969. All births were delivered by the well known Dr Doug Mounsey - a family tradition.
In 1960, the family bought a block in the new shopping centre at Nightcliff and, in 1963, opened their second shoe shop. Ploutou mixed her household duties with the retail activities in the shop, and the children helped in the shoe trade as they grew up.
In 1954, Kyriacos had purchased a block of land in Smith Street for 300. With the assistance of a subcontractor, he built the family home which stayed intact until Cyclone Tracy blew most of Darwin away. Ploutou and the children were evacuated to a family in Toowoomba while Kyriacos battled on to restore the family’s livelihood. In 2003, Mr Savvas sold the property in Smith Street and moved into his new residence in McMaster Crescent, Parap Grove.
Today their children have outgrown their years at Larrakeyah Primary and Darwin High School and for some of the family the hectic days of the soccer competition have been exchanged for a more leisurely attendance at the clay target gun club. Savvas, John and Sophia work in the shoe shop in what is a fiercely competitive retail war. Mario works as an excavator with a Greek family, and George works as a public servant. The Savvas family are philosophical about their retail position, and know enough secrets of the trade to ensure their continued success.
Kyriacos and Ploutou have made an important contribution to the Darwin community. They grieve for their son, Andros, but have eight grandchildren. They are immensely proud of their children.
I, too, pay my respects to the family who battled through thick and thin, who worked very hard and have contributed to the social and economic life of Darwin. It was great to be with the Savvas family to celebrate the birthday of their patriarch, Kyriacos Savvas.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016