2011-11-24
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise honourable members of the death on 18 October 2011 of Dr George Chaloupka OAM. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of many family and friends of the late Dr George Chaloupka.
In particular, I acknowledge the widow of Dr Chaloupka, Ms Pina Guiliani; his son and daughter-in-law, Mr Roman Maher and Ms Barbara Cameron; his son-in-law, Mr Liam Maher; his grandson, Mr Roman Maher; and brother-in-law, Mr Renzo Guiliani. There are many other friends and family here. We have apologies from his daughter, Ms Evelyn Chaloupka, who is in Perth and I believe is listening to this broadcast over the Internet; Mr Ruben Maher, the grandson of the late George Chaloupka, who is currently studying in Adelaide; and Ms Pearl Chaloupka, the daughter of the late George Chaloupka.
Honourable members, I advise that at the end of the condolence motion, I will ask you to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) express its condolences at the passing of Dr George Chaloupka OAM, a highly-respected Territorian, an internationally recognised rock art researcher who contributed significantly to the creation of Kakadu National Park and to the better understanding of Aboriginal culture; and
This is a sad occasion for this Chamber and for the Northern Territory. For the information of family members, I was advised of George’s passing by a good friend and staff member, Jamie Gallacher, who called me and advised me of the loss. I immediately contacted the member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, and we quickly decided we would offer the state funeral and this condolence motion to the family as a sign of respect for the amazing contribution George made to the Northern Territory.
George was a highly-regarded and well-respected man in every sense of the word. He made many significant contributions to the Northern Territory during his 79 years. George will be remembered as the dedicated researcher who discovered thousands of previously unidentified rock art sites, mainly across Arnhem Land. He will be remembered for introducing Australia and the world to its inherent grandeur and heritage value. His work recognised the art on the sandstone as the world’s oldest existing record of human expression, created thousands of years before the first designs were painted on the torch-lit cave walls of France.
George has left behind a legacy that went far beyond the mysterious sandstone art galleries of Arnhem Land; a legacy that will continue to live on - the same way the legacy of the ancient rock art he discovered across the Territory lives on today.
On 4 November, George was honoured with a state funeral at the Christ Church Anglican Cathedral under the beautiful stained glass panel that he himself designed. I was honoured to be in attendance at the service. The service was reverent and dignified and, although it was an occasion of sorrow, it was an occasion to pay tribute to, and a celebration of, the life of an admired and truly endearing man. Former Northern Territory Administrator, Tom Pauling QC, presented a moving eulogy at the service and spoke eloquently about George. He shared stories and personal memories of the moments when George touched his life and the lives of many in the Territory. I acknowledge that Tom Pauling QC has agreed for me to quote today in parliament from the eulogy he presented at George’s state funeral:
To Pina and all the family and friends, a sincere condolence from me, as Chief Minister, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and, I am sure, everyone in this parliament. George was a remarkable man who has left a remarkable legacy.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Pina, family and friends, our condolences at the loss of a man who has left a legacy which will be there for years and years to come - an anthropologist arriving in Australia as a refugee in 1949, bringing stories with him, fleeing from communism in the then Czechoslovakia. Like many Australians, he brought to this land stories of experiences in other places. At that time, there would have been many who came from other places in Europe with memories of what had occurred in Europe to seek a new place. He represents those who came to this place, to Australia.
He settled in Western Australia and, of course, we have heard the wonderful story and the spirit of the time to go for a trip to the Olympics via Darwin from Perth, which says a great deal about the desire to see new things, to discover, and to learn. It also reminds me, in thinking of George, there are those of us who seek new landscapes, look, and find different things. Those of us who have been in the bush love looking around and seeing what we can see - what is around that corner, what is underneath that ledge, what the story is – we seek new landscapes. I imagine many of my friends - me included - have enjoyed exploring the bush and wondering what was around the next bend, under the ledge, and what happened here before when we see new landscapes. The striking aspect of this story is that not only did he seek new landscapes he also sought to see what was new and strove to see with new eyes so that he could understand. That is the legacy: the ability to look with new eyes, to interpret what he was seeing, and then help us to understand. That is a significant legacy.
He loved the Territory and is recognised as a great Territorian; a world-recognised authority on rock art. He reminds us that rock art, of itself, is not just something that is on rock that was painted and is interesting, but it tells a story of people and of our place. That, to me, is the significance of his contribution. We all send our friends to look at rock art when they visit Kakadu. They may see something new, but those who linger a little longer are able to gain insights and think a little more about what they have just seen. It helps connect us to what has gone before.
This is the significance of George’s activities and his pursuit of understanding and unlocking those lessons and stories for us to gain access to, and an understanding of, this wonderful place, and gives anyone who comes here a greater connection and insight into how wonderful, interesting, and important this place is. Ultimately, it is not about the rock art; it is about the people who live here and our capacity to understand and connect with one another.
We are here for a period of time, but these artworks signify a continuous story of over 20 000 years, which humbles one and causes one to reflect on what I am doing and what contribution I am making to that which is important. That is the nature of the legacy.
I sat at the funeral and saw the stark contrast in the faces of the people who were there. The Indigenous performers led the way in mourning. I was sitting beside the Ambassador of the Czech Republic with his little bow tie. The contrast between the two was extraordinary. Then we heard the New World Symphony No 9 in E Minor, by Dvořk, a famous Czech composer. The ideas conveyed in that symphony connect so well - a Czech composer; and a man who was an artist, who sought new landscapes and strove to see with new eyes to interpret for us. It was a very special occasion. It tells us the stories of people and that connection with people in other places reinforcing that we are all in this together.
Kakadu is an interesting place, with an interesting story and interesting art. But, it is much more than that. George was recognised as a world authority on rock art and given opportunities to assess prehistoric art in other places. He identified the striking similarities between prehistoric artwork in Europe and in Kakadu. He showed that that which is seen in Europe is largely centred on animals and magnificently portrayed, but the continuous layer upon layer of a story of 20 000 years in Kakadu makes this astonishingly and internationally significant. This drew world attention to our region, to the people who are represented in the art, and the story of which we are a part.
He made the connection between the quality and the nature of the art: the stories behind it - the Sistine Chapel, Borobodur in Java, the Louvre, the temple at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and the clay army in Xi’an, China. He recognised that instinct that all of us want to learn a little more about what really went on before. I grew up on the land. I always wanted to know what happened before we came along. Hunting for those signs - he has done it on our behalf and he has identified much and helped explain much. As an artist looking at art, he was able to gain particular insights. I am pleased to say I have friends who own artwork created by George. So, not only is it someone looking with new eyes, but it is the eyes of an artist being given the opportunity by the French government to visit caves in France to study that prehistoric artwork. In 2001, that gave George the opportunity to tell us the story of the connection between the people behind the art here in Kakadu, and in Europe. There were striking similarities and being interested in such things, I find that thrilling. It satisfies a curiosity, but not really, because it makes us more curious and we want to understand more.
The legacy that has been left is one which, as time passes, will be increasingly valued because it tells a story about us and it is, in fact, about us, and about the people who occupy this place. That artwork is a continuous representation of an unfolding story. If you are a botanist, it tells you stories about what has changed. If you are interested in the change in climate, it tells you that story as well, about the animals that were once here and are no longer; what has happened and the story behind that. It tells about the changes in the people, their lifestyles, and their thinking. We are just a part of that story.
George has made that contribution and reminded us that we are part of something significant. It is a significant legacy. He has gone but will not be forgotten. That story helps us to understand the place in which we live and, hopefully, to make our contribution as George made his magnificent contribution.
May he rest in peace. My condolences to Pina, his three children, and his family and friends.
Mr McCARTHY (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, to the family and friends of Dr George Chaloupka, it is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and all the wonderful staff there who were friends and colleagues.
Dr Chaloupka was a Curator Emeritus at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and, although I did not have the pleasure of knowing him personally, as the Minister for Arts and Museums, I will continue to be inspired by the legacy he has left as one of the great pioneers of rock art research in Australia. The rock paintings of the Arnhem Land Plateau and Kakadu National Park represent the world’s longest continuing art tradition, as well as the longest continuous record of human endeavour. It is thanks to Dr Chaloupka that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory collection records the most complex and extensive body of rock art from that region.
In a sign of the esteem in which he was held, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Foundation established the George Chaloupka Fellowship in 2009 to promote and support research and conservation of Aboriginal rock art located in the Arnhem Land plateau region in the Northern Territory. The $25 000 Fellowship allows an individual to more fully research the field of rock art across a number of areas, including the work of Dr Chaloupka, inspiring others to continue to research this field for more understanding of our ancient cultures.
In commemorating Dr Chaloupka today, I acknowledge the history and anecdotes provided by his colleagues from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
Like so many of us, George came to the Territory on an adventure and made this great place his home. He settled in Darwin in 1956 and worked as a government hydrologist, assessing the stream flows of Northern Territory rivers. It was through this work, investigating river and watercourse systems, that George saw his first Aboriginal rock painting at the East Alligator River, and what a time that must have been. In his own words: ‘I looked up in the ceiling and I was mesmerised by a spell that has never left me’.
He began recording rock art in 1958 while on hydro trips to document river systems in Arnhem Land. In 1973, George was employed by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in a five-year position funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. George was appointed as Field Anthropologist and Curator of Rock Art at that time. He was able to focus on rock art as full-time work, creating the opportunity to seek out the traditional owners of the land on which the rock art was located. He was able to learn from them which clan group had painted the art and what traditions were associated with such work.
George developed an understanding of the traditional clan estates and the extent of their territories, about the Dreaming sites in the areas, the art and interconnectivity of each part of the whole. Over decades, he recorded more than 2000 rock art sites. Some sites contain a single figure; others are 300 m long with thousands of figures. They were documented along with methodical recordkeeping of the ethnographic life of the traditional owners. His strong connection with the people of the land and passion for art opened up this amazing cultural tradition for future generations to be inspired by and learn from the ancient culture of the Territory’s Indigenous peoples.
His passion went far beyond the cliffs and shelters of Arnhem Land. George was involved in and worked to assist with the first successful Aboriginal land claim, resulting in the creation of Kakadu National Park, and what an incredible legacy that is for family.
He was the inaugural President of the Australian Rock Art Research Association. Dr George Chaloupka’s expertise and contribution to research were widely recognised during his long and distinguished career. His well-deserved accolades and appointments include: a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Pre-History in the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra; a Churchill Fellowship in 1983; and an Order of Australia Medal in 1990 for his services to Aboriginal art and culture. In 1998, George received a Doctor of Letters from the then Northern Territory University.
George retired in 1997 after 38 years of service, researching and cataloguing the NT’s collection of rock art sites. On death and dying, I am advised George said: ‘I want to carry on doing what I am doing. I wish there was a return ticket’.
I was fortunate enough to meet Dr George Chaloupka once at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory where he was observing an exhibition. I met him and spoke with him briefly. The feeling he left with me was he was a true gentleman, a learned person, and one of those people who inspires you with his wisdom.
My condolences on behalf of all the staff at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. May he rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, this morning I pay my condolences to Mr Chaloupka’s widow and to Roman. My family knew the Chaloupkas in the 1960s. My father worked with George Chaloupka in the water resources area for many years and I am sure they went out on trips to do water string testing. My father was not interested in rock art. He was an engineering type of fellow and very focused on engineering things, but we did socialise with the family. I can remember Roman, as do my brothers.
I remember as a young child in the 1960s going to exhibitions and paintings. I am not sure where they were held, but I remember being made to go to these exhibitions, look at paintings, and eat the cheese and whatever they had in those days. At one of the exhibitions, my parents must have bought a quite large George Chaloupka painting and it hung in our house for many years. I believe it was when he was going through the phase of painting horizontally and vertically. This painting hung in our house for a long time. We always talked about it and when we were children, we used to joke about it as well.
Cyclone Tracy came along, rattled the house, the painting fell off the wall, and the frame fell off the painting. After that, it was put into a back room, things grew on it, grew off it, and one day my mother said to me: ‘Do you want this George Chaloupka painting?’ and I said: ‘Oh yes, okay’, and took it to my house. It was on a piece of Masonite in those days and I left it at my house for some time before I thought: ‘I had better clean it up’. I took it to an art gallery and Brian Greenaway took all the spider poop off for me, took all the mould off, reframed it, and it was really quite spectacular. He rang me one day and said: ‘You had better pick up this painting because every time someone walks into the shop, they want to buy it. I have put a red dot on it to stop people asking me’. I quickly went to the shop and got the painting, which hangs on my wall today. It is quite an interesting painting and perhaps one day Roman might want to come out and look at it.
I pass my sympathies on to the family. On behalf of my mother, Noel Padgham, who knew the family for many years and, of course, to Roman and his sisters, condolences from my family and me.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak to this important motion about another great person whose contribution will live on long beyond us in this parliament. I was privileged to be invited by the family to say a few words at his funeral. I will read what I said:
To his many friends and families, my thoughts go out to you. To Pina, what a legacy he leaves and I know the love will stay. To some of those families I talked about who are here, who were also at the state funeral, and before that: the Aldersons, the Christophersens, and the Neidjie families; people who were very close to George. I also acknowledge Mr Peter Wellings who was very close to the Chaloupka family. When George was in palliative care because of Peter’s relationship with that family he kept us informed. My sympathies to all his family and friends.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, condolence motions always create mixed feelings where we are celebrating a life, but it is with a sense of loss. There are many things to celebrate; the passion to understand, the wisdom George brought to a culture that is 50 000 years old. He was an expert in rock art. He was so good that the French asked him to look at their prehistoric paintings at La Grotte Chauvet. It is one of those great Territory stories: a Czechoslovakian Territorian expert in Aboriginal art is invited to France.
George’s story is typical of many Territorians. In 1956, he was meant to be travelling through the Territory, and he stayed, and we are glad he stayed.
I met with George several times. From our conversations, my outstanding impression was his curiosity, and I could see what Dennis Schulz was talking about in his tribute to George. It was that curiosity that drove his passion for rock art and I love how Dennis captured it; he saw paintings layered across sandstone and it ignited his imagination and questioning of when they were painted, by whom, and what they meant.
Curiosity is one of the basic drivers of humanity. The need to seek knowledge has driven human exploration and we are here today celebrating the life of an explorer. George and his quest for knowledge will be missed. It is with knowledge and understanding that we make good decisions and George was responsible for some very good decisions: the establishment of Kakadu National Park, and the preservation of Koongarra.
George’s passion, his work, meant we changed the way people saw the Territory and how we saw ourselves. He was a big part of the Territory maturing as a place for debate and decisions. I believe his legacy will live on, and our thoughts and prayers are with Dr George Chaloupka’s family and friends. God bless.
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend my condolences to the family and friends.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all honourable members and guests to observe one minute’s silence.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this motion, and I invite family and friends and those people who are interested, and members, to a morning tea in the main hall.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 145 petitioners praying that the bushland proposed to be bulldozed in the suburb of Muirhead Breezes be protected as Muirhead Reserve. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr HENDERSON: I thought we were doing Kenbi first?
Madam SPEAKER: I understand it was changed, and on the latest Notice Paper, it certainly says the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I was advised of that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have only come in on the tail end of this. I got a note last night from the Whip, with a rather confused message, giving us the Kenbi Land Trust Bill and then the Electoral Bill. Then he sent me an e-mail saying, ‘No, sorry, I got that the wrong way around’. I hope I remember that correctly. I would have to go and check it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and the Notice Paper reflects that: it is the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.
Mr ELFERINK: If you like, I will double check what the Whip sent me, but I am pretty certain that is the case.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going on the Notice Paper, which was changed, I understand, this morning.
Mr HENDERSON: It is just the advisors for the Electoral Bill are not here, and so we can deal with Kenbi, or I do not know how long the Electoral Bill – I was told we were dealing with Kenbi this morning.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, can you please advise what your understanding is? I was advised and the Notice Paper indicates that the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Can I make a suggestion here. There are guests here for a condolence motion. How about we have a 10-minute break until the ringing of the bells and then we will come back?
Mr ELFERINK: For the record, Madam Speaker, what I received from the Whip last night was the Kenbi Land Trust Bill then the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. He then sent me a second e-mail saying the bills will happen the other way around.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. We will suspend until 11 am. The bells will ring at 11 am and we will return then.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister and those who provided briefings on this bill. Some of these amendments are complex matters; we were briefed particularly well and are grateful for that. We understand the primary purpose of the bill, and the bill contains a number of amendments which serve a reasonable purpose. Generally speaking, we can understand and accept the direction this bill intends to take us. However, there is one element that does concern the opposition and it is upon that I seek to elaborate.
Concerning matters of how our democracy operates, it comes down to the clarity of the decision and how that decision is countered and weighed. When we consider the item in clause 22, which has the effect of relaxing the formality provisions, it is this provision with which the opposition has difficulty. When we see standards around us declining, the results of our education enterprise not succeeding but slipping, and a number of standards around us going in the wrong direction, it is the opposition’s view that to relax formality around something as basic as a decision portrayed on a ballot paper is the wrong thing to do.
We should be raising standards and having higher expectations, rather than dropping the bar. It is that reason and the contents of the clause we find objectionable. This has the effect of dumbing-down the process at a time when all our education activities are around the capacity to read and understand. We want to ensure citizens who are voting recognise that every single item on that paper is a candidate and warrants a vote. In allowing informality to creep in, we dilute the importance of the decision a citizen is making and, for that reason, we cannot support that item and that element. Therefore, with all the benign aspects of this bill and the amendments contained therein because, essentially, it is relaxing the formality provisions, we cannot support that.
We need to raise standards, not diminish them. This reinforces and bolsters our objectives in education, to be able to read, write, and think, and ensure that, if there are four candidates on a piece of paper, each number and each mark on that paper indicates a decision you have made. To relax the formality increases the ambiguity and the possibility for interpretation. I believe it is important to raise the bar rather than lower it. There is the possibility of that which was once deemed to be an informal vote because it did not meet the required standard is now formal. We provide education and an expectation, and should maintain that expectation that citizens should be looking upwards rather than accommodating a lower standard. We need to reduce the incidence of that level of ambiguity and judgment of something that was perhaps not a complete or considered decision of a citizen to be deemed formal, because we have given a greater margin for interpretation. Because of the importance of voting, of the decision of citizens, which is the cornerstone of a democracy, it is on that cornerstone we will not compromise.
The object of education is to inform and empower, and if we are now going to move the bar downwards, we are heading in the wrong direction. On every front, wherever we can, we need to raise the bar, increase the standards, and raise the expectations. For that reason, the opposition has concerns. Maybe it is our conservative instinct. Maybe it is our recognition of the importance of individual decision-making that we have an expectation that citizens will make the well-informed and considered decision.
Madam Speaker, our main concern is that at the heart of this bill there is the capacity for interpretation and perhaps potential ambiguity. Essentially, the reduction of standards - notwithstanding there are some quite sensible amendments addressing a range of issues - causes us concern and, consequently, we do not provide our support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments on that section of the act. Overall, I support the bill. I have quite a few questions, so I presume we are going to committee stage. Of course, the Electoral Commissioner put forward these amendments taken up by the government. I am not sure if the whole of the Electoral Commissioner’s original submission was taken up, because we do not know the extent of that, but I imagine most of what he put forward has been inserted in this new bill.
I heard clearly what the member for Blain said, and he raised some valid points. I have looked at it from a different perspective. It is as if I am giving the Toyota, Ford, Holden perspective where there is another opinion, which for me is: I agree we should not be lowering the bar, but I see this as a clarification, I suppose, of judging votes where it might be judged the voter had an intention to vote down a certain path. Why I support this section is not because I want it supported and publicised. I see it as a rule that, when it comes to counting votes, the people counting these votes have a guideline as to whether they should judge votes as being formal or informal. If the government believes this section should be permitted, I would like to see a cranked-up education campaign promoting how we vote in the Northern Territory and a better understanding of what the preferential voting system is about.
I have always felt we do not do enough work in educating young people and older people about the type of voting system we have. If you talk to people about the preferential voting system, many do not understand it.
Chief Minister, as you lived in England for a fair time, you know they all love their first past the post. It is a very undemocratic process because it means a person with a low percentage of the vote can get in, even though 70% or 80% of the people do not want that person. We have a fair system, yet many people do not understand it, which is part of the reason you get this tick the box, put crosses, or even leave a square vacant.
If we allow these changes to the rules - which are changes to the interpretation of what is formal and what is informal – it should be trialled and the commissioner asked to report on the percentage of votes that would fit under this new amended section 94. The government should also give the Electoral Commissioner sufficient funds to improve the campaign to spread the word more efficiently.
The Electoral Commission has educational material and I am not, for one moment, saying they have not done anything about it. However, the Electoral Commissioner is saying he is concerned that some people’s intention to vote does not go down the normal path of 1, 2, 3; it goes down the path of 1, 2, blank or 1, 2, X, or whatever. We need to inform people that that is not the way to go.
If the government gives us a guarantee it is not going to go out tomorrow and tell everyone section 94 is the way to go, this is only being used internally for people who have to make a judgment over whether something is formal or informal, I can live with it. We need to balance that with a strong education campaign to overcome the issue the member for Blain rightly raised – that we should be looking for higher standards. The two can go together and we would hope we would not need to use section 94 any longer.
Perhaps the minister can tell us if we have a percentage of votes that would fit into section 94 we already know about. In the last election, was there a number of votes - was it so high that this amendment needed to come in? If there were only three or four votes out of 3500 where a person ticked the box instead of putting a number when there were only two candidates, we could ask if this is required. However, if the Electoral Commissioner was asking for this change, there were likely more than just a few people using this method.
I take into account that sometimes when people go into polling booths they are a little nervous, they have just had to go through all the people standing there with how-to-vote cards, and they probably do not want to be there. They hurriedly move into the box to fill in the numbers and, at times, I imagine, forget to fill the last box in: the ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, and a square that is vacant. Some of these things may not be so much about education; they simply might be an accident. I am prepared to go with this section, as I said, as long as this is not out there to be publicised; it is just there as a set of rules to guide those who are judging the vote.
I have some questions about electronic voting. I have some questions about mobile voting. It is interesting; I know one amendment to this act which was raised by the member for Braitling some years ago has not happened – when you are an Independent you can guarantee parties will not agree with you - regarding the disclosure of donations. The way in which the Independents have to do it is not the same way as the parties have to do it. If there was ever an inequality in the Electoral Act, that is it. The member for Braitling put forward a motion in this parliament, I think in the last sittings, and that was defeated 23:2. There are times when Independents feel they are not dealt with under the same rules as the parties. It would have been nice for the Electoral Commissioner to have put that particular amendment forward. It is not in this set of amendments. I thought it was a good time to raise it because it is an important change that needs to come.
The government’s debate against that was that we should align ourselves with the Commonwealth. There are many times when we tell the Commonwealth we do not want to align ourselves with them but, in this particular case, that was the Chief Minister’s argument.
I have a couple of other issues, not so much because I am necessarily opposed to what has been put forward. I would like to look at the definition of what materials are covered under the laws relating to electoral material. Part of the original discussion paper was about certain materials not having to have names and addresses on and some having to. I would like to see if we could get a clarification of that: what is regarded as requiring that, or is everything now required to have it - that was part of the discussion papers that came out.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support this legislation, but would like to discuss it more in committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, long before Christ walked the face of this planet, King Priam looked over the city walls and was presented a gift by King Agamemnon of the Greeks. He said: ‘Bring the horse in. Bring the horse into Troy and thank the Greeks for the gift’ ...
Mr Vatskalis: You have it wrong! You have it wrong again.
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever a Trojan horse being presented to this Troy …
Mr Henderson: Kon reckons you got that wrong!
Mr Vatskalis: I will lend you my history book …
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever – sorry?
Mr Vatskalis: I will lend you my history book to read the real story; you got it wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever a Trojan horse being wheeled into this city of Troy, it has to be this legislative instrument.
Madam Speaker, I would like to support most of what is in this bill. However, I am presented with a problem. I would like to support most of what is in this bill because there are elements of this bill which are sensible and attractive; for example, the ruling that a person who is an employee of the council is not eligible to sit on the council itself. What a good idea; otherwise, you end up with the situation you had in Hermannsburg a few years ago where the council CEO was also the council president. That was a conflict of interest which was not, essentially, acceptable under any real system of government.
However, unfortunately, the Greek soldiers in the belly of that horse are in clause 22. It is clause 22 which the government would argue is an attempt to clarify, or enable the Electoral Commission to determine, the intent of the voter. We talk about ticks and crosses and, if there are multiple boxes, a tick or a cross and then a 2 and a 3, leaving the last box blank. Is it too much to ask for a voter to count to 5? Is that really where we are lowering the bar to?
The other point is, I am not entirely satisfied that the idea of a cross where you have just two candidates is necessarily a sign of approval for the candidate next to which the cross appears. In my experience, a cross is an inherently negative sign. If I went to school and a teacher crossed something out or put a big red cross next to some work I had delivered, it was not because she was showing approval of my work – no, to the contrary - the teacher was clearly demonstrating they did not approve of the work and it was not what they wanted.
I hear the Chief Minister laugh, because as far as he is concerned, the electoral system of the Northern Territory is something he can bend and twist to his pleasure and to his political party’s advantage; and that is exactly what this is about.
There is an interesting article in Quadrant magazine by David Smith, called The Electoral Commission’s Referendum Lottery. I urge honourable members to read this. In essence, the article is about the advice given by the Electoral Commission to its scrutineers in relation to its booklet, Guidelines to Scrutineers. I will quote from the article at some length. To introduce my quote, the author of this article talks about the requirement under the national referendum legislation that a person writes the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the appropriate place on the paper they are given:
I pause here, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister was laughing at the suggestion a cross would be dealt with as a negative symbol. Well, the Electoral Commission at the federal level would be quite happy to discount it and deal with it as an informal.
Those are valid questions.
The member for Nelson suggested this was advanced by the Electoral Commission to the government. I do not know if that is the case or not. But even if it was suggested by the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner is saying to this House that this is a really good idea and ‘we urge you to support it’. We can guess at the intent of the voter by whether they leave ticks or crosses and boxes blank on particular types of ballot papers.
If we simply roll over on every occasion we get advice from a so-called expert, or even an expert, we are essentially saying to ourselves that we have become redundant as a thinking body. We are not redundant as a thinking body. We are the final arbiter as to what is and is not the law of the Northern Territory. I do not much mind what the Electoral Commissioner would like; what I do mind is what we consider a decent standard and common sense.
The problem I have with this is, if we just simply say the Electoral Commissioner is right and we should blindly follow his advice, then the tail has come to the point where it is thoroughly and utterly wagging the dog. Surely, we are capable as grown adults with our life experience, as a group of 25, of standing back and asking: ‘Is this actually good advice?’ No, it is not because, all of a sudden, it raises a question about what is a tick and what is a cross. There is untidy handwriting out there. Does a diagonal line from the bottom left-hand corner of a box to the top right-hand corner of a box suffice as a tick? All of a sudden, we are asking scrutineers to determine whether lines are possible crosses, or squiggly bits, and whether symbols might be defined as ticks or crosses.
I believe that would be an abandonment of common sense. Surely, we should not be standing in this place and saying: ‘When voters cannot be bothered to write to 1 or 2, or 3, or 4, or maybe even as high as 10, given a very full ballot paper, we should be able to say to them: “Make your intentions clear. You are required to mark every box, and you are required to mark every box with a number starting from 1 from your first preference to whatever the final number is for your last preference”’. It should not be that hard. Nevertheless, this government and this Labor Party want to insert in this legislation an idea which I personally consider to be quite repugnant.
I have stood on many bush polls over the years - more than I care to count - and I cannot begin to tell you how often people in those bush polls try to vote and are, in my opinion, coached and instructed in their own language by an independent scrutineer. The problem, of course, is my Lhere Artepe, Arrernte, and my other various Aboriginal languages are not very strong, so I can only form that opinion. When I pointed that out to scrutineers in the past, they obviously come back with: ‘Well guys, you just have to live with it because it does not look like it to me’, so it becomes an opinion matter. We cannot videotape what happens in the booth, but I have clearly seen what I consider to be instructions being given to voters one after the other - even by Australian Electoral Commission staff when they are hired from the local community, and they point at ballot papers with a view to encouraging the voters to vote in a particular way.
Of course, it is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion I have developed over several years – goodness, decades - of watching what happens in these booths. Even when there is a voter’s friend there, I have seen voters cycle in and out with the same friend who then appears to give instructions.
Most of the votes that come out of the bush are valid votes. People can count to 1, 2, and 3. By the same token, this government wants to dumb it down because it is desperately scared it is going to do badly in the bush next time around. It wants to be able to accept a negative expression, a cross, as a valid vote. It wants to change the electoral system to suit its own purposes in the bush. That is what this is about; it is about the Australian Labor Party mucking about with the electoral system in the Northern Territory. As far as I am concerned, that is unsupportable. It is dumbing-down the electoral system to suit the ALP for a particular political purpose and we will not accept it. Despite the fact there are some good things in this bill, the fact is this government wants to change the legislation so ticks and crosses, particularly when there are only two candidates on the ballot paper, suddenly become valid. They have no way of asserting whether a cross is a negative or a positive. In fact, the Australian Electoral Commission, when it comes to referenda, says is does not accept crosses because it does not know what that means. That is in the scrutineer’s handbook.
As far as I am concerned, this is a government which is afraid, it is scared, and is now prepared to tinker with the electoral system. Remember they promised, in their years in opposition, they would not play with the electoral system. They were going to have an independent Electoral Commissioner and they moved the Electoral Commissioner with great fanfare when they came into government, out of the Department of the Chief Minister into its own independent structure. Why then does the Chief Minister’s Department get to determine whether the Leader of the Opposition gets a briefing from the Electoral Commissioner? Why? Because whilst they claim a structural difference, they have changed nothing, and now they are prepared to put their claws into the simple act of writing a series of numbers in boxes with a view to trying to garner every single vote they can claw out in their favour. As far as I am concerned, what the government is trying to do with this legislative instrument is politically motivated - motivated by trying to win at all costs. It demonstrates why we have a system of government in this country which creates an opposition.
Could you imagine these people for one second without an opposition? They would be in our homes in a heartbeat, intruding in every facet of our lives. As far as I am concerned, it is typical of a Labor government inflicting itself on a democratic system because it cannot trust Territorians to count from 1 to 2 to 3 or to 5.
Madam Speaker, because of this Trojan horse, what should have been good electoral change has become nothing more than a political exercise by the Australian Labor Party and it goes to show how arrogant it has become.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak to this particular bill but I have been impelled to do so given the offering from the member for Part Darwin. Over the years the member has been in this House - he was formerly the member for Macdonnell and now is the member for Port Darwin - he has had various forms of authority.
We have seen him as the professor of procedurology in this parliament; we have just seen him as a professor of ancient Greek history - which he got wrong according to the member for Casuarina, who I would trust with Greek history and the Trojan horse. We have had him as a professor of legal studies and constitutional law and a whole lot of things. However, here today, astoundingly, he is now a professor of semiotics. For those who do not know what semiotics is, it is the study of symbols and their inner meaning. It is a very deep study. I suppose there are professors of semiotics. I am not one but, obviously, the member for Port Darwin is a professor of semiotics and is ascribing meanings through scars in his own childhood when the teacher put a big red cross on his work.
As an aside to the Chief Minister, when you were talking about your experiences as a child and how the teacher put a big red cross against your work, I said: ‘That explains a lot’. Hence, our little bit of merriment on the floor which the member for Port Darwin wrongly interpreted, as he often does.
I am not a professor of semiotics, but I can think of many instances where a cross is applicable. When you come into or leave Australia, you should be putting crosses on things. With your taxation return, you often put crosses on that. I do. Maybe I am putting the wrong symbol on it, but I hope I am putting the right symbol on.
To counteract your negative childhood experiences with crosses, there are very positive experiences. One positive experience I used to have: my poor, departed mother, when she would write a letter to me, at the end of the letter she put ‘xxxx’, which means ‘I love you, Chris and here are lots of kisses for you’ ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am listening with great interest and I am more than happy to form a self-help group with the member for Johnston if he feels so strongly about it.
On a serious level you ascribe these changes being proposed here to the Australian Labor Party. They are actually recommendations of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission based on their long experience. I take what you say; you have been around ballot boxes and polling booths for a long time. However, for these people, this is their bread and butter, this is their job, and this is what they do 12 months of the year. This recommendation has not come forward from the government; this is not one where we have said to the Electoral Commission: ‘Here is a recommendation; put it in the report and we will bring it into parliament and pass it as law’. No, this is a recommendation by the Australian Electoral Commission. Moreover, I will read the note here in relation to this particular issue. It says:
So, here are states - and some of them are now Coalition states; namely, New South Wales and Victoria – and, I suppose, Queensland, which has an election next year. I suppose the head of that particular Coalition party would be very hopeful of winning. Many of the pundits are forecasting a win for the Coalition in Queensland. However, there are many other states where such a vote is counted as formal.
I do not think it is such a big deal, member for Port Darwin. I was listening to the subtexts. I had my student of semiotics hat on, listening to your subtext about - I think it was about Indigenous people and the way they vote and, somehow, the government was trying to get negatives and positives. I got a little lost there. However, I believe this is a positive step. It enfranchises - not enfranchises, that is not the right term. It will count people’s intentions to a much greater level than happens currently.
Madam Speaker, I certainly commend this act and support the Chief Minister in passing this particular legislation.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Johnston, because I did not know much about semiotics and the great semiotician we have opposite - another cloak the member for Port Darwin can wrap around his shoulders - dealing in symbols and the deeper meanings of symbols. I am afraid when I knock off, I want to read the footy magazine and not go into semiotics and all of that nonsense.
I thank our Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner for proposing these amendments. This is all about what philosophy, I suppose, you take of elections and democracy. Obviously, the philosophy of Electoral Commissioners is to maximise the vote and, as far as possible within the rules, to include votes as an expression of voter intention - as opposed to the opposition, which just wants to exclude people from having their votes counted.
If we deal with this section 94 in clause 22, the member for Johnston rightly said this is no Trojan horse. It must be a pretty big Trojan horse if it has penetrated New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia and now it is rumbling its way up the Stuart Highway to the Northern Territory. It is a pretty big Trojan horse and it has been rumbling around this nation for quite some time and, for some reason, no one has cottoned on to it. The opposition is being a bit hysterical on an issue that really is quite minor.
I am advised that it was through the 2005 to 2008 reports the Electoral Commissioner made to this parliament about the running of those elections. Regarding the 2008 Northern Territory election, there were 3400 informal votes across the Northern Territory. A representation of a couple of those seats showed around 20% of those informal votes would be counted – assuming this legislation goes through - as formal votes. We are talking about, at the last Territory election, around 680 votes across the Northern Territory. Very clearly, it is not the case that if there are four or five candidates contesting a division, you can just mark a cross or a tick in one box; you still have to number the other boxes although there is, under the existing provisions, an ability to leave the last box blank. It does not assume and require that other boxes be not numbered; it just provides that a clear intention with a tick or a cross, followed by a 2, 3, 4 would provide for a valid vote.
There is nothing sinister here. This is not a great Labor plot. This is not a Trojan horse. This is simply a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner to the government, through to the parliament, regarding all the years of looking at voter intentions across the nation, bringing us into line with other jurisdictions to maximise and include a number of votes that are excluded here in the Territory, that in other jurisdictions around Australia are included. Let us leave that nonsense from the opposition aside.
I can assure the member for Nelson that the government – and the Electoral Commissioner is independent of government; it is a statutory position in its own right, unlike when we came to government in 2001. It is now independent. He is a statutory officer in his own right. It was not buried away in the Chief Minister’s Department somewhere. I am confident there will be no advertising campaigns to promote this form of casting your first preference. It will simply be used as rules to guide the formal count of the vote and I can give the member for Nelson that absolute assurance.
What we are talking about, if that assessment across a couple of seats in the last election was rolled out across the 3400 informal votes, around 680 votes that were previously not counted would be counted, and counted as they would be in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia.
The member for Nelson has questions he wants to pursue in the committee stage. I thank the member for Nelson for his support for this. The opposition might care to rethink, given my explanation here, whether it is going to support this legislation. I can very clearly say there is no Trojan horse here. There is no great Labor Party plot here. This is the Electoral Commissioner trying to enfranchise and include as many valid ballot papers into the count that clearly indicate a voter’s intention. As a society, we should be inclusive of people and not exclusive of people.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 58, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Can we take the bill as a whole, please?
Madam CHAIR: We cannot take it as a whole, member for Nelson, because there are a number of amendments to be moved.
Mr HENDERSON: You have questions on clause 26, Gerry, so jump now.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I got used to these being taken as a whole. I have one general question to start with. Has the government given any consideration to putting all these electoral matters in one act? I know when the Local Government Act was being reviewed and introduced into parliament I asked why we had a separate local government electoral act. Why don’t we have one Electoral Act for the Northern Territory and, in that act, clauses specific to local government, instead of having these two acts going side-by-side?
Mr HENDERSON: That is a very good question, member for Nelson. It is a question I asked myself as these were progressing through Cabinet: why can’t we pull all these together and have one amendment going through. I suppose, technically - and we will get to that later in the amendments that are being proposed here - we have had parallel processes regarding regulations to the local government electoral amendments that have been introduced and gazetted. We have to make amendments here. Sooner or later, it will be good to have a total review and tidy all this up. I agree; it is a question I have asked, and it is probably a body of work in another session of parliament to bring all these together in one bill. At the moment it is just too hard to unscramble the omelette.
Mr WOOD: My first question is in relation to clause 9. This has a subsection. It replaces section 31 in the existing act. It specifies that only one person may be nominated as a party candidate for a registered party for a divisional election. My reading of the reasoning behind this is that in some electorate somewhere in Australia there were many people who stood for the one party. My reasoning, from a Northern Territory point of view, is it has been used often in the Northern Territory and the government has decided we should not use that process because there have been many - I have seen two CLP members nominated in the early 1980s. I think it was Ron Wright and Terry McCarthy standing for the seat of - it would have been called Daly then, I believe.
Ms Purick: Further back there was Tiwi.
Mr WOOD: Yes. In reality, does it really make much difference? A party could then technically put out three Independents. You are still achieving what they are trying to achieve, a split vote. Will it really matter whether we have this amendment, or will it achieve what you think it will achieve?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson. The Electoral Commissioner considered this particular provision. All Electoral Commissioners, Ombudsmen, and Auditors- General get together on a regular basis to look at what is happening around the place. The current nomination requirements are being replaced in response to matters occurring at the by-election for the division of Bradfield in December 2009 where the excessive number of candidates on the ballot paper - nine of whom were nominated by a single political party, I understand that could have been the Christian Democrat Party - was considered the primary reason the informal vote at the by-election rose to 9%. This is the highest-ever recorded informal vote for the division of Bradfield.
This provision harmonises our Electoral Act with the Commonwealth Electoral Act in trying to maximise the number of formal votes cast at an election. The experience in Bradfield where one party ran nine candidates confused the bejesus out of many people resulting in a 9% informal vote, so it brings this legislation into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I thought they could have had one Christian Democrat and eight Christian Independents and still not made much difference because they could have called themselves a Christian Independent. People in the Territory used to get annoyed about it because they saw it as a means of maximising your vote. I am unsure if that actually occurred.
I will get these in the right order, and Madam Chair will tell me when we get to the number we have to stop at.
I am going to clause 22 which was the method of counting. I have asked most of the questions on that. I did not catch all the debate before but there used to be a difficulty in some places in our vast Northern Territory. When I finish umpiring a game of football, I fill in a 3, 2, and 1. The three is for the person who is best on the ground, the two is for the next person, and the one is for third person. Sometimes that has been applied when there have been three candidates and, unfortunately, the person they thought was the most popular got three votes and got the third vote. I do not know if that still applies sometimes, but I had heard, anecdotally, that sometimes people thought that is the way. You put the highest number for the person you like rather than the one number for first on the ballot paper.
It is an important change and it is good to hear the minister say that we have to keep the education process going. We have to do much more to tell people about our electoral system. We are now talking about having proportional voting for local government, and it would be used if we have a convention - where you elect delegates for a convention; that same system that will be used. That needs more education because it is not an easy system to understand. It is a good system, but it is not an easy system to understand.
We have these amendments to the way ballot papers will be assessed and that is good. We do not need a response to that, minister.
I will go back to clause 17, about mobile polling booths. Are there any guidelines which determine where a polling booth should go, and who sets those guidelines? I would like to know whether, in some cases - in reading some of the literature handed out, it talks about having mobile polling booths at town camps. Obviously, someone has to pay for those mobile polling booths and you would have to ask why you need them at a town camp. Whose job is it to decide where, and how many, mobile polling booths there should be?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson. A mobile polling place is a declaration by the Electoral Commissioner:
(3) In making the declaration, the Commissioner must have regard to the following:
(a) whether or not:
(i) there is a distinct community of electors who may be served by the mobile polling place; or
It is a judgment call by the Electoral Commissioner in his declaration; however, that declaration must have regard to the issues contained in the act.
Mr WOOD: There are several reasons why I asked that question, Chief Minister. For instance, in local government elections and now under this act, the Electoral Commissioner will be the person who runs those elections and local government will pay for those elections. If local government does not believe there should be mobile polling booths in some areas, have they any say in whether they should or should not be there?
Mr HENDERSON: The philosophy that guides the Electoral Commissioner in making those declarations is to enfranchise as much of the population as possible to cast a vote. In making that declaration, he has to be guided by whether there was not a mobile polling place declared for a particular area, what is the likelihood of those people travelling a significant distance to cast their vote, and is that distance easy to travail?
For a third party such as a shire to have an authority or ability to require or suggest to the Electoral Commissioner that a particular polling booth should not be at a particular place would, if it was a requirement, reduce the independence of the Electoral Commission. The whole philosophy of this is to enfranchise as many people to cast their vote in a practical way. If a mobile polling booth was not declared for a particular area, are you disenfranchising a whole group of people because, practically, they would not be able to get to a polling booth on a particular day at a particular time?
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I was looking at from the point of whether the council has to pay for those mobile polling locations. In the summary of the Electoral Commission recommendations there was talk about the appointment of mobile polling booths in certain town camps. What town camps would exist that the residents could not go to a normal polling place? Do you need mobile polling booths in town camps in Katherine or Tennant Creek? Are they necessary? People cannot walk down the street to the normal one? It is just that it is mentioned in some of this preliminary discussion, and it seemed to me that would cost money and councils, especially, would have to pay for those things.
Mr HENDERSON: It is all about whether a distinct group of people has a significant difficulty getting to a standard scheduled polling place. The Electoral Commissioner has the capacity to declare a mobile poll based on the criteria I gave. It really is a judgment call. The Electoral Commissioner has to conclude that a distinct group of people would otherwise be unlikely to get to a polling place - and he would have to come to that conclusion himself, for whatever reasons. If you try to insert specific caveats in there you are taking away the independence of the Electoral Commissioner to make that determination, as guided by the legislation.
Mr WOOD: I suppose there is already a caveat in that you can get a postal vote if you are more than 20 km from a polling booth. That is why I asked why you would need a mobile polling booth within a 20 km radius of an existing polling booth. That is what I am getting at.
Mr HENDERSON: I may be wrong, but I cannot recall when there would have been a mobile polling booth in a town camp in Katherine or Alice Springs.
Mr WOOD: I was going on the notes I was given earlier in relation to this. It talked about:
I understand what you are saying. It is his right to make that, but I am querying whether you need it. It is a cost. Is it possible that people who live that close to a town can get to the polling booth like everyone else?
Mr HENDERSON: Where this may have come from - for example, for the Stuart by-election there would be mobile polling booths established in the town camps in Alice Springs. Is that what you were saying, Karl?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, I am just adding to the debate and I pretty sure during the Stuart by-election there was mobile polling in town camps. I am also pretty sure during the Araluen by-election last year there was a booth at one of the town camps prior to polling day.
Mr WOOD: That is what I am about: do you need them if there is a polling booth in the town? It is an extra cost. I am not trying to put this in a derogatory way, but are you spoon-feeding people who can get to the polling booth like anyone else?
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, I will let you answer this question and then we will be breaking.
Mr HENDERSON: We get down to the fact that we have an independent Electoral Commissioner whose whole reason for being is to run elections and maximise the formal votes in those elections to ensure the expressed will of the people in a division, and across the Territory, is taken into account for the purpose of that election. That is the philosophy behind that.
Regarding the Electoral Commissioner using his discretion to declare a mobile polling booth; he has to come to the determination that a select, or fairly significant group of people would otherwise be unable to, or would not, cast their vote, and, in order to maximise that franchise, makes that determination. He has to be guided by that, so his determinations about where those polling booths go are bound up in the independence he has, and not with an eye to whether it is going to cost more.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of officers from the Department of Resources for the parliamentary awareness program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also welcome again the opposition members’ electorate officers. You must have enjoyed yesterday.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That the House censure the government and, in particular, the Minister for Indigenous Development and Statehood for:
(a) failing to meet its obligations with regard to Indigenous affairs;
Yesterday, 23 November 2011, was a day federal Labor again said to all Australians that Territory Labor is not up to the job. How is it that a government in Australia, a jurisdiction in Australia, can twice have federal intervention into its operations, taking over half of the Territory’s land mass to do the job the Territory Labor government was supposed to do? When Jenny Macklin introduced Labor’s second intervention legislation yesterday, it was a clear signal the Commonwealth could not stand back any more and watch Paul Henderson and his merry men and women fiddle while Indigenous Australians burn.
This legislation is remarkable in that, while it repeals the Coalition’s legislation, it retains the measures Labor long railed against. These people who speak with forked tongues said: ‘Oh, we do not like the intervention; it is the black kids Tampa’. However, here we are again! You do not have any fight at all now. We had the Minister for Statehood, at the start of the week, crying about the rights of the Territory, going on about statehood, but here we have, in the same week, the federal government announcing more legislation to take over the role of the Northern Territory government and the responsibility they are supposed to maintain. Alcohol restrictions, pornography restrictions, welfare quarantining, welfare linked to school attendance, and township leasing are all retained or even enhanced as part of this new legislation put into the federal parliament yesterday.
Labor promised to end the intervention - they promised. They went to the 2007 election promising to end the intervention - the intervention Mal Brough and John Howard had for four months and Labor have had for four years. They promised to end the intervention. And what have they done? They have retained or are building on other necessary initiatives put forward by the Coalition in the first place. They have not stopped anything; they have made it bigger and stronger - and worse.
For the last four years, federal Labor pursued the popular policies espoused by city-based academics - for four years - and only after actually going out and talking to people on the ground did they realise that real work was required to address Indigenous social policy failures. Except Territory Labor had remained sitting on its hands. Territory Labor has sat back for the last four years and done pretty much bugger all to try to fix this problem. We know the responsibilities the Territory government had in this regard, they had …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw his last colloquial comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Member for Braitling, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The Coalition admitted all governments had failed Aboriginal people and commenced extensive reforms through the Northern Territory legislation in 2007, of which they had four months to instigate the reform before losing the election - of which federal Labor government’s Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard - which comprises Trish Crossin, the Northern Territory Labor Senator and Warren Snowdon, the federal member for Lingiari for Labor. These people were all part of this and continued with the intervention for four years. Here we had yesterday, 23 November 2011, federal Labor at it again.
These people over here - the people who said they will not support Muckaty – sit on their hands in that situation. They do not like uranium mining, but Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, is now going to India with uranium. And here we have the intervention, trampling all over Territory laws - trampling all over Territory laws! They say they want to have statehood and they want our rights protected, but federal Labor comes in - and not a whimper, not a murmur; they embraced it.
The member for Arnhem, the minister for Indigenous affairs, was too scared to answer most of the questions in Question Time today asked by my colleagues who are very emotional about this position of federal Labor stepping on our rights again. Four years you have had to fix the issues, and you have done absolutely nothing. It is interesting when we read the speech minister Jenny Macklin, the federal Indigenous Affairs minister gave yesterday. She said:
Four years! The intervention put in place by the responsible Coalition government of Howard and Brough, and Senator Scullion in his role, was supposed to see improvements made for the protection and wellbeing of children.
We heard the minister today talking about how education is the most important area. I even remember some time ago when he stood in this Chamber and said: ‘Every 17-year-old child, you will either earn or you will learn, you will work or you will study’, or words to that effect. Yet, when we turn to Budget Paper No 3 of the 2011-12 Budget on page 102, we see that Indigenous students attendance for middle years education - most people would expect students to attend about 95% of the time – was 15%. How are you making a change? No wonder Jenny Macklin said there has been no overall improvement in school attendance. That is a disgrace.
The government should be sanctioned, particularly the minister for Indigenous affairs and the Chief Minister. That is absolutely disgraceful. You do not have to go much further to see other areas of failure because, fundamentally, there are only a few areas left for the Northern Territory government to administer in Indigenous affairs.
One of those other areas is housing. The member for Casuarina was around at the start of the SIHIP stuff, and then it went to the member for Daly who seems to get everything wrong. Recently, he was sacked from the Business portfolio, but he has Local Government wrong, he has Housing wrong, he just seems to get everything wrong - he got the ferry tenders wrong. Aside from all that, look at SIHIP where the federal government has now given $1.7bn but we know they are behind schedule and not meeting targets. We know there is not enough money for them to make targets because we saw in the Australian National Audit Office report released early last week that there is not enough money in the kitty and they are way behind.
We know from the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s report on the failures in that program and how far they are behind. We know there was $50m spent without a hammer even being lifted or a nail hit. We know all that stuff, and we put all that stuff into context, and we look at the plethora of reports around. We are spending a lot of money on reports, minister, but still only have 15% of Indigenous kids in middle years going to school.
We see in the Strategic Review of Indigenous Expenditure February 2010 on page 14:
This is the federal government saying this. They have no confidence in you. No wonder they are intervening; because you cannot get it right. They are stamping all over Territory rights while you sit back and cop it again - but you want to stand for statehood, you want to stand for rights, you want to condemn Natasha Griggs, the member for Solomon, and Senator Nigel Scullion who does a fantastic job standing up for our rights in trying to fix these things. He is the one who started it in the first place.
aka SIHIP:
… and schooling domains.
aka, what the minister said; there has been no overall improvement in school attendance. We know from the NAPLAN results how poor the performance has been. What are you doing?
Serious questions have to be asked. You would think the minister for Indigenous policy, who seemingly has no ministerial responsibility to answer questions in this Chamber, would have her head around this, that she would have read the legislation like I have, and would fully support the questions asked by my colleagues who are 100% on the money. This new legislation tramples over Territory rights: they can come in and shut down a pub, a tavern, a bottle shop, or a roadhouse; they can shut down any shop they want to under this legislation. Who do they think they are? I know they are trying to help and they recognise they have a bad Labor government in the Northern Territory, but how dare they come in here and stamp on our rights. How dare they!
Indigenous home ownership, where we all hear the good words: ‘We all support Indigenous home ownership, it is part of the Closing the Gap report, it is one of our COAG initiatives, and we are all rock solid behind it’. What have they done? Zero. Four years; zero. The only Indigenous Territorians who would have moved into home ownership are people who have done it through a private bank; not with any intervention measures through these guys, whether through land tenure reform or otherwise. People do it off their own bat, which is positive. But these guys have to lead and make change, and change is not easy.
You will not even step up to the plate. You have had every opportunity to change the land tenure in town camps and you have done nothing. The perpetual lease factor for the 18 to 20 town camps, wherever you would like to calculate them, in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin; you do not do anything. So the feds have had to come in and do it for us. I have been advocating, I have offered a bipartisan approach; I have been lobbying the federal government to make this happen. I have been keeping you guys informed about what I have been doing. You will not even get on board. There is no political pain. You will still probably get all the votes in the town camps, and we would have had structural reform that would have made a difference, but you will not do it.
So now what do we have? We have the federal government coming in with Labor’s second intervention. I could just imagine Warren Snowdon cowering in the corner going: ‘I promised everyone I would get rid of it, but now they have brought out a second stronger intervention’. What about Senator Trish Crossin, how must she be feeling? I know she understands the issues, but she stuck to Caucus. That is what happens when you are on the left …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh dear.
Mr GILES: Come on, Marion, you love it. It is interesting when you go through the Northern Territory Emergency Response evaluation report, and you look at the findings, or you look at some of the commentary about local government reform and shire reform. I will not quote directly from that paper because I would be here all day talking about the failures of that, but it says the shire council reform brought in at the same time as the federal government intervention caused considerable pain and concern to Indigenous Territorians.
Through the model created by the Labor government - because they are Labor shires - they inadequately funded the shires and they transferred responsibility from the Northern Territory government to the shires to abdicate responsibility. In doing so, they have completely taken away people’s voice and disenfranchised people on the ground so much that people feel lost and, to a degree, a sense of hopelessness because things have not changed.
I have called for this censure on the government but particularly the minister for Indigenous policy and Statehood because she is also the Minister for Local Government. It seems a bit funny - maybe it is the chairs up the back - because it went from that chair to that chair - you know, Local Government and Housing, and now it has moved over to Indigenous affairs and Local Government. Maybe there is some relationship with those chairs where things seem to go wrong, because the way she is going with statehood at the moment, you have to ask questions. That is what this censure motion is all about: the incompetence of the government, the minister, and the rights of the Northern Territory. They are being stamped on and nothing is heard from government. They should be opposing this intervention because they should have done the job.
We are now stuck in this dilemma. Do we support the measures by the federal government? I believe the only positive measure is the land tenure reform - and I am looking at the alcohol and licensing stuff. On the surface, I have to say it is bad for business in the Territory. Do we support it, with amendments, from a philosophical position, or do we oppose it and introduce legislation into this House to get rid of the intervention legislation because we now have this new rights bill? What is the way forward?
Do we want the Northern Territory government to pick up the mantle and do things itself? Of course we do! Do we think it has the capacity to do that, or the willingness to do that? Absolutely not! So what are we going to do? Are we going to get a bad lemon, with federal bureaucrats, as hard-working as they are, coming here and potentially shutting every pub, club, and tavern they feel fit to close because there are a couple of people out the front who might be drunk? Heaven help us! Labor might have done some economic innovation to try to get people off grog in the first place, not just try to stop the supply side. Let us work on the demand, not the supply.
What about the shops that are going to shut? ‘We do not like the way you serve people, so we are going to shut your shop’. This is not just in the communities, not in the 73 prescribed communities under the intervention; this is all of the Northern Territory. This is Darwin and Alice Springs - and it specifically mentions Darwin and Alice Springs in the legislation if you happen to read it. I have read it, member for Arafura. That is exactly what is in there.
This legislation has gone to the Senate committee and has to pass through the Senate –and I understand all that. However, if it comes to fruition and they get The Greens support - which will be very interesting as The Greens seem to meddle in other areas - and it gets up, that means we will see federal bureaucrats making decisions to shut down pubs, takeaway outlets, grocery stores, taverns - anything.
We do not want to see misery, drunkenness, abuse, and domestic violence. We do not want any of that, but we have to be real about the measures we put in place. You cannot attack Territory businesses. The way I have interpreted it, it is appalling legislation. It is amazing you are defending and supporting it. It is amazing the minister for Indigenous affairs had not read it herself, could not answer the question, and had to defer to the Treasurer, who got it wrong. You would think you would be advised about how this should all change.
The question is: how is the minister for Indigenous affairs going to respond? To date, she has been a lapdog for the federal government. She sat back, rolled over, has been tickled on the belly and said: ‘We will support this second intervention. The first one we did not really like too much, but the second one - it is a Labor government, it is Julia, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, we have to take it, it is Labor’. She should be opposing it. You opposed the one that brought about great changes: more police to communities to protect women, children, and families. Fantastic measures came in, mainly because you could not do it.
I understand the financial difficulties of the Northern Territory government, but you did not advocate it, you did not call for it, and you did not respond. You did not act on the Little Children are Sacred report, and you did not do very much for the Bath report; but that is just the way things seem to go.
This new legislation is a stampede on Territory’s rights at a time when there is a bipartisan effort trying to bring in statehood, yet this Labor government welcomes federal Labor’s second intervention. I am surprised you have not handed back the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and asked the Commonwealth to take over; you have pretty much given up everything else. Here you are without a whimper complaining about the rights of the Northern Territory government being trampled on now.
I am surprised the Chief Minister has not said: ‘Take self-government, we have got nothing else right’. I do not support or advocate that, but I am surprised you guys have not done it because you have rolled over again. This is the second time there has been an intervention into your government, the second time! It is unheard of a first time and now you have two.
We had one earlier this year with the live cattle debacle, where the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, in Nhulunbuy, announced they were going to shut a whole industry down. No interest about jobs for Territorians, let alone all those Indigenous Territorians who own cattle stations, manage cattle stations, and work on cattle stations – do not worry about it!
This government, the minister for Indigenous affairs, and particularly the Chief Minister, have failed all Territorians across a range of issues, but on Indigenous affairs they have failed the most vulnerable Aboriginal Territorians, particularly the children and their futures. That is why the federal Labor government has launched Labor’s second intervention.
The Territory Labor government must have been so embarrassed to have had an intervention in 2007 under Clare Martin’s governance, much to the embarrassment of Labor ministers and, after four long years of Territory Labor failure, to have to see federal Labor bringing in another intervention, this time on Paul Henderson’s watch. It is an horrific declaration by the federal government that you mob are not up to the job; an horrific declaration that Paul Henderson is not up to the job; an horrific declaration that Malarndirri McCarthy is not up to the job.
You will stand there now with forked tongues speaking one language of condemnation to federal Liberals and stand back with contempt as federal Labor introduces their second intervention under the guise of another name.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves! The Chief Minister stands in this parliament a broken man and, if he is not, he should stand here a broken man. A second intervention in four years for the Northern Territory - that is absolutely shameful! I do not know how the Chief Minister can continue in his role after a second intervention has been announced in the Northern Territory.
Labor’s second intervention, as put forward by Jenny Macklin, is a vote of no confidence, not just in Paul Henderson, but explicitly in Malarndirri McCarthy. She should be condemned for overseeing such an appalling effort on Indigenous affairs. I call on the Chief Minister to find another minister for Indigenous affairs. While he is at it, we need a new Minister for Tourism, Local Government, and Statehood - all the same person.
Minister, I censure you, your government, and the Chief Minister in the strongest possible sense of the word because you have failed abysmally, letting down the Territory’s most vulnerable. We are about driving change, and you are changing nothing, except for failing in housing, in child protection, in education which you say is the most important area, on alcohol policy, and on land tenure reform. It is across the board - there is not a positive tune for you to sing.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): There you go, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government yesterday complained loud and long that we did not make any comments about their puff piece, and they were all bent out of shape. Of course, this is their idea of payback. There is a bill before the federal parliament and they have determined not to answer any of the allegations made, quite effectively, by the member for Braitling. I find that absolutely astonishing. If we do not respond to a puff piece, they are screeching from the rafters about our negligence as legislators. Yet, when they are under attack for rolling over on Territory rights, amongst other things, they remain silent and firmly planted with their backsides in their leather seats saying nothing. Why? Because I suspect they have very little to say.
I understand the intent of what the Gillard government is trying to do, but what I do not, and cannot, approve of is how that intent manifests itself in the Northern Territory in our laws. I will start with some general observations, and work my way to the specific. My general observation is the laws proposed by the Gillard government directly change statutes made by this House.
We are a body politic, elected fairly, and given a mandate by those people who elected us to make laws on their behalf. We do not have the same rights as other states - that much is clear. And never was there a clearer example than what is proposed in the federal legislation. Even the most cursory glance of the federal legislation sees the decisions made in this House on behalf of Territorians for the proper welfare of Territorians, change Northern Territory laws. The Northern Territory statute book will be changed without any reference to the members of this House, elected by Territorians to speak on behalf of Territorians. The government of the Northern Territory has no problem with that? I certainly do. It fundamentally changes the Northern Territory Liquor Act. For the federal government to take this step, one can only conclude it has decided the Northern Territory government has failed to take the steps Canberra seems to think are appropriate in the Northern Territory.
If you follow the logic of the criticisms levelled at Canberra by the members opposite over the first intervention then, surely, it follows they must be just as critical of this legislative instrument for all of the same reasons they described the last time. For them to meekly sit here and say nothing - not utter a single syllable in protest against the criticisms we level - only goes to show they have no answer to the criticisms we level. As a member of the parliament of the Northern Territory, I object to the legislative instruments for which I have carriage being changed by a third party.
To give it context, I wonder how the federal government and the people of Australia would feel if the British act, which is the Australian Constitution passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, was amended by the British parliament in an effort to tinker with how the Australian Constitution works. I suspect we would be a republic in two seconds. Not only that, the statute of Westminster and the Australia Act of 1986 would also be in breach of those. It stands to reason that we would object if a foreign parliament interfered in the affairs of Australia, and I object if an Australian parliament interferes in the conduct of the Northern Territory.
I turn my attention to the questions that were answered more specifically, not by the minister for Indigenous affairs who was shielded from answering difficult questions because the real Chief Minister, the member for Karama, is the one who answered the questions because she is the only one who knows what is in this legislative instrument. I suspect the minister for Indigenous affairs does not have the vaguest idea of what is in the instrument before the parliament of Canberra at the moment. That is why we saw such an eloquent attempt to defend what is going on from the member for Karama during Question Time.
Madam Speaker, this is a government of two ministers. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer; everyone else is just along for the ride. We saw that yesterday in this House when the Minister for Transport was not allowed to answer transport questions. We saw it today in this House when the minister for Indigenous affairs was not allowed to answer questions in relation to a legislative instrument which is aimed exclusively at Aboriginal people. For the information of honourable members, surely the minister for Aboriginal affairs can answer questions on a legislative instrument which is aimed directly at - and I quote from the objects of the federal bill which is before the House at the moment:
We heard the usual platitudes we are so used to, we heard all the slogans, but she did not turn her attention to the specific issues being raised in the questions. Why not? Because she is not capable of answering those questions. The member for Karama is aware of that, which is why she is running the human shield on behalf of the minister for Indigenous affairs. It is also clear that it is the member for Karama, the Treasurer and former Attorney-General, who has been driving this particular agenda and that gives me more concern. Nothing concerns me more about the freedom of Northern Territory businesses when the person on the steering wheel of government in relation to business is from the Labor Left. That is something to be fundamentally concerned about. She says: ‘It is only a request power when it comes to matters liquor’.
I draw honourable members’ attention to section 15 of the proposed bill before the federal parliament and it talks about requests. However, there is a thorn in the side of that particular argument. I draw honourable members’ attention to section 15(5) which says:
Oh wait, there are conditions on the ability to decline.
(a) would place undue financial burden on the Northern Territory …
or
And there is the hook: all of a sudden, people who had control of the legislative instrument, namely the Northern Territory Liquor Act, no longer have complete control of the Northern Territory Liquor Act. There is now a third party that is (a) changing the legislative instrument which is the Northern Territory Liquor Act, and (b) making decisions by the Northern Territory minister appealable and challengeable, something the federal minister, prior to this legislative instrument passing the federal parliament - it has not passed yet, and I hope it does not pass - would not have been within the federal government’s power. Now it will be, and appropriateness of decisions by the minister for alcohol in the Northern Territory will suddenly be able to be overridden in one fashion or another by the federal minister. The bridle is being put back on the Northern Territory, and the bridle is being put back on the Northern Territory through regulatory instruments.
On Monday, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory came into this House waving around a motion, saying we had to congratulate the federal parliament for taking away the capacity from federal ministers to override Northern Territory law by way of regulation. This legislation reintroduces that concept in spades. Where is the motion we would expect from the Chief Minister condemning the federal parliament for introducing the concept that federal ministers can override Northern Territory law by regulation? There is no such motion, and the reason there is no such motion is because this Chief Minister is a sycophant to the concept of everything Labor and will place that above all other institutions he has carriage of, including the good governance of the Northern Territory.
A second component of this legislative instrument is land reform. The intervention, as introduced by Mal Brough - love it or hate it - gave the Northern Territory an opportunity the Northern Territory had never had before. That opportunity was an ability to ensure that town camps became normalised within the major communities around Darwin and the Northern Territory. Why would you not go down that path with gusto? The last thing I want to see in the Northern Territory is a form of apartheid. I despise the concept and, unfortunately, we have legislative instruments which insist upon it.
In a brave new world, there would be no differentiation in law between landowners, and nor should there be. I look forward to a day where we do not have to, because Aboriginal landowners and landowners of any other colour, political persuasion, or religion, all operate under the same structures and laws. That is the goal we should be aiming for. This particular intent by Mal Brough at the time was the first step down that road.
I know why the conditions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, for argument’s sake, were put in place: because when that legislation was constructed, particularly after the Nabalco case and the Woodward Royal Commission, there was a desire, noble as it was, to defend Aboriginal people from the rapacious conduct of other people who may try to take away Aboriginal people’s lands. Since that time, the walls of protection constructed around Aboriginal people for the protection of their ownership of land are now becoming a prison by which Aboriginal people are being trapped.
That needs to be addressed. Generations have passed since that time and there is a new group of people out there who do not need some of the extraordinary protections afforded; who, I imagine, would like very much to become involved with, and be part of, the general economy - not sit there like some economic equivalent of North Korea - being involved in generating their own wealth. They will then generate the one thing we cannot give to Aboriginal people: their independence. They must grasp their independence, and economic independence is the strongest form of independence you can have. They can then set what is important to them as people, what their priorities are and, if they have economic independence, can build a future for themselves and mould it into whatever shape they want.
The presence of this legislative instrument demonstrates the Northern Territory government, in its current form, never had any intention of going down the path of allowing that independence to be granted. The Northern Territory government, with its carriage of these particular leasing arrangements, found itself in the position where it could do something about it and did nothing. I place on the record how extraordinarily objectionable I find the assertion by the minister for Indigenous affairs: ‘We have never taken Aboriginal people to court’. Really? Who paid for the case against the Larrakia people?
I understand why the case against the Larrakia native titleholders was run, but I find it unfathomable that a person will stand up and say: ‘I recognise the Larrakia traditional owners of this country’ when they sat in the same Cabinet that paid for the court case to fight the native title claim. When you talk about a native title claim and defeating native title, one way of interpreting what happens when you defeat native title is you demonstrate what some people would call cultural genocide has been successful.
This government goes into a court fighting against the native title claim over Darwin, runs the argument that cultural genocide has essentially been successful - there is no effective culture left, the chain has been broken – and, unfortunately, the evidence supports that. Anyone who reads one of these native title decisions feels dejected because you know on the evidence that finding has been made.
Do not fund a case and then come into this House and say: ‘I recognise the traditional lands upon which we stand’ when you went to court to determine they did not have that title any longer. That is hypocrisy of the lowest order. In relation to giving Aboriginal people their rights, the land reform component of the legislation before the Commonwealth is Part 3:
Here we go; we are changing the law of the Northern Territory again:
Without re-entering into the debate as to the legislative integrity of this House, this demonstrates that for the past five years this government has achieved nothing in the reform of what happens in community living areas and town camps - not a sausage, not zip. It keeps telling us how much it consults and how much it likes to talk to Aboriginal people. We keep hearing platitudes and – well, I am not allowed to say lies, but I am unsure how else to describe the suggestion they do not fight Aboriginal people in court cases. If that is not a lie, then I am not quite sure how to describe it.
What about Blue Mud Bay? It took them to the High Court. Any person who read the decision in the Full Court of the …
Ms Scrymgour: Do not mislead.
Mr ELFERINK: You took them to the High Court and I pick up on the interjection.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You did take them to the High Court. I pick up on the interjection. I am accused of misleading the House by the member for Arafura when I said they took Blue Mud Bay to the High Court. Not only did you take them to the High Court, you took out full-sized ads in the paper saying: ‘We are taking Aboriginal people to the High Court’ …
Ms Scrymgour: What for? Explain what for!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Because of the appeal of the Full Court after a Federal Court found …
Ms Scrymgour: What for?
Mr ELFERINK: … that intertidal zones - actually, I will pick up on the interjection because, clearly, she has not read it.
Part of the appeal to the High Court deals with the determination in the Federal Court’s Court of Appeal about an old common law rule saying waters in intertidal zones were publicly accessible. It was a determination that, after the Woodward Royal Commission into that particular case, found that common law rule law was pretty weak. Even the speeches by the federal ministers introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act defeated the old common law title and gave Aboriginal people exclusive rights to the intertidal zones. Does that answer your question? I read the court decisions; I suggest you do the same.
This is a government that will tell Territorians: ‘We do not take Aboriginal people to court unless we are taking full-page ads out in the Northern Territory News’. And they accuse us of dog whistling? Goodness gracious me! Then, when they have an opportunity to bring about economic advancement for Aboriginal people in community living areas, in town camps, what do they do …
Mr Tollner: Nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: Nada, nothing, zip!
The pack of racists who used to be the CLP, when they were trying to deal with the potential of native title, at least struck a deal with the Larrakia Development Corporation over land in Palmerston and created a platform for a corporation that grew - and grew substantially - from that time, because they understood there were times for negotiation and there were times for court cases. But, at least they did not sit there and tell fibs to Aboriginal people about: ‘We never took them to court’. The hell you did not! You take them to court at the drop of a hat. That is why you cannot be trusted; because you will stand here and say one thing and you will do something else entirely.
This government has been condemned by the Gillard Labor government by the introduction of its bill for failing to do what it was supposed to do, and morally obliged to do: change what happens in these town camps, change the systems of land tenure. Shock, horror! An Aboriginal person might buy their own home, take out a mortgage, and pay that mortgage off with a job. What an awfully excruciating, nasty thing to do to an Aboriginal person! What a liberating thing it should be considered to be. Surely, an Aboriginal person - like any other person, whether they are green, white, yellow, or have polka dots - if they have a job, they make their own decisions. They do not need some clown public servant wiping their backsides and spoon-feeding them.
That is what I want for Aboriginal people, so when they make decisions for their own land, they can make that decision as the rightful owners of that property, and that land generates wealth. For 50 000 years Aboriginal land generated wealth for Aboriginal people; that is why they lived off it. That should continue, but within the modern context, where they are generating their own wealth. After five years of an opportunity to do it, even in a small way, this government’s advancement in those areas has amounted to nothing. Goodness gracious me! They stand there and say: ‘After 26 years of CLP neglect, it is going to take such a long time to fix it’. Well, you have had five years to fix this, and what has happened? The federal government steps in.
Food security is another component of the federal legislation – food security. Okay. This is the part that really amazes me:
The first place to go is section 74; bearing in mind we have just discovered the whole of the Northern Territory is currently in a food security area.
In section 74, do I find a reference to the excluded areas? Do I find the word Darwin, or Alice Springs - no, what I find is there might be a set of rules made up and those rules will describe what is in and out of a food security area. What the federal parliament is being asked to do is declare the whole of the Northern Territory a food security area and then the minister, at some point subsequent to the passage of legislation; that is, out of the public eye, may determine what a food security area is.
So, does that mean Darwin? We do not know. I suspect on all reasonably analyses that it will not. But, does it mean Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs; more likely. What about Jabiru or Nhulunbuy; it is even more likely still.
The point is the rules surrounding how you get your licence are onerous indeed. I point out to honourable members that in the legislative instrument before the federal House at the moment is the secretary may send an inspector around, and that inspector may go to your shop and go knock, knock: ‘Hello, I am here to inspect your premises on behalf of the instrument granted to me by the federal parliament of Australia under the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill’ and guess what, you are allowed to say no. You can say no, do not come in. You know what happens after that, you do not get your licence. Which means if you refuse entry to one of these inspectors under the food security component of this legislation, guess what happens; you do not get your licence, you do not get to sell food?
The answer to the problems we have in the Northern Territory, as far as the federal government is concerned, is to create a police state. No longer will you be able to run a store in a remote community or any other community in a food security area unless you have a licence to do so. I hear: ‘That is not true’; that is precisely what is being dictated here and guess who makes the decision; the secretary …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Apart from directing his comments through the Chair, I just wonder whether that applies to people giving away kangaroo tails.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: The funny thing is I used to give away kangaroo tails as a matter of courtesy. Under this legislation, I could well be in breach and I could be charged because I gave it to an Aboriginal community. As a matter of courtesy, I gave away a couple of kangaroo tails. If that is not a police state, what is? What is …
Dr Burns: It would have been close with the Electoral Act.
Mr ELFERINK: What is? The minister may want to make light of this, the minister may want to have fun, but the point is that unless you get a bureaucrat based in Canberra’s licence to trade in one of these areas, you may not trade any more.
We already have Outback Stores, which is, essentially, a government-organised monopoly-type organisation finding its way into these community stores - not giving greater choice, but taking away choice, all in the name of the benevolent hand of government helping Aboriginal people. All of a sudden, even if you are trading outside of the Outback Stores model, or even if you are Outback Stores, you need a licence to trade, otherwise they will take your livelihood away. How does this help Aboriginal people reach economic independence? How does this increase choice? It does not. This legislation is all about expanding the concept of welfare.
Nowhere in this legislation does it say Aboriginal people are responsible. What it says is the government is responsible and now the federal government is responsible, and what we are going to do is issue licences and we are going to expect everything from people who are non-Aboriginal in Aboriginal areas of the Northern Territory, and possibly other areas, to bend over backwards and ask nothing of the Aboriginal people themselves! If that is not a welfare response, what is?
So what will happen? Services will be increased, licences will be issued to stores, pubs will be shut down wherever the federal minister determines, in collusion with the Labor Left in the Territory, and Aboriginal people will become even greater recipients of welfare – hasn’t that been a successful policy so far! If we collected all the policies of the past - assimilation, extermination - and lined them all up, the death toll would not make one-tenth of the death toll we could attribute to welfare.
Why doesn’t this legislation say compulsory work for the dole in remote communities? That would help. That would mean they get a job, and at least some responsibility would go with it. That is what I would support. But no, nothing like that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is all about the stores, the liquor outlets, and the government, and it has nothing to do with the Aboriginal people. If this is not grounds to censure a Northern Territory government, then there are no grounds to censure the Northern Territory government.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I support this censure motion. The government is a complete failure in this area. The government is nothing but a lapdog for the Gillard Labor government in the federal parliament.
Of course, I support the censuring of the minister for Indigenous affairs, also the Minister for Statehood and Tourism. She has proven herself to be a complete failure. There is no other way to put it. She is not trusted by her team to answer questions in Question Time on matters of Indigenous affairs. As my good friend and colleague, the member for Port Darwin, just said - he made it abundantly clear that the total of this stronger futures, I think they call it, legislation; we refer it to as intervention mark II, or the second intervention - she has no clue on what it is. As the member for Port Darwin rightly pointed out, it is all about the minister for Indigenous affairs, no one else; it is about dealing with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is solely about dealing with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
You have a Minister for Indigenous Development who cannot answer a question on it. She has absolutely no clue as to what is going on in that legislation. And it is true that these guys opposite have railed for quite some time now about the intervention. They did not like what Howard and Brough did, and I believe a big part of the reason for that is because they were exposed, they were found wanting. We all know how it occurred. It occurred simply because Clare Martin, the Chief Minister at the time, swept the Little Children are Sacred report under the carpet, tried to ignore the issue. It was weeks before federal minister at the time, Mal Brough, got a whiff of what was going on. He actually had to get the document off the Internet. It was never provided to him by the Northern Territory government. A couple of weeks ago, the Chief Minister made the observation that the first recommendation in the Little Children are Sacred report was government should work collaboratively. Sweeping a report under the table and hiding it from the view of the federal Indigenous Affairs minister is hardly what you would call working collaboratively.
I well remember when Mal Brough put the call in to Clare Martin asking her to attend an Indigenous summit and she turned her back on that. She would not turn up to that, did not want a bar of that, and then screamed blue murder when the federal government acted in the only way it possibly could with an emergency response. And that is exactly what it was - it was an emergency response. Lo and behold, four months later, the Howard government, sadly, was swept from power. Since then, we have had a federal Labor government which has embraced the intervention and kept most aspects of it.
The emergency response legislation has been repealed; there is no doubt about that. However, what they have reintroduced - it is a bit like the Muckaty Station legislation - they repealed the Commonwealth laws but introduced something that is almost exactly the same. In this case, there are alcohol restrictions, pornography restrictions, welfare quarantining, welfare linked to school attendance, and township leasing all retained and, in most cases, enhanced. As the members for Port Darwin and Braitling quite eloquently pointed out, it has been enhanced in many different ways.
What the federal government is doing now in relation to Territory business - licensing businesses that operate not only on Indigenous land but supply Aboriginal people with food and having the ability to step in and shut down clubs, pubs, corner stores, and other liquor outlets goes way beyond what was ever proposed by Mal Brough and the federal Coalition at the time. It is ridiculous if you extrapolate it out.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about food security areas. I would hate to be the owner of KFC or Red Rooster in Katherine or Tennant Creek, or have a KFC store in Alice Springs or possibly Darwin because sadly - it is not sad at all - many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people like to eat that type of food. A portion of that type of food that is quite okay and healthy; we just do not want to see people living entirely on it, which is what happens.
However, I can see some do-gooder in Canberra, some hand-wringer, sitting there saying: ‘No, there are too many Aboriginal people going into that KFC, we will shut it down, we will close it. We will close that McDonalds over there because too many Aboriginal people eat there. We do not want that shop operating’. Trying to set up a business anywhere in the world, not just Australia, not just the Northern Territory, is a very difficult thing to do. It is obvious by the statistics; the vast majority of small businesses fail in the first three years and that is by competent people who are reasonably good at running businesses. It is a hard game. We are trying to get commercial activities happening on Indigenous land and we have a federal Labor government saying it does not really give a damn about Northern Territory legislation. It is going to licence these businesses and put another layer of bureaucracy that entrepreneurs have to jump over if they want to open a shop or a store in an Aboriginal community. That is completely wrong.
It is a pity, in the last four years, federal Labor and this government have simply marked time to the point where they have to introduce the second intervention. It is just not right. They have pursued populist policies espoused by city-based academics for four years, and only after talking to Aboriginal people on the ground have they realised the real work required to end the alcohol abuse, get the kids to school, lift standards, build houses, and break the shackles of welfare was not being met. Aboriginal people deserve much more than sitting under a tree waiting for the next welfare cheque. Aboriginal people deserve much more than that.
Madam Speaker, what really irks me about this legislation - not so much the federal legislation, but more the Northern Territory government’s reaction to it. It has welcomed it, which I find completely contrary to what they have been saying. These guys came into this place on Day 1 of this parliamentary sitting week and ran a motion congratulating the federal government for putting forward a Territory rights bill and getting it passed. We were happy enough to support that. Quite honestly, we believe it is silly legislation because we do not believe it will hold up. However, the intent of giving the Territory more rights is not hard to agree with. We were happy enough to let the motion go through without too much protest and see it carried on the voices.
We talk about statehood and the fact that we want equal rights. I do not believe there is a person in this Chamber who does not want statehood. From my perspective, I have been keen on Northern Territory statehood for a very long time, and have done everything I can, both here and in the federal parliament, to promote Territory statehood. It is something we want to see. Territorians should be treated no better and no worse than other Australians are. We simply want a fair go. However, in this same week when we have had these debates in this place, we see legislation coming out of Canberra that tramples all over our rights. I am sure there are probably things in this legislation that are good for the Territory, but it is unfortunate we have a government that is not doing those things already.
The member for Braitling made the point about township and town camp leasing, and creating normal suburbs. Those things have been available for the Northern Territory government to do for a long time now, and they have done nothing. Township leasing - we say, yes, we want more township leasing, but the only township leases we have in place are the ones Mal Brough put in place in the four months he had control of the intervention. Nothing else has eventuated - absolutely nothing. Where are the other 99-year leases, member for Arafura? You are such a great expert on this type of stuff; where are the other 99-year leases? There are none!
The fact is they have been complete failures, but the worst thing is, they never, ever stand up for the Territory - they never stand up for Territorians. It is roll over, Hendo; Julia has made a decree. It is time to take a back seat, Hendo, because Julia has decided this one for you, mate ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Fong Lim should address the Chief Minister by his proper title.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Roll over, Chief Minister. All right, Madam Speaker, I take that on board.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Roll over, Chief Minister; the Prime Minister is making the call on this one. The Chief Minister says: ‘Yes ma’am, okay, we will keep our traps shut, we will not say anything. In fact, Prime Minister, we will issue a media release welcoming your trampling all over our rights, because we are too lazy and incompetent to do anything about it’.
Unfortunately, Question Time demonstrated that. We have a minister for Indigenous affairs who happens to be the Minister for Statehood, who cannot answer the simplest, most basic questions on this legislation, which you would think she would be all over. She has the audacity to stand up and say she is pro-statehood. Well, get real! That is just not happening. It is not happening while we have fools like this who do not have a clue about what is going on in their own portfolio areas. It is just embarrassing! It is like, for the Labor Party at least: ‘Oh, well, we have a couple of blackfellas here, let us give them jobs, give them some responsibility, but do not, for God’s sake, let them answer a question. Do not, for God’s sake, let them get involved’ ...
Dr Burns: All right. Ask one.
Mr TOLLNER: You will not let them do anything. It is: ‘Blacks in the back; sit in the corner and keep your trap shut, say nothing. We want the member for Arnhem to be a pretty face and smile and show off her nice white teeth, but for God’s sake, do not say anything, do not involve yourself in anything’. Quite frankly, they do not trust her. The fact is we all know she is a failure. It is glaringly obvious, because she has not uttered a sensible word yet; she harps on continuously about practically nothing.
You have a look at this side; you ask about competence. I look at the member for Braitling; this guy gets out there, he actually understands the issues. He gets around to remote communities, not just around Central Australia, but also all over the Northern Territory. He takes his job seriously, he is proposing policy, and he is working with Indigenous people. He is not scared to say what he thinks. He said a few things. His utterance on shires is a good example. That upset quite a few people, but the fact is, the guy is prepared to get out there and have a go and say a few things, and as far as I am concerned, he is no different to any other member in the Country Liberals who should be allowed to get up and have a go. Nobody puts a fence around him and tells him to go and sit in the corner and smile and show his nice white teeth. It is just wrong, Madam Speaker.
The member for Arafura, the minister for Indigenous affairs, is so outraged that I referred to some Aboriginal communities as hellholes. I have to ask the question: in a place where you see almost total joblessness, a 96% failure rate in meeting national benchmarks for education, people crammed 20 and 30 to a house, massive amounts of sickness and despair, and people have no hope, no opportunities, no anything, what do you refer to them as? Surely, hellhole would be a good description. To say: ‘No, those places are okay, they are all rosy, everything is fine, and the member for Fong Lim is just a racist’, I find absolutely appalling and abhorrent.
At least the member for Braitling gets out and has a look at these places and sees what is going on. The amount of times he has turned up with photos of houses and other infrastructure on remote communities, highlighting some of the shortfalls in those areas. You have to have been born without a heart not to take notice of that stuff and to sit there and try to ignore it and say it is not happening. You guys over there seem to be born without hearts or brains.
Goodness me, in the same week we are all talking about statehood and Territory rights and all of that stuff, Jenny Macklin rides into town and walks all over our rights, and we do not hear a peep out of you guys. In actual fact, you welcome it. What do you take us for - idiots? Goodness me, this is just appalling.
Madam Speaker, these people deserve censure in the most forceful manner. They are an absolute shame. They are an absolute disgrace to all Territorians, and for that reason I am very supportive of this censure - I hope all my colleagues are supportive. I certainly hope there are a few people on the other side of the Chamber who might just snap out of their stupor and realise what the hell is going on here and support this side of the Chamber in this motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, if I have ever listened to a prize dropkick, I have just listened to the member for Fong Lim. What a dropkick; what an embarrassment! You were an embarrassment when you were the member for Solomon and you are an embarrassment now as the member for Fong Lim.
How dare you and the member for Braitling come in here, hand on heart, and say: ‘Intervention mark II’. The both of you are a disgrace. The both of you are king-size dropkicks, you are hypocrites, and I am sick to the core, listening to your diatribe, your pretence of caring for Aboriginal people. What a load of crap, if I have ever heard it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and if that is not parliamentary, I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I just ask you to withdraw that last part, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said if that is unparliamentary, I will withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: These are guys who have had their noses in the trough for a long time. They are king-size pigs. It is good that the member for Braitling acquaints himself with, and visits, these communities. When you are not from the Territory, you need to acquaint yourself with Territory history - and what Aboriginal people had to endure for 26 years. Do not stand there and preach to me about the CLP! After 26 years of the absolute neglect with the DNA that is embodied in the CLP in fighting every land claim.
I listened to the hypocrisy of the member for Port Darwin, who pretends he is a lawyer. He is someone who has a law degree but has never practised law. There is a fundamental difference. Members opposite should bring back the former member for Araluen - if anyone understood legislation, if anyone could clinically and forensically go through legislation and know what it meant, she is probably the one. She could inform you guys in a proper and better way. Putting all your eggs in that idiot’s basket over there means you are being badly misled …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw ‘idiot’ …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … because he is the last village idiot, I tell you.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. He is the last intellect in the village.
I said the other day in this parliament that I have always been a critic of the most coercive measures which the Commonwealth enacted in legislation in 2007. I have a big smile on my face every time the members for Braitling and Fong Lim quote from the Charles Perkins oration. When I look back on that time in 2007, my father had just died, and I suppose I was reflecting on my father’s life when I delivered that oration because it was a federal government that intervened in my father’s life all those years ago. People say that this is the mark II intervention. When I delivered the Charles Perkins oration, it was showing that the Commonwealth had intervened many years ago into the lives of people like my father. To quote one word from that whole speech is absolutely offensive. You gloss over what I was saying and the importance of all of those issues.
For the members for Port Darwin, Braitling, and Fong Lim, I seek to table the NTER which has just been repealed in federal parliament …
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I remember when Mal Brough, his pin-up boy, passed this legislation in federal parliament. The member for Fong Lim was on radio in the Northern Territory. He could not wait to talk about his pin-up boy, and how this was a great thing John Howard and Mal Brough had done. I went on after the member for Fong Lim and asked if he had actually read the legislation; if he had looked at what was in that legislation.
This is a man who was voted by Territorians to represent Territorians in federal parliament. He failed in his job, and he failed to represent Aboriginal Territorians in Canberra. You failed, member for Fong Lim, and you stand here and say you did your job. You were a fundamental failure when you were the member for Solomon. You allowed Mal Brough - and I seek to table the Stronger Futures legislation …
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: For any of these blokes to say that what has been introduced is worse than what was introduced in 2007 is astonishing. Who can believe the village idiot when he did not even bother to read the first intervention legislation? He could not be bothered reading the legislation even though he was duly elected to represent Territorians in that federal parliament. Don’t you come in here and preach and say that what has been introduced is worse than what Mal Brough brought in, and the other lies he has said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that please. You can only do that by way of substantiative motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw lies. The other issue …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very important speech the member for Arafura is giving. I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is called. A quorum is present.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: He can stand here for half-an-hour and try to sling mud and mislead this parliament about what happened with the Little Children are Sacred report. The former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and this government had been negotiating for many years with the federal Liberal government regarding the issues in, and plight of, the Northern Territory. For the member for Fong Lim …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Half-a-minute ago, the member alluded to another member misleading this House. I ask that she either withdraw or proceed by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I did not hear it, but I ask you to withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The member for Fong Lim, who was the member for Solomon at that time stated, when on his feet, that Mal Brough downloaded the Little Children are Sacred report from the Internet. What a load of gobbledygook. You have misled this parliament. That report was given …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arafura has made an unparliamentary comment and I ask her to withdraw that, please.
Ms Scrymgour: Which one? Gobbledygook? Or that Mal Brough had misled this parliament by saying …
Mr TOLLNER: You accused me of misleading the parliament. That is an unparliamentary statement unless you can come into this House and run …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you will resume your seat. Member for Arafura, please make your speech within the standing orders.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I withdraw saying the member for Fong Lim had misled this parliament.
The former Chief Minister had given the report to the then federal Indigenous Affairs minister to look at and to work together to deal with abuse issues in the Northern Territory.
The member for Fong Lim also said: ‘Mal Brough called a summit and Clare Martin did not even give Mal Brough the courtesy of attending’. The Chief Minister sent three ministers. Three ministers went to the summit Mal Brough had called: the member for Wanguri, who is now the Chief Minister; the member for Karama, who is the Deputy Chief Minister; and I attended this summit with Mal Brough and Philip Ruddock who was …
Mr Tollner: And she turned her back on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, the former Chief Minister trusted her ministers who had ministerial responsibility in those areas …
Mr Tollner: It did not interest her.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She trusted her ministers to deal with this issue. Member for Fong Lim, instead of standing here with your insults and trying to fling mud on issues you really do not know anything about - we all know in your time in federal parliament, John Howard had to put a minder on you because they could not trust you walking around the corridors of Parliament House. You had minders put on you because you could not be trusted, member for Fong Lim, when you were the member for Solomon …
Dr Burns: It was Christopher Pyne.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Christopher Pyne. God, he had the poodle looking after him, did he? The poodle had to look after him …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Arafura, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am trying to direct my comments but the member for Fong Lim is provocative. He made a number of provocative statements, and I am trying to get to that.
The member for Port Darwin, as the Chief Minister says: ‘Dear, oh dear, oh dear, this is the member who thinks he is a lawyer’. He pontificates and is statesmanlike, looks at legislation, flicks it over, and goes through it. If he had bothered reading the NTER …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … if he had read the NTER he would have understood the NTER, and the clauses and approach in the NTER regarding stores and licensing of stores and computers. Did you know that there was not one organisation in these Aboriginal communities under the NTER – if it had a computer in the organisation, Commonwealth officers, at any time, could walk into that organisation, put a USB port on that computer and download information at will? The member for Braitling said what Mal Brough did was a good thing because it was about protecting children. He needs to have a look …
Mr Giles: Only because you guys did nothing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … at what this legislation was. I criticised Mal Brough and John Howard in 2007, and I criticise them now, because 500 pages of intervention legislation and an opportunity to do something with the Northern Territory government - not once in that legislation did it talk about protecting children. You stand in here and you bleat and carry on …
Mr Tollner: That is what it was all about.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no, you have had your opportunity. You just shut your mouth!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Speaker. It is an issue I feel quite strongly about because these clowns on the other side laugh. The member for Fong Lim laughs; he thinks it is a joke ...
Mr Tollner: You are a joke!
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Fong Lim will cease interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not think it is a joke. I have never thought it was a joke, because I take child protection and child abuse quite seriously. We did in 2007, and we do now ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim persists with interjecting. I ask him to listen in silence in the same way members have listened to him.
Mr TOLLNER: To the point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy should be aware this is a two-way street. I was on my feet for a good 20 minutes and there was a constant diatribe coming …
Ms Walker: I listened, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear the member for Nhulunbuy jumping up then. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy was sitting right where you are, Madam Speaker. She had ample opportunity to shut the man …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am in the Chair. Please resume your seat.
Honourable members, the interjections and the level of conversation are untoward. I ask that the member stays within the standing orders in the language used, and that there is a very low level of interjections.
Member for Arafura, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will keep my language within the standing orders.
I want to pick up on the member for Fong Lim where he said I was interjecting. I listened in silence to what he, the member for Braitling, and the member for Port Darwin had to say. I did say something when the member for Port Darwin was speaking in relation to Blue Mud Bay and the reason why the Northern Territory government went to court in getting certainty, because the member for Port Darwin was a bit cute in his language and his recollection of history when he was making his contribution. I did listen in silence to the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim.
What they do not like is when this history is thrown back at them; when they give their version of events and that is contested. They do not like that contested qualification coming back. He talked about this being about welfare quarantining and Territory business. Your mate, Mal Brough, did that. He did that in 2007. You said it was okay then, but you say it is not okay now. There are some fundamental differences. I know members opposite do not want to hear that; they do not want to know there are differences in this legislation.
One of the biggest differences in this - I remember when Mal Brough introduced the NTER into federal parliament. Under duress, he palmed it off to a parliamentary committee because Howard was being pressured a great deal at that time and the federal Liberal Party was being pressured. So Mal Brough had to put the legislation to a parliamentary committee and he gave the committee one day in which to take evidence and look at what that legislation meant to the Northern Territory.
Jenny Macklin - and I do acknowledge Jenny Macklin and federal Labor – yes, the legislation has been introduced in federal parliament, but there are significant differences with the legislation introduced yesterday. The other difference with the legislation is the federal minister has sent the legislation to a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee will have substantial time to look at the legislation and deal with it. I hope the CLP might wake up, make a submission, and state its view on it. It will give opportunities to organisations, Aboriginal people, and other people to look at the legislation and give evidence to the parliamentary committee.
To hear the hypocrisy of the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim - the failed member for Fong Lim who was the failed member for Solomon - saying we have not stood up for Territory rights and are just rolling over. That is absolute nonsense!
The member for Fong Lim rolled over, allowed John Howard and Mal Brough to tickle his tummy, and they sent him off to the radio stations to say: ‘Oh yes, I understand the legislation, ha ha ha’. I recall the radio commentator asking: ‘Did you read the legislation? What does the legislation mean?’ He had his key lines to read out but he read them without having read the legislation. So, to say the federal Labor government has come in over the top and taken away Territory rights - this is the failed member who should have stood up for Territory rights in 2007. If he understood legislation, if he had received a briefing back then, if he knew what he was doing, he would have known then that that was an intervention into the Northern Territory.
That was removing Territory rights and particularly Aboriginal people’s rights, which I know the member for Fong Lim thinks is a joke …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support a very valid censure motion. I have been listening to the member for Arafura and she talks about history lessons, clowns, being in the trough, and 26 years of neglect.
I will add to the history debate. Here is some recent history from the Sunday Territorian: the headline is ‘Northern Territory government rates the worst in the nation’. This is recent history from 23 January this year. We have heard evidence here today. Time and again we have heard people from this side of the House demonstrate the failings of those opposite.
In relation to clowns and the other side, I do not know where the member for Arafura has been, but the Country Liberals and the CLP government achieved an enormous amount over the history of self-government in the Northern Territory, and they did so with a whole lot less cash. The Treasurer says: ‘We have done this, this, this, we are spending more money’. The problem is the Treasurer was run over by a cash truck from Canberra with the rivers of GST money flowing into her coffers just after they took government in 2001.
With all the challenges of recessions, etcetera, the former CLP government had to put up with - and I might add that the Chief Minister, on a regular basis stands in this House and says: ‘Between 1990 and 1994, no increases here, and no increases there’. I would like to remind the House and the member for Arafura about history. I was around in those days and I remember very clearly the then Labor federal government took a knife to the Northern Territory budget - I would be glad if the Treasurer or the Chief Minister might like to correct me. It was about 26% of the budget, somewhere around there, that we lost as a result of a stroke of the pen of those in Canberra. Again, Canberra overseeing and running the business of Territorians of all persuasions. The Treasurer might like to answer that particular question at some stage. I hope those upstairs listening might like to come down and give me a history lesson as to what size those budget cuts were, and what it caused the then CLP government to have to do.
The member for Arafura said: ‘You are in the trough’. I understand that term as ‘snouts in the trough’. We are accused time after time of being part of an organisation that for 26 years had snouts in the trough. I remind the member for Arafura that you have been in government for the last 10 years, and we have not been. If you want to make allegations about us being in the trough, it is ancient history. You are the people in there, you have control of the cheque books, you are the ones spending, doing all sorts of things, and you are the ones creating all the waste.
For the benefit of the member for Arafura, I remind the House of some of the achievements of the previous CLP government in working for the Territory. These people stood up for the Territory. When I first came here in 1978, it was an exciting place. We had just achieved self-government and the CLP government was creating and doing things, with a limited budget, I might add. It was an exciting place. Now I stand here, 30-plus years later and think: ‘Where have we gone? Where are we now? We are perhaps at risk of losing self-government’.
Here are some of the things the Country Liberals proudly achieved since self-government with much less money per capita than the current government has, and it is still not achieving much for Territorians. The gas pipeline - what did that bring - gas to our power station and a cheaper form of electricity. Yulara: I can remember the ALP opposition banging on and saying how terrible that fancy building out there was. ‘Why would you build Yulara?’ They complained, they fought it, they were opposed to it, and what do we have now? We have one of those establishments owned by Aboriginal corporations, employing Aboriginal people, and creating economic wealth for Aboriginal people so they can achieve self-determination …
A member: And now they are talking about a golf course there.
Mr STYLES: And a golf course. There we go, there is another one: a golf course. The CLP did not build the golf course, but perhaps we can claim some credit because we were there when we were building the infrastructure you need to generate wealth.
It is something those opposite have trouble understanding; to generate wealth, you have to actually spend money, create wealth, and infrastructure. Not just million dollar prisons - you have to have something that generates wealth because that is where tax comes from, where governments get the money to spend. If you do not create economic wealth, then you do not have any taxes, you do not have any money to spend, and those in our community who are most in need will not get it. It also goes federally. When we start seeing all that money spent, the interest bill alone which will come from that is astronomical.
Let us go a bit further. Kings Canyon and Katherine Gorge Visitor Centres: who is using those at the moment? Aboriginal people and organisations to generate wealth for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory so they can have self-determination, create their own businesses, and determine their futures, employ more Aboriginal people, employ their families, get things going, and change the entire attitude of some of the Aboriginal employment situations in the Northern Territory.
We established national parks at Litchfield, Douglas Daly, Gregory, Keep River, and Charles Darwin. These parks bring people here. When I was at Charles Darwin National Park recently, there were Aboriginal guides working in private enterprise telling people - I was part of a group - the history of the place. These people are being employed. This stuff creates employment, drags people out of that welfare mentality, makes them productive, builds their self-esteem, and makes them want to get up in the morning and go to work.
Look at the Northern Territory museum. Where is all the fantastic cultural stuff we have in the Northern Territory displayed? At the museum and other museums. The Country Liberals, and to a lesser degree the current government, contributed towards the museums where so much of this fine artwork and fine artefacts are displayed that bring so many people to the Territory. Who is conducting tours? Aboriginal people.
Look at Tennant Creek Gold Battery and the tourist information centre associated with the battery. The Arafura Games – Indigenous people participating from all over the Territory, giving them exposure to other cultures, to other sporting events, and generally, getting them into and involved in wealth-creating sporting events.
You now see more and more Aboriginal people participating in the Masters Games. Marrara Sporting Complex - we talk about sport for kids and our youth. How many Indigenous teams are there now? Plenty. What about running, what about hockey, what about some of our gold medal winners? Where do they go? Marrara Sporting Complex.
The Channel Island Power Station: we went away from power, the clean environment - so many things there. State Square, the building we are standing in. During the recession we had to have courtesy of the Australian Labor Party in government in Canberra - the CLP recognised it was coming. What did they do? They took out an insurance policy. Did we need new schools and new hospitals at that stage? No, we did not need them, so the government looked at what infrastructure we needed. The building on this site had a leaking roof and needed to be replaced. The Legislative Assembly moved to the Chan Building while State Square was being built which, I might add, kept many people in work during the recession we had to have.
This is a history lesson for the member for Arafura. The Country Liberals saw the need to keep local people employed. While they were building this fine establishment, out the back of this building was about 25 utes from someone’s tiling business, or someone’s plumbing business; the building had about 25 vans, all the painters were here, everyone was here working on State Square, Parliament House and generally employed and keeping the whole thing going.
I remember talking to the Ramset man many years ago. In 1991, around the time we had the recession we had to have, he was about to leave town. He had one employee, he was running around selling stuff himself, and he had a person in the office – two Territorians employed. Like many other people, he said: ‘I am going to have to do something because there is just not that much business’. State Square came along and generated so much for the people of the Northern Territory. Again, the lesson in history is if you do not create a successful economy, and a local economy, then everyone suffers – black, white, and brindle – and you do not have the wealth creation we should have. We, as Territorians, deserve a government which puts out stuff that is going to create wealth and not only keep us employed, but also give jobs to our children, give them a future, and give them hope.
The Territory Wildlife Park - who gives guided tours? Aboriginal people. Alice Springs Desert Park - who gives tours there? Aboriginal people. Pastoral roads - who is employed on stations? Aboriginal people. Major highway developments; they get jobs and get trucks in and out so pastoral leases can produce and get their produce to market. Again, who is employed out there? More Aboriginal people.
Recreational fishing: I saw some people recently going out. They have Aboriginal people doing recreational fishing tours. Not only do you get a recreational fishing tour, you also get a great deal of information about the local environment, and the Aboriginal culture of the area. Not only are we giving interstate and overseas visitors, and even locals, a fabulous tourism experience in the Northern Territory, but we are also educating people about Aboriginal culture and why people feel so strongly about their land, their waters, and all sorts of things. It is an education process, again, created and initiated by a CLP government.
The Araluen Arts Centre - the list goes on - the Performing Arts Centre, the Northern Territory university. How many people of Aboriginal descent are now participating in courses at the Northern Territory university? It opened in 1988 at the old Myilly Point site where the old hospital was. I remember it well. I enrolled there myself. Unfortunately, due to personal circumstances, I could not complete the course. Of course, it then moved out to its current location.
The V8 Supercars, tourism developments, East Arm port – here are opportunities. I noticed the member for Casuarina, during Question Time, waved a fantastic big map around and said: ‘Here is what the CLP did not do’ - and this was before the mining resources boom. He showed a map before the mining resources boom of the exploration licences and exploration that was going on at the time the CLP was in government. Then he held up a map and said: ‘Look at what we have done today’. I was quite stunned actually. I thought: ‘There you go; the Northern Territory ALP government is now claiming to be responsible for the resources boom’. Well, I missed that part of history, member for Arafura. It would be nice if someone could update me as to how the member for Casuarina pulled that off without anyone knowing, because that would be a really good part of history.
There again, without things like the railway, for instance - what opened up that area? You only have to have a look at a map of proposed mines and where people are looking; it is either side of the railway line. Who had the vision to do that? Who in the Northern Territory opposed it? Who was it, I wonder? It was the then ALP opposition: ‘No, you do not need a railway, this is a waste of money’, etcetera. What is the very thing in rural and remote Australia that is actually generating wealth? What is happening is the railway and the associated industries now coming to the Northern Territory because of that railway are there because the CLP had the vision and the gumption to get out there and make it happen - and they did, with far less money than the current government and the Treasurer has at their disposal.
Agricultural and horticultural development: we have gone a long way. We now have Katherine and all sorts of things going, but I do not know whether it is actually increasing very much. I note the current government does not seem to be doing too much around the Ord River project Stage 3. They do not seem to want to do too much there. Again, it is about creating wealth, and I do not see the government getting out there championing business and wealth creation so the government will have more taxes to spend on more programs to help those who most need the help.
Window on the Wetlands: there you go, there is another one - Aboriginal tours running out there every day. The NT museum is a great establishment. Stokes Hill precinct, again, there are people going there who can enjoy cultural experiences. Alice Springs Convention Centre: more people coming to the Centre to learn about desert knowledge and Aboriginal culture. They visit Uluru and stay at Aboriginal-owned corporations.
Gas developments: we put in place so many of those gas developments and much of it is now coming to fruition. It is a bit like when the railway opened. I went to the arrival of the first train and I found it quite amazing that the people who actually got it here – and I mention Barry Coulter who is regarded as the father of the Northern Territory railway – were not invited to go on the train, or be there. I found that quite disgusting; the person who worked hardest was not invited to be there. Who did we see hanging out the window? None other than the Chief Minister at the time, the member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin: ‘Yes, aren’t I great?’ - hard hat on, reflective vest on, waving to the crowd saying: ‘Aren’t I wonderful? I got this train here’ I notice there are many things this current government claims ownership of which were initiated by, as the member for Arafura said, 26 years of neglect.
We now get to the Living with Alcohol Program. That was a great program. I was in the police force at the time; it was a great success. Sadly, there was a challenge to the validity of the tax and, unfortunately, we do not have the ability to run a program like that again. The domestic violence program - the CLP government, during its 26 years of neglect, made a huge contribution to getting the domestic violence program off the ground. We talk about drugs and Aboriginal people getting hold of alcohol and drugs. I remember when this government came to government; I think I recall the member for Johnston saying: ‘We got rid of the Foils at Moil’. That legislation was already in the pipeline going through the police force. I spoke to a former Attorney-General in the CLP government who said: ‘That is not quite right because we were in the process of doing that’. However, I accept the government of the day was in and claimed it saying: ‘We are wonderful’.
Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture Program - here we are again. With far less money than this government has at its disposal per capita, we went out and ran programs and did what we could with the limited resources we had: the Peter McAulay Police Centre, the forensic centre, and closure of major rivers to commercial fishermen. I note there are Aboriginal people conducting all sorts of programs where they take tourists out and give people not only a great fishing experience but a great cultural experience also.
I have to say I am stunned and amazed that this government would allow this federal legislation to override the government of the Northern Territory. There are so many more Aboriginal people in the Territory who are becoming educated, it will gather pace - it still has not happened. What we saw was the federal government intervention as a result of this government’s failure to act on the Little Children are Sacred report and failing to act on those problems. I am sure someone will stand up and say: ‘You did absolutely nothing for 26 years’. Well, there is a nice list here of some of the achievements and the proud history of the Country Liberals and, if anyone wants a copy, I am happy to give them one.
What we see now is a government which has systemic policy failures all over the place. We see ministers who do not seem to know what is going on, cannot seem to …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension time for the member for Sanderson, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions of time in a censure motion.
Mr STYLES: The Chief Minister stood here and applauded the federal legislation last week for a Territory rights bill giving us the opportunity to make our own rules. Again, what we see is a massive, Olympic-sized backflip. He says: ‘It is great we have all these rights’, but now he is about to give away our control. I find it amazing that this government is prepared to allow the federal government to come in over the top of us, lay another layer of bureaucracy on top of us, and dictate what goes on in the Territory. And they are not standing on the highest hill and screaming: ‘Last week you said we could have the right to make our own laws’. They will now sit there, do nothing, and let this go through.
Madam Speaker, I am appalled at this government.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, I reject this motion. It is unfortunate for the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory to feel they cannot have and hear a debate in this parliament - a debate which should not be about politicising the lives of Indigenous people or making Aboriginal people a political football between all parties in this parliament. It is a disgrace that this parliament has to succumb to such a level when the intent is to improve the lives of all people in the Northern Territory, particularly Indigenous people. There are many reasons why this has come before the House and, particularly, this week.
Clearly, there is great unrest in the opposition in where they stand on becoming the seventh state in the Federation. Clearly, there is unrest, disquiet, and discontent about the fact that the very DNA of the CLP is about statehood and has always been about statehood, and pushing for the sovereignty of the people of the Northern Territory. It has affected them so much that they now politicise something that has impacted dramatically in the lives of nearly 30% of the Northern Territory population.
In 2007, when Prime Minister John Howard intervened in the lives of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, it was one of the most profound acts in this country’s history - an act of utter despair, fear, and confusion, and an act that completely polarised and paralysed the views of people in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: The member for Araluen walks out because the member for Araluen wants to see Indigenous people fall to the ground …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please withdraw that comment about the reference to members being present.
Ms McCARTHY: The member for Araluen makes comments about the Indigenous people …
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, thank you, minister.
Ms McCARTHY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Ms McCARTHY: … when her very party wants to see more Indigenous people drinking alcohol in the streets of Alice Springs until they drop; that is what the DNA of the CLP is all about. That is what the DNA of the Country Liberals has always been, and is shining through once again in this appalling debate by the opposition this evening, which polarises and demonises Indigenous people once again. They do it through an Indigenous person in this parliament.
I am the minister for Indigenous policy, the Minister for Tourism, the Minister for Local Government, the member for Arnhem, and a Yanyuwa Garrawa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria. I am deeply proud to be an Indigenous person in this parliament. It is unwise when the debate in this House has to refer to the characteristics of persons in this House, their skin colouring, looks, and gender. It is appalling that a member in this House, who has been a representative in the federal parliament, who did not at any point in his time as the member for …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I advise the minister that it comes both ways.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat, please.
Ms McCARTHY: The former member for Solomon did not even lift a finger to read the 500-page document that was to impact so dramatically, so despairingly, on the lives of Territorians. He did not even read one page. So proud was he of not reading one page …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … one has to question why he can even be a part of this debate in his failure as the member of Solomon, and as the member for Fong Lim, to bring into this parliament feigned criticism, and say he is now concerned for Indigenous people. His record stands for itself, as does his record when he calls these communities hellholes. There is no policy and no plan from the Country Liberals to invest in any of these regions; it is purely politics. They are using Aboriginal people once again as the political football.
If we look at the Westminster system of government we know, as a Territory, we do not have the power to tell the Commonwealth what to do. We do not have the power to overrule the Commonwealth with any legislation they wish to impose, intervene, or do for the Northern Territory. We do not have the power to stop them taking anything away from us.
The opposition calls on a censure motion condemning that move by the Commonwealth when their very own leader, John Howard, the former Prime Minister, did exactly the same thing in 2007, and not one word was said in defence of the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The former member for Solomon, the current member for Fong Lim, could not even read one piece of paper of those 500 pages of legislation that impacted so dramatically and so despairingly on the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
It is in that climate our government has had to move forward, recognising our unequal status and saying to the Commonwealth - and this time Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin - we do not want to see a second intervention in the Northern Territory. We need the investment, there is no argument there. We need the investment, we always have needed the investment, but do it in partnership and collaboration with the people of the Northern Territory. That has always been and remains our position.
We will examine in very close detail every aspect of this legislation before the federal parliament, as we should. Our government will very much be part of any committee examining that piece of legislation. As members of parliament, we should be doing the best we can to improve the lives of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in this country which, in this case, happens to be Indigenous people.
Under the intervention that occurred over the past four years, we have progressed as a government to ensure our vision for all people of the Northern Territory is an inclusive vision, a courageous vision. We announced A Working Future to grow our regions. We recognised there were 29 remote service delivery sites across Australia and 15 of them are here in the Northern Territory.
At every point, we have urged the Commonwealth to work with us: do not intervene over the top of us, work with us with A Working Future, work with us with the remote service delivery sites, work with us with the 2021 growth towns across the Northern Territory, and work with us to maintain support and funding for our outstations and smaller communities across the Northern Territory.
That is the way of the Australian Labor Party. That is the very fundamental difference in this legislation in the federal parliament. However imperfect that process may be, the very real difference between federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, and former federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, is one knows how to work with the people of the Northern Territory and the other intervened completely over the top, sending the Army in. That is not collaboration or partnership; it sends a real and strong message of fear, confusion, and despair.
This is what the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory have been trying to grapple with and rise above. While trying to grapple with and understand what 500 pages of legislation in the federal parliament meant in their lives, their member in that federal parliament, the member for Fong Lim, the former member for Solomon - the very real failure in representing the people of the Northern Territory - could not even read one piece of paper of that legislation. Shameful! A shameful indictment on a man who was there to represent the interests of all Northern Territory people. How dare he come into this House and question this legislation when he did not even read the first one ...
Mr Bohlin: Look in the mirror. How many reports?
Ms McCARTHY: I will not say anything Madam Speaker; it is not worth it.
In moving forward, we are focused on A Working Future of the Northern Territory and employment, housing, and education.
I have heard members opposite talk about wealth creation. Let us have a look at that, shall we? Let us unpack what that means. It means looking at the land mass of the Northern Territory and recognising that nearly 50% of the land mass is Indigenous land. How did that come about? That came about because the traditional owners across the Northern Territory had to prove their traditional links to country, to culture, and to kin. While the conservatives were in government, they spent 20 to 27 years trying to prove their identity to country and culture.
Imagine if the then Country Liberals had said to the Indigenous people: ‘We acknowledge you are the traditional owners. We acknowledge you are the first peoples of this country. So, we will not litigate, we will negotiate’. If that began in the 1970s, imagine where we could be today. We would not be talking about decades of neglect, we would be somewhere off in the distance with a future that would be looking pretty bright. But no, that is not what happened. The conservatives fought every single land claim and they took at least 20 of those to the Federal Court and the High Court to appeal, taking the very energy, spirit, and belief of Indigenous people of the Northern Territory and this nation, and told them: ‘You are not who you say you are’. What a waste of time and energy! Imagine what a little goodwill, respect, and decency could have achieved. We would not be here now talking about the decades of neglect; we would be on to other good things, talking about other issues.
Our government has shown the way you have to do this is to work with Indigenous people, not trample over the top of them, and ride over the top and say: ‘Hey, we know what is best for you’. Sure, working with people takes much longer and, yes, working with people means there can be delay in things, but it allows people to feel they are very much a part of the way their future is going.
In the last two years, as we have been progressing A Working Future, it is this Labor government that has committed, not only on paper but also with funding of nearly $1bn to the regions - nearly $1bn. We have not only invested that, we also want to see it come to a very real conclusion about the future - determining the future. The wealth creation raised here is exactly that: talking about the land tenure and the importance of economic development on that land.
I wonder if part of this show presented this afternoon by the opposition is (a) to distract from their internal problems, (b) to certainly distract from their non-commitment and their stumbling over what has been a very good bipartisan process towards statehood, and (c) has a great deal to do with the fact that our Labor government has agreed, has made a decision - a very historic decision in the history of the Northern Territory - to pay rent to the very people these guys opposite should have been paying nearly three decades ago. We have agreed that Aboriginal land is private land, we have recognised just-terms compensation is the constitutional right of every landowner - the constitutional right. It is an incredibly courageous decision by our government. We know this is about encouraging traditional owners to make a real difference in their lives, recognising there will be an ongoing annual payment to encourage and provide hope for the future for their generations of children.
It is a constitutional right that governs every Australian in this country. I wonder if the members opposite, in particular the member for Braitling, have recognised the historic step taken by our government and as a result have reacted very angrily as it is in the DNA of the Country Liberals to oppose anything which improves the lives of Indigenous people in this country.
Let us have a look at the record of the last couple of years. Part of this motion asks what we have done. I am happy to tell you.
In Ali Curung, the Building the Education Revolution has allocated the Ali Curung School $2.1m; $6.7m to implement the strategy for safe water in Yuelamu, Kintore, and Ali Curung; complete and gazette a town plan, a staged implementation plan for the roll-out of government business centres; remote alcohol management plans; and digital regions. Keeping in mind that members opposite opposed the Building the Education Revolution, not wanting to see education facilities built anywhere in the Northern Territory, let alone in Aboriginal communities; and opposed the NBN, the digital technology …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the minister would table the document her advisors have typed and which she is reading from.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, are they personal notes, are they confidential?
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, these are my personal notes and they will be on the record for the member for Fong Lim to read – but, oh, he does not read any legislation, does he? I might have to repeat it for him every time.
In Angurugu, member for Fong Lim, complete and gazette a town plan; again, Building the Education Revolution, a project worth nearly $2m; sealing the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba; name and gazette internal roads; a staged implementation plan for the roll-out of government business centres; remote alcohol management plans; and the upgrade of cyclone shelters.
In Borroloola, Building the Education Revolution, $2.1m; Wollogorang Road and McArthur River Bridge, $5.6m; Digital Regions Initiative, optic fibre to the exchange and fibre reticulation to NT government sites ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions of time in a censure motion.
Ms McCARTHY: See, it is all good news; they just do not want to hear it. That is the difference. I can go on; I am happy to do so in adjournments because there are terrific things going on in the investment our government is providing across the Northern Territory, to all our regions. Investments we put into places we believe have a very real future; unlike the members opposite, unlike the member for Fong Lim who calls them all hellholes and prefers to see them stay that way. No courage, no conviction to assist in working with Indigenous people; the CLP is about riding roughshod over Indigenous people and intervening in their lives forever.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for very long to oppose this motion for two reasons. First, my colleagues, the member for Arafura, in a very colourful way has put forward a case, and the member for Arnhem, in a very eloquent way, has rebutted this censure motion, in spades.
The second reason is there has been a great deal of time consumed this afternoon debating this censure motion, further delaying debate on the Kenbi Land Trust Bill. The member for Sanderson talked about history. Well, the history is they opposed it hammer and tongs for 20-odd years through the courts and expended over $20m opposing that land claim. After everything they have said here today in the censure motion, one would expect they would very solidly support this bill. The test will be, as the member for Fong Lim said: ‘Do not listen to what they say, see what they do’. I have a sneaking suspicion they are going to try to use all sorts of silly little tactics and objections to try to further delay this bill and not agree with it.
The other thing that struck me about today through Question Time and through this debate is something very significant, and I want to lay it on the public record. The first thing is there were accusations that the member for Arnhem was trying to avoid questions - questions that were clearly in the purview of the Treasurer and Minister for Alcohol Policy, Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing. They were questions asked in the first instance by the shadow minister for RGL, the member for Sanderson. They were directed to the minister for Indigenous affairs, and they should really have been directed to the Treasurer. Otherwise, it should have been the member for Braitling, as the shadow for Indigenous affairs, directing those questions to the member for Arnhem.
Similarly, we had the member for Fong Lim directing questions, which were business questions. Through all of this, the one thing that really struck me was there was no question from the member for Macdonnell. I think I saw her in vain trying to ask a question, but she was rebuffed. So, she is someone they do not want in the public eye, they do not want her on the news grabs. She certainly has not spoken in this very important debate about what is happening federally with Strong Futures ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This debate is about the conduct of government, not the conduct of the member for Macdonnell. I ask him to keep his comments relevant.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there has been a lot of latitude today.
Dr BURNS: I will bow down and apologise when I see a picture in spades everywhere of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Macdonnell; they are pushing her to one side and they have humiliated her.
Member for Macdonnell, you have been humiliated today by this crowd on the other side. That is how much they value Indigenous people. That is how much they value someone who has been born and raised, grown up in the Northern Territory, and has been part of Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory for as long as I can remember. I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:Madam CHAIR: We are in clauses 1 to 58. Member for Nelson, do you have further questions in this area?
Mr WOOD: I do, Madam Chair. It seems a long time ago since I was doing this.
In relation to mobile polling booths, I was discussing whether there were limitations on where they are used. My concern has been whether there are guidelines as to whether you would need them in a town when it seems to me to be a little excessive. I can understand why they should be out bush, but I move on from that.
With regard to the issue about mobile polling booths, clause 78(3) says:
(a) Whether or not:
Further down it says:
Could the minister provide an example where, if the government is going to spend money on a mobile polling booth, that would apply, and why it should apply? I will give the example mentioned in the act, where it talks about hospitals. I would have thought if a nurse decides to turn up to a mobile polling booth, that person should be able to vote - or a visitor. I am not sure why that is needed in the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Nelson, mobile polling locations are selected where there are concentrations of electors who would have difficulty voting at appointed polling places on polling day, or where specialised services are required on a large scale. Examples of the application of this restriction might be inmates of a prison, hospital patients, and a high-care facility of a retirement home or retirement village. The maintenance of security and control are important to the management of such institutions. No restrictions would apply to mobile polling in remote areas.
Again, there are two issues: where people would have difficulty in voting at appointed polling places on polling day, or where there are issues of security and other very valid reasons regarding hospital patients who are unable to get to a polling place.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, especially where it is in the prison. Are the prison officers allowed to vote if they happen to be in a hospital or in an aged-care facility? Can the carers use that mobile polling booth to vote? How selective is this clause?
Mr HENDERSON: My advice is it would be subject to the decision of the Electoral Commissioner through his representative in the polling place. The intent of the legislation is to facilitate the vote of people who are unable to get to a polling place on a particular polling day. I would have thought, practically thinking, an example is someone in an aged-care retirement village where there is a shortage of staff. They have to work a double shift and would not be able to get to a polling place. Making a request to vote there might be a genuine reason why someone could vote in those circumstances.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand the answer, Chief Minister. I was concerned people might be excluded from voting at one of those sites. That would worry me because you could be visiting an aged-care facility, not necessarily as a staff member. It is the same in the hospital; you could be a visitor or you might be the gardener outside. You know there is a mobile polling booth and you rush inside. I wanted to ensure it would allow people to use that facility if they knew it was nearby.
Mr HENDERSON: All of this, at the end of the day, will be guided by common sense. The whole philosophy around the Electoral Commissioner and the act is to facilitate as many people voting, and as many people voting formally as possible, and making it as easy as possible for people to cast a vote. I would certainly expect the commissioner and the people who are responsible for the booths on the day to work in the realms of inclusion rather than excluding people.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, Chief Minister. I agree. My concern is that should be the philosophy. Having mobile polling booths in town camps in a city or town, I do not think fits that description. That is the thing which concerns me. It looks as if certain people get a privilege that other people may not get in a town. I understand the reason it is there is because you are out bush. Because you are disabled, you put a mobile polling booth at a hospital. However, simply a town camp, I do not think fits. I am concerned those polling booths are unnecessary.
Regarding the section on electronic voting - there has been discussion about this before. I have gone back to clause 20, which says it is the commissioner’s power to approve electronic or other automated systems. I am not necessarily against electronic systems - and I keep thinking of Al Gore and George Bush. This says the commissioner is the be all and end all. I am not putting the commissioner down, but should this process of electronic voting be scrutinised by parliament or another authority before it is put in place to ensure, if we go down this path - and I am not sure how much of this we have gone down already – to ensure it is secure and a process which is fair and reasonable? The division we are talking about, which is Division 6A, section 85A, says:
(1) The Commissioner may, in writing, approve the use of specified electronic or other automated systems …
Etcetera.
Should there be a process whereby, before we bring electronic voting systems into operation, there is not just the commissioner saying it is okay because there is a philosophical change in what we are doing from the standard voting system we are used to? I am not against it but I am wary about security and processes that are safe.
Mr HENDERSON: This is an interesting point of discussion. There is no suggestion electronic voting will replace the current way electors vote at the 2012 election. There is no way that will happen. There is nothing here to presume this is intended to become the norm at future elections. More recently, jurisdictions such as the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and the ACT have amended their legislation to provide the option for certain voters to vote by electronic means, provided it is conducted under secure controls to protect the secrecy of the vote.
The Commonwealth implemented electronic voting for Defence Forces over the secure Defence Force network at its general election in 2007, and New South Wales provided limited i-voting at its recent state general election, but that initiative is under review. Electronic voting in various forms has been established in some of the larger jurisdictions for electors with impaired vision, but these have been very costly. The ACT provides an option to cast a vote by means of electronic voting at its polling place - I do not know how they do that, but it is an option in the ACT.
The security of the system would be paramount. It would not take place without total confidence in the security. The Territory would be far from a market leader with the use of that technology and, in all likelihood, would only ever adopt a system that has been suitably assured and thoroughly tested in an operational setting. This comes into the realm of, without having a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner on this, the evolution of electoral legislation around the nation.
Commissioners come together as other statutory officers do. This is a very early version of electronic voting. It was adopted by the Commonwealth, particularly for troops deployed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2007 election. The advice is it will not be in place at all for the 2012 election. I anticipate, again not having had a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner about moving towards electronic voting in certain circumstances, he would do that in a very public, open, and transparent way and engage the community, political parties, and Independents on all associated issues. I do not anticipate the Electoral Commissioner would make that decision off his own bat and implement a system without some degree of public consultation, analysis of that consultation, and potentially, even a report to this parliament.
This clause does not require that, but I would have thought any move in that direction would require public consultation, consultation with political parties, the outcomes of those consultations being public, and maybe even a response back to parliament. I am sure the Electoral Commissioner, without having engaged him on this, would not have a problem with doing that.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. From a practical point of view, being one who has many soldiers in my electorate, how does one get a how-to-vote card to a soldier voting electronically? I had no idea when the soldiers were voting; I am not even sure how they would even know who I was in Afghanistan. If they use electronic systems, I am not sure how the process would work. I do not know whether you can answer that, but I can see things that need to be sorted out from that point of view, if candidates feel they are going to be disadvantaged by this system.
Mr HENDERSON: Just on that, we could debate this. I can see that is a very real issue, with people overseas being able to access campaign information. We are moving into an electronic age. I am sure if people were really interested in who was standing in a particular division in a particular state, they would be able to go to the Internet, see who had nominated, and whether they were Independent or from a political party. It means we are going to have to go online and put our campaign material online to ensure people can access it. That is probably the answer to that, but it is a very interesting debate going forward.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Clause 31 is about election campaign material. There was talk in some of the earlier papers that certain things would be exempt and some things would be allowed. I think there was talk about whether you had a biro or a T-shirt. Is there any list, or do you have an idea of what the exemptions would be, or is anything with election material on it required to have the normal addresses and authorisations on it, or are there exemptions?
Mr HENDERSON: Clause 31, the meaning of campaign material allows for the exemption of items from the definition. This means exempted items will not need to be authorised in accordance with section 270. Small items, such as pens do not currently have to be authorised and it is not intended that these items would require authorisation under the amendment proposed in the bill.
It is anticipated that the Electoral Commissioner will make a declaration under section 268A(3) in relation to certain items exempted from authorisation requirements following the passage of the legislation. A registered political party or any candidate may approach the Electoral Commission for advice on what items may be exempted from the definition of campaign material.
The answer is, once this goes through, again, I believe the commissioner would take a practical and commonsense approach to this. He is looking to provide a declaration in relation to certain items, so he obviously has his thoughts on that, once the legislation goes through. Like all these things, I believe the intent is to ensure campaign material through political parties or political candidates - however it is dressed up and served to the voting public - wherever it is practically possible, should be authorised. The member of the public who receives a piece of information can then at least see who is peddling that particular line through that information. On a pen, if it was a ‘Paul Henderson for Wanguri’, it might be written and authorised by so and so from the Labor Party, but you might not able to get it on to a USB if you were giving out USBs. Perhaps if it were on stubby cooler with more room, you would have it on the stubby cooler.
It is a commonsense provision and the political parties and candidates should, if they are producing campaign material and are in doubt, seek advice from the Electoral Commissioner. However, he is going to make a declaration following the passage of the legislation.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 41 is about changing eligibility of candidates – that is local government. I should say local government would be very pleased to hear that is going to change. I applaud that change. It might cause some difficulties in the short term, but in the long term, it will be better.
My next question is in relation to clause 53. This is an amendment to the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations and my concern is why it is not in the Electoral Act. I might have it wrong. It says the lodgement of a nomination or giving of a notice of withdrawal must be done by hand delivery. That is in the Local Government Regulations. Why isn’t it in the Local Government Act? I could not find it and I was wondering why there was a special clause. I looked up the existing act to see how you hand in your nomination, and I might be wrong here, but I could not find a similar provision for candidates who are standing for Northern Territory parliament elections. Clause 53, as I read it, is a requirement for local government nominations. Why isn’t it the same for someone standing for the Legislative Assembly?
Mr HENDERSON: The advice is the processes are slightly different for receiving nominations for the Northern Territory election and local government. Northern Territory political parties, through appropriate officers, lodge a bulk nomination across the 25 seats. There is a slightly different procedure for receiving those nominations. Obviously, as an Independent, you would lodge the same, whereas in local government elections there are no political parties contesting formally, and there are no bulk nominations being lodged at that time.
That is the advice I have as to why it is slightly different. It is because at a Northern Territory election a political party will lodge, typically, a bulk nomination. In our case, the Labor Party’s nomination would have 25 candidates.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. When I looked up Division 3 Nominations, I could not find anything equivalent to the Local Government Act and I had a look through it. It tells you about the nomination form, nomination in one division only, the time to lodge a nomination, withdrawal of consent to nomination, rejection of nomination, but it does not say anything about how a nomination should be lodged. Why is it in one and not the other? If what you say is true, why is there not a description of what you say in the Local Government Act?
Mr HENDERSON: Obviously, the local government requirement and processes around lodgement of nominations are within the regulations, in regard to the Electoral Act that applies to the Northern Territory; it is in the act; it is silent. The proposed regulation only reflects common practice on which the Electoral Act is silent. It also applies in practice at Legislative Assembly elections. I understand your point of why one is in a regulation and one is in the legislation. We are dealing with this act ...
Mr WOOD: One is in local government, one is not in …
Mr HENDERSON: That is the advice. Let us take it out of the hypotheticals. Materially, I do not believe there is a problem in candidates nominating, or it being a barrier for candidates nominating. Why it is slightly different in one to the other is probably a history of time in who was drafting legislation and how that legislation was constructed. However, I agree. In a real world, all of these would be in one act, and then it would be simple.
Mr WOOD: That is what I was going to say. If we can move towards that, it might make life much easier. Madam Chair, I do not think I have more questions on the whole bill. I believe they were all before clause 53. That is all the questions I have.
Clauses 1 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.1 standing in my name. The proposed regulation 24(1B)(a)(iii) relates to the casting of a declaration vote by a person voting before polling day outside the region for which they are enrolled, or for a person casting an absentee vote. This amendment omits the word ‘officer’ and inserts the words ‘authorised officer’ in proposed regulation 24(1B)(a)(iii).
The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment clarifies that the Electoral Commissioner may authorise an appropriate officer to receive the ballot paper at the polling place in these circumstances.
It sounds fairly technical, but I am advised it is totally practical.
Mr WOOD: I had a briefing from the department yesterday. If you asked me to explain these amendments in simple layman’s terms, I cannot. Sometimes, you have to trust what the department is doing. I gather it is ensuring things are aligned, or will not conflict later on with one another. I get the gist of what is happening but it certainly is a difficult little amendment to the act.
Mr HENDERSON: I concur and totally agree, member for Nelson. It did my head in the first time it was explained to me as well, but I think I finally got there.
The purpose of this suite of committee stage amendments is to ensure consistency between provisions in the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - what we are talking about now, this bill - and amendments being made to the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations by the Local Government Electoral Amendment Regulations which introduce a proportional representation vote counting system for local government elections. Those regulations have been to the subordinate legislation committees of this parliament. They were gazetted yesterday. What we are doing here is making committee stage amendments to ensure there is consistency in the language between those two bills.
I asked the same question as you: why the heck are these things not aligned? I defer to the wonderful people in Parliamentary Counsel who obviously have their heads around all this stuff. I thank them for the diligent work in legislation and the construct of it, and the interplay between regulations in one act and the legislation in another act. I agree it is fairly technical, but I am there on it. It is technical to provide for consistency. The other clauses are in much the same discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 67, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 68:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.2 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clause 68, as it is redundant.
Clause negatived.
Clause 69:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.3 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clause 69. That clause is redundant as a result of the other amendments we are making.
Clause negatived.
Clauses 70 to 78, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 79:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.4 standing in my name. The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions that the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment omits clause 79(1) which inserts a reference to ‘Electoral Commissioner’ to replace references to ‘returning officer’. The committee stage clarifies that the Electoral Commissioner, or an officer authorised by the Electoral Commissioner, may record applications for postal votes. The committee stage amendment also makes a minor amendment of a statute law revision nature to normalise the wording of Regulation 28.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 83, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.5 standing in my name. The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions that the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment replaces Schedule 3, containing amendments to the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations to update references to ‘returning officer’ and replace references to the ‘Electoral Commissioner’.
The effects of the committee stage amendment is to remove amendments to Regulation 28, Regulation 45(1)(c), Regulation 45(4), Regulation 49, Regulation 51, Regulation 52, Regulation 53, Regulation 54, and Regulation 55. The regulations which have been removed from Schedule 3 contain a number of roles and responsibilities which the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. This amendment will also ensure consistency in the final version of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations by clarifying roles and responsibilities of persons under the bill.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 18 August 2011.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, from the outset I can say the opposition will not be supporting this legislation, sadly. I say ‘sadly’ because it is our strong desire to support it. It is our strong desire to see the resolution of the Kenbi land claim and all that entails. It is the longest-standing claim in Australia’s history. It surrounds parts of Darwin and I believe it is in most people’s interest to see a resolution of the claim.
The reason we cannot support this legislation is because the culture of cover-up is alive and well in this government. It is alive and well in the Commonwealth government, and it seems to be alive and well in the Northern Land Council. Everywhere we have looked, and every request we have made to be furnished with copies of the in-principle agreement and the heads of agreement between the Northern Land Council, the Australian government, and the Northern Territory government has been denied. To me, this is a bizarre breach of democratic accountability, when you can have two governments, elected by the people to serve the people, and a Commonwealth statutory authority or statutory body in place to serve traditional owners. When those three bodies - two governments and one statutory body - cannot provide even the most basic details of the agreement; that is, the in-principle agreement and the heads of agreement, I have to scratch my head and ask why?
The opposition sent a letter to the Chief Minister following a briefing the Opposition Leader and I received in early October. We sent a letter to the Chief Minister requesting the in-principle agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council. We also asked for a copy of the heads of agreement, between the Commonwealth and Territory governments and the Northern Land Council. The response we received from the Chief Minister was - and I will not go through the whole letter: ‘The documents referred to are joint documents, therefore we will consult with the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council and seek their view on the release in the first instance’.
I do not know whether there was any consultation, but they have not got back to us and said yes or no. The fact is we still have not seen these agreements. It would be fair for one to say: ‘Really this is nothing to do with us. These matters we are talking about are to do with the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council. This is not really the bastion of the Territory government’. My response to that is we are talking about a land grant of 600 km right on the fringe of Darwin surrounding most of the harbour. If that is not in the interests of this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory, I do not know what is!
I have been up hill and down dale for months trying to get my hands on this information and it has been well concealed. I have asked my colleague, the member for Nelson, if he has seen copies of the heads of agreement and the in-principle agreement, and he informs me he has not. I would have thought a government trying to push through legislation might have at least showed the member for Nelson those agreements. No, they have not even come to him. Here we are, legislators in this House, expected to make decisions; you would expect to be given information in order to make those decisions. Sadly, it is not forthcoming. That is a complete breach of trust with the people of the Northern Territory.
I scratch my head wondering why we are debating this legislation now. There is no urgency. The trust can only be set up once the Commonwealth has enacted its legislation. The federal Indigenous Affairs minister has not proposed any legislation for debate in the federal parliament. No legislation has been passed; there have been no speeches by the federal Indigenous Affairs minister about this. We do not know what they are proposing. We do not know what deals have been done. We have no idea what other tracts of land may or may not have been given away. We do not know who is going to be kicked off country. We do not know who is going to be able to stay. We know nothing about this arrangement and that is wrong. These things should be done in the open in full scrutiny of the people of the Northern Territory, not hidden away and covered up. It is completely wrong.
I called my federal colleague, Senator Nigel Scullion, who happens to be the shadow for Indigenous Affairs. He is very interested, as a Territorian, in the Kenbi land claim. Lo and behold, he has not seen copies of the in-principle agreement or heads of agreement.
We have asked for maps of these land claims and the settlements, and the response we receive is these are proposed maps. The Chief Minister wrote to the Opposition Leader saying the maps referred to have been prepared by the Territory for internal purposes only. There is no objection to making copies available on the proviso the maps may be subject to modification.
Goodness me, we do not even have the maps sorted out yet. You give us draft maps. You say in this House there is some urgency in creating this land trust. I fail to see it. Where is the urgency? Why are we debating this now? Federal parliament is rising today - last sittings. There is no hope, not a skerrick of a chance this legislation will go before the federal parliament before the Christmas break. Here we are, for some reason or other, we have to get in there now and create a trust, which we know nothing about. We know nothing about the deal. It has me beat. As I said, we want to support this legislation. We want to see this claim settled. How can you settle a claim, and how can we be expected to support the settlement of the claim, when we know absolutely nothing about it?
The Opposition Leader went to the Northern Land Council the other day to get a briefing on it. Did they show him copies of the in-principle agreement or the heads of agreement? No, of course, they did not. What is the cover-up? Why the secrecy around this? For goodness sakes, I would love the Chief Minister, or one of the members opposite who have seen this thing, to tell us what it is about. Tell us why the secrecy is there, why we cannot see a copy of this. We have two elected governments and one statutory body. What could possibly prevent them from showing us a copy of it? There are no commercial-in-confidence problems. There is nothing of a commercial nature around this at all.
Members of the government have said to me: ‘Why aren’t you supporting this?’ I say: ‘We just want to know what the hell is going on. Get me the information’. Not one of them has come to me and said: ‘We have what you asked for’. Not one of them, as far as I know, has even tried to dig up the information we want to see. The best response we have received so far is: ‘This is nothing to do with the Kenbi land claim. This is simply setting up a trust in which we can put the Territory freehold land’. Well, that is fine; I have no dramas with that. What I want to know is: what is the whole deal? What the hell are we signing up to and when do we get a say?
It drives me crazy in this place that every time the Territory should be standing up and saying something, we have a Chief Minister who completely rolls over. Why would the Chief Minister not stand up and tell Territorians, the people who elected his government, what he signed them up to - what the deals are with the agreement? Why does he even have to run off to the Commonwealth and talk to Jenny Macklin to find out if it is okay with her? Goodness me! This is just crazy stuff. It would be wonderful to have a Chief Minister who actually stood up for Territorians instead of constantly rolling over. It is absolutely appalling. Why the secrecy? Why the cover-up? There is absolutely no excuse.
As I said, it is not an inconsequential little claim we are dealing with here. This is the longest-standing land claim in the history of Australia: 600 km2. Originally, I think 800 km2 was sought and 600 km2 granted – 200 km2 evidently is going to be Northern Territory freehold land. Apart from that, there is practically no information. We do not have certain maps. I hope the Chief Minister, in his response today will table some of these things and show Territorians. I would love it. We could have a quick look at it now, get it over and done with, and we might even support the legislation.
Goodness me! It is just common decency. If you want someone to support something, you should at least tell them what you want them to support. It is just wrong - absolutely wrong! For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government does not come clean. The culture of cover-up is alive and well; it is just second nature, a motor reaction. If you ask a question, they automatically go into hiding. ‘No, we are not going to tell you that’. They cannot even tell you why they are not going to tell you that. You have no reason for covering this up. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are covering this up.
Why wouldn’t the government just say: ‘These are the documents we have signed up to on behalf of Territorians. This is what we are doing on behalf of Territorians’? Or the Australian government say: ‘This is what we are doing on behalf of Australians’. Or the Northern Land Council say: ‘This is what we are doing on behalf of traditional owners’. But no, none of them seem to give a flying rats about being accountable to the people they are supposed to represent and serve. It is wrong.
I hope the Chief Minister, in closing debate on this, will shed a little light on what is going on. I am disappointed that this government feels the need to cover up this information - and for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Chief Minister, be a man. Stand up and speak up for Territorians! Be accountable to Territorians! Tell them what is actually going on here! Tell us about the whole deal, not just some tiny aspect we have some say about! Tell us about the whole deal!
What are the compensation agreements you have worked out? Who is going to stay on the land? Who is going to be left off the land? Who gets to develop the place? What are the arrangements you have come to with Raylene Singh and the other named traditional owners of Kenbi? We have on our books a letter to the Opposition Leader from Raylene Singh saying she is the most senior named Larrakia traditional owner and she is writing the letter because of her serious concerns about the bill which is currently before the Northern Territory parliament and about the Kenbi land trust. There has never been a response to that and the Opposition Leader asked a question about it in Question Time.
The letter was tabled. The Chief Minister has had a chance to read that letter by now, understand what it is about and respond, but to date we have heard no response. We have heard nothing. Does the Chief Minister think Raylene Singh is a complete nut case who should not be taken seriously? Or does she have legitimate concerns? Is she not in fact the most senior Larrakia traditional owner? What is going on? Some answers to questions would be very good. The culture of cover-up, as I said, is alive and well. The Chief Minister has a chance to stand up, put some meat on the bones, and give us some detail about what it is that he, Jenny Macklin, and the Northern Land Council have cooked up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak from what I know. I am not covering up anything …
Mr Henderson: Neither am I, Gerry.
Ms Scrymgour: No one is.
Mr WOOD: I am not inferring anyone else is either. I have had discussions with the government and the land council. The heads of agreement issue - I do not know whether what I am going to say is part of that agreement but I have been given some information and I have never regarded it as information that had a title of heads of agreement over it. All I have heard is there is no money involved, that Blue Mud Bay would not apply because there would be a land compensation switch.
I was given this map, which I presume you can have a look at. That is the map I was given and I have been talking to Tibby Quall and other people about it to explain what the Kenbi land trust will cover. I gather there was also land to be negotiated on Commonwealth land near Mandorah and that is a subject for more discussion because it involves the Commonwealth.
The Kenbi land, as I understand, is the land on the map that is shaded with vertical lines and goes roughly from Charles Point, or probably Point Margaret, through to Woods Inlet. The concept I understand the Kenbi land trust to be about is a requirement under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 The Kenbi (Cox Peninsula) Land Claim No 37 and a means of setting up a trust as written here. I will read this recommendation from The Kenbi (Cox Peninsula) Land Claim No 37, Recommendation 48 on page (xi) of the report summary:
My understanding is what we have seen today is putting the recommendations of the land commissioner into place and what has been proposed is simply to put forward a Kenbi land trust.
I understand the opposition would like to see the heads of agreement principle and that argument you can have with the Chief Minister. From the point of view of this particular bill as it stands, I do not believe it will change my point of view whether you have seen it or not seen it, because I do not see it as something that will make any difference to this land trust bill. Happy for you to find out any more information, but that is simply the information I have been given. If you want to know why you could not get any information, I cannot answer that. I will say, however, that I have done a fair bit of work. I have been contacted by a number of people, a number of lawyers.
I should go back to Day 1 when the member for Fong Lim came to me and said he had concerns. He asked if I would meet Raylene Singh and I said I would. I should say to people that Raylene Singh is related to my wife, who is Wadjigan and that family, the Singhs, are related to her family. Raylene also had another person called Donna Odegaard come with her. They met in my office and said they felt they had not been consulted, so I then decided to do some work for myself.
I travelled to Belyuen to meet Zoe and had a discussion with Zoe, who is one of the Tommy Lyons group; that is, the main claimants for this area. Zoe did not have any problems with this bill. Jason is at Wadeye. I telephoned Jason. He was quite short and sweet, and said absolutely no problem at all. I then met Kathleen in Rapid Creek. Kathleen is a little shy - when you read the document, I believe she is a bit tired of all the controversy over this matter - and she did not have a problem with it either.
I then asked the land council for a meeting to get an indication as to whether Raylene had been informed of what was happening. There was a series of meetings which the Northern Land Council showed me where Raylene had attended. The Northern Land Council said if there was still any doubt, they would ask the government to defer the bill just to ensure she was fully consulted at this stage of the debate.
It is funny that the Northern Territory News editorial stated the Independent MLA should not be holding such an important project to ransom because he has not done his homework. It is wrong on two counts. I had done my homework and I was not holding the project to ransom. What I was doing was ensuring, before this bill came to parliament, if someone had a concern about it, we were allowed to investigate whether that concern was reasonable. Zoe and Jason have told me they had consultation on this bill on a regular basis. As I said, the Northern Land Council showed me the dates of the meetings Raylene attended, and I am satisfied she was informed, as were the other traditional owners.
The other issues in relation to the deferment of this bill - originally it related to the amendment to allow people to hunt on their own land because the status of this land would change. There has been another amendment regarding the payment of rentals.
I have been told the heads of agreement by the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council is about process only. It has nothing to do with compensation and money, and it is hoped the passing of this bill will keep the Commonwealth approval process moving so the matter can be settled.
It is my understanding this bill will allow a trust to be set up over a portion of freehold land that will not be developed for the time being. My understanding is this top portion of land in the Cox Peninsula has been made freehold, and the agreement amongst the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners was some of that land would be able to be developed immediately. When I say immediately, I imagine over the next decades. Some of the land they wish to retain and future generations will decide when and where that land will be developed. My understanding is there is some environmentally sensitive land in that area - little wetlands - and there are also issues with asbestos disposal around Charles Point where Radio Australia used to have their transmitters.
Madam Speaker, I do not see it as any more than that. I have e-mails from many people. I know this land claim has been controversial and going on for a very long time. This bill will not necessarily stop that controversy because the people I have spoken to still believe they should have more say on this land. However, the land commissioner has made a ruling - if you want to ask my family what they think of this ruling, they do not agree with it, but that is not going to change anything. The land commissioner has made a ruling. My wife and her family …
Mr Tollner: It is an agreement between the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government, and the NLC, not the land commissioner.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the call, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: I want to get it straight.
Mr WOOD: There are people who disagree with what has been written in this document. The four traditional owners from my wife’s side are regarded as Wadjigan, and the Wadjigan people are not here as having any real say in this land at all. My sisters-in-law were born around the coast and my brother-in-law was born on Talc Head. When you know many of the place names in this area are in Batjamalh, you wonder whether some people were given any consideration.
I have forgotten the name of the group, Madam Speaker, but you sometimes get people in here to open parliament called the Kenbi Dancers. They are not Larrakia and it should be stated they are not Larrakia. They are a different group associated with Wadjigan and are not Larrakia, although they are sometimes presented as that.
For me it is symbolic of one of the issues here. Have there been people who have spoken powerfully - well-educated and influential people - who have ended up with decisions that suited them and not particularly suited the weaker people in these communities?
I am not going to debate this whole land claim, however, I feel sometimes in the discussions about land rights in this area the weaker people have been overlooked simply because they are not capable, not able to, or not given the opportunity to put their point of view. In the case of my family, Bobby Lane – my wife would call him Uncle Bobby - he was a song man for this area. He was Wadjigan. My daughter has a CD with all his music on it and his explanation of that. He has since passed away. My father-in-law lived at Belyuen, along the coast. He was married to a Wadjigan person. I must admit, from a personal point of view, I have serious concerns about whether all the people who should have been part of this claim were part of the claim.
I know we are talking about this particular land trust, but there is an issue here too. My wife has been speaking to me quite a bit about this. She wonders why the giving of land has been to certain clans or to certain groups, and why it has not been given to the whole group, so it was all of Larrakia, or all of Wagait.
I can give you a classic example. At the moment, there is a tourist operator wanting to do some work on land on the other side of Daly River called Banakula. He has been paying money to the TOs of that land. He has not been paying the Wadjigan money. So, you get the haves and the have-nots. They all regard that as their own land, but because the little clan groups within that are seen by the Northern Land Council as the TOs, you get these haves and have-nots. If there is one issue that is detrimental to Aboriginal people it is we have given out money to certain people within a group, where some people have become quite wealthy and other people have not received any money. As my wife said, why would the land claim not be given to the whole group and divided amongst those people equally? Of course, this is part of this discussion because four people have been given the rights to be the traditional owners under the Tommy Lyons group and, I think, there are 1600 other people. I have the figure here. The land commissioner talked about the classes: ‘includes all of the claimants, a total of 1600 people’.
It is the way the land rights act appears to be written. There have been reviews every now and then, but I wonder whether the fairness in the system - or the unfairness maybe - causes some people to get benefits and some people not, and divides groups of people who traditionally would never have been divided.
Madam Speaker, it is an important bill. I have given it much thought. I have spoken to many people and it is obvious there are people who are not so much against the land trust, they simply have their point of view about the land claim. They do not want to miss out and they want to ensure they are involved. The land trust comes under the land rights act. It is the duty of the Northern Land Council to set up this land trust. It is the duty of the land council to select Aboriginal representatives to be on it. That is where they need to take their concerns - to the Northern Land Council - if they want to be on this land trust and they feel they should be represented. That is where the argument has to go to.
This is a technical document to allow this trust to be set up, and I am satisfied this will make no difference to what is already known about this land claim. As I said, if people have concerns about who will be on this trust, they need to take those concerns directly to the Northern Land Council.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It has been a long time coming. I take on board the comments of the member for Nelson. I will try to, if I can, Chief Minister, answer some of those from the local member point of view.
I acknowledge the President of the Wagait Shire Council, Peter Clee, who is here tonight. Peter is an elected member of that region and has a great interest in what happens with the Kenbi land claim. It certainly has been a long time coming; it is coming up to 11 years now since the land commissioner handed down his determination. As the member for Nelson highlighted, that determination recommended a vast majority of the land claimed back as ALRA land. That would have locked much of that land up for a considerable amount of time. When you …
Mr Tollner: You support land rights, just not in your electorate.
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish, member for Fong Lim. We had a situation where there was a very strong land claim and a recommendation had sat on many minister’s desks, including Coalition ministers’ desks, for quite a period of time. There were many detriment issues which needed to be sorted out and it has been largely completed. This is a great result for not only the traditional owners, but for the wider Larrakia group, for the non-Indigenous residents of the Cox Peninsula, and the whole Darwin region.
The expansion of Darwin has to move around the harbour and we want to see development on the other side of the harbour. I think we would agree there is support on the other side of the harbour for this sort of freehold development. It has been a long time coming.
To allay the fears of the member for Nelson, this land trust will incorporate membership of the wider Larrakia, not just the members of the Tommy Lyons group. It will benefit the Aboriginal people who have affiliation to that land and they will be able to use that land as well. Obviously, the ALRA parts will be used primarily for traditional practices, as is normal.
This sets a great precedent where Aboriginal people have been recognised as being traditional owners, utilising that land for their economic benefit. Only one third of this land is going back as freehold to be held by the trust and developed by a body, which most likely will be the Larrakia Development Corporation. It certainly has been a long time coming. We have had public meetings at Wagait Beach and Belyuen about this. I have made a point of getting government officers there to explain where we are at with the negotiations. That was a few years ago when we thought it was very close, and it has been very close for a very long time, unfortunately.
This legislation gets us a great deal closer and this bill and the explanatory notes that go with it fairly well describe what is proposed: the portions of land to go back as ALRA, the other portions of land to go back as NT freehold, and who would develop those pieces of land, and when and how they would be held. Parts of the freehold land in the northwest would be held and undeveloped because of an outstanding Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
Other sections, like section 32, can be developed now. There is no ILUA required on those lands and we look forward to that development occurring. There is no cover-up here. Basically …
Mr Tollner: Give us the information.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, basically …
Mr Tollner: Hand over the heads of agreement – the in-principle agreement. Don’t say there is no cover-up and then …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Mr KNIGHT: Settle, settle, settle down. It is late. It is the last day. It was presumed originally that all this land would go back as ALRA land. Now, we have a better deal which has been struck with the traditional owners through the land council. They are parties to this agreement and it is up to them to disclose it. We have a better arrangement here. It is fairly well described and, as the member for Nelson said, there is no money changing hands here. We have a better form of …
Mr Tollner: How do you know there is no money changing hands? Prove it. Show us the documentation!
Mr KNIGHT: There is no money changing hands ...
Mr Tollner: Otherwise sit down. You have nothing to contribute. Fool!
Mr KNIGHT: We have a much better deal. The member for Fong Lim is the only person I hear railing at this legislation. No one on the peninsula is railing against this legislation and the way this is moving. Peter Murphy, your old mate, from that side, is an avid supporter of this. The Larrakia Development Corporation is well placed to develop the peninsula. Everyone is in support of this. It has come out as a much better result than what it could have been. The wider Larrakia ...
Mr Tollner: What about the Larrakia Nation? What do they say …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: The wider Larrakia will benefit from this. That has been the position of the Commonwealth and the land council - what is actually put in place, so it is a good result. It sets the foundation for development on the Cox Peninsula and for the future growth of Darwin. It is a very good result. The rights of traditional owners have been respected, and the wider Larrakia will get benefit from this.
There are considerations to go through with Raylene. As the member for Nelson highlighted, the other members of the Tommy Lyons group are very well satisfied. They have been briefed; I have been talking to them. I have been briefed for a few years; they have been briefed for nearly 10 years on this. They are very aware of what is going on. There has been much consultation, and yes, there are a few people stirring the pot. Foxy and Donna Odegaard are stirring the pot, and are continuing to do so for their personal interest. It is very unfortunate they have done so, because it has divided the Singh family. They really need to let people get on with the business which is supported by the wider group.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to that development. The member for Fong Lim wants to refight the land claim – well, the land claim has been heard. Recommendations have come down, and this is a better deal for everyone concerned. I commend the bill to the House. It does set a great example, where we can get rights protected and development occurring.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will go through some of the issues raised by the member for Fong Lim and try to deal with them in an up-front way.
First, I say to the member for Fong Lim, there is no cover-up here. The great conspiracy theories - there are no cover-ups here at all. This has been negotiated up hill and down dale, with a great deal of transparency and acceptance by a range of people so …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Fong Lim, I did not interrupt while you were speaking. Please show me the same respect.
Regarding issues about why the in-principle agreement and heads of agreement have not been made public, first, all three parties to this agreement would have to agree to release. In this case, the parties have discussed release of the agreement and decided that because the agreements are in-principle agreements with some details still to be finalised - for example, the remediation of the former Radio Australia site, and rent payments by the Commonwealth for ongoing use of land - the agreements will not be released. Details of the proposed settlement were certainly made public when the Territory traditional owners and the NLC jointly announced settlement of detriment issues for the land claim on 30 January. That deals with the culture of cover-up.
Regarding the parties affected and the detriment issues, there is support for what is proposed from AFANT, the Seafood Council, and the people who operate Crab Claw Island, and all the blockies will be provided a lease. No one is going to be kicked off land they have occupied, and there have been any number of public meetings on the Cox Peninsula. No one who currently has access to, or operates from, that area in any way, or has property in whatever form tenure has or has not taken over the years – no one is detrimentally impacted by this.
The member for Fong Lim railed about why we are ramming this through tonight when federal parliament is rising for the year. Member for Fong Lim, there is no requirement for federal legislation in regard to this at all. Nothing has to go to the federal parliament. We are dealing with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, so on this issue about why we are pushing it through when the federal parliament is winding up for the year, there is no requirement for this to go to the federal parliament.
As I said, no one will be, or has been, kicked off. Everyone will get a lease. In relation to the detail, I am quite happy to table the document. The member for Fong Lim said there is no detail about different land tenure on the Cox Peninsula. It talks about current tenure, tenure following the settlement, and different land is shaded and hatched in different areas. This all has to be finalised in detail and that is why it is called a proposed settlement. Surveys need to be conducted, identification of sacred sites needs to take place, the lines on the map might change a little to go around a particular sacred site, and the issues of road reserves, corridors, and other potential easements need to be provided for. However, there is no secrecy in the land use and what types of land use are being provided for under this proposed settlement.
Madam Speaker, I table this map. The member for Fong Lim said if we could give more detail, they might look at changing their mind because they want to support this. I will table this map; there is nothing to hide and any changes would be very minor based on surveys currently being conducted to get the final contours of the land realised.
I acknowledge the traditional owners and the land councils in being totally pragmatic and open with the people of Darwin, particularly recreational fishermen. The agreement means the High Court Blue Mud Bay ruling will not apply to Darwin Harbour. The area will still be subject to sacred site protection and all commercial and recreational fisherman and other recreational users will be able to access the intertidal zones and beaches on the Cox Peninsula without fee or permits. That goes to show everyone in Darwin and greater Darwin with traditional access to the harbour will continue to maintain that. I thank the traditional owners and the land councils for being totally committed as Territorians. As neighbours in land ownership we will continue to have mutual respect for land and mutual access.
Hopefully, the member for Fong Lim now understands there is no cover-up here. Everyone who is principally affected by this accepts the agreement. The only people who are saying no to this are the CLP. I will not be provocative and say it is because they want to fight the land claim again, but they are the only ones saying no.
The furphies about some secret cash payments being made as part of this deal and ‘we need to understand what they are’. I am on the Parliamentary Record, I am required to tell the truth as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and I can say absolutely there are no lump sum payments or cash payments to certain groups of traditional owners. The primary benefit being made to traditional owners as a result of this settlement is the grant of land which can be used to create economic development opportunities.
As I said previously, and as my colleague, the Attorney-General said, the issue of who is going to be part of that land trust and beneficiaries of the trust is an issue between the Northern Land Council and traditional owners. Traditional owners will receive cash payments in the form of rent from Commonwealth agencies, for example, for the lighthouse at Charles Point and from private individuals, for example, owners of the shacks at Raft Point and in Bynoe Harbour.
There are no lump sum payments being made by the Northern Territory or the Commonwealth to secure the agreement. Let us put that on the record. There is no cash windfall, no secret deal to any group of traditional owners to get to this agreement. If my word on the Parliamentary Record is not good enough, I do not know what is.
The member for Fong Lim also talked about the letter from Raylene Singh. I am not here to go into the debates about who is or who is not a beneficiary of this trust, but I can advise the NLC has advised it has conducted further consultations with Raylene Singh and other traditional owners since this legislation was tabled in the October sittings.
The committee stage amendments address issues raised by the NLC following consultations with TOs - and we will get to those committee stage amendments later. My department has also conducted an information session with Raylene, other TOs, and the NLC yesterday afternoon. Ten people attended that meeting. I have been advised the bill now addresses all issues raised in consultations, and there are no outstanding issues in respect of the bill.
Member for Fong Lim, regarding your concerns about this, and regarding the letter from Raylene to the Leader of the Opposition, my advice is, as a result of issues raised at the NLC, the committee stage amendments we are making, the information session with Raylene and other TOs and the NLC yesterday afternoon - all those issue raised have been dealt with and there are no outstanding issues in respect of the bill. I hope that removes another barrier to the opposition’s ability to support the bill removed.
Regarding the conditions the member for Fong Lim established concerning the reasons why the CLP will not support this bill this evening, it is an historic bill - a bill that has seen many people waiting. Many people pass away over the years. This is an issue of respect for the Larrakia people, and the acknowledgement 11 years ago that they were the traditional owners of this land. It would be fantastic for the Larrakia, for this parliament to be unanimous in support of this legislation this evening, to show that, indeed, times have moved on; that we, as a parliament, have confidence in what we are putting forward today in a trust being a vehicle to hold land until such time as that land is developed to the benefit of Aboriginal people, Larrakia people, and all of us can put the issue behind us and move forward.
Regarding the issues of cover-up, there is no cover-up. Everyone who has interest in that land supports what is being put forward. There is no federal legislation required, so it is not an issue of ramming this through the House. No one is being kicked off land. Anyone who has an interest in land will get a lease. Regarding the so-called ‘no one knows what is going on, what is happening to the land’, I have tabled maps here tonight. They are on the public record, subject to very minor amendments. Those amendments will result from surveys, sacred sites, road reserves, and other easements that need to be dealt with within the final delineations of those areas.
Regarding Raylene Singh and her concerns, the advice is those concerns have been resolved through the committee stage amendments of the bill. In regard to allegations about large, or any, cash sum payments between governments to TOs, I have refuted that. That has not happened as part of this, and it is on the public record from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I believe if there is goodwill from the opposition, all the issues raised as concerns by the member for Fong Lim have been dealt with. I hope the opposition, in good faith, and to show support for the Larrakia people, will support the bill.
Madam Speaker, with those comments, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175) together with Schedule of Amendments No 68, circulated by the Chief Minister, Mr Henderson.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.1 standing in my name. There are four amendments being moved in the committee stage this evening. The rationale of these amendments is clarification. All the amendments are modelled on ALRA and they go to transparency and strengthening the governance of the land trust which this bill creates. It is to provide clarity and certainty that the vehicle which creates this trust is consistent with ALRA.
In 68.1, clause 3, the committee stage amendment schedule provides for an additional note to be inserted in the definition of prescribed land, referring to a new subclause 13(8) of the bill, which establishes the manner in which the Kenbi land trust can deal with the freehold title granted to it under the act. This is a technical amendment and, of course, over time, prescribed land which is held in the trust will diminish as that land is developed, making clear the land is no longer prescribed.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I have a couple of general questions to put to the Chief Minister regarding the bill and matters surrounding it. I do not know how you want to handle this, Madam Chair, but if you are happy, I will quickly ask some questions of the Chief Minister and get his responses.
As far as the amendments the Chief Minister is moving, I am not in the business of quibbling for the sake of quibbling and you people can get through it. Obviously, I cannot speak for every member here but the opposition will not be supporting the bill because we have not been given what we believe is adequate information.
If I could ask some questions of the Chief Minister, if he is happy with that, we will get out of the way and let you get on with it.
Mr HENDERSON: Given the importance of this; obviously, we have parliamentary procedure, but I am happy to proceed in that tone, to put on the public record any information you may require, member for Fong Lim.
Madam CHAIR: That is fine, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, during the contribution by the member for Daly, he suggested it would be more than likely the Larrakia Development Corporation would be the developer of the Territory freehold land of the grant. Is that your view and, without going into too much detail, can you tell me whether it is named in the heads of agreement or the in-principle agreement as the preferred developer of that land?
Mr HENDERSON: The agreement states the developer of the land will be determined by the Northern Land Council after consultations and agreement with the traditional owners. The advice I have is it is likely to be the Larrakia Development Corporation, but no final decision has been made. At the end of the day, the decision about who will be the developer of that land will be a decision of the Northern Land Council, after consultation with the traditional owners under the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Mr TOLLNER: I should have been a bit more specific, I suppose. Given the fact the member for Daly did name the Larrakia Development Corporation, are they named in the in-principle agreement as a possible developer, or the heads of agreement?
Mr HENDERSON: No. The answer is no, they are not named in any documentation. The agreement clearly states, consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the developer of the land will be determined by the Northern Land Council after discussion with traditional owners, as prescribed and understood under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I am advised it is likely to be the Larrakia Development Corporation, but that decision has not being finalised and made. It is not a decision for this government and the LDC is not named in any of the documentation.
Mr TOLLNER: Is any other development corporation named in any of the documents? I am sorry, what you are saying to me is that in the heads of agreement and the in-principle agreement, there is no mention whatsoever of the Larrakia Development Corporation or any other developer?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, that is the case.
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly, we are not going to get copies of those agreements, so in that regard the opposition is still as much in the dark as we always were. We are very disappointed we cannot support this bill because of this cover-up the government, the Commonwealth, and the NLC have entered into. It is an awful shame I have to say, because we are really interested in supporting it. We just want to ensure everything is above board, but I suppose we will never get to know because we will never get to see those agreements.
Madam Chair, that is the end of my questioning.
Mr HENDERSON: In conclusion on that line of questioning, I understand where the member for Fong Lim is coming from, because obviously anyone who lives in this town and has friends and acquaintances across the Larrakia, there are all sorts of issues and conspiracy theories being run. One of those theories is the deal has been done; there is a done deal. What I am saying is regarding the agreements that have been negotiated and the trust that is being established here tonight, there are no specific developers mentioned in any of those agreements.
Consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the NLC is required to consult with traditional owners and obtain informed consent of traditional owners regarding any pathway forward for dealing with that land in a commercial way, consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Hopefully, those words from the Chief Minister on the public record - even if they do not go to assuage the concerns of the member for Fong Lim and the opposition - the broader Larrakia who may have concerns in regard to that can take assurance from me as Chief Minister that there is no commercial entity named as being the beneficiary for any of this development activity in the agreement.
To get back to the committee stage, I have moved amendment 68.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.2 to clause 8, which sets out the functions of the Kenbi land trust consistent with ALRA. This amendment to the schedule provides for amendment to clause 8(3) dealing with trust monies to the effect that NLC must on pay any monies paid to the trust to the traditional owners or for their benefit within six months of receipt rather than being dealt with as prescribed by regulations. Again, this is to provide consistency with monies and disbursements from the trust to be consistent with ALRA.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.3 to clause 13, which establishes the manner in which the Kenbi land trust can deal with the freehold title granted to it under the act. This amendment provides for amendment to clause 13 by adding subclause 13(8) which provides that if Kenbi freehold title is surrendered to the Territory, that land is no longer prescribed land and no longer vested in the trust.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 13A:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.4 to clause 13A regarding traditional rights to use, or occupation of, prescribed land. Again, this is to provide consistency with ALRA. This is a new clause to be inserted after clause 13 providing clear entitlement for Aboriginals to enter, occupy, or use trust land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition unless that entitlement would interfere with an interest or licence held by others in the land. Again, that is to provide consistency with ALRA.
New clause 13A agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on this side of the House who have a passion for the economic growth and development of the Northern Territory and for their contributions to an important statement to this House and, through the House, to the people of the Northern Territory. Everyone on our side who spoke to the statement talked about the exciting future the Northern Territory has.
Our place in the sun is really emerging as the place to be for economic growth, investment, and jobs, particularly with the rise of the Asian century in economic power, and our position with Darwin being the gateway to Asia for Australia, and Asia’s gateway to Australia through Darwin.
My colleagues spoke about what is happening in their portfolios, and particularly in their regions, because the economic growth of the Northern Territory is not just about the growth of the economy in Darwin, it is about economic growth throughout the regions of the Northern Territory - whether that comes from mining, pastoral or horticultural activity, or tourism opportunities. We are all working hard to develop those opportunities for the Northern Territory.
It certainly was pretty stark in Question Time today when my colleague, the Resources minister, held up two maps relating to mining tenure in the Northern Territory, one going back to 2001, the other to today. It was a reminder for me, and a bit of a walk down memory lane. As the first Resources minister in the new Territory Labor government in 2001, the difference in our attitude was getting out and promoting the Northern Territory as a place to invest, and dealing in a respectful way with Aboriginal people and their ownership of land.
When I became the minister for Resources, one of the first things I was confronted with was something like 700 applications for mineral exploration leases in the Northern Territory that were not even being processed by the previous Resources minister and the previous CLP government. That pile had been growing and growing. I could barely see over the pile on top of my desk. The reason those applications for exploration leases were not being moved on by the minister was because the minister and the then CLP government wanted to play politics with native title.
Essentially, they decided – through the political ‘divide and conquer’ way they dealt with issues on Aboriginal land - instead of negotiating with Aboriginal people and using the processes available under the Native Title Act to facilitate the ability to grant those exploration titles, they would not use the negotiated pathway through the Native Title Act with the Native Title Tribunal, but would seek to legislate for their own. Why on earth would you do that unless it was for none other than a political reason - to continue to divide this Territory on a black and white basis over access to land was an absolute outrage?
One of the first things I did as minister was consistent with one of the first Cabinet decisions we made as the new government; that we were going to negotiate with Aboriginal people, not litigate. I instructed my department to immediately use the Commonwealth Native Title Act provisions and get that backlog moving. We did that. We also negotiated amendments to ALRA to provide for more efficient processing of exploration and mining licences. That negotiation was done with absolute respect and support from the four land councils in those amendments.
It was just fabulous for me to see today, on the back of all the work our Resources minister has been doing to attract investment in mining in the Territory, that map go from an ocean of, basically, not much happening at all to, essentially, all of the Territory now appears to be under application for exploration or mining lease. Why is that such a great outcome for the Northern Territory? It is because it provides jobs for people and investment opportunities for business. Importantly, it provides jobs for people in our regions. It was certainly a stark visual reality check of the difference in outcome when you respectfully negotiate a way forward on behalf of the Territory, or you play politics. I thank my colleague, the Resources minister, for bringing those maps out today.
If you look, in contrast with the CLP - and I will not go on for long about this tonight; they have, obviously, decided tactically they are not going to speak on ministerial statements. I do not know what childish game is being played over there in that regard, but being able to contribute to ministerial statements is all about putting forward an alternative view. If not putting forward an alternative view, it is an opportunity to put forward to Territorians who have elected you to this place, different ideas, a different way forward, or different ideas to be considered. This parliament is supposed to be an opportunity to debate, particularly in ministerial statements …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It would have to be relevance. I am not sure where the Chief Minister has wandered. I thought he was finishing something. It should be relevant to that, not something else.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Drysdale. The Chief Minister is wrapping a ministerial statement related to government.
Mr HENDERSON: It is relevant because I was talking about the fact we had a ministerial statement in this House on major projects and the opportunities for the Northern Territory. The opposition decided not to contribute - not one word. I am going to put forward, in closing my debate, my thoughts about why the opposition has decided not to contribute to ministerial statements. That is the fact and that is what they are doing.
I do not know what their tactic is. It shows the people of the Northern Territory that those members who have been elected to represent their constituents’ views, to hold the government to account, to put forward alternative policy, to put forward ideas to be debated in this parliament, are hollow shells, empty vessels rattling around with nothing to contribute, nothing to say, and abrogating their responsibilities as members of parliament and shadow ministers. Even if the shadow minister was to do his or her job and jump up - in this case, the Leader of the Opposition - if no one else, I know members of their party would follow the debate online just to see what the parliamentary wing was doing in the parliament.
I would have thought there would be 20, 30, 50, 100 – I do not know – people in their party who would follow debates. Even for them, they might want to know what the Leader of the Opposition was thinking about how he would try to attract investment to the Northern Territory to develop the Northern Territory. They have obviously decided as a tactic they are not going to play; they have taken their bat and ball and gone home. This House, and debate in this House, is sadder because of that.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the member for Nelson for their contributions to the debate.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, it being 9pm I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, being the last sitting before Christmas I take this opportunity to say my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2011. I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I wish our Chief Minister, all my colleagues and their families a merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year.
My best wishes and special thanks go to all the dedicated staff of the Legislative Assembly who work so hard to look after us each year. I also offer my best wishes to our patient and hard-working drivers; and my best wishes to all members of this House and the opposition.
To all my constituents in the electorate of Casuarina, I am honoured to represent you and thank you for your continued support, and I wish you all a happy, safe and joyous festive season.
I thank Casuarina Police Station Officer-in-Charge, Roger Jeffrey, and his band of hard-working police officers for doing a fantastic job in maintaining the safety of the northern suburbs, especially the Casuarina area. I especially thank the Casuarina Police Beat staff: Gerry, Mark, Dave, Adam and Dan. Your efforts and presence in our community are very much appreciated.
I say thank you and Christmas wishes to the staff of the government departments, Darwin City Council, and the many other support organisations which have provided assistance and advice to my electorate officer in response to constituents’ concerns this year. I wish you all a wonderful festive season.
To Tony Miaoudis and the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre; to Ben Gill, the GPT staff at Casuarina Shopping Square, to Chris Voudouris and tenants of the Casuarina Convenience Centre, to all the small business owners and staff within my electorate, I wish you all a prosperous festive season.
To my ministerial staff and my electorate officer, Debbie, who works hard from morning until late, putting up with complaints and sometimes irate constituents; my sincere thanks for your loyalty, hard work and support again this year. I wish you and all your families the very best for a wonderful Christmas, and I look forward to working together in 2012.
For those of you who are leaving Darwin to share their Christmas with loved ones, I wish you a safe and enjoyable trip. To all of those who are staying in Darwin, I look forward to catching up with you around the traps. I will be at Casuarina Square helping Somerville wrap presents for a couple of weekends, and I really enjoy that.
2011 has been an extremely busy year for me as a local member and as a minister, particularly with my extensive interstate and overseas travel to promote the Territory. I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this year; it has been a year filled with surprises, happy memories and, of course, a few sad ones as well. I am very fortunate to have a wonderful support team whose tireless efforts and commitment I very much appreciate.
I also thank my many special friends and supporters for their dedication, assistance and support this year. I especially thank my sons, Alexander and Michael, and I am looking forward to seeing them in the next few weeks.
To my team of helpers, volunteers and ALP branch members, as a local member and a minister, thank you for your continued support and dedication. It is this loyal group that supports people like me and enables us to operate and function the way we do. I wish you and your families a joyous Christmas and look forward to your support in 2012.
I have three fantastic schools in Casuarina electorate: Nakara Primary, Alawa Primary and Dripstone Middle School, and I am extremely proud of the teachers and staff in these schools. My sincere thanks go to the school Principals, Brian Collins, Brendan Wessely, and Fathma Mauger, along with their school council committee members for their ongoing hard work; and all the teachers. I enjoyed my school visits this year and I am looking forward to being Santa again for the Nakara Preschool students next year. Unfortunately, I am going to miss the Dripstone Middle School presentation and the Nakara graduation on Thursday, 8 December, because I need to fly to Melbourne for a ministerial council.
I take this opportunity to congratulate staff within the Department of Health for their recent achievements. Ms Bronte Douglas of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre was awarded the ‘Weary’ Dunlop Award in October. In addition to her duties at the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre, Ms Douglas is a Royal Australian Air Force Reservist – as I was - having recently served in Afghanistan. This prestigious award, named in honour of the Australian surgeon and war hero, Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop, was presented at the Australian Military Medicine Association Conference in Melbourne. Ms Douglas received this award for Best Original Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Conference by a member of the association for her paper based on her experience in aeromedical evacuation coordination in southern Afghanistan.
I acknowledge the 28 staff from both the Department of Health and Department of Children and Families who recently graduated from the Middle Managers and Leadership Development Program, obtaining a Diploma of Management. Our government is committed to supporting and building our workforce, and these graduates are part of the success of our Growing Our Own strategy. I commend all participants for the commitment in obtaining their diploma.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting and presenting the Rotary Sunrise Aboriginal Health Workers Excellence Award in the main hall of Parliament House. The Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise, in partnership with the Department of Health, Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, United Voice, and Aboriginal Medical Service Alliance NT recognise the dedication and excellence of Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory. Sixty-six nominations were received, and I congratulate the overall winner of the Excellence Award, Marion Swift, from Ntaria Community Health Centre.
I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Dr James Scattini, a well-known medical practitioner in Katherine who, for 45 years, has provided obstetric services to the community. He will be formally recognised by the Maternity Ward staff of Katherine District Hospital, along with known former patients, including many of the babies he assisted to deliver. Dr Scattini first came to Katherine in 1966 as a resident doctor, where he joined the sole practising medical officer at the time. During his time in Katherine, Dr Scattini has delivered hundreds of babies and has seen the population triple in size. I thank Dr Scattini, as do all the families he has assisted, and wish him very well.
It is also fitting to recognise the hard work of others who have contributed to our health system. I congratulate Dr John Boffa, who was recently named the Northern Territory Australian of the Year for 2012. Dr Boffa, of the Central Australian Aboriginal Health Congress, has committed his career to improving health outcomes for Indigenous people and is dedicated to changing alcohol use patterns in Indigenous communities. His work has included campaigns such as Beat the Grog and Thirsty Thursday, which highlighted the need to address the global factors that contribute to an individual’s behaviour. As the Minister for Health, I am proud to have a medical officer of his calibre, expertise and dedication working in the community of Central Australia. I congratulate Dr Boffa and wish him all the best for the National Award in January.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have another week of parliament sittings, three days, to go and I know there is going to be some argy-bargy here, but we should not let the differences between our political views inflict us with bad spirit. Let us look forward to the good spirit of Christmas, and despite what we say in this House, let us see if we can remain friends or, at least be civil to each other. We have another year to go, and let us be happy.
I wish everyone on all sides of the House a very merry Christmas with your family and a very happy and prosperous new year.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Child Protection for his kind regards.
The issue I would like to discuss tonight is an amusing twist in an ongoing battle between me and the Minister for Child Protection. I have been quite public about my disappointment of how the Minister for Child Protection has established the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee to act as the independent watchdog for the government’s implementation of the Growing them strong, together report or the board of inquiry report into child protection released in October 2010.
The report recommended the Children’s Commissioner be responsible for monitoring the government’s implementation of the 147 recommendations of this report; however, the minister, instead, set up the not-so-independent Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. As many will recall, the Minister for Child Protection undertook to implement all 147 recommendations, but promptly did a backflip on the recommendation that the Children’s Commissioner should be responsible for externally monitoring the reforms.
The government set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, a group of eight people selected by the government to oversee the government’s progress in reforming child protection. The committee has members from interstate as well as the Northern Territory, and it meets quarterly at different locations throughout the Northern Territory.
In a parliamentary debate on Monday, 8 August, I spoke about the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee and I said:
The minister has since launched a sustained attack on me for daring to suggest the government was wining and dining the committee. On numerous occasions in parliament since I made this statement in August this year, the minister has complained about how unfair it is that I should suggest he has been wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. He has, quite theatrically, feigned indignation, shock, horror, disgust and personal offence that I should suggest this committee has been wined and dined by the government.
Minister, my suspicions seem to have been well-founded. You will, in fact, be wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee on 1 December 2011. Today I received several notifications of this event the government has organised - a gala dinner specifically in honour of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee - a night of celebration and presentations, apparently.
The gala dinner will be held at the Litchfield Room at the Holiday Inn Esplanade in Darwin. There is a distinguished guest list of 63 people, including all the members of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee; also senior members of the Northern Territory Public Service, the Department of Children and Families; government delegates, including several ministers; the Ombudsman; the Commissioner for Public Employment; members of the CTC and the member for Nelson and many non-government organisations are represented. This should be a fabulous evening where the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee will, indeed, be wined and dined by the government.
Minister, it is probably time to stop the indignant comments I am hearing from the opposite side of the Chamber about my allegation that you had been wining and dining the committee, because now we actually have proof - it is a fact the Northern Territory government is wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee.
On a final note, I acknowledge to the Minister for Child Protection although my name is not on the guest list for the gala dinner for the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, I know that a gentleman, such as he is - such a respectful and well-mannered man - this is obviously an oversight. I advise the minister that, on receipt of my invitation to attend the gala dinner for the committee, I will be delighted to attend.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise honourable members of the death on 18 October 2011 of Dr George Chaloupka OAM. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of many family and friends of the late Dr George Chaloupka.
In particular, I acknowledge the widow of Dr Chaloupka, Ms Pina Guiliani; his son and daughter-in-law, Mr Roman Maher and Ms Barbara Cameron; his son-in-law, Mr Liam Maher; his grandson, Mr Roman Maher; and brother-in-law, Mr Renzo Guiliani. There are many other friends and family here. We have apologies from his daughter, Ms Evelyn Chaloupka, who is in Perth and I believe is listening to this broadcast over the Internet; Mr Ruben Maher, the grandson of the late George Chaloupka, who is currently studying in Adelaide; and Ms Pearl Chaloupka, the daughter of the late George Chaloupka.
Honourable members, I advise that at the end of the condolence motion, I will ask you to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Dr George Chaloupka OAM
Dr George Chaloupka OAM
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
(a) express its condolences at the passing of Dr George Chaloupka OAM, a highly-respected Territorian, an internationally recognised rock art researcher who contributed significantly to the creation of Kakadu National Park and to the better understanding of Aboriginal culture; and
This is a sad occasion for this Chamber and for the Northern Territory. For the information of family members, I was advised of George’s passing by a good friend and staff member, Jamie Gallacher, who called me and advised me of the loss. I immediately contacted the member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, and we quickly decided we would offer the state funeral and this condolence motion to the family as a sign of respect for the amazing contribution George made to the Northern Territory.
George was a highly-regarded and well-respected man in every sense of the word. He made many significant contributions to the Northern Territory during his 79 years. George will be remembered as the dedicated researcher who discovered thousands of previously unidentified rock art sites, mainly across Arnhem Land. He will be remembered for introducing Australia and the world to its inherent grandeur and heritage value. His work recognised the art on the sandstone as the world’s oldest existing record of human expression, created thousands of years before the first designs were painted on the torch-lit cave walls of France.
George has left behind a legacy that went far beyond the mysterious sandstone art galleries of Arnhem Land; a legacy that will continue to live on - the same way the legacy of the ancient rock art he discovered across the Territory lives on today.
On 4 November, George was honoured with a state funeral at the Christ Church Anglican Cathedral under the beautiful stained glass panel that he himself designed. I was honoured to be in attendance at the service. The service was reverent and dignified and, although it was an occasion of sorrow, it was an occasion to pay tribute to, and a celebration of, the life of an admired and truly endearing man. Former Northern Territory Administrator, Tom Pauling QC, presented a moving eulogy at the service and spoke eloquently about George. He shared stories and personal memories of the moments when George touched his life and the lives of many in the Territory. I acknowledge that Tom Pauling QC has agreed for me to quote today in parliament from the eulogy he presented at George’s state funeral:
- Life is a great journey with its beginning, its passage, and its end.
For some like George, life is a great ‘journey in time’, to borrow from the title of his book, that few can aspire to or achieve.
George was born in 1932 in Tniště nad Orlic in Soviet-controlled Bohemia Czechoslovakia, which is where George’s own ‘journey in time’ began.
At 16 as a boy scout, George was inspired to come to Australia. When he went to a scout’s gathering in a chateau which had a large library, in the library was a book on primitive art, including some photos of Bradshaw paintings, and this is what sparked George’s imagination and the pact that he made with his elder brother, Milo, to escape to Australia. George tried to escape his war-torn country by crossing the border, and after two unsuccessful attempts, he finally had success on this third attempt, albeit without Milo. He crossed under the wire and slipped across the border and escaped to the west.
He reached Australia in 1950 and settled in Fremantle, and this is where the next part of George’s great journey in time would begin. Somehow, as fate would have it, George and Milo reunited in Fremantle in the early 1950s and decided to go to the Melbourne Olympics together taking the scenic route via Darwin.
As you can imagine, George and Milo had many adventures along the way to Darwin through the barren lands, but after the Olympics had already begun, they finally arrived in Darwin. In Darwin, they camped on Mindil Beach with crocodile hunters and other colourful characters, and at some point they decided they liked Darwin and set out to find work.
In 1956, George secured a job with the then Northern Territory Water Resources Department, which involved travelling to remote communities across the Territory. His job was to analyse paper recordings from flow gauges in streams in remote areas. In his words, ‘it was a good job, but pretty boring’. Everywhere George went, he found paintings layered across the sandstone, layer on layer of remarkable colour and exuberance, igniting his imagination and a passion inside. When were they painted? By whom were they painted and what did they mean?
George was an artist of no small measure himself, and the aesthetic wonder of the remarkable sites he was seeing was overwhelming. This is what began his life’s work, for which he has been rightly recognised nationally and internationally, not least by an award of a Medal of the Order of Australia conferred in 1990 in recognition of services to Aboriginal Art and Culture, and not to mention he was the inaugural President of the Australian Rock Art Research Association, he won the Churchill Fellowship in 1983, and was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Australian Academy of Sciences in 1997, and in 1998, he received a Doctor of Letters from Northern Territory University, now Charles Darwin University.
George drew on his strong artistic background and began documenting the sites with sketches and photography. George’s work attracted public attention and he was rewarded with a job at the Northern Territory Museum in 1973. They expected him to document every rock art site in Arnhem Land, an impossible task. Having previously documented 3000 unidentified sites, George believed there were thousands yet to be found. You might wonder how George found these secluded rock shelters hidden inside the valleys of the Arnhem Land wilderness. He walked and climbed and climbed, and other times he flew in the passenger seat of the wonderful old Bell 47 helicopters, a method that led to the discovery of many rock galleries. George began to explore the many rock galleries in Deaf Adder Gorge, often with his great friend, the admirable Nipper Kaparigi, the senior traditional owner of that country.
Nipper Kaparigi offered insight into their cultural significance, and George began seeing a sequence to many of the paintings. Scientific dating of rock art is nearly impossible using today’s methods, but George noticed that much of the art work documented ecological changes that were happening in Australia’s pre-history. He believed the earliest rock art in Arnhem Land was painted over 20 000 years ago when the land was drier and different animal species existed even though many scientists believed Aboriginal people only came to Australia 5000 years ago.
- George showed that extinct animals like megafauna are depicted and they disappeared 40 000 years ago. Thylacines are painted and we have not seen them on the mainland for at least 5000 years. The most recent rock art period from 300 years ago to the present depicts Aboriginal contact with the Macassan fishermen and later with Europeans.
George’s favourite philosopher was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who famously wrote:
- Whatever you can do or dream you can begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
George decided to be bold. He boldly decided the megafauna period, the dynamic hunting figures, the arrival of higher seas, the freshwater period, and the fish and birds that followed were all in an understandable ecological sequence. George said, and I quote:
- The rock art of Arnhem Land represents the longest record of human endeavour in the world. You can see all the changes that have taken place in the artist’s physical, religious, and social environment.
- George argued that the earliest of the Arnhem Land rock art would predate any in the world. Subsequent archaeological discoveries substantiated this claim when, in 1989, Rhys Jones and Bert Roberts dated pieces of hematite dating back more than 50 000 years. George did what he could to carry out the task of mapping all the sites he could find, but along the way he lost his great friend, Nipper Kaparigi, who he took from hospital in Darwin to die on his own country as he wished on a beautiful billabong at the foot of Deaf Adder Creek.
George’s discoveries were documented in his book Journey in Time, a work that displays George’s splendid photography. It took George 20 years to bring his book Journey in Time to fruition and it was published in 1999. George wrote in the author’s note to his great work Journey in Time, and I quote:
- To discover what it all meant, who the artists were and how this tradition fitted in the cultural sphere of the local populations, I sought out the traditional owners of each area where I was to search for rock art sites. I was privileged to meet many people of generous spirit and great strength of character who accepted me as a friend. A number of these men and women possessed a deep knowledge of their traditions. These people were my closest companions for more than two decades. They taught me all that I know of this land, their society and its traditions. They grew me up in knowledge as they would express this learning process. I was taught to see the landscape, the shelters, and the paintings through their eyes.
- Subsequent archaeological findings have confirmed again the truth of the bold boast George made early on that the paintings he was discovering would prove to be the oldest continuous art practice in the world. George’s anthropological notes were used to demonstrate the Aboriginal attachment to their country and the first land claim culminated in the declaration of Kakadu National Park. The great archaeologist, Rhys Jones, said:
- There would have been no Kakadu without George.
- George formally retired from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory at 65. A tribute from Mick Alderson, the then Aboriginal Chairman of Kakadu National Park’s Board of Management was read out at his retirement party. Mick wrote of George:
- He fell in love with our country, our culture, and especially our rock art. Perhaps more importantly, he also fell in love with our people. This was based on respect for our people and their knowledge. In turn, George has our respect more than any other balanda I know.
- George’s contribution to rock art research during his lifetime was outstanding and his compassion and love never faltered for a moment. The shared love between George and his family and friends was palpable. It was deeply moving and his wife, Pina’s love, strength, and undying support is central to all this.
George wrote that his great Aboriginal friends who had died never really left him. When he was out there in the stone country, he knew they were there, that dingo following him, that sea eagle, held the spirits of his lost friends and the stone country he so loved will never lose him. He will be sensed, even seen, in many ways and will never leave. We who knew him and those who merely heard about him know what a passionate, compassionate, committed, and caring man he was.
- This great compassion and love still lives on today through Pina and George’s three children, Roman, Eve, and Pearl. Whilst we mourn George’s death, it is his life that we should pay tribute to and celebrate today. What a life that was – a great journey in time.
To Pina and all the family and friends, a sincere condolence from me, as Chief Minister, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and, I am sure, everyone in this parliament. George was a remarkable man who has left a remarkable legacy.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Pina, family and friends, our condolences at the loss of a man who has left a legacy which will be there for years and years to come - an anthropologist arriving in Australia as a refugee in 1949, bringing stories with him, fleeing from communism in the then Czechoslovakia. Like many Australians, he brought to this land stories of experiences in other places. At that time, there would have been many who came from other places in Europe with memories of what had occurred in Europe to seek a new place. He represents those who came to this place, to Australia.
He settled in Western Australia and, of course, we have heard the wonderful story and the spirit of the time to go for a trip to the Olympics via Darwin from Perth, which says a great deal about the desire to see new things, to discover, and to learn. It also reminds me, in thinking of George, there are those of us who seek new landscapes, look, and find different things. Those of us who have been in the bush love looking around and seeing what we can see - what is around that corner, what is underneath that ledge, what the story is – we seek new landscapes. I imagine many of my friends - me included - have enjoyed exploring the bush and wondering what was around the next bend, under the ledge, and what happened here before when we see new landscapes. The striking aspect of this story is that not only did he seek new landscapes he also sought to see what was new and strove to see with new eyes so that he could understand. That is the legacy: the ability to look with new eyes, to interpret what he was seeing, and then help us to understand. That is a significant legacy.
He loved the Territory and is recognised as a great Territorian; a world-recognised authority on rock art. He reminds us that rock art, of itself, is not just something that is on rock that was painted and is interesting, but it tells a story of people and of our place. That, to me, is the significance of his contribution. We all send our friends to look at rock art when they visit Kakadu. They may see something new, but those who linger a little longer are able to gain insights and think a little more about what they have just seen. It helps connect us to what has gone before.
This is the significance of George’s activities and his pursuit of understanding and unlocking those lessons and stories for us to gain access to, and an understanding of, this wonderful place, and gives anyone who comes here a greater connection and insight into how wonderful, interesting, and important this place is. Ultimately, it is not about the rock art; it is about the people who live here and our capacity to understand and connect with one another.
We are here for a period of time, but these artworks signify a continuous story of over 20 000 years, which humbles one and causes one to reflect on what I am doing and what contribution I am making to that which is important. That is the nature of the legacy.
I sat at the funeral and saw the stark contrast in the faces of the people who were there. The Indigenous performers led the way in mourning. I was sitting beside the Ambassador of the Czech Republic with his little bow tie. The contrast between the two was extraordinary. Then we heard the New World Symphony No 9 in E Minor, by Dvořk, a famous Czech composer. The ideas conveyed in that symphony connect so well - a Czech composer; and a man who was an artist, who sought new landscapes and strove to see with new eyes to interpret for us. It was a very special occasion. It tells us the stories of people and that connection with people in other places reinforcing that we are all in this together.
Kakadu is an interesting place, with an interesting story and interesting art. But, it is much more than that. George was recognised as a world authority on rock art and given opportunities to assess prehistoric art in other places. He identified the striking similarities between prehistoric artwork in Europe and in Kakadu. He showed that that which is seen in Europe is largely centred on animals and magnificently portrayed, but the continuous layer upon layer of a story of 20 000 years in Kakadu makes this astonishingly and internationally significant. This drew world attention to our region, to the people who are represented in the art, and the story of which we are a part.
He made the connection between the quality and the nature of the art: the stories behind it - the Sistine Chapel, Borobodur in Java, the Louvre, the temple at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and the clay army in Xi’an, China. He recognised that instinct that all of us want to learn a little more about what really went on before. I grew up on the land. I always wanted to know what happened before we came along. Hunting for those signs - he has done it on our behalf and he has identified much and helped explain much. As an artist looking at art, he was able to gain particular insights. I am pleased to say I have friends who own artwork created by George. So, not only is it someone looking with new eyes, but it is the eyes of an artist being given the opportunity by the French government to visit caves in France to study that prehistoric artwork. In 2001, that gave George the opportunity to tell us the story of the connection between the people behind the art here in Kakadu, and in Europe. There were striking similarities and being interested in such things, I find that thrilling. It satisfies a curiosity, but not really, because it makes us more curious and we want to understand more.
The legacy that has been left is one which, as time passes, will be increasingly valued because it tells a story about us and it is, in fact, about us, and about the people who occupy this place. That artwork is a continuous representation of an unfolding story. If you are a botanist, it tells you stories about what has changed. If you are interested in the change in climate, it tells you that story as well, about the animals that were once here and are no longer; what has happened and the story behind that. It tells about the changes in the people, their lifestyles, and their thinking. We are just a part of that story.
George has made that contribution and reminded us that we are part of something significant. It is a significant legacy. He has gone but will not be forgotten. That story helps us to understand the place in which we live and, hopefully, to make our contribution as George made his magnificent contribution.
May he rest in peace. My condolences to Pina, his three children, and his family and friends.
Mr McCARTHY (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, to the family and friends of Dr George Chaloupka, it is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and all the wonderful staff there who were friends and colleagues.
Dr Chaloupka was a Curator Emeritus at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and, although I did not have the pleasure of knowing him personally, as the Minister for Arts and Museums, I will continue to be inspired by the legacy he has left as one of the great pioneers of rock art research in Australia. The rock paintings of the Arnhem Land Plateau and Kakadu National Park represent the world’s longest continuing art tradition, as well as the longest continuous record of human endeavour. It is thanks to Dr Chaloupka that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory collection records the most complex and extensive body of rock art from that region.
In a sign of the esteem in which he was held, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Foundation established the George Chaloupka Fellowship in 2009 to promote and support research and conservation of Aboriginal rock art located in the Arnhem Land plateau region in the Northern Territory. The $25 000 Fellowship allows an individual to more fully research the field of rock art across a number of areas, including the work of Dr Chaloupka, inspiring others to continue to research this field for more understanding of our ancient cultures.
In commemorating Dr Chaloupka today, I acknowledge the history and anecdotes provided by his colleagues from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
Like so many of us, George came to the Territory on an adventure and made this great place his home. He settled in Darwin in 1956 and worked as a government hydrologist, assessing the stream flows of Northern Territory rivers. It was through this work, investigating river and watercourse systems, that George saw his first Aboriginal rock painting at the East Alligator River, and what a time that must have been. In his own words: ‘I looked up in the ceiling and I was mesmerised by a spell that has never left me’.
He began recording rock art in 1958 while on hydro trips to document river systems in Arnhem Land. In 1973, George was employed by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in a five-year position funded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. George was appointed as Field Anthropologist and Curator of Rock Art at that time. He was able to focus on rock art as full-time work, creating the opportunity to seek out the traditional owners of the land on which the rock art was located. He was able to learn from them which clan group had painted the art and what traditions were associated with such work.
George developed an understanding of the traditional clan estates and the extent of their territories, about the Dreaming sites in the areas, the art and interconnectivity of each part of the whole. Over decades, he recorded more than 2000 rock art sites. Some sites contain a single figure; others are 300 m long with thousands of figures. They were documented along with methodical recordkeeping of the ethnographic life of the traditional owners. His strong connection with the people of the land and passion for art opened up this amazing cultural tradition for future generations to be inspired by and learn from the ancient culture of the Territory’s Indigenous peoples.
His passion went far beyond the cliffs and shelters of Arnhem Land. George was involved in and worked to assist with the first successful Aboriginal land claim, resulting in the creation of Kakadu National Park, and what an incredible legacy that is for family.
He was the inaugural President of the Australian Rock Art Research Association. Dr George Chaloupka’s expertise and contribution to research were widely recognised during his long and distinguished career. His well-deserved accolades and appointments include: a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Pre-History in the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra; a Churchill Fellowship in 1983; and an Order of Australia Medal in 1990 for his services to Aboriginal art and culture. In 1998, George received a Doctor of Letters from the then Northern Territory University.
George retired in 1997 after 38 years of service, researching and cataloguing the NT’s collection of rock art sites. On death and dying, I am advised George said: ‘I want to carry on doing what I am doing. I wish there was a return ticket’.
I was fortunate enough to meet Dr George Chaloupka once at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory where he was observing an exhibition. I met him and spoke with him briefly. The feeling he left with me was he was a true gentleman, a learned person, and one of those people who inspires you with his wisdom.
My condolences on behalf of all the staff at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. May he rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, this morning I pay my condolences to Mr Chaloupka’s widow and to Roman. My family knew the Chaloupkas in the 1960s. My father worked with George Chaloupka in the water resources area for many years and I am sure they went out on trips to do water string testing. My father was not interested in rock art. He was an engineering type of fellow and very focused on engineering things, but we did socialise with the family. I can remember Roman, as do my brothers.
I remember as a young child in the 1960s going to exhibitions and paintings. I am not sure where they were held, but I remember being made to go to these exhibitions, look at paintings, and eat the cheese and whatever they had in those days. At one of the exhibitions, my parents must have bought a quite large George Chaloupka painting and it hung in our house for many years. I believe it was when he was going through the phase of painting horizontally and vertically. This painting hung in our house for a long time. We always talked about it and when we were children, we used to joke about it as well.
Cyclone Tracy came along, rattled the house, the painting fell off the wall, and the frame fell off the painting. After that, it was put into a back room, things grew on it, grew off it, and one day my mother said to me: ‘Do you want this George Chaloupka painting?’ and I said: ‘Oh yes, okay’, and took it to my house. It was on a piece of Masonite in those days and I left it at my house for some time before I thought: ‘I had better clean it up’. I took it to an art gallery and Brian Greenaway took all the spider poop off for me, took all the mould off, reframed it, and it was really quite spectacular. He rang me one day and said: ‘You had better pick up this painting because every time someone walks into the shop, they want to buy it. I have put a red dot on it to stop people asking me’. I quickly went to the shop and got the painting, which hangs on my wall today. It is quite an interesting painting and perhaps one day Roman might want to come out and look at it.
I pass my sympathies on to the family. On behalf of my mother, Noel Padgham, who knew the family for many years and, of course, to Roman and his sisters, condolences from my family and me.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak to this important motion about another great person whose contribution will live on long beyond us in this parliament. I was privileged to be invited by the family to say a few words at his funeral. I will read what I said:
- George fought the illness that finally overcame him with the same tenacity and resolve which characterised his full and productive life. Long before he passed away, various key events and milestones in that life had been written and spoken about by people more eloquent than me. However, because this is a state funeral and because I have the privilege to say a few words today in an official capacity as the member for Arafura, I will touch on some of those events and milestones which are deservedly in the public domain, before moving on to some personal and well-known aspects of George Chaloupka, whose life we celebrate and reflect on.
- You do not have to be born in the Territory to be a Territorian, but you have to have a stake, a commitment in this place, and its future. George was born in what used to be called Czechoslovakia. That country’s peaceful development was interrupted by Nazi occupation, which was replaced at the end of the Second World War by the rigid social regimentation imposed by Soviet Russia and all its Iron Curtain satellites.
- Although still a teenager, George knew that was not for him and, in 1948, he and his brother climbed hills and mountains to cross the border into Western Europe with a plan to migrate to Australia.
- After a stint in Perth, George came to Darwin in 1956 and stayed. He was attracted by the freedom and openness of Territory society and the notion that, to a large extent, the future would be what Territorians chose to make it. For many years, George worked in the Water Resources department within the Commonwealth and Northern Territory administration. It was in the course of carrying out that work that he was first exposed to western Arnhem Land rock art.
He, of all people, knew the striking image he found was not discovery in the true sense, but being part of the rich continuing heritage of the Binninj people of that country. However, it was discovery in the sense of being a revelation for him personally. It set him on a path which was to substantially dictate and determine his destiny. It was a path of exploration and self-education in many respects but, above all, it was a path of studious, humble, and respectful learning from Binninj people, families, and individuals. Binninj people taught him, not just about rock art but, more importantly, about the vibrant Kakadu and western Arnhem Land culture and spiritual beliefs which were, and are, the source of those ancient images.
Over time, Binninj came to accept George as a friend and equal and, ultimately, as a type of Elder in his own right. George viewed this hard-earned trust and recognition with gratitude - and perhaps a degree of awe. However, I know in later years, he increasingly felt the weight of the responsibility that came with being a surviving peer of the cohort of brilliant and authoritative Binninj leaders who had instructed him.
To backtrack a little, George’s diligently-accumulated knowledge about rock art was noted and valued by the inaugural Director of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Colin Jack-Hinton. George was recruited in 1973 into a Territory institution which provided a base and platform for both his continuing field work and his lifelong mission of conveying the wonder and wisdom of Kakadu and western Arnhem Land rock art to an international public.
The late 1970s was an intense and tumultuous period in Territory history. In the national consciousness, two potentially competing ideas, whose time seemed to have finally come, struggled for dominance. One was land rights and the concept of Indigenous self-determination. The other was the creation of the new self-governing entity in Commonwealth-administered north Australia to be established as a quasi state in waiting. One of the battlegrounds was the tension between development of the northern frontier on the one hand, and the preservation of cultural and environmental heritage on the other, which was played out in relation to uranium mining and the establishment of Kakadu National Park. George made it very clear which side he was on and did not pull his punches. Those punches had force and effect due to the years of research George had carried out in western Arnhem Land and Kakadu. George’s submissions and inputs were extremely influential in the ultimate decisions made at the end of the Fox Royal Commission.
George’s ongoing rock art work throughout the 1980s and 1990s enabled him to formulate a sequencing analysis of the thousands of sites he had recorded, and persuasively demonstrate that the presence and culture of Binninj people on their traditional country stretched back 50 000 years. This analysis was confirmed and supported by work carried out in later years by academics such as Dr Mike Smith from the ANU, a former Northern Territory Museum colleague of George, using methods that are more technical. George’s dating and sequencing of Kakadu and western Arnhem Land rock art, from starting out as something radical and controversial, came to be accepted now as strongly prevailing orthodoxy.
I did not know George’s good friend, Nipper Kaparigi, and I also missed properly knowing the old man from Cannon Hill, but I was fortunate enough to have known another giant amongst George’s West Arnhem contemporaries, Mr Nadjamerrek OAM. Mr Nadjamerrek OAM was not only one of the great artists of his generation; his mind was also a treasure trove of information about Aboriginal culture and the history of West Arnhem Land, including its rock art. Together with many others, Mr Nadjamerrek and I were present at the Darwin Waterfront Convention Centre on the night of the launch of the George Chaloupka Fellowship several years ago. I am sure, of all the guests who turned up, George was most chuffed at the arrival of the old man from the Arnhem Land Plateau, who was, by that stage, in pretty frail health. From memory, George was amongst the visitors who made the trip to the Kabulwarnamyo Outstation in 2009 for the state funeral held there for Mr Nadjamerrek.
The other outstanding male Binninj leader who George and I both shared concerns about was Jacob Nayinggul who lives in Gunbalanya. Jacob’s health is also failing, but he has managed to hang on so far, and I know Jacob has been deeply saddened by George’s passing.
- Turning now from the past to the future, the one thing I really wanted to say today was about the human legacy that George leaves behind him in the form of Territorian kids and grandkids. As a mother and grandmother, I know that whatever line of work you are in and whether you experience success or failure or a mixture of the two, at the end of the day those things get shaded out by family.
With his first wife, Janet, George had three children, Roman, Eve and Pearl; and Roman continues to work in Kakadu. George was equally proud of his grandchildren, Abby, Ruben, Roman, and Lloyd, and his two great grandchildren, Casey and Jacob. His pride in them is reciprocated by their pride in him and each of them will carry on his work in their own different and unique ways. Similarly, throughout Kakadu and West Arnhem Land, younger generations of Binninj people and families will continue to be influenced, whether knowingly or not, by the life and efforts of this great man.
To his many friends and families, my thoughts go out to you. To Pina, what a legacy he leaves and I know the love will stay. To some of those families I talked about who are here, who were also at the state funeral, and before that: the Aldersons, the Christophersens, and the Neidjie families; people who were very close to George. I also acknowledge Mr Peter Wellings who was very close to the Chaloupka family. When George was in palliative care because of Peter’s relationship with that family he kept us informed. My sympathies to all his family and friends.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, condolence motions always create mixed feelings where we are celebrating a life, but it is with a sense of loss. There are many things to celebrate; the passion to understand, the wisdom George brought to a culture that is 50 000 years old. He was an expert in rock art. He was so good that the French asked him to look at their prehistoric paintings at La Grotte Chauvet. It is one of those great Territory stories: a Czechoslovakian Territorian expert in Aboriginal art is invited to France.
George’s story is typical of many Territorians. In 1956, he was meant to be travelling through the Territory, and he stayed, and we are glad he stayed.
I met with George several times. From our conversations, my outstanding impression was his curiosity, and I could see what Dennis Schulz was talking about in his tribute to George. It was that curiosity that drove his passion for rock art and I love how Dennis captured it; he saw paintings layered across sandstone and it ignited his imagination and questioning of when they were painted, by whom, and what they meant.
Curiosity is one of the basic drivers of humanity. The need to seek knowledge has driven human exploration and we are here today celebrating the life of an explorer. George and his quest for knowledge will be missed. It is with knowledge and understanding that we make good decisions and George was responsible for some very good decisions: the establishment of Kakadu National Park, and the preservation of Koongarra.
George’s passion, his work, meant we changed the way people saw the Territory and how we saw ourselves. He was a big part of the Territory maturing as a place for debate and decisions. I believe his legacy will live on, and our thoughts and prayers are with Dr George Chaloupka’s family and friends. God bless.
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend my condolences to the family and friends.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all honourable members and guests to observe one minute’s silence.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this motion, and I invite family and friends and those people who are interested, and members, to a morning tea in the main hall.
PETITION
Bushland in the Suburb of Muirhead Breezes
Bushland in the Suburb of Muirhead Breezes
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 145 petitioners praying that the bushland proposed to be bulldozed in the suburb of Muirhead Breezes be protected as Muirhead Reserve. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the
Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully showeth this petition of residents of Leanyer and greater Darwin draws to the attention of the House:
Defence Housing Australia and Investa propose to bulldoze an important area of natural bushland along Fitzmaurice Drive, Leanyer, for the Muirhead Breezes suburb. This area supports about 30 hectares of natural bushland bounded by Fitzmaurice Drive, Lee Point Road, a firebreak running parallel to Fitzmaurice Drive, and the eastern boundary of the Muirhead Breezes suburb. The area is a wildlife corridor linking Casuarina Coastal Reserve and Shoal Bay area.
The bushland is highly valued by locals who watch the wildlife, enjoy the beauty of the bush, walk with their family and friends and dogs through the bush, and hear the birdlife in the mornings and evenings. We have observed many species of wildlife in the area.
We want this bushland protected from being bulldozed and retained as ‘Muirhead Reserve’ to conserve wildlife, retain landscape connectivity, allow locals to enjoy the area, and provide public spaces for passive recreation.
Also, the suburb of Muirhead Breezes will smell of sewage for months during the dry season as the prevailing wind direction is from the east and southeast – from the direction of the Leanyer Sewage Treatment plant. Leanyer residents already suffer from this smell, and if homes were built along the northern side of Fitzmaurice Drive they would be bathed in an even stronger smell of sewage as the suburb would receive even more breezes from the direction of the sewage plant.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory reject plans by Defence Housing Australia and Investa to bulldoze the 30 hectares (approx) of bushland currently proposed for the suburb of Muirhead Breezes between Fitzmaurice Drive, Lee Point Road, the firebreak and the eastern boundary of the suburb. We want this area to instead be protected as ‘Muirhead Reserve’ to conserve the wildlife, maintain local amenity and provide for public enjoyment.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray
ELECTORAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 179)
(Serial 179)
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr HENDERSON: I thought we were doing Kenbi first?
Madam SPEAKER: I understand it was changed, and on the latest Notice Paper, it certainly says the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I was advised of that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have only come in on the tail end of this. I got a note last night from the Whip, with a rather confused message, giving us the Kenbi Land Trust Bill and then the Electoral Bill. Then he sent me an e-mail saying, ‘No, sorry, I got that the wrong way around’. I hope I remember that correctly. I would have to go and check it.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and the Notice Paper reflects that: it is the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.
Mr ELFERINK: If you like, I will double check what the Whip sent me, but I am pretty certain that is the case.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going on the Notice Paper, which was changed, I understand, this morning.
Mr HENDERSON: It is just the advisors for the Electoral Bill are not here, and so we can deal with Kenbi, or I do not know how long the Electoral Bill – I was told we were dealing with Kenbi this morning.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, can you please advise what your understanding is? I was advised and the Notice Paper indicates that the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Can I make a suggestion here. There are guests here for a condolence motion. How about we have a 10-minute break until the ringing of the bells and then we will come back?
Mr ELFERINK: For the record, Madam Speaker, what I received from the Whip last night was the Kenbi Land Trust Bill then the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. He then sent me a second e-mail saying the bills will happen the other way around.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. We will suspend until 11 am. The bells will ring at 11 am and we will return then.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended until the ringing of the bells.
ELECTORAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 179)
(Serial 179)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister and those who provided briefings on this bill. Some of these amendments are complex matters; we were briefed particularly well and are grateful for that. We understand the primary purpose of the bill, and the bill contains a number of amendments which serve a reasonable purpose. Generally speaking, we can understand and accept the direction this bill intends to take us. However, there is one element that does concern the opposition and it is upon that I seek to elaborate.
Concerning matters of how our democracy operates, it comes down to the clarity of the decision and how that decision is countered and weighed. When we consider the item in clause 22, which has the effect of relaxing the formality provisions, it is this provision with which the opposition has difficulty. When we see standards around us declining, the results of our education enterprise not succeeding but slipping, and a number of standards around us going in the wrong direction, it is the opposition’s view that to relax formality around something as basic as a decision portrayed on a ballot paper is the wrong thing to do.
We should be raising standards and having higher expectations, rather than dropping the bar. It is that reason and the contents of the clause we find objectionable. This has the effect of dumbing-down the process at a time when all our education activities are around the capacity to read and understand. We want to ensure citizens who are voting recognise that every single item on that paper is a candidate and warrants a vote. In allowing informality to creep in, we dilute the importance of the decision a citizen is making and, for that reason, we cannot support that item and that element. Therefore, with all the benign aspects of this bill and the amendments contained therein because, essentially, it is relaxing the formality provisions, we cannot support that.
We need to raise standards, not diminish them. This reinforces and bolsters our objectives in education, to be able to read, write, and think, and ensure that, if there are four candidates on a piece of paper, each number and each mark on that paper indicates a decision you have made. To relax the formality increases the ambiguity and the possibility for interpretation. I believe it is important to raise the bar rather than lower it. There is the possibility of that which was once deemed to be an informal vote because it did not meet the required standard is now formal. We provide education and an expectation, and should maintain that expectation that citizens should be looking upwards rather than accommodating a lower standard. We need to reduce the incidence of that level of ambiguity and judgment of something that was perhaps not a complete or considered decision of a citizen to be deemed formal, because we have given a greater margin for interpretation. Because of the importance of voting, of the decision of citizens, which is the cornerstone of a democracy, it is on that cornerstone we will not compromise.
The object of education is to inform and empower, and if we are now going to move the bar downwards, we are heading in the wrong direction. On every front, wherever we can, we need to raise the bar, increase the standards, and raise the expectations. For that reason, the opposition has concerns. Maybe it is our conservative instinct. Maybe it is our recognition of the importance of individual decision-making that we have an expectation that citizens will make the well-informed and considered decision.
Madam Speaker, our main concern is that at the heart of this bill there is the capacity for interpretation and perhaps potential ambiguity. Essentially, the reduction of standards - notwithstanding there are some quite sensible amendments addressing a range of issues - causes us concern and, consequently, we do not provide our support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments on that section of the act. Overall, I support the bill. I have quite a few questions, so I presume we are going to committee stage. Of course, the Electoral Commissioner put forward these amendments taken up by the government. I am not sure if the whole of the Electoral Commissioner’s original submission was taken up, because we do not know the extent of that, but I imagine most of what he put forward has been inserted in this new bill.
I heard clearly what the member for Blain said, and he raised some valid points. I have looked at it from a different perspective. It is as if I am giving the Toyota, Ford, Holden perspective where there is another opinion, which for me is: I agree we should not be lowering the bar, but I see this as a clarification, I suppose, of judging votes where it might be judged the voter had an intention to vote down a certain path. Why I support this section is not because I want it supported and publicised. I see it as a rule that, when it comes to counting votes, the people counting these votes have a guideline as to whether they should judge votes as being formal or informal. If the government believes this section should be permitted, I would like to see a cranked-up education campaign promoting how we vote in the Northern Territory and a better understanding of what the preferential voting system is about.
I have always felt we do not do enough work in educating young people and older people about the type of voting system we have. If you talk to people about the preferential voting system, many do not understand it.
Chief Minister, as you lived in England for a fair time, you know they all love their first past the post. It is a very undemocratic process because it means a person with a low percentage of the vote can get in, even though 70% or 80% of the people do not want that person. We have a fair system, yet many people do not understand it, which is part of the reason you get this tick the box, put crosses, or even leave a square vacant.
If we allow these changes to the rules - which are changes to the interpretation of what is formal and what is informal – it should be trialled and the commissioner asked to report on the percentage of votes that would fit under this new amended section 94. The government should also give the Electoral Commissioner sufficient funds to improve the campaign to spread the word more efficiently.
The Electoral Commission has educational material and I am not, for one moment, saying they have not done anything about it. However, the Electoral Commissioner is saying he is concerned that some people’s intention to vote does not go down the normal path of 1, 2, 3; it goes down the path of 1, 2, blank or 1, 2, X, or whatever. We need to inform people that that is not the way to go.
If the government gives us a guarantee it is not going to go out tomorrow and tell everyone section 94 is the way to go, this is only being used internally for people who have to make a judgment over whether something is formal or informal, I can live with it. We need to balance that with a strong education campaign to overcome the issue the member for Blain rightly raised – that we should be looking for higher standards. The two can go together and we would hope we would not need to use section 94 any longer.
Perhaps the minister can tell us if we have a percentage of votes that would fit into section 94 we already know about. In the last election, was there a number of votes - was it so high that this amendment needed to come in? If there were only three or four votes out of 3500 where a person ticked the box instead of putting a number when there were only two candidates, we could ask if this is required. However, if the Electoral Commissioner was asking for this change, there were likely more than just a few people using this method.
I take into account that sometimes when people go into polling booths they are a little nervous, they have just had to go through all the people standing there with how-to-vote cards, and they probably do not want to be there. They hurriedly move into the box to fill in the numbers and, at times, I imagine, forget to fill the last box in: the ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, and a square that is vacant. Some of these things may not be so much about education; they simply might be an accident. I am prepared to go with this section, as I said, as long as this is not out there to be publicised; it is just there as a set of rules to guide those who are judging the vote.
I have some questions about electronic voting. I have some questions about mobile voting. It is interesting; I know one amendment to this act which was raised by the member for Braitling some years ago has not happened – when you are an Independent you can guarantee parties will not agree with you - regarding the disclosure of donations. The way in which the Independents have to do it is not the same way as the parties have to do it. If there was ever an inequality in the Electoral Act, that is it. The member for Braitling put forward a motion in this parliament, I think in the last sittings, and that was defeated 23:2. There are times when Independents feel they are not dealt with under the same rules as the parties. It would have been nice for the Electoral Commissioner to have put that particular amendment forward. It is not in this set of amendments. I thought it was a good time to raise it because it is an important change that needs to come.
The government’s debate against that was that we should align ourselves with the Commonwealth. There are many times when we tell the Commonwealth we do not want to align ourselves with them but, in this particular case, that was the Chief Minister’s argument.
I have a couple of other issues, not so much because I am necessarily opposed to what has been put forward. I would like to look at the definition of what materials are covered under the laws relating to electoral material. Part of the original discussion paper was about certain materials not having to have names and addresses on and some having to. I would like to see if we could get a clarification of that: what is regarded as requiring that, or is everything now required to have it - that was part of the discussion papers that came out.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support this legislation, but would like to discuss it more in committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, long before Christ walked the face of this planet, King Priam looked over the city walls and was presented a gift by King Agamemnon of the Greeks. He said: ‘Bring the horse in. Bring the horse into Troy and thank the Greeks for the gift’ ...
Mr Vatskalis: You have it wrong! You have it wrong again.
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever a Trojan horse being presented to this Troy …
Mr Henderson: Kon reckons you got that wrong!
Mr Vatskalis: I will lend you my history book …
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever – sorry?
Mr Vatskalis: I will lend you my history book to read the real story; you got it wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: If there was ever a Trojan horse being wheeled into this city of Troy, it has to be this legislative instrument.
Madam Speaker, I would like to support most of what is in this bill. However, I am presented with a problem. I would like to support most of what is in this bill because there are elements of this bill which are sensible and attractive; for example, the ruling that a person who is an employee of the council is not eligible to sit on the council itself. What a good idea; otherwise, you end up with the situation you had in Hermannsburg a few years ago where the council CEO was also the council president. That was a conflict of interest which was not, essentially, acceptable under any real system of government.
However, unfortunately, the Greek soldiers in the belly of that horse are in clause 22. It is clause 22 which the government would argue is an attempt to clarify, or enable the Electoral Commission to determine, the intent of the voter. We talk about ticks and crosses and, if there are multiple boxes, a tick or a cross and then a 2 and a 3, leaving the last box blank. Is it too much to ask for a voter to count to 5? Is that really where we are lowering the bar to?
The other point is, I am not entirely satisfied that the idea of a cross where you have just two candidates is necessarily a sign of approval for the candidate next to which the cross appears. In my experience, a cross is an inherently negative sign. If I went to school and a teacher crossed something out or put a big red cross next to some work I had delivered, it was not because she was showing approval of my work – no, to the contrary - the teacher was clearly demonstrating they did not approve of the work and it was not what they wanted.
I hear the Chief Minister laugh, because as far as he is concerned, the electoral system of the Northern Territory is something he can bend and twist to his pleasure and to his political party’s advantage; and that is exactly what this is about.
There is an interesting article in Quadrant magazine by David Smith, called The Electoral Commission’s Referendum Lottery. I urge honourable members to read this. In essence, the article is about the advice given by the Electoral Commission to its scrutineers in relation to its booklet, Guidelines to Scrutineers. I will quote from the article at some length. To introduce my quote, the author of this article talks about the requirement under the national referendum legislation that a person writes the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the appropriate place on the paper they are given:
- The legislation is also quite specific about the action to be taken if the voter spoils the ballot paper. It requires the cancellation of a spoilt ballot paper and the issue of a new ballot paper.
One would think that all of the above-mentioned provisions are simple enough to follow and to apply. But that would be to underestimate the inventiveness of Australian voters, as well as that of the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission’s 1999 booklet, Guideline to Scrutineers contained instructions as to what would constitute a formal vote. Examples of formal yes votes, in addition to the word ‘yes’, included the letter ‘y’ and the words ‘okay’, ‘sure’, and ‘definitely’. Examples of a formal no vote, in addition to the word ‘no’, included the letters ‘n’ and the words ‘never’ and ‘definitely not’. In addition, scrutineers were instructed that a tick on its own would be acceptable as a valid ‘yes’ vote but that a cross would not be accepted as a valid ‘no’ vote and would treated as an informal vote (emphasis added). The words ‘on its own’ in the Electoral Commission’s scrutineers handbook are contrary to the Electoral Commission’s Directions to Voter No 30, which states that a symbol on its own would be categorised as informal and would not be counted.
I pause here, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister was laughing at the suggestion a cross would be dealt with as a negative symbol. Well, the Electoral Commission at the federal level would be quite happy to discount it and deal with it as an informal.
- When parliament legislated in specific terms for the use of words ‘yes’ or ‘no’, did it contemplate that the bureaucracy would interpret this as allowing the use of a variety of words or even single letters or symbols such as ticks? If that is the case, then the possibilities for linguistic adventurism are boundless. Why limit it to the few words and letters and symbols selected by the Electoral Commissioner?
- Was the Electoral Commission conducting a referendum or a lottery?
Those are valid questions.
The member for Nelson suggested this was advanced by the Electoral Commission to the government. I do not know if that is the case or not. But even if it was suggested by the Electoral Commissioner, the Electoral Commissioner is saying to this House that this is a really good idea and ‘we urge you to support it’. We can guess at the intent of the voter by whether they leave ticks or crosses and boxes blank on particular types of ballot papers.
If we simply roll over on every occasion we get advice from a so-called expert, or even an expert, we are essentially saying to ourselves that we have become redundant as a thinking body. We are not redundant as a thinking body. We are the final arbiter as to what is and is not the law of the Northern Territory. I do not much mind what the Electoral Commissioner would like; what I do mind is what we consider a decent standard and common sense.
The problem I have with this is, if we just simply say the Electoral Commissioner is right and we should blindly follow his advice, then the tail has come to the point where it is thoroughly and utterly wagging the dog. Surely, we are capable as grown adults with our life experience, as a group of 25, of standing back and asking: ‘Is this actually good advice?’ No, it is not because, all of a sudden, it raises a question about what is a tick and what is a cross. There is untidy handwriting out there. Does a diagonal line from the bottom left-hand corner of a box to the top right-hand corner of a box suffice as a tick? All of a sudden, we are asking scrutineers to determine whether lines are possible crosses, or squiggly bits, and whether symbols might be defined as ticks or crosses.
I believe that would be an abandonment of common sense. Surely, we should not be standing in this place and saying: ‘When voters cannot be bothered to write to 1 or 2, or 3, or 4, or maybe even as high as 10, given a very full ballot paper, we should be able to say to them: “Make your intentions clear. You are required to mark every box, and you are required to mark every box with a number starting from 1 from your first preference to whatever the final number is for your last preference”’. It should not be that hard. Nevertheless, this government and this Labor Party want to insert in this legislation an idea which I personally consider to be quite repugnant.
I have stood on many bush polls over the years - more than I care to count - and I cannot begin to tell you how often people in those bush polls try to vote and are, in my opinion, coached and instructed in their own language by an independent scrutineer. The problem, of course, is my Lhere Artepe, Arrernte, and my other various Aboriginal languages are not very strong, so I can only form that opinion. When I pointed that out to scrutineers in the past, they obviously come back with: ‘Well guys, you just have to live with it because it does not look like it to me’, so it becomes an opinion matter. We cannot videotape what happens in the booth, but I have clearly seen what I consider to be instructions being given to voters one after the other - even by Australian Electoral Commission staff when they are hired from the local community, and they point at ballot papers with a view to encouraging the voters to vote in a particular way.
Of course, it is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion I have developed over several years – goodness, decades - of watching what happens in these booths. Even when there is a voter’s friend there, I have seen voters cycle in and out with the same friend who then appears to give instructions.
Most of the votes that come out of the bush are valid votes. People can count to 1, 2, and 3. By the same token, this government wants to dumb it down because it is desperately scared it is going to do badly in the bush next time around. It wants to be able to accept a negative expression, a cross, as a valid vote. It wants to change the electoral system to suit its own purposes in the bush. That is what this is about; it is about the Australian Labor Party mucking about with the electoral system in the Northern Territory. As far as I am concerned, that is unsupportable. It is dumbing-down the electoral system to suit the ALP for a particular political purpose and we will not accept it. Despite the fact there are some good things in this bill, the fact is this government wants to change the legislation so ticks and crosses, particularly when there are only two candidates on the ballot paper, suddenly become valid. They have no way of asserting whether a cross is a negative or a positive. In fact, the Australian Electoral Commission, when it comes to referenda, says is does not accept crosses because it does not know what that means. That is in the scrutineer’s handbook.
As far as I am concerned, this is a government which is afraid, it is scared, and is now prepared to tinker with the electoral system. Remember they promised, in their years in opposition, they would not play with the electoral system. They were going to have an independent Electoral Commissioner and they moved the Electoral Commissioner with great fanfare when they came into government, out of the Department of the Chief Minister into its own independent structure. Why then does the Chief Minister’s Department get to determine whether the Leader of the Opposition gets a briefing from the Electoral Commissioner? Why? Because whilst they claim a structural difference, they have changed nothing, and now they are prepared to put their claws into the simple act of writing a series of numbers in boxes with a view to trying to garner every single vote they can claw out in their favour. As far as I am concerned, what the government is trying to do with this legislative instrument is politically motivated - motivated by trying to win at all costs. It demonstrates why we have a system of government in this country which creates an opposition.
Could you imagine these people for one second without an opposition? They would be in our homes in a heartbeat, intruding in every facet of our lives. As far as I am concerned, it is typical of a Labor government inflicting itself on a democratic system because it cannot trust Territorians to count from 1 to 2 to 3 or to 5.
Madam Speaker, because of this Trojan horse, what should have been good electoral change has become nothing more than a political exercise by the Australian Labor Party and it goes to show how arrogant it has become.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak to this particular bill but I have been impelled to do so given the offering from the member for Part Darwin. Over the years the member has been in this House - he was formerly the member for Macdonnell and now is the member for Port Darwin - he has had various forms of authority.
We have seen him as the professor of procedurology in this parliament; we have just seen him as a professor of ancient Greek history - which he got wrong according to the member for Casuarina, who I would trust with Greek history and the Trojan horse. We have had him as a professor of legal studies and constitutional law and a whole lot of things. However, here today, astoundingly, he is now a professor of semiotics. For those who do not know what semiotics is, it is the study of symbols and their inner meaning. It is a very deep study. I suppose there are professors of semiotics. I am not one but, obviously, the member for Port Darwin is a professor of semiotics and is ascribing meanings through scars in his own childhood when the teacher put a big red cross on his work.
As an aside to the Chief Minister, when you were talking about your experiences as a child and how the teacher put a big red cross against your work, I said: ‘That explains a lot’. Hence, our little bit of merriment on the floor which the member for Port Darwin wrongly interpreted, as he often does.
I am not a professor of semiotics, but I can think of many instances where a cross is applicable. When you come into or leave Australia, you should be putting crosses on things. With your taxation return, you often put crosses on that. I do. Maybe I am putting the wrong symbol on it, but I hope I am putting the right symbol on.
To counteract your negative childhood experiences with crosses, there are very positive experiences. One positive experience I used to have: my poor, departed mother, when she would write a letter to me, at the end of the letter she put ‘xxxx’, which means ‘I love you, Chris and here are lots of kisses for you’ ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am listening with great interest and I am more than happy to form a self-help group with the member for Johnston if he feels so strongly about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
On a serious level you ascribe these changes being proposed here to the Australian Labor Party. They are actually recommendations of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission based on their long experience. I take what you say; you have been around ballot boxes and polling booths for a long time. However, for these people, this is their bread and butter, this is their job, and this is what they do 12 months of the year. This recommendation has not come forward from the government; this is not one where we have said to the Electoral Commission: ‘Here is a recommendation; put it in the report and we will bring it into parliament and pass it as law’. No, this is a recommendation by the Australian Electoral Commission. Moreover, I will read the note here in relation to this particular issue. It says:
- A comparison of Australian jurisdictions’ electoral legislation indicates that the Northern Territory’s electoral legislation declares one type of vote cast informal that states such as New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia allow to be counted.
So, here are states - and some of them are now Coalition states; namely, New South Wales and Victoria – and, I suppose, Queensland, which has an election next year. I suppose the head of that particular Coalition party would be very hopeful of winning. Many of the pundits are forecasting a win for the Coalition in Queensland. However, there are many other states where such a vote is counted as formal.
I do not think it is such a big deal, member for Port Darwin. I was listening to the subtexts. I had my student of semiotics hat on, listening to your subtext about - I think it was about Indigenous people and the way they vote and, somehow, the government was trying to get negatives and positives. I got a little lost there. However, I believe this is a positive step. It enfranchises - not enfranchises, that is not the right term. It will count people’s intentions to a much greater level than happens currently.
Madam Speaker, I certainly commend this act and support the Chief Minister in passing this particular legislation.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Johnston, because I did not know much about semiotics and the great semiotician we have opposite - another cloak the member for Port Darwin can wrap around his shoulders - dealing in symbols and the deeper meanings of symbols. I am afraid when I knock off, I want to read the footy magazine and not go into semiotics and all of that nonsense.
I thank our Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner for proposing these amendments. This is all about what philosophy, I suppose, you take of elections and democracy. Obviously, the philosophy of Electoral Commissioners is to maximise the vote and, as far as possible within the rules, to include votes as an expression of voter intention - as opposed to the opposition, which just wants to exclude people from having their votes counted.
If we deal with this section 94 in clause 22, the member for Johnston rightly said this is no Trojan horse. It must be a pretty big Trojan horse if it has penetrated New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia and now it is rumbling its way up the Stuart Highway to the Northern Territory. It is a pretty big Trojan horse and it has been rumbling around this nation for quite some time and, for some reason, no one has cottoned on to it. The opposition is being a bit hysterical on an issue that really is quite minor.
I am advised that it was through the 2005 to 2008 reports the Electoral Commissioner made to this parliament about the running of those elections. Regarding the 2008 Northern Territory election, there were 3400 informal votes across the Northern Territory. A representation of a couple of those seats showed around 20% of those informal votes would be counted – assuming this legislation goes through - as formal votes. We are talking about, at the last Territory election, around 680 votes across the Northern Territory. Very clearly, it is not the case that if there are four or five candidates contesting a division, you can just mark a cross or a tick in one box; you still have to number the other boxes although there is, under the existing provisions, an ability to leave the last box blank. It does not assume and require that other boxes be not numbered; it just provides that a clear intention with a tick or a cross, followed by a 2, 3, 4 would provide for a valid vote.
There is nothing sinister here. This is not a great Labor plot. This is not a Trojan horse. This is simply a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner to the government, through to the parliament, regarding all the years of looking at voter intentions across the nation, bringing us into line with other jurisdictions to maximise and include a number of votes that are excluded here in the Territory, that in other jurisdictions around Australia are included. Let us leave that nonsense from the opposition aside.
I can assure the member for Nelson that the government – and the Electoral Commissioner is independent of government; it is a statutory position in its own right, unlike when we came to government in 2001. It is now independent. He is a statutory officer in his own right. It was not buried away in the Chief Minister’s Department somewhere. I am confident there will be no advertising campaigns to promote this form of casting your first preference. It will simply be used as rules to guide the formal count of the vote and I can give the member for Nelson that absolute assurance.
What we are talking about, if that assessment across a couple of seats in the last election was rolled out across the 3400 informal votes, around 680 votes that were previously not counted would be counted, and counted as they would be in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia.
The member for Nelson has questions he wants to pursue in the committee stage. I thank the member for Nelson for his support for this. The opposition might care to rethink, given my explanation here, whether it is going to support this legislation. I can very clearly say there is no Trojan horse here. There is no great Labor Party plot here. This is the Electoral Commissioner trying to enfranchise and include as many valid ballot papers into the count that clearly indicate a voter’s intention. As a society, we should be inclusive of people and not exclusive of people.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 58, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Can we take the bill as a whole, please?
Madam CHAIR: We cannot take it as a whole, member for Nelson, because there are a number of amendments to be moved.
Mr HENDERSON: You have questions on clause 26, Gerry, so jump now.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I got used to these being taken as a whole. I have one general question to start with. Has the government given any consideration to putting all these electoral matters in one act? I know when the Local Government Act was being reviewed and introduced into parliament I asked why we had a separate local government electoral act. Why don’t we have one Electoral Act for the Northern Territory and, in that act, clauses specific to local government, instead of having these two acts going side-by-side?
Mr HENDERSON: That is a very good question, member for Nelson. It is a question I asked myself as these were progressing through Cabinet: why can’t we pull all these together and have one amendment going through. I suppose, technically - and we will get to that later in the amendments that are being proposed here - we have had parallel processes regarding regulations to the local government electoral amendments that have been introduced and gazetted. We have to make amendments here. Sooner or later, it will be good to have a total review and tidy all this up. I agree; it is a question I have asked, and it is probably a body of work in another session of parliament to bring all these together in one bill. At the moment it is just too hard to unscramble the omelette.
Mr WOOD: My first question is in relation to clause 9. This has a subsection. It replaces section 31 in the existing act. It specifies that only one person may be nominated as a party candidate for a registered party for a divisional election. My reading of the reasoning behind this is that in some electorate somewhere in Australia there were many people who stood for the one party. My reasoning, from a Northern Territory point of view, is it has been used often in the Northern Territory and the government has decided we should not use that process because there have been many - I have seen two CLP members nominated in the early 1980s. I think it was Ron Wright and Terry McCarthy standing for the seat of - it would have been called Daly then, I believe.
Ms Purick: Further back there was Tiwi.
Mr WOOD: Yes. In reality, does it really make much difference? A party could then technically put out three Independents. You are still achieving what they are trying to achieve, a split vote. Will it really matter whether we have this amendment, or will it achieve what you think it will achieve?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson. The Electoral Commissioner considered this particular provision. All Electoral Commissioners, Ombudsmen, and Auditors- General get together on a regular basis to look at what is happening around the place. The current nomination requirements are being replaced in response to matters occurring at the by-election for the division of Bradfield in December 2009 where the excessive number of candidates on the ballot paper - nine of whom were nominated by a single political party, I understand that could have been the Christian Democrat Party - was considered the primary reason the informal vote at the by-election rose to 9%. This is the highest-ever recorded informal vote for the division of Bradfield.
This provision harmonises our Electoral Act with the Commonwealth Electoral Act in trying to maximise the number of formal votes cast at an election. The experience in Bradfield where one party ran nine candidates confused the bejesus out of many people resulting in a 9% informal vote, so it brings this legislation into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I thought they could have had one Christian Democrat and eight Christian Independents and still not made much difference because they could have called themselves a Christian Independent. People in the Territory used to get annoyed about it because they saw it as a means of maximising your vote. I am unsure if that actually occurred.
I will get these in the right order, and Madam Chair will tell me when we get to the number we have to stop at.
I am going to clause 22 which was the method of counting. I have asked most of the questions on that. I did not catch all the debate before but there used to be a difficulty in some places in our vast Northern Territory. When I finish umpiring a game of football, I fill in a 3, 2, and 1. The three is for the person who is best on the ground, the two is for the next person, and the one is for third person. Sometimes that has been applied when there have been three candidates and, unfortunately, the person they thought was the most popular got three votes and got the third vote. I do not know if that still applies sometimes, but I had heard, anecdotally, that sometimes people thought that is the way. You put the highest number for the person you like rather than the one number for first on the ballot paper.
It is an important change and it is good to hear the minister say that we have to keep the education process going. We have to do much more to tell people about our electoral system. We are now talking about having proportional voting for local government, and it would be used if we have a convention - where you elect delegates for a convention; that same system that will be used. That needs more education because it is not an easy system to understand. It is a good system, but it is not an easy system to understand.
We have these amendments to the way ballot papers will be assessed and that is good. We do not need a response to that, minister.
I will go back to clause 17, about mobile polling booths. Are there any guidelines which determine where a polling booth should go, and who sets those guidelines? I would like to know whether, in some cases - in reading some of the literature handed out, it talks about having mobile polling booths at town camps. Obviously, someone has to pay for those mobile polling booths and you would have to ask why you need them at a town camp. Whose job is it to decide where, and how many, mobile polling booths there should be?
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson. A mobile polling place is a declaration by the Electoral Commissioner:
(3) In making the declaration, the Commissioner must have regard to the following:
(a) whether or not:
(i) there is a distinct community of electors who may be served by the mobile polling place; or
It is a judgment call by the Electoral Commissioner in his declaration; however, that declaration must have regard to the issues contained in the act.
Mr WOOD: There are several reasons why I asked that question, Chief Minister. For instance, in local government elections and now under this act, the Electoral Commissioner will be the person who runs those elections and local government will pay for those elections. If local government does not believe there should be mobile polling booths in some areas, have they any say in whether they should or should not be there?
Mr HENDERSON: The philosophy that guides the Electoral Commissioner in making those declarations is to enfranchise as much of the population as possible to cast a vote. In making that declaration, he has to be guided by whether there was not a mobile polling place declared for a particular area, what is the likelihood of those people travelling a significant distance to cast their vote, and is that distance easy to travail?
For a third party such as a shire to have an authority or ability to require or suggest to the Electoral Commissioner that a particular polling booth should not be at a particular place would, if it was a requirement, reduce the independence of the Electoral Commission. The whole philosophy of this is to enfranchise as many people to cast their vote in a practical way. If a mobile polling booth was not declared for a particular area, are you disenfranchising a whole group of people because, practically, they would not be able to get to a polling booth on a particular day at a particular time?
Mr WOOD: I understand that. I was looking at from the point of whether the council has to pay for those mobile polling locations. In the summary of the Electoral Commission recommendations there was talk about the appointment of mobile polling booths in certain town camps. What town camps would exist that the residents could not go to a normal polling place? Do you need mobile polling booths in town camps in Katherine or Tennant Creek? Are they necessary? People cannot walk down the street to the normal one? It is just that it is mentioned in some of this preliminary discussion, and it seemed to me that would cost money and councils, especially, would have to pay for those things.
Mr HENDERSON: It is all about whether a distinct group of people has a significant difficulty getting to a standard scheduled polling place. The Electoral Commissioner has the capacity to declare a mobile poll based on the criteria I gave. It really is a judgment call. The Electoral Commissioner has to conclude that a distinct group of people would otherwise be unlikely to get to a polling place - and he would have to come to that conclusion himself, for whatever reasons. If you try to insert specific caveats in there you are taking away the independence of the Electoral Commissioner to make that determination, as guided by the legislation.
Mr WOOD: I suppose there is already a caveat in that you can get a postal vote if you are more than 20 km from a polling booth. That is why I asked why you would need a mobile polling booth within a 20 km radius of an existing polling booth. That is what I am getting at.
Mr HENDERSON: I may be wrong, but I cannot recall when there would have been a mobile polling booth in a town camp in Katherine or Alice Springs.
Mr WOOD: I was going on the notes I was given earlier in relation to this. It talked about:
- Provides clear guidance and authority to the Electoral Commissioner to exercise his or her discretion and will put the appointment of mobile polling booths in certain town camps and other appropriate places beyond doubt.
I understand what you are saying. It is his right to make that, but I am querying whether you need it. It is a cost. Is it possible that people who live that close to a town can get to the polling booth like everyone else?
Mr HENDERSON: Where this may have come from - for example, for the Stuart by-election there would be mobile polling booths established in the town camps in Alice Springs. Is that what you were saying, Karl?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, I am just adding to the debate and I pretty sure during the Stuart by-election there was mobile polling in town camps. I am also pretty sure during the Araluen by-election last year there was a booth at one of the town camps prior to polling day.
Mr WOOD: That is what I am about: do you need them if there is a polling booth in the town? It is an extra cost. I am not trying to put this in a derogatory way, but are you spoon-feeding people who can get to the polling booth like anyone else?
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, I will let you answer this question and then we will be breaking.
Mr HENDERSON: We get down to the fact that we have an independent Electoral Commissioner whose whole reason for being is to run elections and maximise the formal votes in those elections to ensure the expressed will of the people in a division, and across the Territory, is taken into account for the purpose of that election. That is the philosophy behind that.
Regarding the Electoral Commissioner using his discretion to declare a mobile polling booth; he has to come to the determination that a select, or fairly significant group of people would otherwise be unable to, or would not, cast their vote, and, in order to maximise that franchise, makes that determination. He has to be guided by that, so his determinations about where those polling booths go are bound up in the independence he has, and not with an eye to whether it is going to cost more.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of officers from the Department of Resources for the parliamentary awareness program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also welcome again the opposition members’ electorate officers. You must have enjoyed yesterday.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government and
Minister for Indigenous Development
Proposed Censure of Government and
Minister for Indigenous Development
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That the House censure the government and, in particular, the Minister for Indigenous Development and Statehood for:
(a) failing to meet its obligations with regard to Indigenous affairs;
Yesterday, 23 November 2011, was a day federal Labor again said to all Australians that Territory Labor is not up to the job. How is it that a government in Australia, a jurisdiction in Australia, can twice have federal intervention into its operations, taking over half of the Territory’s land mass to do the job the Territory Labor government was supposed to do? When Jenny Macklin introduced Labor’s second intervention legislation yesterday, it was a clear signal the Commonwealth could not stand back any more and watch Paul Henderson and his merry men and women fiddle while Indigenous Australians burn.
This legislation is remarkable in that, while it repeals the Coalition’s legislation, it retains the measures Labor long railed against. These people who speak with forked tongues said: ‘Oh, we do not like the intervention; it is the black kids Tampa’. However, here we are again! You do not have any fight at all now. We had the Minister for Statehood, at the start of the week, crying about the rights of the Territory, going on about statehood, but here we have, in the same week, the federal government announcing more legislation to take over the role of the Northern Territory government and the responsibility they are supposed to maintain. Alcohol restrictions, pornography restrictions, welfare quarantining, welfare linked to school attendance, and township leasing are all retained or even enhanced as part of this new legislation put into the federal parliament yesterday.
Labor promised to end the intervention - they promised. They went to the 2007 election promising to end the intervention - the intervention Mal Brough and John Howard had for four months and Labor have had for four years. They promised to end the intervention. And what have they done? They have retained or are building on other necessary initiatives put forward by the Coalition in the first place. They have not stopped anything; they have made it bigger and stronger - and worse.
For the last four years, federal Labor pursued the popular policies espoused by city-based academics - for four years - and only after actually going out and talking to people on the ground did they realise that real work was required to address Indigenous social policy failures. Except Territory Labor had remained sitting on its hands. Territory Labor has sat back for the last four years and done pretty much bugger all to try to fix this problem. We know the responsibilities the Territory government had in this regard, they had …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw his last colloquial comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Member for Braitling, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The Coalition admitted all governments had failed Aboriginal people and commenced extensive reforms through the Northern Territory legislation in 2007, of which they had four months to instigate the reform before losing the election - of which federal Labor government’s Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard - which comprises Trish Crossin, the Northern Territory Labor Senator and Warren Snowdon, the federal member for Lingiari for Labor. These people were all part of this and continued with the intervention for four years. Here we had yesterday, 23 November 2011, federal Labor at it again.
These people over here - the people who said they will not support Muckaty – sit on their hands in that situation. They do not like uranium mining, but Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, is now going to India with uranium. And here we have the intervention, trampling all over Territory laws - trampling all over Territory laws! They say they want to have statehood and they want our rights protected, but federal Labor comes in - and not a whimper, not a murmur; they embraced it.
The member for Arnhem, the minister for Indigenous affairs, was too scared to answer most of the questions in Question Time today asked by my colleagues who are very emotional about this position of federal Labor stepping on our rights again. Four years you have had to fix the issues, and you have done absolutely nothing. It is interesting when we read the speech minister Jenny Macklin, the federal Indigenous Affairs minister gave yesterday. She said:
The evaluation report shows us that there has been no overall improvement in school attendance.
Four years! The intervention put in place by the responsible Coalition government of Howard and Brough, and Senator Scullion in his role, was supposed to see improvements made for the protection and wellbeing of children.
We heard the minister today talking about how education is the most important area. I even remember some time ago when he stood in this Chamber and said: ‘Every 17-year-old child, you will either earn or you will learn, you will work or you will study’, or words to that effect. Yet, when we turn to Budget Paper No 3 of the 2011-12 Budget on page 102, we see that Indigenous students attendance for middle years education - most people would expect students to attend about 95% of the time – was 15%. How are you making a change? No wonder Jenny Macklin said there has been no overall improvement in school attendance. That is a disgrace.
The government should be sanctioned, particularly the minister for Indigenous affairs and the Chief Minister. That is absolutely disgraceful. You do not have to go much further to see other areas of failure because, fundamentally, there are only a few areas left for the Northern Territory government to administer in Indigenous affairs.
One of those other areas is housing. The member for Casuarina was around at the start of the SIHIP stuff, and then it went to the member for Daly who seems to get everything wrong. Recently, he was sacked from the Business portfolio, but he has Local Government wrong, he has Housing wrong, he just seems to get everything wrong - he got the ferry tenders wrong. Aside from all that, look at SIHIP where the federal government has now given $1.7bn but we know they are behind schedule and not meeting targets. We know there is not enough money for them to make targets because we saw in the Australian National Audit Office report released early last week that there is not enough money in the kitty and they are way behind.
We know from the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s report on the failures in that program and how far they are behind. We know there was $50m spent without a hammer even being lifted or a nail hit. We know all that stuff, and we put all that stuff into context, and we look at the plethora of reports around. We are spending a lot of money on reports, minister, but still only have 15% of Indigenous kids in middle years going to school.
We see in the Strategic Review of Indigenous Expenditure February 2010 on page 14:
- The capacity of the Northern Territory government is a particular concern…
This is the federal government saying this. They have no confidence in you. No wonder they are intervening; because you cannot get it right. They are stamping all over Territory rights while you sit back and cop it again - but you want to stand for statehood, you want to stand for rights, you want to condemn Natasha Griggs, the member for Solomon, and Senator Nigel Scullion who does a fantastic job standing up for our rights in trying to fix these things. He is the one who started it in the first place.
- The capacity of the Northern Territory government is a particular concern, as evidenced by its performance to date in the housing …
aka SIHIP:
… and schooling domains.
aka, what the minister said; there has been no overall improvement in school attendance. We know from the NAPLAN results how poor the performance has been. What are you doing?
Serious questions have to be asked. You would think the minister for Indigenous policy, who seemingly has no ministerial responsibility to answer questions in this Chamber, would have her head around this, that she would have read the legislation like I have, and would fully support the questions asked by my colleagues who are 100% on the money. This new legislation tramples over Territory rights: they can come in and shut down a pub, a tavern, a bottle shop, or a roadhouse; they can shut down any shop they want to under this legislation. Who do they think they are? I know they are trying to help and they recognise they have a bad Labor government in the Northern Territory, but how dare they come in here and stamp on our rights. How dare they!
Indigenous home ownership, where we all hear the good words: ‘We all support Indigenous home ownership, it is part of the Closing the Gap report, it is one of our COAG initiatives, and we are all rock solid behind it’. What have they done? Zero. Four years; zero. The only Indigenous Territorians who would have moved into home ownership are people who have done it through a private bank; not with any intervention measures through these guys, whether through land tenure reform or otherwise. People do it off their own bat, which is positive. But these guys have to lead and make change, and change is not easy.
You will not even step up to the plate. You have had every opportunity to change the land tenure in town camps and you have done nothing. The perpetual lease factor for the 18 to 20 town camps, wherever you would like to calculate them, in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin; you do not do anything. So the feds have had to come in and do it for us. I have been advocating, I have offered a bipartisan approach; I have been lobbying the federal government to make this happen. I have been keeping you guys informed about what I have been doing. You will not even get on board. There is no political pain. You will still probably get all the votes in the town camps, and we would have had structural reform that would have made a difference, but you will not do it.
So now what do we have? We have the federal government coming in with Labor’s second intervention. I could just imagine Warren Snowdon cowering in the corner going: ‘I promised everyone I would get rid of it, but now they have brought out a second stronger intervention’. What about Senator Trish Crossin, how must she be feeling? I know she understands the issues, but she stuck to Caucus. That is what happens when you are on the left …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh dear.
Mr GILES: Come on, Marion, you love it. It is interesting when you go through the Northern Territory Emergency Response evaluation report, and you look at the findings, or you look at some of the commentary about local government reform and shire reform. I will not quote directly from that paper because I would be here all day talking about the failures of that, but it says the shire council reform brought in at the same time as the federal government intervention caused considerable pain and concern to Indigenous Territorians.
Through the model created by the Labor government - because they are Labor shires - they inadequately funded the shires and they transferred responsibility from the Northern Territory government to the shires to abdicate responsibility. In doing so, they have completely taken away people’s voice and disenfranchised people on the ground so much that people feel lost and, to a degree, a sense of hopelessness because things have not changed.
I have called for this censure on the government but particularly the minister for Indigenous policy and Statehood because she is also the Minister for Local Government. It seems a bit funny - maybe it is the chairs up the back - because it went from that chair to that chair - you know, Local Government and Housing, and now it has moved over to Indigenous affairs and Local Government. Maybe there is some relationship with those chairs where things seem to go wrong, because the way she is going with statehood at the moment, you have to ask questions. That is what this censure motion is all about: the incompetence of the government, the minister, and the rights of the Northern Territory. They are being stamped on and nothing is heard from government. They should be opposing this intervention because they should have done the job.
We are now stuck in this dilemma. Do we support the measures by the federal government? I believe the only positive measure is the land tenure reform - and I am looking at the alcohol and licensing stuff. On the surface, I have to say it is bad for business in the Territory. Do we support it, with amendments, from a philosophical position, or do we oppose it and introduce legislation into this House to get rid of the intervention legislation because we now have this new rights bill? What is the way forward?
Do we want the Northern Territory government to pick up the mantle and do things itself? Of course we do! Do we think it has the capacity to do that, or the willingness to do that? Absolutely not! So what are we going to do? Are we going to get a bad lemon, with federal bureaucrats, as hard-working as they are, coming here and potentially shutting every pub, club, and tavern they feel fit to close because there are a couple of people out the front who might be drunk? Heaven help us! Labor might have done some economic innovation to try to get people off grog in the first place, not just try to stop the supply side. Let us work on the demand, not the supply.
What about the shops that are going to shut? ‘We do not like the way you serve people, so we are going to shut your shop’. This is not just in the communities, not in the 73 prescribed communities under the intervention; this is all of the Northern Territory. This is Darwin and Alice Springs - and it specifically mentions Darwin and Alice Springs in the legislation if you happen to read it. I have read it, member for Arafura. That is exactly what is in there.
This legislation has gone to the Senate committee and has to pass through the Senate –and I understand all that. However, if it comes to fruition and they get The Greens support - which will be very interesting as The Greens seem to meddle in other areas - and it gets up, that means we will see federal bureaucrats making decisions to shut down pubs, takeaway outlets, grocery stores, taverns - anything.
We do not want to see misery, drunkenness, abuse, and domestic violence. We do not want any of that, but we have to be real about the measures we put in place. You cannot attack Territory businesses. The way I have interpreted it, it is appalling legislation. It is amazing you are defending and supporting it. It is amazing the minister for Indigenous affairs had not read it herself, could not answer the question, and had to defer to the Treasurer, who got it wrong. You would think you would be advised about how this should all change.
The question is: how is the minister for Indigenous affairs going to respond? To date, she has been a lapdog for the federal government. She sat back, rolled over, has been tickled on the belly and said: ‘We will support this second intervention. The first one we did not really like too much, but the second one - it is a Labor government, it is Julia, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, we have to take it, it is Labor’. She should be opposing it. You opposed the one that brought about great changes: more police to communities to protect women, children, and families. Fantastic measures came in, mainly because you could not do it.
I understand the financial difficulties of the Northern Territory government, but you did not advocate it, you did not call for it, and you did not respond. You did not act on the Little Children are Sacred report, and you did not do very much for the Bath report; but that is just the way things seem to go.
This new legislation is a stampede on Territory’s rights at a time when there is a bipartisan effort trying to bring in statehood, yet this Labor government welcomes federal Labor’s second intervention. I am surprised you have not handed back the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and asked the Commonwealth to take over; you have pretty much given up everything else. Here you are without a whimper complaining about the rights of the Northern Territory government being trampled on now.
I am surprised the Chief Minister has not said: ‘Take self-government, we have got nothing else right’. I do not support or advocate that, but I am surprised you guys have not done it because you have rolled over again. This is the second time there has been an intervention into your government, the second time! It is unheard of a first time and now you have two.
We had one earlier this year with the live cattle debacle, where the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, in Nhulunbuy, announced they were going to shut a whole industry down. No interest about jobs for Territorians, let alone all those Indigenous Territorians who own cattle stations, manage cattle stations, and work on cattle stations – do not worry about it!
This government, the minister for Indigenous affairs, and particularly the Chief Minister, have failed all Territorians across a range of issues, but on Indigenous affairs they have failed the most vulnerable Aboriginal Territorians, particularly the children and their futures. That is why the federal Labor government has launched Labor’s second intervention.
The Territory Labor government must have been so embarrassed to have had an intervention in 2007 under Clare Martin’s governance, much to the embarrassment of Labor ministers and, after four long years of Territory Labor failure, to have to see federal Labor bringing in another intervention, this time on Paul Henderson’s watch. It is an horrific declaration by the federal government that you mob are not up to the job; an horrific declaration that Paul Henderson is not up to the job; an horrific declaration that Malarndirri McCarthy is not up to the job.
You will stand there now with forked tongues speaking one language of condemnation to federal Liberals and stand back with contempt as federal Labor introduces their second intervention under the guise of another name.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves! The Chief Minister stands in this parliament a broken man and, if he is not, he should stand here a broken man. A second intervention in four years for the Northern Territory - that is absolutely shameful! I do not know how the Chief Minister can continue in his role after a second intervention has been announced in the Northern Territory.
Labor’s second intervention, as put forward by Jenny Macklin, is a vote of no confidence, not just in Paul Henderson, but explicitly in Malarndirri McCarthy. She should be condemned for overseeing such an appalling effort on Indigenous affairs. I call on the Chief Minister to find another minister for Indigenous affairs. While he is at it, we need a new Minister for Tourism, Local Government, and Statehood - all the same person.
Minister, I censure you, your government, and the Chief Minister in the strongest possible sense of the word because you have failed abysmally, letting down the Territory’s most vulnerable. We are about driving change, and you are changing nothing, except for failing in housing, in child protection, in education which you say is the most important area, on alcohol policy, and on land tenure reform. It is across the board - there is not a positive tune for you to sing.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): There you go, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government yesterday complained loud and long that we did not make any comments about their puff piece, and they were all bent out of shape. Of course, this is their idea of payback. There is a bill before the federal parliament and they have determined not to answer any of the allegations made, quite effectively, by the member for Braitling. I find that absolutely astonishing. If we do not respond to a puff piece, they are screeching from the rafters about our negligence as legislators. Yet, when they are under attack for rolling over on Territory rights, amongst other things, they remain silent and firmly planted with their backsides in their leather seats saying nothing. Why? Because I suspect they have very little to say.
I understand the intent of what the Gillard government is trying to do, but what I do not, and cannot, approve of is how that intent manifests itself in the Northern Territory in our laws. I will start with some general observations, and work my way to the specific. My general observation is the laws proposed by the Gillard government directly change statutes made by this House.
We are a body politic, elected fairly, and given a mandate by those people who elected us to make laws on their behalf. We do not have the same rights as other states - that much is clear. And never was there a clearer example than what is proposed in the federal legislation. Even the most cursory glance of the federal legislation sees the decisions made in this House on behalf of Territorians for the proper welfare of Territorians, change Northern Territory laws. The Northern Territory statute book will be changed without any reference to the members of this House, elected by Territorians to speak on behalf of Territorians. The government of the Northern Territory has no problem with that? I certainly do. It fundamentally changes the Northern Territory Liquor Act. For the federal government to take this step, one can only conclude it has decided the Northern Territory government has failed to take the steps Canberra seems to think are appropriate in the Northern Territory.
If you follow the logic of the criticisms levelled at Canberra by the members opposite over the first intervention then, surely, it follows they must be just as critical of this legislative instrument for all of the same reasons they described the last time. For them to meekly sit here and say nothing - not utter a single syllable in protest against the criticisms we level - only goes to show they have no answer to the criticisms we level. As a member of the parliament of the Northern Territory, I object to the legislative instruments for which I have carriage being changed by a third party.
To give it context, I wonder how the federal government and the people of Australia would feel if the British act, which is the Australian Constitution passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, was amended by the British parliament in an effort to tinker with how the Australian Constitution works. I suspect we would be a republic in two seconds. Not only that, the statute of Westminster and the Australia Act of 1986 would also be in breach of those. It stands to reason that we would object if a foreign parliament interfered in the affairs of Australia, and I object if an Australian parliament interferes in the conduct of the Northern Territory.
I turn my attention to the questions that were answered more specifically, not by the minister for Indigenous affairs who was shielded from answering difficult questions because the real Chief Minister, the member for Karama, is the one who answered the questions because she is the only one who knows what is in this legislative instrument. I suspect the minister for Indigenous affairs does not have the vaguest idea of what is in the instrument before the parliament of Canberra at the moment. That is why we saw such an eloquent attempt to defend what is going on from the member for Karama during Question Time.
Madam Speaker, this is a government of two ministers. The Chief Minister and the Treasurer; everyone else is just along for the ride. We saw that yesterday in this House when the Minister for Transport was not allowed to answer transport questions. We saw it today in this House when the minister for Indigenous affairs was not allowed to answer questions in relation to a legislative instrument which is aimed exclusively at Aboriginal people. For the information of honourable members, surely the minister for Aboriginal affairs can answer questions on a legislative instrument which is aimed directly at - and I quote from the objects of the federal bill which is before the House at the moment:
The object of this act is to support Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to live strong, independent lives, where communities, families and children are safe and healthy.
We heard the usual platitudes we are so used to, we heard all the slogans, but she did not turn her attention to the specific issues being raised in the questions. Why not? Because she is not capable of answering those questions. The member for Karama is aware of that, which is why she is running the human shield on behalf of the minister for Indigenous affairs. It is also clear that it is the member for Karama, the Treasurer and former Attorney-General, who has been driving this particular agenda and that gives me more concern. Nothing concerns me more about the freedom of Northern Territory businesses when the person on the steering wheel of government in relation to business is from the Labor Left. That is something to be fundamentally concerned about. She says: ‘It is only a request power when it comes to matters liquor’.
I draw honourable members’ attention to section 15 of the proposed bill before the federal parliament and it talks about requests. However, there is a thorn in the side of that particular argument. I draw honourable members’ attention to section 15(5) which says:
- The NT Minister may decline the request if the NT Minister reasonably believes that compliance with the request:
Oh wait, there are conditions on the ability to decline.
(a) would place undue financial burden on the Northern Territory …
or
And there is the hook: all of a sudden, people who had control of the legislative instrument, namely the Northern Territory Liquor Act, no longer have complete control of the Northern Territory Liquor Act. There is now a third party that is (a) changing the legislative instrument which is the Northern Territory Liquor Act, and (b) making decisions by the Northern Territory minister appealable and challengeable, something the federal minister, prior to this legislative instrument passing the federal parliament - it has not passed yet, and I hope it does not pass - would not have been within the federal government’s power. Now it will be, and appropriateness of decisions by the minister for alcohol in the Northern Territory will suddenly be able to be overridden in one fashion or another by the federal minister. The bridle is being put back on the Northern Territory, and the bridle is being put back on the Northern Territory through regulatory instruments.
On Monday, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory came into this House waving around a motion, saying we had to congratulate the federal parliament for taking away the capacity from federal ministers to override Northern Territory law by way of regulation. This legislation reintroduces that concept in spades. Where is the motion we would expect from the Chief Minister condemning the federal parliament for introducing the concept that federal ministers can override Northern Territory law by regulation? There is no such motion, and the reason there is no such motion is because this Chief Minister is a sycophant to the concept of everything Labor and will place that above all other institutions he has carriage of, including the good governance of the Northern Territory.
A second component of this legislative instrument is land reform. The intervention, as introduced by Mal Brough - love it or hate it - gave the Northern Territory an opportunity the Northern Territory had never had before. That opportunity was an ability to ensure that town camps became normalised within the major communities around Darwin and the Northern Territory. Why would you not go down that path with gusto? The last thing I want to see in the Northern Territory is a form of apartheid. I despise the concept and, unfortunately, we have legislative instruments which insist upon it.
In a brave new world, there would be no differentiation in law between landowners, and nor should there be. I look forward to a day where we do not have to, because Aboriginal landowners and landowners of any other colour, political persuasion, or religion, all operate under the same structures and laws. That is the goal we should be aiming for. This particular intent by Mal Brough at the time was the first step down that road.
I know why the conditions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, for argument’s sake, were put in place: because when that legislation was constructed, particularly after the Nabalco case and the Woodward Royal Commission, there was a desire, noble as it was, to defend Aboriginal people from the rapacious conduct of other people who may try to take away Aboriginal people’s lands. Since that time, the walls of protection constructed around Aboriginal people for the protection of their ownership of land are now becoming a prison by which Aboriginal people are being trapped.
That needs to be addressed. Generations have passed since that time and there is a new group of people out there who do not need some of the extraordinary protections afforded; who, I imagine, would like very much to become involved with, and be part of, the general economy - not sit there like some economic equivalent of North Korea - being involved in generating their own wealth. They will then generate the one thing we cannot give to Aboriginal people: their independence. They must grasp their independence, and economic independence is the strongest form of independence you can have. They can then set what is important to them as people, what their priorities are and, if they have economic independence, can build a future for themselves and mould it into whatever shape they want.
The presence of this legislative instrument demonstrates the Northern Territory government, in its current form, never had any intention of going down the path of allowing that independence to be granted. The Northern Territory government, with its carriage of these particular leasing arrangements, found itself in the position where it could do something about it and did nothing. I place on the record how extraordinarily objectionable I find the assertion by the minister for Indigenous affairs: ‘We have never taken Aboriginal people to court’. Really? Who paid for the case against the Larrakia people?
I understand why the case against the Larrakia native titleholders was run, but I find it unfathomable that a person will stand up and say: ‘I recognise the Larrakia traditional owners of this country’ when they sat in the same Cabinet that paid for the court case to fight the native title claim. When you talk about a native title claim and defeating native title, one way of interpreting what happens when you defeat native title is you demonstrate what some people would call cultural genocide has been successful.
This government goes into a court fighting against the native title claim over Darwin, runs the argument that cultural genocide has essentially been successful - there is no effective culture left, the chain has been broken – and, unfortunately, the evidence supports that. Anyone who reads one of these native title decisions feels dejected because you know on the evidence that finding has been made.
Do not fund a case and then come into this House and say: ‘I recognise the traditional lands upon which we stand’ when you went to court to determine they did not have that title any longer. That is hypocrisy of the lowest order. In relation to giving Aboriginal people their rights, the land reform component of the legislation before the Commonwealth is Part 3:
- Part 3 contains measures relating to town camps and community living areas. Those measures are aimed at facilitating the granting of rights and interests, and promoting economic development, in those camps and areas. Those measures allow regulations to be made to modify particular laws of the Northern Territory …
Here we go; we are changing the law of the Northern Territory again:
- … to the extent that those laws apply to town camps and community living areas.
Without re-entering into the debate as to the legislative integrity of this House, this demonstrates that for the past five years this government has achieved nothing in the reform of what happens in community living areas and town camps - not a sausage, not zip. It keeps telling us how much it consults and how much it likes to talk to Aboriginal people. We keep hearing platitudes and – well, I am not allowed to say lies, but I am unsure how else to describe the suggestion they do not fight Aboriginal people in court cases. If that is not a lie, then I am not quite sure how to describe it.
What about Blue Mud Bay? It took them to the High Court. Any person who read the decision in the Full Court of the …
Ms Scrymgour: Do not mislead.
Mr ELFERINK: You took them to the High Court and I pick up on the interjection.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You did take them to the High Court. I pick up on the interjection. I am accused of misleading the House by the member for Arafura when I said they took Blue Mud Bay to the High Court. Not only did you take them to the High Court, you took out full-sized ads in the paper saying: ‘We are taking Aboriginal people to the High Court’ …
Ms Scrymgour: What for? Explain what for!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Because of the appeal of the Full Court after a Federal Court found …
Ms Scrymgour: What for?
Mr ELFERINK: … that intertidal zones - actually, I will pick up on the interjection because, clearly, she has not read it.
Part of the appeal to the High Court deals with the determination in the Federal Court’s Court of Appeal about an old common law rule saying waters in intertidal zones were publicly accessible. It was a determination that, after the Woodward Royal Commission into that particular case, found that common law rule law was pretty weak. Even the speeches by the federal ministers introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act defeated the old common law title and gave Aboriginal people exclusive rights to the intertidal zones. Does that answer your question? I read the court decisions; I suggest you do the same.
This is a government that will tell Territorians: ‘We do not take Aboriginal people to court unless we are taking full-page ads out in the Northern Territory News’. And they accuse us of dog whistling? Goodness gracious me! Then, when they have an opportunity to bring about economic advancement for Aboriginal people in community living areas, in town camps, what do they do …
Mr Tollner: Nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: Nada, nothing, zip!
The pack of racists who used to be the CLP, when they were trying to deal with the potential of native title, at least struck a deal with the Larrakia Development Corporation over land in Palmerston and created a platform for a corporation that grew - and grew substantially - from that time, because they understood there were times for negotiation and there were times for court cases. But, at least they did not sit there and tell fibs to Aboriginal people about: ‘We never took them to court’. The hell you did not! You take them to court at the drop of a hat. That is why you cannot be trusted; because you will stand here and say one thing and you will do something else entirely.
This government has been condemned by the Gillard Labor government by the introduction of its bill for failing to do what it was supposed to do, and morally obliged to do: change what happens in these town camps, change the systems of land tenure. Shock, horror! An Aboriginal person might buy their own home, take out a mortgage, and pay that mortgage off with a job. What an awfully excruciating, nasty thing to do to an Aboriginal person! What a liberating thing it should be considered to be. Surely, an Aboriginal person - like any other person, whether they are green, white, yellow, or have polka dots - if they have a job, they make their own decisions. They do not need some clown public servant wiping their backsides and spoon-feeding them.
That is what I want for Aboriginal people, so when they make decisions for their own land, they can make that decision as the rightful owners of that property, and that land generates wealth. For 50 000 years Aboriginal land generated wealth for Aboriginal people; that is why they lived off it. That should continue, but within the modern context, where they are generating their own wealth. After five years of an opportunity to do it, even in a small way, this government’s advancement in those areas has amounted to nothing. Goodness gracious me! They stand there and say: ‘After 26 years of CLP neglect, it is going to take such a long time to fix it’. Well, you have had five years to fix this, and what has happened? The federal government steps in.
Food security is another component of the federal legislation – food security. Okay. This is the part that really amazes me:
- Part 4 provides for a licensing regime for certain community stores operating in the food security area (which is the whole of the Northern Territory other than an area that is prescribed by the rules (see section 74)). That regime is aimed at promoting food security for Aboriginal communities.
The secretary may determine, at any time, whether the owner of a community store is required to hold a community store licence. If the secretary determines that the owner is required to hold a licence, then the store will be prohibited from operating in the food security area unless the owner obtains a licence. The secretary cannot determine that the owner is required to hold a licence unless the secretary is satisfied that the store is an important source of food, drink or grocery items for an Aboriginal community.
- If the secretary grants a licence, the secretary may impose conditions on the licence. The owner will be required to comply with those conditions, plus the conditions that are imposed by Part 4 and the rules.
The first place to go is section 74; bearing in mind we have just discovered the whole of the Northern Territory is currently in a food security area.
In section 74, do I find a reference to the excluded areas? Do I find the word Darwin, or Alice Springs - no, what I find is there might be a set of rules made up and those rules will describe what is in and out of a food security area. What the federal parliament is being asked to do is declare the whole of the Northern Territory a food security area and then the minister, at some point subsequent to the passage of legislation; that is, out of the public eye, may determine what a food security area is.
So, does that mean Darwin? We do not know. I suspect on all reasonably analyses that it will not. But, does it mean Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs; more likely. What about Jabiru or Nhulunbuy; it is even more likely still.
The point is the rules surrounding how you get your licence are onerous indeed. I point out to honourable members that in the legislative instrument before the federal House at the moment is the secretary may send an inspector around, and that inspector may go to your shop and go knock, knock: ‘Hello, I am here to inspect your premises on behalf of the instrument granted to me by the federal parliament of Australia under the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill’ and guess what, you are allowed to say no. You can say no, do not come in. You know what happens after that, you do not get your licence. Which means if you refuse entry to one of these inspectors under the food security component of this legislation, guess what happens; you do not get your licence, you do not get to sell food?
The answer to the problems we have in the Northern Territory, as far as the federal government is concerned, is to create a police state. No longer will you be able to run a store in a remote community or any other community in a food security area unless you have a licence to do so. I hear: ‘That is not true’; that is precisely what is being dictated here and guess who makes the decision; the secretary …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Apart from directing his comments through the Chair, I just wonder whether that applies to people giving away kangaroo tails.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: The funny thing is I used to give away kangaroo tails as a matter of courtesy. Under this legislation, I could well be in breach and I could be charged because I gave it to an Aboriginal community. As a matter of courtesy, I gave away a couple of kangaroo tails. If that is not a police state, what is? What is …
Dr Burns: It would have been close with the Electoral Act.
Mr ELFERINK: What is? The minister may want to make light of this, the minister may want to have fun, but the point is that unless you get a bureaucrat based in Canberra’s licence to trade in one of these areas, you may not trade any more.
We already have Outback Stores, which is, essentially, a government-organised monopoly-type organisation finding its way into these community stores - not giving greater choice, but taking away choice, all in the name of the benevolent hand of government helping Aboriginal people. All of a sudden, even if you are trading outside of the Outback Stores model, or even if you are Outback Stores, you need a licence to trade, otherwise they will take your livelihood away. How does this help Aboriginal people reach economic independence? How does this increase choice? It does not. This legislation is all about expanding the concept of welfare.
Nowhere in this legislation does it say Aboriginal people are responsible. What it says is the government is responsible and now the federal government is responsible, and what we are going to do is issue licences and we are going to expect everything from people who are non-Aboriginal in Aboriginal areas of the Northern Territory, and possibly other areas, to bend over backwards and ask nothing of the Aboriginal people themselves! If that is not a welfare response, what is?
So what will happen? Services will be increased, licences will be issued to stores, pubs will be shut down wherever the federal minister determines, in collusion with the Labor Left in the Territory, and Aboriginal people will become even greater recipients of welfare – hasn’t that been a successful policy so far! If we collected all the policies of the past - assimilation, extermination - and lined them all up, the death toll would not make one-tenth of the death toll we could attribute to welfare.
Why doesn’t this legislation say compulsory work for the dole in remote communities? That would help. That would mean they get a job, and at least some responsibility would go with it. That is what I would support. But no, nothing like that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is all about the stores, the liquor outlets, and the government, and it has nothing to do with the Aboriginal people. If this is not grounds to censure a Northern Territory government, then there are no grounds to censure the Northern Territory government.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I support this censure motion. The government is a complete failure in this area. The government is nothing but a lapdog for the Gillard Labor government in the federal parliament.
Of course, I support the censuring of the minister for Indigenous affairs, also the Minister for Statehood and Tourism. She has proven herself to be a complete failure. There is no other way to put it. She is not trusted by her team to answer questions in Question Time on matters of Indigenous affairs. As my good friend and colleague, the member for Port Darwin, just said - he made it abundantly clear that the total of this stronger futures, I think they call it, legislation; we refer it to as intervention mark II, or the second intervention - she has no clue on what it is. As the member for Port Darwin rightly pointed out, it is all about the minister for Indigenous affairs, no one else; it is about dealing with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is solely about dealing with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
You have a Minister for Indigenous Development who cannot answer a question on it. She has absolutely no clue as to what is going on in that legislation. And it is true that these guys opposite have railed for quite some time now about the intervention. They did not like what Howard and Brough did, and I believe a big part of the reason for that is because they were exposed, they were found wanting. We all know how it occurred. It occurred simply because Clare Martin, the Chief Minister at the time, swept the Little Children are Sacred report under the carpet, tried to ignore the issue. It was weeks before federal minister at the time, Mal Brough, got a whiff of what was going on. He actually had to get the document off the Internet. It was never provided to him by the Northern Territory government. A couple of weeks ago, the Chief Minister made the observation that the first recommendation in the Little Children are Sacred report was government should work collaboratively. Sweeping a report under the table and hiding it from the view of the federal Indigenous Affairs minister is hardly what you would call working collaboratively.
I well remember when Mal Brough put the call in to Clare Martin asking her to attend an Indigenous summit and she turned her back on that. She would not turn up to that, did not want a bar of that, and then screamed blue murder when the federal government acted in the only way it possibly could with an emergency response. And that is exactly what it was - it was an emergency response. Lo and behold, four months later, the Howard government, sadly, was swept from power. Since then, we have had a federal Labor government which has embraced the intervention and kept most aspects of it.
The emergency response legislation has been repealed; there is no doubt about that. However, what they have reintroduced - it is a bit like the Muckaty Station legislation - they repealed the Commonwealth laws but introduced something that is almost exactly the same. In this case, there are alcohol restrictions, pornography restrictions, welfare quarantining, welfare linked to school attendance, and township leasing all retained and, in most cases, enhanced. As the members for Port Darwin and Braitling quite eloquently pointed out, it has been enhanced in many different ways.
What the federal government is doing now in relation to Territory business - licensing businesses that operate not only on Indigenous land but supply Aboriginal people with food and having the ability to step in and shut down clubs, pubs, corner stores, and other liquor outlets goes way beyond what was ever proposed by Mal Brough and the federal Coalition at the time. It is ridiculous if you extrapolate it out.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about food security areas. I would hate to be the owner of KFC or Red Rooster in Katherine or Tennant Creek, or have a KFC store in Alice Springs or possibly Darwin because sadly - it is not sad at all - many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people like to eat that type of food. A portion of that type of food that is quite okay and healthy; we just do not want to see people living entirely on it, which is what happens.
However, I can see some do-gooder in Canberra, some hand-wringer, sitting there saying: ‘No, there are too many Aboriginal people going into that KFC, we will shut it down, we will close it. We will close that McDonalds over there because too many Aboriginal people eat there. We do not want that shop operating’. Trying to set up a business anywhere in the world, not just Australia, not just the Northern Territory, is a very difficult thing to do. It is obvious by the statistics; the vast majority of small businesses fail in the first three years and that is by competent people who are reasonably good at running businesses. It is a hard game. We are trying to get commercial activities happening on Indigenous land and we have a federal Labor government saying it does not really give a damn about Northern Territory legislation. It is going to licence these businesses and put another layer of bureaucracy that entrepreneurs have to jump over if they want to open a shop or a store in an Aboriginal community. That is completely wrong.
It is a pity, in the last four years, federal Labor and this government have simply marked time to the point where they have to introduce the second intervention. It is just not right. They have pursued populist policies espoused by city-based academics for four years, and only after talking to Aboriginal people on the ground have they realised the real work required to end the alcohol abuse, get the kids to school, lift standards, build houses, and break the shackles of welfare was not being met. Aboriginal people deserve much more than sitting under a tree waiting for the next welfare cheque. Aboriginal people deserve much more than that.
Madam Speaker, what really irks me about this legislation - not so much the federal legislation, but more the Northern Territory government’s reaction to it. It has welcomed it, which I find completely contrary to what they have been saying. These guys came into this place on Day 1 of this parliamentary sitting week and ran a motion congratulating the federal government for putting forward a Territory rights bill and getting it passed. We were happy enough to support that. Quite honestly, we believe it is silly legislation because we do not believe it will hold up. However, the intent of giving the Territory more rights is not hard to agree with. We were happy enough to let the motion go through without too much protest and see it carried on the voices.
We talk about statehood and the fact that we want equal rights. I do not believe there is a person in this Chamber who does not want statehood. From my perspective, I have been keen on Northern Territory statehood for a very long time, and have done everything I can, both here and in the federal parliament, to promote Territory statehood. It is something we want to see. Territorians should be treated no better and no worse than other Australians are. We simply want a fair go. However, in this same week when we have had these debates in this place, we see legislation coming out of Canberra that tramples all over our rights. I am sure there are probably things in this legislation that are good for the Territory, but it is unfortunate we have a government that is not doing those things already.
The member for Braitling made the point about township and town camp leasing, and creating normal suburbs. Those things have been available for the Northern Territory government to do for a long time now, and they have done nothing. Township leasing - we say, yes, we want more township leasing, but the only township leases we have in place are the ones Mal Brough put in place in the four months he had control of the intervention. Nothing else has eventuated - absolutely nothing. Where are the other 99-year leases, member for Arafura? You are such a great expert on this type of stuff; where are the other 99-year leases? There are none!
The fact is they have been complete failures, but the worst thing is, they never, ever stand up for the Territory - they never stand up for Territorians. It is roll over, Hendo; Julia has made a decree. It is time to take a back seat, Hendo, because Julia has decided this one for you, mate ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Fong Lim should address the Chief Minister by his proper title.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Roll over, Chief Minister. All right, Madam Speaker, I take that on board.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Roll over, Chief Minister; the Prime Minister is making the call on this one. The Chief Minister says: ‘Yes ma’am, okay, we will keep our traps shut, we will not say anything. In fact, Prime Minister, we will issue a media release welcoming your trampling all over our rights, because we are too lazy and incompetent to do anything about it’.
Unfortunately, Question Time demonstrated that. We have a minister for Indigenous affairs who happens to be the Minister for Statehood, who cannot answer the simplest, most basic questions on this legislation, which you would think she would be all over. She has the audacity to stand up and say she is pro-statehood. Well, get real! That is just not happening. It is not happening while we have fools like this who do not have a clue about what is going on in their own portfolio areas. It is just embarrassing! It is like, for the Labor Party at least: ‘Oh, well, we have a couple of blackfellas here, let us give them jobs, give them some responsibility, but do not, for God’s sake, let them answer a question. Do not, for God’s sake, let them get involved’ ...
Dr Burns: All right. Ask one.
Mr TOLLNER: You will not let them do anything. It is: ‘Blacks in the back; sit in the corner and keep your trap shut, say nothing. We want the member for Arnhem to be a pretty face and smile and show off her nice white teeth, but for God’s sake, do not say anything, do not involve yourself in anything’. Quite frankly, they do not trust her. The fact is we all know she is a failure. It is glaringly obvious, because she has not uttered a sensible word yet; she harps on continuously about practically nothing.
You have a look at this side; you ask about competence. I look at the member for Braitling; this guy gets out there, he actually understands the issues. He gets around to remote communities, not just around Central Australia, but also all over the Northern Territory. He takes his job seriously, he is proposing policy, and he is working with Indigenous people. He is not scared to say what he thinks. He said a few things. His utterance on shires is a good example. That upset quite a few people, but the fact is, the guy is prepared to get out there and have a go and say a few things, and as far as I am concerned, he is no different to any other member in the Country Liberals who should be allowed to get up and have a go. Nobody puts a fence around him and tells him to go and sit in the corner and smile and show his nice white teeth. It is just wrong, Madam Speaker.
The member for Arafura, the minister for Indigenous affairs, is so outraged that I referred to some Aboriginal communities as hellholes. I have to ask the question: in a place where you see almost total joblessness, a 96% failure rate in meeting national benchmarks for education, people crammed 20 and 30 to a house, massive amounts of sickness and despair, and people have no hope, no opportunities, no anything, what do you refer to them as? Surely, hellhole would be a good description. To say: ‘No, those places are okay, they are all rosy, everything is fine, and the member for Fong Lim is just a racist’, I find absolutely appalling and abhorrent.
At least the member for Braitling gets out and has a look at these places and sees what is going on. The amount of times he has turned up with photos of houses and other infrastructure on remote communities, highlighting some of the shortfalls in those areas. You have to have been born without a heart not to take notice of that stuff and to sit there and try to ignore it and say it is not happening. You guys over there seem to be born without hearts or brains.
Goodness me, in the same week we are all talking about statehood and Territory rights and all of that stuff, Jenny Macklin rides into town and walks all over our rights, and we do not hear a peep out of you guys. In actual fact, you welcome it. What do you take us for - idiots? Goodness me, this is just appalling.
Madam Speaker, these people deserve censure in the most forceful manner. They are an absolute shame. They are an absolute disgrace to all Territorians, and for that reason I am very supportive of this censure - I hope all my colleagues are supportive. I certainly hope there are a few people on the other side of the Chamber who might just snap out of their stupor and realise what the hell is going on here and support this side of the Chamber in this motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, if I have ever listened to a prize dropkick, I have just listened to the member for Fong Lim. What a dropkick; what an embarrassment! You were an embarrassment when you were the member for Solomon and you are an embarrassment now as the member for Fong Lim.
How dare you and the member for Braitling come in here, hand on heart, and say: ‘Intervention mark II’. The both of you are a disgrace. The both of you are king-size dropkicks, you are hypocrites, and I am sick to the core, listening to your diatribe, your pretence of caring for Aboriginal people. What a load of crap, if I have ever heard it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and if that is not parliamentary, I will withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I just ask you to withdraw that last part, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said if that is unparliamentary, I will withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: These are guys who have had their noses in the trough for a long time. They are king-size pigs. It is good that the member for Braitling acquaints himself with, and visits, these communities. When you are not from the Territory, you need to acquaint yourself with Territory history - and what Aboriginal people had to endure for 26 years. Do not stand there and preach to me about the CLP! After 26 years of the absolute neglect with the DNA that is embodied in the CLP in fighting every land claim.
I listened to the hypocrisy of the member for Port Darwin, who pretends he is a lawyer. He is someone who has a law degree but has never practised law. There is a fundamental difference. Members opposite should bring back the former member for Araluen - if anyone understood legislation, if anyone could clinically and forensically go through legislation and know what it meant, she is probably the one. She could inform you guys in a proper and better way. Putting all your eggs in that idiot’s basket over there means you are being badly misled …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw ‘idiot’ …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … because he is the last village idiot, I tell you.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. He is the last intellect in the village.
I said the other day in this parliament that I have always been a critic of the most coercive measures which the Commonwealth enacted in legislation in 2007. I have a big smile on my face every time the members for Braitling and Fong Lim quote from the Charles Perkins oration. When I look back on that time in 2007, my father had just died, and I suppose I was reflecting on my father’s life when I delivered that oration because it was a federal government that intervened in my father’s life all those years ago. People say that this is the mark II intervention. When I delivered the Charles Perkins oration, it was showing that the Commonwealth had intervened many years ago into the lives of people like my father. To quote one word from that whole speech is absolutely offensive. You gloss over what I was saying and the importance of all of those issues.
For the members for Port Darwin, Braitling, and Fong Lim, I seek to table the NTER which has just been repealed in federal parliament …
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I remember when Mal Brough, his pin-up boy, passed this legislation in federal parliament. The member for Fong Lim was on radio in the Northern Territory. He could not wait to talk about his pin-up boy, and how this was a great thing John Howard and Mal Brough had done. I went on after the member for Fong Lim and asked if he had actually read the legislation; if he had looked at what was in that legislation.
This is a man who was voted by Territorians to represent Territorians in federal parliament. He failed in his job, and he failed to represent Aboriginal Territorians in Canberra. You failed, member for Fong Lim, and you stand here and say you did your job. You were a fundamental failure when you were the member for Solomon. You allowed Mal Brough - and I seek to table the Stronger Futures legislation …
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: For any of these blokes to say that what has been introduced is worse than what was introduced in 2007 is astonishing. Who can believe the village idiot when he did not even bother to read the first intervention legislation? He could not be bothered reading the legislation even though he was duly elected to represent Territorians in that federal parliament. Don’t you come in here and preach and say that what has been introduced is worse than what Mal Brough brought in, and the other lies he has said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw that please. You can only do that by way of substantiative motion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw lies. The other issue …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a very important speech the member for Arafura is giving. I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is called. A quorum is present.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: He can stand here for half-an-hour and try to sling mud and mislead this parliament about what happened with the Little Children are Sacred report. The former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and this government had been negotiating for many years with the federal Liberal government regarding the issues in, and plight of, the Northern Territory. For the member for Fong Lim …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Half-a-minute ago, the member alluded to another member misleading this House. I ask that she either withdraw or proceed by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I did not hear it, but I ask you to withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The member for Fong Lim, who was the member for Solomon at that time stated, when on his feet, that Mal Brough downloaded the Little Children are Sacred report from the Internet. What a load of gobbledygook. You have misled this parliament. That report was given …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arafura has made an unparliamentary comment and I ask her to withdraw that, please.
Ms Scrymgour: Which one? Gobbledygook? Or that Mal Brough had misled this parliament by saying …
Mr TOLLNER: You accused me of misleading the parliament. That is an unparliamentary statement unless you can come into this House and run …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you will resume your seat. Member for Arafura, please make your speech within the standing orders.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I withdraw saying the member for Fong Lim had misled this parliament.
The former Chief Minister had given the report to the then federal Indigenous Affairs minister to look at and to work together to deal with abuse issues in the Northern Territory.
The member for Fong Lim also said: ‘Mal Brough called a summit and Clare Martin did not even give Mal Brough the courtesy of attending’. The Chief Minister sent three ministers. Three ministers went to the summit Mal Brough had called: the member for Wanguri, who is now the Chief Minister; the member for Karama, who is the Deputy Chief Minister; and I attended this summit with Mal Brough and Philip Ruddock who was …
Mr Tollner: And she turned her back on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, the former Chief Minister trusted her ministers who had ministerial responsibility in those areas …
Mr Tollner: It did not interest her.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: She trusted her ministers to deal with this issue. Member for Fong Lim, instead of standing here with your insults and trying to fling mud on issues you really do not know anything about - we all know in your time in federal parliament, John Howard had to put a minder on you because they could not trust you walking around the corridors of Parliament House. You had minders put on you because you could not be trusted, member for Fong Lim, when you were the member for Solomon …
Dr Burns: It was Christopher Pyne.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Christopher Pyne. God, he had the poodle looking after him, did he? The poodle had to look after him …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Arafura, direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am trying to direct my comments but the member for Fong Lim is provocative. He made a number of provocative statements, and I am trying to get to that.
The member for Port Darwin, as the Chief Minister says: ‘Dear, oh dear, oh dear, this is the member who thinks he is a lawyer’. He pontificates and is statesmanlike, looks at legislation, flicks it over, and goes through it. If he had bothered reading the NTER …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … if he had read the NTER he would have understood the NTER, and the clauses and approach in the NTER regarding stores and licensing of stores and computers. Did you know that there was not one organisation in these Aboriginal communities under the NTER – if it had a computer in the organisation, Commonwealth officers, at any time, could walk into that organisation, put a USB port on that computer and download information at will? The member for Braitling said what Mal Brough did was a good thing because it was about protecting children. He needs to have a look …
Mr Giles: Only because you guys did nothing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … at what this legislation was. I criticised Mal Brough and John Howard in 2007, and I criticise them now, because 500 pages of intervention legislation and an opportunity to do something with the Northern Territory government - not once in that legislation did it talk about protecting children. You stand in here and you bleat and carry on …
Mr Tollner: That is what it was all about.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no, you have had your opportunity. You just shut your mouth!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Speaker. It is an issue I feel quite strongly about because these clowns on the other side laugh. The member for Fong Lim laughs; he thinks it is a joke ...
Mr Tollner: You are a joke!
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Fong Lim will cease interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I do not think it is a joke. I have never thought it was a joke, because I take child protection and child abuse quite seriously. We did in 2007, and we do now ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim persists with interjecting. I ask him to listen in silence in the same way members have listened to him.
Mr TOLLNER: To the point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy should be aware this is a two-way street. I was on my feet for a good 20 minutes and there was a constant diatribe coming …
Ms Walker: I listened, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear the member for Nhulunbuy jumping up then. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy was sitting right where you are, Madam Speaker. She had ample opportunity to shut the man …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am in the Chair. Please resume your seat.
Honourable members, the interjections and the level of conversation are untoward. I ask that the member stays within the standing orders in the language used, and that there is a very low level of interjections.
Member for Arafura, thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will keep my language within the standing orders.
I want to pick up on the member for Fong Lim where he said I was interjecting. I listened in silence to what he, the member for Braitling, and the member for Port Darwin had to say. I did say something when the member for Port Darwin was speaking in relation to Blue Mud Bay and the reason why the Northern Territory government went to court in getting certainty, because the member for Port Darwin was a bit cute in his language and his recollection of history when he was making his contribution. I did listen in silence to the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim.
What they do not like is when this history is thrown back at them; when they give their version of events and that is contested. They do not like that contested qualification coming back. He talked about this being about welfare quarantining and Territory business. Your mate, Mal Brough, did that. He did that in 2007. You said it was okay then, but you say it is not okay now. There are some fundamental differences. I know members opposite do not want to hear that; they do not want to know there are differences in this legislation.
One of the biggest differences in this - I remember when Mal Brough introduced the NTER into federal parliament. Under duress, he palmed it off to a parliamentary committee because Howard was being pressured a great deal at that time and the federal Liberal Party was being pressured. So Mal Brough had to put the legislation to a parliamentary committee and he gave the committee one day in which to take evidence and look at what that legislation meant to the Northern Territory.
Jenny Macklin - and I do acknowledge Jenny Macklin and federal Labor – yes, the legislation has been introduced in federal parliament, but there are significant differences with the legislation introduced yesterday. The other difference with the legislation is the federal minister has sent the legislation to a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee will have substantial time to look at the legislation and deal with it. I hope the CLP might wake up, make a submission, and state its view on it. It will give opportunities to organisations, Aboriginal people, and other people to look at the legislation and give evidence to the parliamentary committee.
To hear the hypocrisy of the member for Braitling and the member for Fong Lim - the failed member for Fong Lim who was the failed member for Solomon - saying we have not stood up for Territory rights and are just rolling over. That is absolute nonsense!
The member for Fong Lim rolled over, allowed John Howard and Mal Brough to tickle his tummy, and they sent him off to the radio stations to say: ‘Oh yes, I understand the legislation, ha ha ha’. I recall the radio commentator asking: ‘Did you read the legislation? What does the legislation mean?’ He had his key lines to read out but he read them without having read the legislation. So, to say the federal Labor government has come in over the top and taken away Territory rights - this is the failed member who should have stood up for Territory rights in 2007. If he understood legislation, if he had received a briefing back then, if he knew what he was doing, he would have known then that that was an intervention into the Northern Territory.
That was removing Territory rights and particularly Aboriginal people’s rights, which I know the member for Fong Lim thinks is a joke …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support a very valid censure motion. I have been listening to the member for Arafura and she talks about history lessons, clowns, being in the trough, and 26 years of neglect.
I will add to the history debate. Here is some recent history from the Sunday Territorian: the headline is ‘Northern Territory government rates the worst in the nation’. This is recent history from 23 January this year. We have heard evidence here today. Time and again we have heard people from this side of the House demonstrate the failings of those opposite.
In relation to clowns and the other side, I do not know where the member for Arafura has been, but the Country Liberals and the CLP government achieved an enormous amount over the history of self-government in the Northern Territory, and they did so with a whole lot less cash. The Treasurer says: ‘We have done this, this, this, we are spending more money’. The problem is the Treasurer was run over by a cash truck from Canberra with the rivers of GST money flowing into her coffers just after they took government in 2001.
With all the challenges of recessions, etcetera, the former CLP government had to put up with - and I might add that the Chief Minister, on a regular basis stands in this House and says: ‘Between 1990 and 1994, no increases here, and no increases there’. I would like to remind the House and the member for Arafura about history. I was around in those days and I remember very clearly the then Labor federal government took a knife to the Northern Territory budget - I would be glad if the Treasurer or the Chief Minister might like to correct me. It was about 26% of the budget, somewhere around there, that we lost as a result of a stroke of the pen of those in Canberra. Again, Canberra overseeing and running the business of Territorians of all persuasions. The Treasurer might like to answer that particular question at some stage. I hope those upstairs listening might like to come down and give me a history lesson as to what size those budget cuts were, and what it caused the then CLP government to have to do.
The member for Arafura said: ‘You are in the trough’. I understand that term as ‘snouts in the trough’. We are accused time after time of being part of an organisation that for 26 years had snouts in the trough. I remind the member for Arafura that you have been in government for the last 10 years, and we have not been. If you want to make allegations about us being in the trough, it is ancient history. You are the people in there, you have control of the cheque books, you are the ones spending, doing all sorts of things, and you are the ones creating all the waste.
For the benefit of the member for Arafura, I remind the House of some of the achievements of the previous CLP government in working for the Territory. These people stood up for the Territory. When I first came here in 1978, it was an exciting place. We had just achieved self-government and the CLP government was creating and doing things, with a limited budget, I might add. It was an exciting place. Now I stand here, 30-plus years later and think: ‘Where have we gone? Where are we now? We are perhaps at risk of losing self-government’.
Here are some of the things the Country Liberals proudly achieved since self-government with much less money per capita than the current government has, and it is still not achieving much for Territorians. The gas pipeline - what did that bring - gas to our power station and a cheaper form of electricity. Yulara: I can remember the ALP opposition banging on and saying how terrible that fancy building out there was. ‘Why would you build Yulara?’ They complained, they fought it, they were opposed to it, and what do we have now? We have one of those establishments owned by Aboriginal corporations, employing Aboriginal people, and creating economic wealth for Aboriginal people so they can achieve self-determination …
A member: And now they are talking about a golf course there.
Mr STYLES: And a golf course. There we go, there is another one: a golf course. The CLP did not build the golf course, but perhaps we can claim some credit because we were there when we were building the infrastructure you need to generate wealth.
It is something those opposite have trouble understanding; to generate wealth, you have to actually spend money, create wealth, and infrastructure. Not just million dollar prisons - you have to have something that generates wealth because that is where tax comes from, where governments get the money to spend. If you do not create economic wealth, then you do not have any taxes, you do not have any money to spend, and those in our community who are most in need will not get it. It also goes federally. When we start seeing all that money spent, the interest bill alone which will come from that is astronomical.
Let us go a bit further. Kings Canyon and Katherine Gorge Visitor Centres: who is using those at the moment? Aboriginal people and organisations to generate wealth for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory so they can have self-determination, create their own businesses, and determine their futures, employ more Aboriginal people, employ their families, get things going, and change the entire attitude of some of the Aboriginal employment situations in the Northern Territory.
We established national parks at Litchfield, Douglas Daly, Gregory, Keep River, and Charles Darwin. These parks bring people here. When I was at Charles Darwin National Park recently, there were Aboriginal guides working in private enterprise telling people - I was part of a group - the history of the place. These people are being employed. This stuff creates employment, drags people out of that welfare mentality, makes them productive, builds their self-esteem, and makes them want to get up in the morning and go to work.
Look at the Northern Territory museum. Where is all the fantastic cultural stuff we have in the Northern Territory displayed? At the museum and other museums. The Country Liberals, and to a lesser degree the current government, contributed towards the museums where so much of this fine artwork and fine artefacts are displayed that bring so many people to the Territory. Who is conducting tours? Aboriginal people.
Look at Tennant Creek Gold Battery and the tourist information centre associated with the battery. The Arafura Games – Indigenous people participating from all over the Territory, giving them exposure to other cultures, to other sporting events, and generally, getting them into and involved in wealth-creating sporting events.
You now see more and more Aboriginal people participating in the Masters Games. Marrara Sporting Complex - we talk about sport for kids and our youth. How many Indigenous teams are there now? Plenty. What about running, what about hockey, what about some of our gold medal winners? Where do they go? Marrara Sporting Complex.
The Channel Island Power Station: we went away from power, the clean environment - so many things there. State Square, the building we are standing in. During the recession we had to have courtesy of the Australian Labor Party in government in Canberra - the CLP recognised it was coming. What did they do? They took out an insurance policy. Did we need new schools and new hospitals at that stage? No, we did not need them, so the government looked at what infrastructure we needed. The building on this site had a leaking roof and needed to be replaced. The Legislative Assembly moved to the Chan Building while State Square was being built which, I might add, kept many people in work during the recession we had to have.
This is a history lesson for the member for Arafura. The Country Liberals saw the need to keep local people employed. While they were building this fine establishment, out the back of this building was about 25 utes from someone’s tiling business, or someone’s plumbing business; the building had about 25 vans, all the painters were here, everyone was here working on State Square, Parliament House and generally employed and keeping the whole thing going.
I remember talking to the Ramset man many years ago. In 1991, around the time we had the recession we had to have, he was about to leave town. He had one employee, he was running around selling stuff himself, and he had a person in the office – two Territorians employed. Like many other people, he said: ‘I am going to have to do something because there is just not that much business’. State Square came along and generated so much for the people of the Northern Territory. Again, the lesson in history is if you do not create a successful economy, and a local economy, then everyone suffers – black, white, and brindle – and you do not have the wealth creation we should have. We, as Territorians, deserve a government which puts out stuff that is going to create wealth and not only keep us employed, but also give jobs to our children, give them a future, and give them hope.
The Territory Wildlife Park - who gives guided tours? Aboriginal people. Alice Springs Desert Park - who gives tours there? Aboriginal people. Pastoral roads - who is employed on stations? Aboriginal people. Major highway developments; they get jobs and get trucks in and out so pastoral leases can produce and get their produce to market. Again, who is employed out there? More Aboriginal people.
Recreational fishing: I saw some people recently going out. They have Aboriginal people doing recreational fishing tours. Not only do you get a recreational fishing tour, you also get a great deal of information about the local environment, and the Aboriginal culture of the area. Not only are we giving interstate and overseas visitors, and even locals, a fabulous tourism experience in the Northern Territory, but we are also educating people about Aboriginal culture and why people feel so strongly about their land, their waters, and all sorts of things. It is an education process, again, created and initiated by a CLP government.
The Araluen Arts Centre - the list goes on - the Performing Arts Centre, the Northern Territory university. How many people of Aboriginal descent are now participating in courses at the Northern Territory university? It opened in 1988 at the old Myilly Point site where the old hospital was. I remember it well. I enrolled there myself. Unfortunately, due to personal circumstances, I could not complete the course. Of course, it then moved out to its current location.
The V8 Supercars, tourism developments, East Arm port – here are opportunities. I noticed the member for Casuarina, during Question Time, waved a fantastic big map around and said: ‘Here is what the CLP did not do’ - and this was before the mining resources boom. He showed a map before the mining resources boom of the exploration licences and exploration that was going on at the time the CLP was in government. Then he held up a map and said: ‘Look at what we have done today’. I was quite stunned actually. I thought: ‘There you go; the Northern Territory ALP government is now claiming to be responsible for the resources boom’. Well, I missed that part of history, member for Arafura. It would be nice if someone could update me as to how the member for Casuarina pulled that off without anyone knowing, because that would be a really good part of history.
There again, without things like the railway, for instance - what opened up that area? You only have to have a look at a map of proposed mines and where people are looking; it is either side of the railway line. Who had the vision to do that? Who in the Northern Territory opposed it? Who was it, I wonder? It was the then ALP opposition: ‘No, you do not need a railway, this is a waste of money’, etcetera. What is the very thing in rural and remote Australia that is actually generating wealth? What is happening is the railway and the associated industries now coming to the Northern Territory because of that railway are there because the CLP had the vision and the gumption to get out there and make it happen - and they did, with far less money than the current government and the Treasurer has at their disposal.
Agricultural and horticultural development: we have gone a long way. We now have Katherine and all sorts of things going, but I do not know whether it is actually increasing very much. I note the current government does not seem to be doing too much around the Ord River project Stage 3. They do not seem to want to do too much there. Again, it is about creating wealth, and I do not see the government getting out there championing business and wealth creation so the government will have more taxes to spend on more programs to help those who most need the help.
Window on the Wetlands: there you go, there is another one - Aboriginal tours running out there every day. The NT museum is a great establishment. Stokes Hill precinct, again, there are people going there who can enjoy cultural experiences. Alice Springs Convention Centre: more people coming to the Centre to learn about desert knowledge and Aboriginal culture. They visit Uluru and stay at Aboriginal-owned corporations.
Gas developments: we put in place so many of those gas developments and much of it is now coming to fruition. It is a bit like when the railway opened. I went to the arrival of the first train and I found it quite amazing that the people who actually got it here – and I mention Barry Coulter who is regarded as the father of the Northern Territory railway – were not invited to go on the train, or be there. I found that quite disgusting; the person who worked hardest was not invited to be there. Who did we see hanging out the window? None other than the Chief Minister at the time, the member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin: ‘Yes, aren’t I great?’ - hard hat on, reflective vest on, waving to the crowd saying: ‘Aren’t I wonderful? I got this train here’ I notice there are many things this current government claims ownership of which were initiated by, as the member for Arafura said, 26 years of neglect.
We now get to the Living with Alcohol Program. That was a great program. I was in the police force at the time; it was a great success. Sadly, there was a challenge to the validity of the tax and, unfortunately, we do not have the ability to run a program like that again. The domestic violence program - the CLP government, during its 26 years of neglect, made a huge contribution to getting the domestic violence program off the ground. We talk about drugs and Aboriginal people getting hold of alcohol and drugs. I remember when this government came to government; I think I recall the member for Johnston saying: ‘We got rid of the Foils at Moil’. That legislation was already in the pipeline going through the police force. I spoke to a former Attorney-General in the CLP government who said: ‘That is not quite right because we were in the process of doing that’. However, I accept the government of the day was in and claimed it saying: ‘We are wonderful’.
Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture Program - here we are again. With far less money than this government has at its disposal per capita, we went out and ran programs and did what we could with the limited resources we had: the Peter McAulay Police Centre, the forensic centre, and closure of major rivers to commercial fishermen. I note there are Aboriginal people conducting all sorts of programs where they take tourists out and give people not only a great fishing experience but a great cultural experience also.
I have to say I am stunned and amazed that this government would allow this federal legislation to override the government of the Northern Territory. There are so many more Aboriginal people in the Territory who are becoming educated, it will gather pace - it still has not happened. What we saw was the federal government intervention as a result of this government’s failure to act on the Little Children are Sacred report and failing to act on those problems. I am sure someone will stand up and say: ‘You did absolutely nothing for 26 years’. Well, there is a nice list here of some of the achievements and the proud history of the Country Liberals and, if anyone wants a copy, I am happy to give them one.
What we see now is a government which has systemic policy failures all over the place. We see ministers who do not seem to know what is going on, cannot seem to …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension time for the member for Sanderson, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions of time in a censure motion.
Mr STYLES: The Chief Minister stood here and applauded the federal legislation last week for a Territory rights bill giving us the opportunity to make our own rules. Again, what we see is a massive, Olympic-sized backflip. He says: ‘It is great we have all these rights’, but now he is about to give away our control. I find it amazing that this government is prepared to allow the federal government to come in over the top of us, lay another layer of bureaucracy on top of us, and dictate what goes on in the Territory. And they are not standing on the highest hill and screaming: ‘Last week you said we could have the right to make our own laws’. They will now sit there, do nothing, and let this go through.
Madam Speaker, I am appalled at this government.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, I reject this motion. It is unfortunate for the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory to feel they cannot have and hear a debate in this parliament - a debate which should not be about politicising the lives of Indigenous people or making Aboriginal people a political football between all parties in this parliament. It is a disgrace that this parliament has to succumb to such a level when the intent is to improve the lives of all people in the Northern Territory, particularly Indigenous people. There are many reasons why this has come before the House and, particularly, this week.
Clearly, there is great unrest in the opposition in where they stand on becoming the seventh state in the Federation. Clearly, there is unrest, disquiet, and discontent about the fact that the very DNA of the CLP is about statehood and has always been about statehood, and pushing for the sovereignty of the people of the Northern Territory. It has affected them so much that they now politicise something that has impacted dramatically in the lives of nearly 30% of the Northern Territory population.
In 2007, when Prime Minister John Howard intervened in the lives of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, it was one of the most profound acts in this country’s history - an act of utter despair, fear, and confusion, and an act that completely polarised and paralysed the views of people in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: The member for Araluen walks out because the member for Araluen wants to see Indigenous people fall to the ground …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please withdraw that comment about the reference to members being present.
Ms McCARTHY: The member for Araluen makes comments about the Indigenous people …
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw, thank you, minister.
Ms McCARTHY: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Ms McCARTHY: … when her very party wants to see more Indigenous people drinking alcohol in the streets of Alice Springs until they drop; that is what the DNA of the CLP is all about. That is what the DNA of the Country Liberals has always been, and is shining through once again in this appalling debate by the opposition this evening, which polarises and demonises Indigenous people once again. They do it through an Indigenous person in this parliament.
I am the minister for Indigenous policy, the Minister for Tourism, the Minister for Local Government, the member for Arnhem, and a Yanyuwa Garrawa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria. I am deeply proud to be an Indigenous person in this parliament. It is unwise when the debate in this House has to refer to the characteristics of persons in this House, their skin colouring, looks, and gender. It is appalling that a member in this House, who has been a representative in the federal parliament, who did not at any point in his time as the member for …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I advise the minister that it comes both ways.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat, please.
Ms McCARTHY: The former member for Solomon did not even lift a finger to read the 500-page document that was to impact so dramatically, so despairingly, on the lives of Territorians. He did not even read one page. So proud was he of not reading one page …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … one has to question why he can even be a part of this debate in his failure as the member of Solomon, and as the member for Fong Lim, to bring into this parliament feigned criticism, and say he is now concerned for Indigenous people. His record stands for itself, as does his record when he calls these communities hellholes. There is no policy and no plan from the Country Liberals to invest in any of these regions; it is purely politics. They are using Aboriginal people once again as the political football.
If we look at the Westminster system of government we know, as a Territory, we do not have the power to tell the Commonwealth what to do. We do not have the power to overrule the Commonwealth with any legislation they wish to impose, intervene, or do for the Northern Territory. We do not have the power to stop them taking anything away from us.
The opposition calls on a censure motion condemning that move by the Commonwealth when their very own leader, John Howard, the former Prime Minister, did exactly the same thing in 2007, and not one word was said in defence of the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. The former member for Solomon, the current member for Fong Lim, could not even read one piece of paper of those 500 pages of legislation that impacted so dramatically and so despairingly on the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
It is in that climate our government has had to move forward, recognising our unequal status and saying to the Commonwealth - and this time Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin - we do not want to see a second intervention in the Northern Territory. We need the investment, there is no argument there. We need the investment, we always have needed the investment, but do it in partnership and collaboration with the people of the Northern Territory. That has always been and remains our position.
We will examine in very close detail every aspect of this legislation before the federal parliament, as we should. Our government will very much be part of any committee examining that piece of legislation. As members of parliament, we should be doing the best we can to improve the lives of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in this country which, in this case, happens to be Indigenous people.
Under the intervention that occurred over the past four years, we have progressed as a government to ensure our vision for all people of the Northern Territory is an inclusive vision, a courageous vision. We announced A Working Future to grow our regions. We recognised there were 29 remote service delivery sites across Australia and 15 of them are here in the Northern Territory.
At every point, we have urged the Commonwealth to work with us: do not intervene over the top of us, work with us with A Working Future, work with us with the remote service delivery sites, work with us with the 2021 growth towns across the Northern Territory, and work with us to maintain support and funding for our outstations and smaller communities across the Northern Territory.
That is the way of the Australian Labor Party. That is the very fundamental difference in this legislation in the federal parliament. However imperfect that process may be, the very real difference between federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, and former federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, is one knows how to work with the people of the Northern Territory and the other intervened completely over the top, sending the Army in. That is not collaboration or partnership; it sends a real and strong message of fear, confusion, and despair.
This is what the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory have been trying to grapple with and rise above. While trying to grapple with and understand what 500 pages of legislation in the federal parliament meant in their lives, their member in that federal parliament, the member for Fong Lim, the former member for Solomon - the very real failure in representing the people of the Northern Territory - could not even read one piece of paper of that legislation. Shameful! A shameful indictment on a man who was there to represent the interests of all Northern Territory people. How dare he come into this House and question this legislation when he did not even read the first one ...
Mr Bohlin: Look in the mirror. How many reports?
Ms McCARTHY: I will not say anything Madam Speaker; it is not worth it.
In moving forward, we are focused on A Working Future of the Northern Territory and employment, housing, and education.
I have heard members opposite talk about wealth creation. Let us have a look at that, shall we? Let us unpack what that means. It means looking at the land mass of the Northern Territory and recognising that nearly 50% of the land mass is Indigenous land. How did that come about? That came about because the traditional owners across the Northern Territory had to prove their traditional links to country, to culture, and to kin. While the conservatives were in government, they spent 20 to 27 years trying to prove their identity to country and culture.
Imagine if the then Country Liberals had said to the Indigenous people: ‘We acknowledge you are the traditional owners. We acknowledge you are the first peoples of this country. So, we will not litigate, we will negotiate’. If that began in the 1970s, imagine where we could be today. We would not be talking about decades of neglect, we would be somewhere off in the distance with a future that would be looking pretty bright. But no, that is not what happened. The conservatives fought every single land claim and they took at least 20 of those to the Federal Court and the High Court to appeal, taking the very energy, spirit, and belief of Indigenous people of the Northern Territory and this nation, and told them: ‘You are not who you say you are’. What a waste of time and energy! Imagine what a little goodwill, respect, and decency could have achieved. We would not be here now talking about the decades of neglect; we would be on to other good things, talking about other issues.
Our government has shown the way you have to do this is to work with Indigenous people, not trample over the top of them, and ride over the top and say: ‘Hey, we know what is best for you’. Sure, working with people takes much longer and, yes, working with people means there can be delay in things, but it allows people to feel they are very much a part of the way their future is going.
In the last two years, as we have been progressing A Working Future, it is this Labor government that has committed, not only on paper but also with funding of nearly $1bn to the regions - nearly $1bn. We have not only invested that, we also want to see it come to a very real conclusion about the future - determining the future. The wealth creation raised here is exactly that: talking about the land tenure and the importance of economic development on that land.
I wonder if part of this show presented this afternoon by the opposition is (a) to distract from their internal problems, (b) to certainly distract from their non-commitment and their stumbling over what has been a very good bipartisan process towards statehood, and (c) has a great deal to do with the fact that our Labor government has agreed, has made a decision - a very historic decision in the history of the Northern Territory - to pay rent to the very people these guys opposite should have been paying nearly three decades ago. We have agreed that Aboriginal land is private land, we have recognised just-terms compensation is the constitutional right of every landowner - the constitutional right. It is an incredibly courageous decision by our government. We know this is about encouraging traditional owners to make a real difference in their lives, recognising there will be an ongoing annual payment to encourage and provide hope for the future for their generations of children.
It is a constitutional right that governs every Australian in this country. I wonder if the members opposite, in particular the member for Braitling, have recognised the historic step taken by our government and as a result have reacted very angrily as it is in the DNA of the Country Liberals to oppose anything which improves the lives of Indigenous people in this country.
Let us have a look at the record of the last couple of years. Part of this motion asks what we have done. I am happy to tell you.
In Ali Curung, the Building the Education Revolution has allocated the Ali Curung School $2.1m; $6.7m to implement the strategy for safe water in Yuelamu, Kintore, and Ali Curung; complete and gazette a town plan, a staged implementation plan for the roll-out of government business centres; remote alcohol management plans; and digital regions. Keeping in mind that members opposite opposed the Building the Education Revolution, not wanting to see education facilities built anywhere in the Northern Territory, let alone in Aboriginal communities; and opposed the NBN, the digital technology …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the minister would table the document her advisors have typed and which she is reading from.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, are they personal notes, are they confidential?
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, these are my personal notes and they will be on the record for the member for Fong Lim to read – but, oh, he does not read any legislation, does he? I might have to repeat it for him every time.
In Angurugu, member for Fong Lim, complete and gazette a town plan; again, Building the Education Revolution, a project worth nearly $2m; sealing the road between Angurugu and Umbakumba; name and gazette internal roads; a staged implementation plan for the roll-out of government business centres; remote alcohol management plans; and the upgrade of cyclone shelters.
In Borroloola, Building the Education Revolution, $2.1m; Wollogorang Road and McArthur River Bridge, $5.6m; Digital Regions Initiative, optic fibre to the exchange and fibre reticulation to NT government sites ...
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions of time in a censure motion.
Ms McCARTHY: See, it is all good news; they just do not want to hear it. That is the difference. I can go on; I am happy to do so in adjournments because there are terrific things going on in the investment our government is providing across the Northern Territory, to all our regions. Investments we put into places we believe have a very real future; unlike the members opposite, unlike the member for Fong Lim who calls them all hellholes and prefers to see them stay that way. No courage, no conviction to assist in working with Indigenous people; the CLP is about riding roughshod over Indigenous people and intervening in their lives forever.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for very long to oppose this motion for two reasons. First, my colleagues, the member for Arafura, in a very colourful way has put forward a case, and the member for Arnhem, in a very eloquent way, has rebutted this censure motion, in spades.
The second reason is there has been a great deal of time consumed this afternoon debating this censure motion, further delaying debate on the Kenbi Land Trust Bill. The member for Sanderson talked about history. Well, the history is they opposed it hammer and tongs for 20-odd years through the courts and expended over $20m opposing that land claim. After everything they have said here today in the censure motion, one would expect they would very solidly support this bill. The test will be, as the member for Fong Lim said: ‘Do not listen to what they say, see what they do’. I have a sneaking suspicion they are going to try to use all sorts of silly little tactics and objections to try to further delay this bill and not agree with it.
The other thing that struck me about today through Question Time and through this debate is something very significant, and I want to lay it on the public record. The first thing is there were accusations that the member for Arnhem was trying to avoid questions - questions that were clearly in the purview of the Treasurer and Minister for Alcohol Policy, Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing. They were questions asked in the first instance by the shadow minister for RGL, the member for Sanderson. They were directed to the minister for Indigenous affairs, and they should really have been directed to the Treasurer. Otherwise, it should have been the member for Braitling, as the shadow for Indigenous affairs, directing those questions to the member for Arnhem.
Similarly, we had the member for Fong Lim directing questions, which were business questions. Through all of this, the one thing that really struck me was there was no question from the member for Macdonnell. I think I saw her in vain trying to ask a question, but she was rebuffed. So, she is someone they do not want in the public eye, they do not want her on the news grabs. She certainly has not spoken in this very important debate about what is happening federally with Strong Futures ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This debate is about the conduct of government, not the conduct of the member for Macdonnell. I ask him to keep his comments relevant.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there has been a lot of latitude today.
Dr BURNS: I will bow down and apologise when I see a picture in spades everywhere of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Macdonnell; they are pushing her to one side and they have humiliated her.
Member for Macdonnell, you have been humiliated today by this crowd on the other side. That is how much they value Indigenous people. That is how much they value someone who has been born and raised, grown up in the Northern Territory, and has been part of Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory for as long as I can remember. I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
- Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mrs Lambley Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
ELECTORAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 179)
(Serial 179)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:Madam CHAIR: We are in clauses 1 to 58. Member for Nelson, do you have further questions in this area?
Mr WOOD: I do, Madam Chair. It seems a long time ago since I was doing this.
In relation to mobile polling booths, I was discussing whether there were limitations on where they are used. My concern has been whether there are guidelines as to whether you would need them in a town when it seems to me to be a little excessive. I can understand why they should be out bush, but I move on from that.
With regard to the issue about mobile polling booths, clause 78(3) says:
- (3) In making the declaration, the Commissioner must have regard to the following:
(a) Whether or not:
Further down it says:
- (4) if the declaration specifies a class of electors, only a person in that class may vote at the mobile polling place.
Could the minister provide an example where, if the government is going to spend money on a mobile polling booth, that would apply, and why it should apply? I will give the example mentioned in the act, where it talks about hospitals. I would have thought if a nurse decides to turn up to a mobile polling booth, that person should be able to vote - or a visitor. I am not sure why that is needed in the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Nelson, mobile polling locations are selected where there are concentrations of electors who would have difficulty voting at appointed polling places on polling day, or where specialised services are required on a large scale. Examples of the application of this restriction might be inmates of a prison, hospital patients, and a high-care facility of a retirement home or retirement village. The maintenance of security and control are important to the management of such institutions. No restrictions would apply to mobile polling in remote areas.
Again, there are two issues: where people would have difficulty in voting at appointed polling places on polling day, or where there are issues of security and other very valid reasons regarding hospital patients who are unable to get to a polling place.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, especially where it is in the prison. Are the prison officers allowed to vote if they happen to be in a hospital or in an aged-care facility? Can the carers use that mobile polling booth to vote? How selective is this clause?
Mr HENDERSON: My advice is it would be subject to the decision of the Electoral Commissioner through his representative in the polling place. The intent of the legislation is to facilitate the vote of people who are unable to get to a polling place on a particular polling day. I would have thought, practically thinking, an example is someone in an aged-care retirement village where there is a shortage of staff. They have to work a double shift and would not be able to get to a polling place. Making a request to vote there might be a genuine reason why someone could vote in those circumstances.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand the answer, Chief Minister. I was concerned people might be excluded from voting at one of those sites. That would worry me because you could be visiting an aged-care facility, not necessarily as a staff member. It is the same in the hospital; you could be a visitor or you might be the gardener outside. You know there is a mobile polling booth and you rush inside. I wanted to ensure it would allow people to use that facility if they knew it was nearby.
Mr HENDERSON: All of this, at the end of the day, will be guided by common sense. The whole philosophy around the Electoral Commissioner and the act is to facilitate as many people voting, and as many people voting formally as possible, and making it as easy as possible for people to cast a vote. I would certainly expect the commissioner and the people who are responsible for the booths on the day to work in the realms of inclusion rather than excluding people.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, Chief Minister. I agree. My concern is that should be the philosophy. Having mobile polling booths in town camps in a city or town, I do not think fits that description. That is the thing which concerns me. It looks as if certain people get a privilege that other people may not get in a town. I understand the reason it is there is because you are out bush. Because you are disabled, you put a mobile polling booth at a hospital. However, simply a town camp, I do not think fits. I am concerned those polling booths are unnecessary.
Regarding the section on electronic voting - there has been discussion about this before. I have gone back to clause 20, which says it is the commissioner’s power to approve electronic or other automated systems. I am not necessarily against electronic systems - and I keep thinking of Al Gore and George Bush. This says the commissioner is the be all and end all. I am not putting the commissioner down, but should this process of electronic voting be scrutinised by parliament or another authority before it is put in place to ensure, if we go down this path - and I am not sure how much of this we have gone down already – to ensure it is secure and a process which is fair and reasonable? The division we are talking about, which is Division 6A, section 85A, says:
(1) The Commissioner may, in writing, approve the use of specified electronic or other automated systems …
Etcetera.
Should there be a process whereby, before we bring electronic voting systems into operation, there is not just the commissioner saying it is okay because there is a philosophical change in what we are doing from the standard voting system we are used to? I am not against it but I am wary about security and processes that are safe.
Mr HENDERSON: This is an interesting point of discussion. There is no suggestion electronic voting will replace the current way electors vote at the 2012 election. There is no way that will happen. There is nothing here to presume this is intended to become the norm at future elections. More recently, jurisdictions such as the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and the ACT have amended their legislation to provide the option for certain voters to vote by electronic means, provided it is conducted under secure controls to protect the secrecy of the vote.
The Commonwealth implemented electronic voting for Defence Forces over the secure Defence Force network at its general election in 2007, and New South Wales provided limited i-voting at its recent state general election, but that initiative is under review. Electronic voting in various forms has been established in some of the larger jurisdictions for electors with impaired vision, but these have been very costly. The ACT provides an option to cast a vote by means of electronic voting at its polling place - I do not know how they do that, but it is an option in the ACT.
The security of the system would be paramount. It would not take place without total confidence in the security. The Territory would be far from a market leader with the use of that technology and, in all likelihood, would only ever adopt a system that has been suitably assured and thoroughly tested in an operational setting. This comes into the realm of, without having a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner on this, the evolution of electoral legislation around the nation.
Commissioners come together as other statutory officers do. This is a very early version of electronic voting. It was adopted by the Commonwealth, particularly for troops deployed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan during the 2007 election. The advice is it will not be in place at all for the 2012 election. I anticipate, again not having had a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner about moving towards electronic voting in certain circumstances, he would do that in a very public, open, and transparent way and engage the community, political parties, and Independents on all associated issues. I do not anticipate the Electoral Commissioner would make that decision off his own bat and implement a system without some degree of public consultation, analysis of that consultation, and potentially, even a report to this parliament.
This clause does not require that, but I would have thought any move in that direction would require public consultation, consultation with political parties, the outcomes of those consultations being public, and maybe even a response back to parliament. I am sure the Electoral Commissioner, without having engaged him on this, would not have a problem with doing that.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. From a practical point of view, being one who has many soldiers in my electorate, how does one get a how-to-vote card to a soldier voting electronically? I had no idea when the soldiers were voting; I am not even sure how they would even know who I was in Afghanistan. If they use electronic systems, I am not sure how the process would work. I do not know whether you can answer that, but I can see things that need to be sorted out from that point of view, if candidates feel they are going to be disadvantaged by this system.
Mr HENDERSON: Just on that, we could debate this. I can see that is a very real issue, with people overseas being able to access campaign information. We are moving into an electronic age. I am sure if people were really interested in who was standing in a particular division in a particular state, they would be able to go to the Internet, see who had nominated, and whether they were Independent or from a political party. It means we are going to have to go online and put our campaign material online to ensure people can access it. That is probably the answer to that, but it is a very interesting debate going forward.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Clause 31 is about election campaign material. There was talk in some of the earlier papers that certain things would be exempt and some things would be allowed. I think there was talk about whether you had a biro or a T-shirt. Is there any list, or do you have an idea of what the exemptions would be, or is anything with election material on it required to have the normal addresses and authorisations on it, or are there exemptions?
Mr HENDERSON: Clause 31, the meaning of campaign material allows for the exemption of items from the definition. This means exempted items will not need to be authorised in accordance with section 270. Small items, such as pens do not currently have to be authorised and it is not intended that these items would require authorisation under the amendment proposed in the bill.
It is anticipated that the Electoral Commissioner will make a declaration under section 268A(3) in relation to certain items exempted from authorisation requirements following the passage of the legislation. A registered political party or any candidate may approach the Electoral Commission for advice on what items may be exempted from the definition of campaign material.
The answer is, once this goes through, again, I believe the commissioner would take a practical and commonsense approach to this. He is looking to provide a declaration in relation to certain items, so he obviously has his thoughts on that, once the legislation goes through. Like all these things, I believe the intent is to ensure campaign material through political parties or political candidates - however it is dressed up and served to the voting public - wherever it is practically possible, should be authorised. The member of the public who receives a piece of information can then at least see who is peddling that particular line through that information. On a pen, if it was a ‘Paul Henderson for Wanguri’, it might be written and authorised by so and so from the Labor Party, but you might not able to get it on to a USB if you were giving out USBs. Perhaps if it were on stubby cooler with more room, you would have it on the stubby cooler.
It is a commonsense provision and the political parties and candidates should, if they are producing campaign material and are in doubt, seek advice from the Electoral Commissioner. However, he is going to make a declaration following the passage of the legislation.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 41 is about changing eligibility of candidates – that is local government. I should say local government would be very pleased to hear that is going to change. I applaud that change. It might cause some difficulties in the short term, but in the long term, it will be better.
My next question is in relation to clause 53. This is an amendment to the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations and my concern is why it is not in the Electoral Act. I might have it wrong. It says the lodgement of a nomination or giving of a notice of withdrawal must be done by hand delivery. That is in the Local Government Regulations. Why isn’t it in the Local Government Act? I could not find it and I was wondering why there was a special clause. I looked up the existing act to see how you hand in your nomination, and I might be wrong here, but I could not find a similar provision for candidates who are standing for Northern Territory parliament elections. Clause 53, as I read it, is a requirement for local government nominations. Why isn’t it the same for someone standing for the Legislative Assembly?
Mr HENDERSON: The advice is the processes are slightly different for receiving nominations for the Northern Territory election and local government. Northern Territory political parties, through appropriate officers, lodge a bulk nomination across the 25 seats. There is a slightly different procedure for receiving those nominations. Obviously, as an Independent, you would lodge the same, whereas in local government elections there are no political parties contesting formally, and there are no bulk nominations being lodged at that time.
That is the advice I have as to why it is slightly different. It is because at a Northern Territory election a political party will lodge, typically, a bulk nomination. In our case, the Labor Party’s nomination would have 25 candidates.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. When I looked up Division 3 Nominations, I could not find anything equivalent to the Local Government Act and I had a look through it. It tells you about the nomination form, nomination in one division only, the time to lodge a nomination, withdrawal of consent to nomination, rejection of nomination, but it does not say anything about how a nomination should be lodged. Why is it in one and not the other? If what you say is true, why is there not a description of what you say in the Local Government Act?
Mr HENDERSON: Obviously, the local government requirement and processes around lodgement of nominations are within the regulations, in regard to the Electoral Act that applies to the Northern Territory; it is in the act; it is silent. The proposed regulation only reflects common practice on which the Electoral Act is silent. It also applies in practice at Legislative Assembly elections. I understand your point of why one is in a regulation and one is in the legislation. We are dealing with this act ...
Mr WOOD: One is in local government, one is not in …
Mr HENDERSON: That is the advice. Let us take it out of the hypotheticals. Materially, I do not believe there is a problem in candidates nominating, or it being a barrier for candidates nominating. Why it is slightly different in one to the other is probably a history of time in who was drafting legislation and how that legislation was constructed. However, I agree. In a real world, all of these would be in one act, and then it would be simple.
Mr WOOD: That is what I was going to say. If we can move towards that, it might make life much easier. Madam Chair, I do not think I have more questions on the whole bill. I believe they were all before clause 53. That is all the questions I have.
Clauses 1 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.1 standing in my name. The proposed regulation 24(1B)(a)(iii) relates to the casting of a declaration vote by a person voting before polling day outside the region for which they are enrolled, or for a person casting an absentee vote. This amendment omits the word ‘officer’ and inserts the words ‘authorised officer’ in proposed regulation 24(1B)(a)(iii).
The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment clarifies that the Electoral Commissioner may authorise an appropriate officer to receive the ballot paper at the polling place in these circumstances.
It sounds fairly technical, but I am advised it is totally practical.
Mr WOOD: I had a briefing from the department yesterday. If you asked me to explain these amendments in simple layman’s terms, I cannot. Sometimes, you have to trust what the department is doing. I gather it is ensuring things are aligned, or will not conflict later on with one another. I get the gist of what is happening but it certainly is a difficult little amendment to the act.
Mr HENDERSON: I concur and totally agree, member for Nelson. It did my head in the first time it was explained to me as well, but I think I finally got there.
The purpose of this suite of committee stage amendments is to ensure consistency between provisions in the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - what we are talking about now, this bill - and amendments being made to the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations by the Local Government Electoral Amendment Regulations which introduce a proportional representation vote counting system for local government elections. Those regulations have been to the subordinate legislation committees of this parliament. They were gazetted yesterday. What we are doing here is making committee stage amendments to ensure there is consistency in the language between those two bills.
I asked the same question as you: why the heck are these things not aligned? I defer to the wonderful people in Parliamentary Counsel who obviously have their heads around all this stuff. I thank them for the diligent work in legislation and the construct of it, and the interplay between regulations in one act and the legislation in another act. I agree it is fairly technical, but I am there on it. It is technical to provide for consistency. The other clauses are in much the same discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 67, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 68:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.2 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clause 68, as it is redundant.
Clause negatived.
Clause 69:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.3 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clause 69. That clause is redundant as a result of the other amendments we are making.
Clause negatived.
Clauses 70 to 78, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 79:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.4 standing in my name. The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions that the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment omits clause 79(1) which inserts a reference to ‘Electoral Commissioner’ to replace references to ‘returning officer’. The committee stage clarifies that the Electoral Commissioner, or an officer authorised by the Electoral Commissioner, may record applications for postal votes. The committee stage amendment also makes a minor amendment of a statute law revision nature to normalise the wording of Regulation 28.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 83, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 67.5 standing in my name. The introduction of the proportional representation voting system for local government elections has highlighted a number of detailed operational functions that the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. The committee stage amendment replaces Schedule 3, containing amendments to the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations to update references to ‘returning officer’ and replace references to the ‘Electoral Commissioner’.
The effects of the committee stage amendment is to remove amendments to Regulation 28, Regulation 45(1)(c), Regulation 45(4), Regulation 49, Regulation 51, Regulation 52, Regulation 53, Regulation 54, and Regulation 55. The regulations which have been removed from Schedule 3 contain a number of roles and responsibilities which the Electoral Commissioner may wish to authorise an appropriate officer to conduct. This amendment will also ensure consistency in the final version of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations by clarifying roles and responsibilities of persons under the bill.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
KENBI LAND TRUST BILL
(Serial 175)
(Serial 175)
Continued from 18 August 2011.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, from the outset I can say the opposition will not be supporting this legislation, sadly. I say ‘sadly’ because it is our strong desire to support it. It is our strong desire to see the resolution of the Kenbi land claim and all that entails. It is the longest-standing claim in Australia’s history. It surrounds parts of Darwin and I believe it is in most people’s interest to see a resolution of the claim.
The reason we cannot support this legislation is because the culture of cover-up is alive and well in this government. It is alive and well in the Commonwealth government, and it seems to be alive and well in the Northern Land Council. Everywhere we have looked, and every request we have made to be furnished with copies of the in-principle agreement and the heads of agreement between the Northern Land Council, the Australian government, and the Northern Territory government has been denied. To me, this is a bizarre breach of democratic accountability, when you can have two governments, elected by the people to serve the people, and a Commonwealth statutory authority or statutory body in place to serve traditional owners. When those three bodies - two governments and one statutory body - cannot provide even the most basic details of the agreement; that is, the in-principle agreement and the heads of agreement, I have to scratch my head and ask why?
The opposition sent a letter to the Chief Minister following a briefing the Opposition Leader and I received in early October. We sent a letter to the Chief Minister requesting the in-principle agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council. We also asked for a copy of the heads of agreement, between the Commonwealth and Territory governments and the Northern Land Council. The response we received from the Chief Minister was - and I will not go through the whole letter: ‘The documents referred to are joint documents, therefore we will consult with the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council and seek their view on the release in the first instance’.
I do not know whether there was any consultation, but they have not got back to us and said yes or no. The fact is we still have not seen these agreements. It would be fair for one to say: ‘Really this is nothing to do with us. These matters we are talking about are to do with the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council. This is not really the bastion of the Territory government’. My response to that is we are talking about a land grant of 600 km right on the fringe of Darwin surrounding most of the harbour. If that is not in the interests of this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory, I do not know what is!
I have been up hill and down dale for months trying to get my hands on this information and it has been well concealed. I have asked my colleague, the member for Nelson, if he has seen copies of the heads of agreement and the in-principle agreement, and he informs me he has not. I would have thought a government trying to push through legislation might have at least showed the member for Nelson those agreements. No, they have not even come to him. Here we are, legislators in this House, expected to make decisions; you would expect to be given information in order to make those decisions. Sadly, it is not forthcoming. That is a complete breach of trust with the people of the Northern Territory.
I scratch my head wondering why we are debating this legislation now. There is no urgency. The trust can only be set up once the Commonwealth has enacted its legislation. The federal Indigenous Affairs minister has not proposed any legislation for debate in the federal parliament. No legislation has been passed; there have been no speeches by the federal Indigenous Affairs minister about this. We do not know what they are proposing. We do not know what deals have been done. We have no idea what other tracts of land may or may not have been given away. We do not know who is going to be kicked off country. We do not know who is going to be able to stay. We know nothing about this arrangement and that is wrong. These things should be done in the open in full scrutiny of the people of the Northern Territory, not hidden away and covered up. It is completely wrong.
I called my federal colleague, Senator Nigel Scullion, who happens to be the shadow for Indigenous Affairs. He is very interested, as a Territorian, in the Kenbi land claim. Lo and behold, he has not seen copies of the in-principle agreement or heads of agreement.
We have asked for maps of these land claims and the settlements, and the response we receive is these are proposed maps. The Chief Minister wrote to the Opposition Leader saying the maps referred to have been prepared by the Territory for internal purposes only. There is no objection to making copies available on the proviso the maps may be subject to modification.
Goodness me, we do not even have the maps sorted out yet. You give us draft maps. You say in this House there is some urgency in creating this land trust. I fail to see it. Where is the urgency? Why are we debating this now? Federal parliament is rising today - last sittings. There is no hope, not a skerrick of a chance this legislation will go before the federal parliament before the Christmas break. Here we are, for some reason or other, we have to get in there now and create a trust, which we know nothing about. We know nothing about the deal. It has me beat. As I said, we want to support this legislation. We want to see this claim settled. How can you settle a claim, and how can we be expected to support the settlement of the claim, when we know absolutely nothing about it?
The Opposition Leader went to the Northern Land Council the other day to get a briefing on it. Did they show him copies of the in-principle agreement or the heads of agreement? No, of course, they did not. What is the cover-up? Why the secrecy around this? For goodness sakes, I would love the Chief Minister, or one of the members opposite who have seen this thing, to tell us what it is about. Tell us why the secrecy is there, why we cannot see a copy of this. We have two elected governments and one statutory body. What could possibly prevent them from showing us a copy of it? There are no commercial-in-confidence problems. There is nothing of a commercial nature around this at all.
Members of the government have said to me: ‘Why aren’t you supporting this?’ I say: ‘We just want to know what the hell is going on. Get me the information’. Not one of them has come to me and said: ‘We have what you asked for’. Not one of them, as far as I know, has even tried to dig up the information we want to see. The best response we have received so far is: ‘This is nothing to do with the Kenbi land claim. This is simply setting up a trust in which we can put the Territory freehold land’. Well, that is fine; I have no dramas with that. What I want to know is: what is the whole deal? What the hell are we signing up to and when do we get a say?
It drives me crazy in this place that every time the Territory should be standing up and saying something, we have a Chief Minister who completely rolls over. Why would the Chief Minister not stand up and tell Territorians, the people who elected his government, what he signed them up to - what the deals are with the agreement? Why does he even have to run off to the Commonwealth and talk to Jenny Macklin to find out if it is okay with her? Goodness me! This is just crazy stuff. It would be wonderful to have a Chief Minister who actually stood up for Territorians instead of constantly rolling over. It is absolutely appalling. Why the secrecy? Why the cover-up? There is absolutely no excuse.
As I said, it is not an inconsequential little claim we are dealing with here. This is the longest-standing land claim in the history of Australia: 600 km2. Originally, I think 800 km2 was sought and 600 km2 granted – 200 km2 evidently is going to be Northern Territory freehold land. Apart from that, there is practically no information. We do not have certain maps. I hope the Chief Minister, in his response today will table some of these things and show Territorians. I would love it. We could have a quick look at it now, get it over and done with, and we might even support the legislation.
Goodness me! It is just common decency. If you want someone to support something, you should at least tell them what you want them to support. It is just wrong - absolutely wrong! For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government does not come clean. The culture of cover-up is alive and well; it is just second nature, a motor reaction. If you ask a question, they automatically go into hiding. ‘No, we are not going to tell you that’. They cannot even tell you why they are not going to tell you that. You have no reason for covering this up. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are covering this up.
Why wouldn’t the government just say: ‘These are the documents we have signed up to on behalf of Territorians. This is what we are doing on behalf of Territorians’? Or the Australian government say: ‘This is what we are doing on behalf of Australians’. Or the Northern Land Council say: ‘This is what we are doing on behalf of traditional owners’. But no, none of them seem to give a flying rats about being accountable to the people they are supposed to represent and serve. It is wrong.
I hope the Chief Minister, in closing debate on this, will shed a little light on what is going on. I am disappointed that this government feels the need to cover up this information - and for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Chief Minister, be a man. Stand up and speak up for Territorians! Be accountable to Territorians! Tell them what is actually going on here! Tell us about the whole deal, not just some tiny aspect we have some say about! Tell us about the whole deal!
What are the compensation agreements you have worked out? Who is going to stay on the land? Who is going to be left off the land? Who gets to develop the place? What are the arrangements you have come to with Raylene Singh and the other named traditional owners of Kenbi? We have on our books a letter to the Opposition Leader from Raylene Singh saying she is the most senior named Larrakia traditional owner and she is writing the letter because of her serious concerns about the bill which is currently before the Northern Territory parliament and about the Kenbi land trust. There has never been a response to that and the Opposition Leader asked a question about it in Question Time.
The letter was tabled. The Chief Minister has had a chance to read that letter by now, understand what it is about and respond, but to date we have heard no response. We have heard nothing. Does the Chief Minister think Raylene Singh is a complete nut case who should not be taken seriously? Or does she have legitimate concerns? Is she not in fact the most senior Larrakia traditional owner? What is going on? Some answers to questions would be very good. The culture of cover-up, as I said, is alive and well. The Chief Minister has a chance to stand up, put some meat on the bones, and give us some detail about what it is that he, Jenny Macklin, and the Northern Land Council have cooked up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak from what I know. I am not covering up anything …
Mr Henderson: Neither am I, Gerry.
Ms Scrymgour: No one is.
Mr WOOD: I am not inferring anyone else is either. I have had discussions with the government and the land council. The heads of agreement issue - I do not know whether what I am going to say is part of that agreement but I have been given some information and I have never regarded it as information that had a title of heads of agreement over it. All I have heard is there is no money involved, that Blue Mud Bay would not apply because there would be a land compensation switch.
I was given this map, which I presume you can have a look at. That is the map I was given and I have been talking to Tibby Quall and other people about it to explain what the Kenbi land trust will cover. I gather there was also land to be negotiated on Commonwealth land near Mandorah and that is a subject for more discussion because it involves the Commonwealth.
The Kenbi land, as I understand, is the land on the map that is shaded with vertical lines and goes roughly from Charles Point, or probably Point Margaret, through to Woods Inlet. The concept I understand the Kenbi land trust to be about is a requirement under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 The Kenbi (Cox Peninsula) Land Claim No 37 and a means of setting up a trust as written here. I will read this recommendation from The Kenbi (Cox Peninsula) Land Claim No 37, Recommendation 48 on page (xi) of the report summary:
- My recommendation is that the whole of the land claimed, with the exception of the south-eastern part of the Cox Peninsula be granted to a land trust for the benefit of all Aboriginal people entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of that area of land, whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified as to place, time, circumstance, purpose or permission.
My understanding is what we have seen today is putting the recommendations of the land commissioner into place and what has been proposed is simply to put forward a Kenbi land trust.
I understand the opposition would like to see the heads of agreement principle and that argument you can have with the Chief Minister. From the point of view of this particular bill as it stands, I do not believe it will change my point of view whether you have seen it or not seen it, because I do not see it as something that will make any difference to this land trust bill. Happy for you to find out any more information, but that is simply the information I have been given. If you want to know why you could not get any information, I cannot answer that. I will say, however, that I have done a fair bit of work. I have been contacted by a number of people, a number of lawyers.
I should go back to Day 1 when the member for Fong Lim came to me and said he had concerns. He asked if I would meet Raylene Singh and I said I would. I should say to people that Raylene Singh is related to my wife, who is Wadjigan and that family, the Singhs, are related to her family. Raylene also had another person called Donna Odegaard come with her. They met in my office and said they felt they had not been consulted, so I then decided to do some work for myself.
I travelled to Belyuen to meet Zoe and had a discussion with Zoe, who is one of the Tommy Lyons group; that is, the main claimants for this area. Zoe did not have any problems with this bill. Jason is at Wadeye. I telephoned Jason. He was quite short and sweet, and said absolutely no problem at all. I then met Kathleen in Rapid Creek. Kathleen is a little shy - when you read the document, I believe she is a bit tired of all the controversy over this matter - and she did not have a problem with it either.
I then asked the land council for a meeting to get an indication as to whether Raylene had been informed of what was happening. There was a series of meetings which the Northern Land Council showed me where Raylene had attended. The Northern Land Council said if there was still any doubt, they would ask the government to defer the bill just to ensure she was fully consulted at this stage of the debate.
It is funny that the Northern Territory News editorial stated the Independent MLA should not be holding such an important project to ransom because he has not done his homework. It is wrong on two counts. I had done my homework and I was not holding the project to ransom. What I was doing was ensuring, before this bill came to parliament, if someone had a concern about it, we were allowed to investigate whether that concern was reasonable. Zoe and Jason have told me they had consultation on this bill on a regular basis. As I said, the Northern Land Council showed me the dates of the meetings Raylene attended, and I am satisfied she was informed, as were the other traditional owners.
The other issues in relation to the deferment of this bill - originally it related to the amendment to allow people to hunt on their own land because the status of this land would change. There has been another amendment regarding the payment of rentals.
I have been told the heads of agreement by the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council is about process only. It has nothing to do with compensation and money, and it is hoped the passing of this bill will keep the Commonwealth approval process moving so the matter can be settled.
It is my understanding this bill will allow a trust to be set up over a portion of freehold land that will not be developed for the time being. My understanding is this top portion of land in the Cox Peninsula has been made freehold, and the agreement amongst the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners was some of that land would be able to be developed immediately. When I say immediately, I imagine over the next decades. Some of the land they wish to retain and future generations will decide when and where that land will be developed. My understanding is there is some environmentally sensitive land in that area - little wetlands - and there are also issues with asbestos disposal around Charles Point where Radio Australia used to have their transmitters.
Madam Speaker, I do not see it as any more than that. I have e-mails from many people. I know this land claim has been controversial and going on for a very long time. This bill will not necessarily stop that controversy because the people I have spoken to still believe they should have more say on this land. However, the land commissioner has made a ruling - if you want to ask my family what they think of this ruling, they do not agree with it, but that is not going to change anything. The land commissioner has made a ruling. My wife and her family …
Mr Tollner: It is an agreement between the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government, and the NLC, not the land commissioner.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the call, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: I want to get it straight.
Mr WOOD: There are people who disagree with what has been written in this document. The four traditional owners from my wife’s side are regarded as Wadjigan, and the Wadjigan people are not here as having any real say in this land at all. My sisters-in-law were born around the coast and my brother-in-law was born on Talc Head. When you know many of the place names in this area are in Batjamalh, you wonder whether some people were given any consideration.
I have forgotten the name of the group, Madam Speaker, but you sometimes get people in here to open parliament called the Kenbi Dancers. They are not Larrakia and it should be stated they are not Larrakia. They are a different group associated with Wadjigan and are not Larrakia, although they are sometimes presented as that.
For me it is symbolic of one of the issues here. Have there been people who have spoken powerfully - well-educated and influential people - who have ended up with decisions that suited them and not particularly suited the weaker people in these communities?
I am not going to debate this whole land claim, however, I feel sometimes in the discussions about land rights in this area the weaker people have been overlooked simply because they are not capable, not able to, or not given the opportunity to put their point of view. In the case of my family, Bobby Lane – my wife would call him Uncle Bobby - he was a song man for this area. He was Wadjigan. My daughter has a CD with all his music on it and his explanation of that. He has since passed away. My father-in-law lived at Belyuen, along the coast. He was married to a Wadjigan person. I must admit, from a personal point of view, I have serious concerns about whether all the people who should have been part of this claim were part of the claim.
I know we are talking about this particular land trust, but there is an issue here too. My wife has been speaking to me quite a bit about this. She wonders why the giving of land has been to certain clans or to certain groups, and why it has not been given to the whole group, so it was all of Larrakia, or all of Wagait.
I can give you a classic example. At the moment, there is a tourist operator wanting to do some work on land on the other side of Daly River called Banakula. He has been paying money to the TOs of that land. He has not been paying the Wadjigan money. So, you get the haves and the have-nots. They all regard that as their own land, but because the little clan groups within that are seen by the Northern Land Council as the TOs, you get these haves and have-nots. If there is one issue that is detrimental to Aboriginal people it is we have given out money to certain people within a group, where some people have become quite wealthy and other people have not received any money. As my wife said, why would the land claim not be given to the whole group and divided amongst those people equally? Of course, this is part of this discussion because four people have been given the rights to be the traditional owners under the Tommy Lyons group and, I think, there are 1600 other people. I have the figure here. The land commissioner talked about the classes: ‘includes all of the claimants, a total of 1600 people’.
It is the way the land rights act appears to be written. There have been reviews every now and then, but I wonder whether the fairness in the system - or the unfairness maybe - causes some people to get benefits and some people not, and divides groups of people who traditionally would never have been divided.
Madam Speaker, it is an important bill. I have given it much thought. I have spoken to many people and it is obvious there are people who are not so much against the land trust, they simply have their point of view about the land claim. They do not want to miss out and they want to ensure they are involved. The land trust comes under the land rights act. It is the duty of the Northern Land Council to set up this land trust. It is the duty of the land council to select Aboriginal representatives to be on it. That is where they need to take their concerns - to the Northern Land Council - if they want to be on this land trust and they feel they should be represented. That is where the argument has to go to.
This is a technical document to allow this trust to be set up, and I am satisfied this will make no difference to what is already known about this land claim. As I said, if people have concerns about who will be on this trust, they need to take those concerns directly to the Northern Land Council.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It has been a long time coming. I take on board the comments of the member for Nelson. I will try to, if I can, Chief Minister, answer some of those from the local member point of view.
I acknowledge the President of the Wagait Shire Council, Peter Clee, who is here tonight. Peter is an elected member of that region and has a great interest in what happens with the Kenbi land claim. It certainly has been a long time coming; it is coming up to 11 years now since the land commissioner handed down his determination. As the member for Nelson highlighted, that determination recommended a vast majority of the land claimed back as ALRA land. That would have locked much of that land up for a considerable amount of time. When you …
Mr Tollner: You support land rights, just not in your electorate.
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish, member for Fong Lim. We had a situation where there was a very strong land claim and a recommendation had sat on many minister’s desks, including Coalition ministers’ desks, for quite a period of time. There were many detriment issues which needed to be sorted out and it has been largely completed. This is a great result for not only the traditional owners, but for the wider Larrakia group, for the non-Indigenous residents of the Cox Peninsula, and the whole Darwin region.
The expansion of Darwin has to move around the harbour and we want to see development on the other side of the harbour. I think we would agree there is support on the other side of the harbour for this sort of freehold development. It has been a long time coming.
To allay the fears of the member for Nelson, this land trust will incorporate membership of the wider Larrakia, not just the members of the Tommy Lyons group. It will benefit the Aboriginal people who have affiliation to that land and they will be able to use that land as well. Obviously, the ALRA parts will be used primarily for traditional practices, as is normal.
This sets a great precedent where Aboriginal people have been recognised as being traditional owners, utilising that land for their economic benefit. Only one third of this land is going back as freehold to be held by the trust and developed by a body, which most likely will be the Larrakia Development Corporation. It certainly has been a long time coming. We have had public meetings at Wagait Beach and Belyuen about this. I have made a point of getting government officers there to explain where we are at with the negotiations. That was a few years ago when we thought it was very close, and it has been very close for a very long time, unfortunately.
This legislation gets us a great deal closer and this bill and the explanatory notes that go with it fairly well describe what is proposed: the portions of land to go back as ALRA, the other portions of land to go back as NT freehold, and who would develop those pieces of land, and when and how they would be held. Parts of the freehold land in the northwest would be held and undeveloped because of an outstanding Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
Other sections, like section 32, can be developed now. There is no ILUA required on those lands and we look forward to that development occurring. There is no cover-up here. Basically …
Mr Tollner: Give us the information.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, basically …
Mr Tollner: Hand over the heads of agreement – the in-principle agreement. Don’t say there is no cover-up and then …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Mr KNIGHT: Settle, settle, settle down. It is late. It is the last day. It was presumed originally that all this land would go back as ALRA land. Now, we have a better deal which has been struck with the traditional owners through the land council. They are parties to this agreement and it is up to them to disclose it. We have a better arrangement here. It is fairly well described and, as the member for Nelson said, there is no money changing hands here. We have a better form of …
Mr Tollner: How do you know there is no money changing hands? Prove it. Show us the documentation!
Mr KNIGHT: There is no money changing hands ...
Mr Tollner: Otherwise sit down. You have nothing to contribute. Fool!
Mr KNIGHT: We have a much better deal. The member for Fong Lim is the only person I hear railing at this legislation. No one on the peninsula is railing against this legislation and the way this is moving. Peter Murphy, your old mate, from that side, is an avid supporter of this. The Larrakia Development Corporation is well placed to develop the peninsula. Everyone is in support of this. It has come out as a much better result than what it could have been. The wider Larrakia ...
Mr Tollner: What about the Larrakia Nation? What do they say …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: The wider Larrakia will benefit from this. That has been the position of the Commonwealth and the land council - what is actually put in place, so it is a good result. It sets the foundation for development on the Cox Peninsula and for the future growth of Darwin. It is a very good result. The rights of traditional owners have been respected, and the wider Larrakia will get benefit from this.
There are considerations to go through with Raylene. As the member for Nelson highlighted, the other members of the Tommy Lyons group are very well satisfied. They have been briefed; I have been talking to them. I have been briefed for a few years; they have been briefed for nearly 10 years on this. They are very aware of what is going on. There has been much consultation, and yes, there are a few people stirring the pot. Foxy and Donna Odegaard are stirring the pot, and are continuing to do so for their personal interest. It is very unfortunate they have done so, because it has divided the Singh family. They really need to let people get on with the business which is supported by the wider group.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to that development. The member for Fong Lim wants to refight the land claim – well, the land claim has been heard. Recommendations have come down, and this is a better deal for everyone concerned. I commend the bill to the House. It does set a great example, where we can get rights protected and development occurring.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will go through some of the issues raised by the member for Fong Lim and try to deal with them in an up-front way.
First, I say to the member for Fong Lim, there is no cover-up here. The great conspiracy theories - there are no cover-ups here at all. This has been negotiated up hill and down dale, with a great deal of transparency and acceptance by a range of people so …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Member for Fong Lim, I did not interrupt while you were speaking. Please show me the same respect.
Regarding issues about why the in-principle agreement and heads of agreement have not been made public, first, all three parties to this agreement would have to agree to release. In this case, the parties have discussed release of the agreement and decided that because the agreements are in-principle agreements with some details still to be finalised - for example, the remediation of the former Radio Australia site, and rent payments by the Commonwealth for ongoing use of land - the agreements will not be released. Details of the proposed settlement were certainly made public when the Territory traditional owners and the NLC jointly announced settlement of detriment issues for the land claim on 30 January. That deals with the culture of cover-up.
Regarding the parties affected and the detriment issues, there is support for what is proposed from AFANT, the Seafood Council, and the people who operate Crab Claw Island, and all the blockies will be provided a lease. No one is going to be kicked off land they have occupied, and there have been any number of public meetings on the Cox Peninsula. No one who currently has access to, or operates from, that area in any way, or has property in whatever form tenure has or has not taken over the years – no one is detrimentally impacted by this.
The member for Fong Lim railed about why we are ramming this through tonight when federal parliament is rising for the year. Member for Fong Lim, there is no requirement for federal legislation in regard to this at all. Nothing has to go to the federal parliament. We are dealing with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, so on this issue about why we are pushing it through when the federal parliament is winding up for the year, there is no requirement for this to go to the federal parliament.
As I said, no one will be, or has been, kicked off. Everyone will get a lease. In relation to the detail, I am quite happy to table the document. The member for Fong Lim said there is no detail about different land tenure on the Cox Peninsula. It talks about current tenure, tenure following the settlement, and different land is shaded and hatched in different areas. This all has to be finalised in detail and that is why it is called a proposed settlement. Surveys need to be conducted, identification of sacred sites needs to take place, the lines on the map might change a little to go around a particular sacred site, and the issues of road reserves, corridors, and other potential easements need to be provided for. However, there is no secrecy in the land use and what types of land use are being provided for under this proposed settlement.
Madam Speaker, I table this map. The member for Fong Lim said if we could give more detail, they might look at changing their mind because they want to support this. I will table this map; there is nothing to hide and any changes would be very minor based on surveys currently being conducted to get the final contours of the land realised.
I acknowledge the traditional owners and the land councils in being totally pragmatic and open with the people of Darwin, particularly recreational fishermen. The agreement means the High Court Blue Mud Bay ruling will not apply to Darwin Harbour. The area will still be subject to sacred site protection and all commercial and recreational fisherman and other recreational users will be able to access the intertidal zones and beaches on the Cox Peninsula without fee or permits. That goes to show everyone in Darwin and greater Darwin with traditional access to the harbour will continue to maintain that. I thank the traditional owners and the land councils for being totally committed as Territorians. As neighbours in land ownership we will continue to have mutual respect for land and mutual access.
Hopefully, the member for Fong Lim now understands there is no cover-up here. Everyone who is principally affected by this accepts the agreement. The only people who are saying no to this are the CLP. I will not be provocative and say it is because they want to fight the land claim again, but they are the only ones saying no.
The furphies about some secret cash payments being made as part of this deal and ‘we need to understand what they are’. I am on the Parliamentary Record, I am required to tell the truth as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and I can say absolutely there are no lump sum payments or cash payments to certain groups of traditional owners. The primary benefit being made to traditional owners as a result of this settlement is the grant of land which can be used to create economic development opportunities.
As I said previously, and as my colleague, the Attorney-General said, the issue of who is going to be part of that land trust and beneficiaries of the trust is an issue between the Northern Land Council and traditional owners. Traditional owners will receive cash payments in the form of rent from Commonwealth agencies, for example, for the lighthouse at Charles Point and from private individuals, for example, owners of the shacks at Raft Point and in Bynoe Harbour.
There are no lump sum payments being made by the Northern Territory or the Commonwealth to secure the agreement. Let us put that on the record. There is no cash windfall, no secret deal to any group of traditional owners to get to this agreement. If my word on the Parliamentary Record is not good enough, I do not know what is.
The member for Fong Lim also talked about the letter from Raylene Singh. I am not here to go into the debates about who is or who is not a beneficiary of this trust, but I can advise the NLC has advised it has conducted further consultations with Raylene Singh and other traditional owners since this legislation was tabled in the October sittings.
The committee stage amendments address issues raised by the NLC following consultations with TOs - and we will get to those committee stage amendments later. My department has also conducted an information session with Raylene, other TOs, and the NLC yesterday afternoon. Ten people attended that meeting. I have been advised the bill now addresses all issues raised in consultations, and there are no outstanding issues in respect of the bill.
Member for Fong Lim, regarding your concerns about this, and regarding the letter from Raylene to the Leader of the Opposition, my advice is, as a result of issues raised at the NLC, the committee stage amendments we are making, the information session with Raylene and other TOs and the NLC yesterday afternoon - all those issue raised have been dealt with and there are no outstanding issues in respect of the bill. I hope that removes another barrier to the opposition’s ability to support the bill removed.
Regarding the conditions the member for Fong Lim established concerning the reasons why the CLP will not support this bill this evening, it is an historic bill - a bill that has seen many people waiting. Many people pass away over the years. This is an issue of respect for the Larrakia people, and the acknowledgement 11 years ago that they were the traditional owners of this land. It would be fantastic for the Larrakia, for this parliament to be unanimous in support of this legislation this evening, to show that, indeed, times have moved on; that we, as a parliament, have confidence in what we are putting forward today in a trust being a vehicle to hold land until such time as that land is developed to the benefit of Aboriginal people, Larrakia people, and all of us can put the issue behind us and move forward.
Regarding the issues of cover-up, there is no cover-up. Everyone who has interest in that land supports what is being put forward. There is no federal legislation required, so it is not an issue of ramming this through the House. No one is being kicked off land. Anyone who has an interest in land will get a lease. Regarding the so-called ‘no one knows what is going on, what is happening to the land’, I have tabled maps here tonight. They are on the public record, subject to very minor amendments. Those amendments will result from surveys, sacred sites, road reserves, and other easements that need to be dealt with within the final delineations of those areas.
Regarding Raylene Singh and her concerns, the advice is those concerns have been resolved through the committee stage amendments of the bill. In regard to allegations about large, or any, cash sum payments between governments to TOs, I have refuted that. That has not happened as part of this, and it is on the public record from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I believe if there is goodwill from the opposition, all the issues raised as concerns by the member for Fong Lim have been dealt with. I hope the opposition, in good faith, and to show support for the Larrakia people, will support the bill.
Madam Speaker, with those comments, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Kenbi Land Trust Bill 2011 (Serial 175) together with Schedule of Amendments No 68, circulated by the Chief Minister, Mr Henderson.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.1 standing in my name. There are four amendments being moved in the committee stage this evening. The rationale of these amendments is clarification. All the amendments are modelled on ALRA and they go to transparency and strengthening the governance of the land trust which this bill creates. It is to provide clarity and certainty that the vehicle which creates this trust is consistent with ALRA.
In 68.1, clause 3, the committee stage amendment schedule provides for an additional note to be inserted in the definition of prescribed land, referring to a new subclause 13(8) of the bill, which establishes the manner in which the Kenbi land trust can deal with the freehold title granted to it under the act. This is a technical amendment and, of course, over time, prescribed land which is held in the trust will diminish as that land is developed, making clear the land is no longer prescribed.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I have a couple of general questions to put to the Chief Minister regarding the bill and matters surrounding it. I do not know how you want to handle this, Madam Chair, but if you are happy, I will quickly ask some questions of the Chief Minister and get his responses.
As far as the amendments the Chief Minister is moving, I am not in the business of quibbling for the sake of quibbling and you people can get through it. Obviously, I cannot speak for every member here but the opposition will not be supporting the bill because we have not been given what we believe is adequate information.
If I could ask some questions of the Chief Minister, if he is happy with that, we will get out of the way and let you get on with it.
Mr HENDERSON: Given the importance of this; obviously, we have parliamentary procedure, but I am happy to proceed in that tone, to put on the public record any information you may require, member for Fong Lim.
Madam CHAIR: That is fine, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Chief Minister, during the contribution by the member for Daly, he suggested it would be more than likely the Larrakia Development Corporation would be the developer of the Territory freehold land of the grant. Is that your view and, without going into too much detail, can you tell me whether it is named in the heads of agreement or the in-principle agreement as the preferred developer of that land?
Mr HENDERSON: The agreement states the developer of the land will be determined by the Northern Land Council after consultations and agreement with the traditional owners. The advice I have is it is likely to be the Larrakia Development Corporation, but no final decision has been made. At the end of the day, the decision about who will be the developer of that land will be a decision of the Northern Land Council, after consultation with the traditional owners under the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Mr TOLLNER: I should have been a bit more specific, I suppose. Given the fact the member for Daly did name the Larrakia Development Corporation, are they named in the in-principle agreement as a possible developer, or the heads of agreement?
Mr HENDERSON: No. The answer is no, they are not named in any documentation. The agreement clearly states, consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the developer of the land will be determined by the Northern Land Council after discussion with traditional owners, as prescribed and understood under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I am advised it is likely to be the Larrakia Development Corporation, but that decision has not being finalised and made. It is not a decision for this government and the LDC is not named in any of the documentation.
Mr TOLLNER: Is any other development corporation named in any of the documents? I am sorry, what you are saying to me is that in the heads of agreement and the in-principle agreement, there is no mention whatsoever of the Larrakia Development Corporation or any other developer?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, that is the case.
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly, we are not going to get copies of those agreements, so in that regard the opposition is still as much in the dark as we always were. We are very disappointed we cannot support this bill because of this cover-up the government, the Commonwealth, and the NLC have entered into. It is an awful shame I have to say, because we are really interested in supporting it. We just want to ensure everything is above board, but I suppose we will never get to know because we will never get to see those agreements.
Madam Chair, that is the end of my questioning.
Mr HENDERSON: In conclusion on that line of questioning, I understand where the member for Fong Lim is coming from, because obviously anyone who lives in this town and has friends and acquaintances across the Larrakia, there are all sorts of issues and conspiracy theories being run. One of those theories is the deal has been done; there is a done deal. What I am saying is regarding the agreements that have been negotiated and the trust that is being established here tonight, there are no specific developers mentioned in any of those agreements.
Consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the NLC is required to consult with traditional owners and obtain informed consent of traditional owners regarding any pathway forward for dealing with that land in a commercial way, consistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Hopefully, those words from the Chief Minister on the public record - even if they do not go to assuage the concerns of the member for Fong Lim and the opposition - the broader Larrakia who may have concerns in regard to that can take assurance from me as Chief Minister that there is no commercial entity named as being the beneficiary for any of this development activity in the agreement.
To get back to the committee stage, I have moved amendment 68.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.2 to clause 8, which sets out the functions of the Kenbi land trust consistent with ALRA. This amendment to the schedule provides for amendment to clause 8(3) dealing with trust monies to the effect that NLC must on pay any monies paid to the trust to the traditional owners or for their benefit within six months of receipt rather than being dealt with as prescribed by regulations. Again, this is to provide consistency with monies and disbursements from the trust to be consistent with ALRA.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 13:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.3 to clause 13, which establishes the manner in which the Kenbi land trust can deal with the freehold title granted to it under the act. This amendment provides for amendment to clause 13 by adding subclause 13(8) which provides that if Kenbi freehold title is surrendered to the Territory, that land is no longer prescribed land and no longer vested in the trust.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 13A:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 68.4 to clause 13A regarding traditional rights to use, or occupation of, prescribed land. Again, this is to provide consistency with ALRA. This is a new clause to be inserted after clause 13 providing clear entitlement for Aboriginals to enter, occupy, or use trust land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition unless that entitlement would interfere with an interest or licence held by others in the land. Again, that is to provide consistency with ALRA.
New clause 13A agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Gearing up for Major Projects
Note Statement – Gearing up for Major Projects
Continued from 23 November 2011.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on this side of the House who have a passion for the economic growth and development of the Northern Territory and for their contributions to an important statement to this House and, through the House, to the people of the Northern Territory. Everyone on our side who spoke to the statement talked about the exciting future the Northern Territory has.
Our place in the sun is really emerging as the place to be for economic growth, investment, and jobs, particularly with the rise of the Asian century in economic power, and our position with Darwin being the gateway to Asia for Australia, and Asia’s gateway to Australia through Darwin.
My colleagues spoke about what is happening in their portfolios, and particularly in their regions, because the economic growth of the Northern Territory is not just about the growth of the economy in Darwin, it is about economic growth throughout the regions of the Northern Territory - whether that comes from mining, pastoral or horticultural activity, or tourism opportunities. We are all working hard to develop those opportunities for the Northern Territory.
It certainly was pretty stark in Question Time today when my colleague, the Resources minister, held up two maps relating to mining tenure in the Northern Territory, one going back to 2001, the other to today. It was a reminder for me, and a bit of a walk down memory lane. As the first Resources minister in the new Territory Labor government in 2001, the difference in our attitude was getting out and promoting the Northern Territory as a place to invest, and dealing in a respectful way with Aboriginal people and their ownership of land.
When I became the minister for Resources, one of the first things I was confronted with was something like 700 applications for mineral exploration leases in the Northern Territory that were not even being processed by the previous Resources minister and the previous CLP government. That pile had been growing and growing. I could barely see over the pile on top of my desk. The reason those applications for exploration leases were not being moved on by the minister was because the minister and the then CLP government wanted to play politics with native title.
Essentially, they decided – through the political ‘divide and conquer’ way they dealt with issues on Aboriginal land - instead of negotiating with Aboriginal people and using the processes available under the Native Title Act to facilitate the ability to grant those exploration titles, they would not use the negotiated pathway through the Native Title Act with the Native Title Tribunal, but would seek to legislate for their own. Why on earth would you do that unless it was for none other than a political reason - to continue to divide this Territory on a black and white basis over access to land was an absolute outrage?
One of the first things I did as minister was consistent with one of the first Cabinet decisions we made as the new government; that we were going to negotiate with Aboriginal people, not litigate. I instructed my department to immediately use the Commonwealth Native Title Act provisions and get that backlog moving. We did that. We also negotiated amendments to ALRA to provide for more efficient processing of exploration and mining licences. That negotiation was done with absolute respect and support from the four land councils in those amendments.
It was just fabulous for me to see today, on the back of all the work our Resources minister has been doing to attract investment in mining in the Territory, that map go from an ocean of, basically, not much happening at all to, essentially, all of the Territory now appears to be under application for exploration or mining lease. Why is that such a great outcome for the Northern Territory? It is because it provides jobs for people and investment opportunities for business. Importantly, it provides jobs for people in our regions. It was certainly a stark visual reality check of the difference in outcome when you respectfully negotiate a way forward on behalf of the Territory, or you play politics. I thank my colleague, the Resources minister, for bringing those maps out today.
If you look, in contrast with the CLP - and I will not go on for long about this tonight; they have, obviously, decided tactically they are not going to speak on ministerial statements. I do not know what childish game is being played over there in that regard, but being able to contribute to ministerial statements is all about putting forward an alternative view. If not putting forward an alternative view, it is an opportunity to put forward to Territorians who have elected you to this place, different ideas, a different way forward, or different ideas to be considered. This parliament is supposed to be an opportunity to debate, particularly in ministerial statements …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It would have to be relevance. I am not sure where the Chief Minister has wandered. I thought he was finishing something. It should be relevant to that, not something else.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Drysdale. The Chief Minister is wrapping a ministerial statement related to government.
Mr HENDERSON: It is relevant because I was talking about the fact we had a ministerial statement in this House on major projects and the opportunities for the Northern Territory. The opposition decided not to contribute - not one word. I am going to put forward, in closing my debate, my thoughts about why the opposition has decided not to contribute to ministerial statements. That is the fact and that is what they are doing.
I do not know what their tactic is. It shows the people of the Northern Territory that those members who have been elected to represent their constituents’ views, to hold the government to account, to put forward alternative policy, to put forward ideas to be debated in this parliament, are hollow shells, empty vessels rattling around with nothing to contribute, nothing to say, and abrogating their responsibilities as members of parliament and shadow ministers. Even if the shadow minister was to do his or her job and jump up - in this case, the Leader of the Opposition - if no one else, I know members of their party would follow the debate online just to see what the parliamentary wing was doing in the parliament.
I would have thought there would be 20, 30, 50, 100 – I do not know – people in their party who would follow debates. Even for them, they might want to know what the Leader of the Opposition was thinking about how he would try to attract investment to the Northern Territory to develop the Northern Territory. They have obviously decided as a tactic they are not going to play; they have taken their bat and ball and gone home. This House, and debate in this House, is sadder because of that.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the member for Nelson for their contributions to the debate.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, it being 9pm I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, being the last sitting before Christmas I take this opportunity to say my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2011. I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I wish our Chief Minister, all my colleagues and their families a merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year.
My best wishes and special thanks go to all the dedicated staff of the Legislative Assembly who work so hard to look after us each year. I also offer my best wishes to our patient and hard-working drivers; and my best wishes to all members of this House and the opposition.
To all my constituents in the electorate of Casuarina, I am honoured to represent you and thank you for your continued support, and I wish you all a happy, safe and joyous festive season.
I thank Casuarina Police Station Officer-in-Charge, Roger Jeffrey, and his band of hard-working police officers for doing a fantastic job in maintaining the safety of the northern suburbs, especially the Casuarina area. I especially thank the Casuarina Police Beat staff: Gerry, Mark, Dave, Adam and Dan. Your efforts and presence in our community are very much appreciated.
I say thank you and Christmas wishes to the staff of the government departments, Darwin City Council, and the many other support organisations which have provided assistance and advice to my electorate officer in response to constituents’ concerns this year. I wish you all a wonderful festive season.
To Tony Miaoudis and the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre; to Ben Gill, the GPT staff at Casuarina Shopping Square, to Chris Voudouris and tenants of the Casuarina Convenience Centre, to all the small business owners and staff within my electorate, I wish you all a prosperous festive season.
To my ministerial staff and my electorate officer, Debbie, who works hard from morning until late, putting up with complaints and sometimes irate constituents; my sincere thanks for your loyalty, hard work and support again this year. I wish you and all your families the very best for a wonderful Christmas, and I look forward to working together in 2012.
For those of you who are leaving Darwin to share their Christmas with loved ones, I wish you a safe and enjoyable trip. To all of those who are staying in Darwin, I look forward to catching up with you around the traps. I will be at Casuarina Square helping Somerville wrap presents for a couple of weekends, and I really enjoy that.
2011 has been an extremely busy year for me as a local member and as a minister, particularly with my extensive interstate and overseas travel to promote the Territory. I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this year; it has been a year filled with surprises, happy memories and, of course, a few sad ones as well. I am very fortunate to have a wonderful support team whose tireless efforts and commitment I very much appreciate.
I also thank my many special friends and supporters for their dedication, assistance and support this year. I especially thank my sons, Alexander and Michael, and I am looking forward to seeing them in the next few weeks.
To my team of helpers, volunteers and ALP branch members, as a local member and a minister, thank you for your continued support and dedication. It is this loyal group that supports people like me and enables us to operate and function the way we do. I wish you and your families a joyous Christmas and look forward to your support in 2012.
I have three fantastic schools in Casuarina electorate: Nakara Primary, Alawa Primary and Dripstone Middle School, and I am extremely proud of the teachers and staff in these schools. My sincere thanks go to the school Principals, Brian Collins, Brendan Wessely, and Fathma Mauger, along with their school council committee members for their ongoing hard work; and all the teachers. I enjoyed my school visits this year and I am looking forward to being Santa again for the Nakara Preschool students next year. Unfortunately, I am going to miss the Dripstone Middle School presentation and the Nakara graduation on Thursday, 8 December, because I need to fly to Melbourne for a ministerial council.
I take this opportunity to congratulate staff within the Department of Health for their recent achievements. Ms Bronte Douglas of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre was awarded the ‘Weary’ Dunlop Award in October. In addition to her duties at the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre, Ms Douglas is a Royal Australian Air Force Reservist – as I was - having recently served in Afghanistan. This prestigious award, named in honour of the Australian surgeon and war hero, Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop, was presented at the Australian Military Medicine Association Conference in Melbourne. Ms Douglas received this award for Best Original Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Conference by a member of the association for her paper based on her experience in aeromedical evacuation coordination in southern Afghanistan.
I acknowledge the 28 staff from both the Department of Health and Department of Children and Families who recently graduated from the Middle Managers and Leadership Development Program, obtaining a Diploma of Management. Our government is committed to supporting and building our workforce, and these graduates are part of the success of our Growing Our Own strategy. I commend all participants for the commitment in obtaining their diploma.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting and presenting the Rotary Sunrise Aboriginal Health Workers Excellence Award in the main hall of Parliament House. The Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise, in partnership with the Department of Health, Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, United Voice, and Aboriginal Medical Service Alliance NT recognise the dedication and excellence of Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory. Sixty-six nominations were received, and I congratulate the overall winner of the Excellence Award, Marion Swift, from Ntaria Community Health Centre.
I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Dr James Scattini, a well-known medical practitioner in Katherine who, for 45 years, has provided obstetric services to the community. He will be formally recognised by the Maternity Ward staff of Katherine District Hospital, along with known former patients, including many of the babies he assisted to deliver. Dr Scattini first came to Katherine in 1966 as a resident doctor, where he joined the sole practising medical officer at the time. During his time in Katherine, Dr Scattini has delivered hundreds of babies and has seen the population triple in size. I thank Dr Scattini, as do all the families he has assisted, and wish him very well.
It is also fitting to recognise the hard work of others who have contributed to our health system. I congratulate Dr John Boffa, who was recently named the Northern Territory Australian of the Year for 2012. Dr Boffa, of the Central Australian Aboriginal Health Congress, has committed his career to improving health outcomes for Indigenous people and is dedicated to changing alcohol use patterns in Indigenous communities. His work has included campaigns such as Beat the Grog and Thirsty Thursday, which highlighted the need to address the global factors that contribute to an individual’s behaviour. As the Minister for Health, I am proud to have a medical officer of his calibre, expertise and dedication working in the community of Central Australia. I congratulate Dr Boffa and wish him all the best for the National Award in January.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have another week of parliament sittings, three days, to go and I know there is going to be some argy-bargy here, but we should not let the differences between our political views inflict us with bad spirit. Let us look forward to the good spirit of Christmas, and despite what we say in this House, let us see if we can remain friends or, at least be civil to each other. We have another year to go, and let us be happy.
I wish everyone on all sides of the House a very merry Christmas with your family and a very happy and prosperous new year.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Child Protection for his kind regards.
The issue I would like to discuss tonight is an amusing twist in an ongoing battle between me and the Minister for Child Protection. I have been quite public about my disappointment of how the Minister for Child Protection has established the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee to act as the independent watchdog for the government’s implementation of the Growing them strong, together report or the board of inquiry report into child protection released in October 2010.
The report recommended the Children’s Commissioner be responsible for monitoring the government’s implementation of the 147 recommendations of this report; however, the minister, instead, set up the not-so-independent Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. As many will recall, the Minister for Child Protection undertook to implement all 147 recommendations, but promptly did a backflip on the recommendation that the Children’s Commissioner should be responsible for externally monitoring the reforms.
The government set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, a group of eight people selected by the government to oversee the government’s progress in reforming child protection. The committee has members from interstate as well as the Northern Territory, and it meets quarterly at different locations throughout the Northern Territory.
In a parliamentary debate on Monday, 8 August, I spoke about the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee and I said:
- We have eight people being carted around the country, wined and dined, and exposed to all these wonderful government stories about how successful they are in reforming child protection and implementing the recommendations of the half a dozen reports that have been flung at them over the last 10 years.
The minister has since launched a sustained attack on me for daring to suggest the government was wining and dining the committee. On numerous occasions in parliament since I made this statement in August this year, the minister has complained about how unfair it is that I should suggest he has been wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. He has, quite theatrically, feigned indignation, shock, horror, disgust and personal offence that I should suggest this committee has been wined and dined by the government.
Minister, my suspicions seem to have been well-founded. You will, in fact, be wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee on 1 December 2011. Today I received several notifications of this event the government has organised - a gala dinner specifically in honour of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee - a night of celebration and presentations, apparently.
The gala dinner will be held at the Litchfield Room at the Holiday Inn Esplanade in Darwin. There is a distinguished guest list of 63 people, including all the members of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee; also senior members of the Northern Territory Public Service, the Department of Children and Families; government delegates, including several ministers; the Ombudsman; the Commissioner for Public Employment; members of the CTC and the member for Nelson and many non-government organisations are represented. This should be a fabulous evening where the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee will, indeed, be wined and dined by the government.
Minister, it is probably time to stop the indignant comments I am hearing from the opposite side of the Chamber about my allegation that you had been wining and dining the committee, because now we actually have proof - it is a fact the Northern Territory government is wining and dining the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee.
On a final note, I acknowledge to the Minister for Child Protection although my name is not on the guest list for the gala dinner for the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, I know that a gentleman, such as he is - such a respectful and well-mannered man - this is obviously an oversight. I advise the minister that, on receipt of my invitation to attend the gala dinner for the committee, I will be delighted to attend.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016